Horns
-
Posts
1308 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Horns
-
The only sources worth quoting are either a joint statement from both parties or a judgment from an arbitrator. If it’s a source from either side talking about the other it’s in their interests to make the other side look bad.
-
I believe there won't be any more updates to the AV-8B until this dispute is resolved. In the meantime ED is going to try to ensure that no updates to the base sim cause the module to stop functioning as it does now. As Pipe said the South Atlantic map has been receiving updates, so fingers crossed that remains unaffected.
-
Agree that a comment about hoping for a positive outcome for the F-15E isn’t out of the ordinary, but it’s still wound up creating questions rather than clarity. IMO it’s unfair to blame Kate for the interpretation of an interpretation (I recently helped with some training that used DeepL translation, I’m assured some of the sentences it created were ‘bizarre’), but it’s still a study in the dangers of commenting in such a situation.
-
And even a seemingly well meaning, positive comment that was neither about Razbam nor the matters in dispute has led to enough confusion that it’s fair to say that it might have been better left unsaid. A good example of why it’s better if both sides avoid commenting.
-
So we can take it that the current status is still reflected in the first post (ie nothing has changed), and no additional assurances re the ultimate future of the F-15E or anything else are extended by ED? Referring specifically to the conjecture about the comment from Kate. Apologies for bringing it up repeatedly but I don't believe anyone from ED has clarified how that comment should be read.
-
Indeed, I added an edit to that point. The other post must have been posted while I was getting mine together.
-
Is this announcement recent, and if so are you sure it's for DCS and not MSFS? I do remember them announcing they would do the 2k-5 for DCS, but that was some years ago... Edit: @Esac_mirmidon beat me to it while I was typing...
-
The MiG-19 left Early Access on 1/12/2023 according to the store page, so I’d presume the answer you’ll get is that ED will just try to maintain compatibility with future updates, like the other non-EA Razbam modules. Once you get an official answer please ignore this in favor of that
-
So as far as you’re aware nothing has changed in recent weeks regarding the F-15E or anything else?
-
I keep forgetting we can tag people direct, good call
-
Oh ok, understood, apologies for the tone. FWIW I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said on the subject. We both want the same thing
-
Kate is the ED COO I believe, so this is certainly someone who could speak on behalf of ED. For me, as a non-Russian speaker I personally would not call this a statement that the current F-15E module's future has been secured, because: Any English-language translation is only going to approximate what was said, so we can't read any detail into word choice and such. I wouldn't want to read a statement of belief as a promise (Edit: For Instance). If there was such a major breakthrough in the dispute that ED could categorically say the F-15E will definitely be developed, I'd think it would be made as an actual statement, or at least the OP in a thread, rather than a one-line reply within another thread. I'd expect the new information to be getting incorporated in the OP of this thread directly. We have no context on Kate's reply: we don't know what the thread this was posted in was about or what, if anything, Kate was replying to. I'd love to see the F-15E's future guaranteed in the way Kate's statement has been received. I'd much rather that the issues of a module being abandoned and Razbam having a future in DCS would no longer be inextricably tied together. However, I'd need something much clearer than a DeepL (or whatever) translation of a one-line reply before I pop that champagne cork, even with Kate being the source of that reply. Either way, I'll wait a while longer in the hopes that a clarification comes along, but I see why others might not see the need to be so cautious.
-
Is there any light that you can shed on the comment by Kate on the previous pages from the Russian-language forum... Edit: As reflected here...
-
Translated here... If this is meant as a promise I'm sure something more official will follow soon. In the meantime perhaps NL or BN can clarify?
-
Not canceled - that's enough for me
-
Couldn't agree more. All I'd point out is that Razbam haven't actually left yet, they have stopped pushing updates for their modules, but it's theoretically possible they could come back and pick up where they left off once the disputed issues are resolved. I've got my opinions on which parties I hold responsible and for what - again, your analogy of a marriage breakup works, it's tough for family and friends of one partner not to form opinions, even if they are based on an incomplete picture - but at the end of the day my opinion doesn't make a difference, nor does anyone else's, outside of the parties to the dispute. Our mods have kept this thread open so people can ask genuine questions and express ourselves, but once we know what's on the first page of this thread there's nothing else that's really relevant until there is a resolution. DCS will continue to thrive, with or without Razbam.
-
Oh ok, so that thing about calling "Eagle" dead was directed at me. Let me point out where you are confused. Razbam and ED are not the same entity. Someone can think Razbam will cease to exist and ED will be just fine without those thoughts contradicting each other. And yes, if Razbam go away guess what, they don't finish the F-15E, and ED is not obliged to do anything about that. Again, if you think I'm wrong there are more productive ways to spend the time you are arguing with me. Next, you're misunderstanding the comparison I was making when I spoke about ED and Steam. Valve is a developer, Steam is a storefront. I was comparing the DCS store to Steam, *not* Valve. In fact, I never mentioned Valve, so it's very difficult to see that you have genuinely just made a "good faith" mistake there. I'll have you on ignore after this, so don't bother replying if it's for my eyes, but if you want to, you do you
-
The product only being identified twice as being a Razbam product has nothing to do with anything. The reason the emails you received about the order are from DCS because you're buying from a DCS storefront, if you had bought through Steam instead you would have received these emails from Steam. For that matter, if you buy any early access game from Steam, the game studio's name may turn up on the store page in one place only and none of the order emails. Yet, if that studio collapses, you end up with only what got made because the responsible studio no longer exists to be held to account. If a dev, in this case Razbam, ceases to exist while a DCS module is in Early Access that product can wind up incomplete, as we're seeing with the F-15E. No one is saying a company can just decide not to make a module anymore and thereby leave you with a module partway through EA (eg Razbam could not have simply declared the F-15E abandoned and then proceeded to release a new module), but the dev alone - Razbam for the F-15E - bears the responsibility for delivering. These are not new issues. These are not untried issues. Arguing with me doesn't change the fact that ED is not the liable party. If you think otherwise, make a legal claim out of it. I'll assume when you talk about "stop calling the Eagle and its Developers dead before they die" you're addressing that to people who think ED is going out of business - if that's the case I guess we may agree on something, ED is fine and DCS is not under threat.
-
Ok, so the article I read is here (key.aero subscription required I’m afraid): https://www.key.aero/article/was-us-navys-latest-aircraft-carrier-trying-out-cold-war-tactics The reference to this being trained on (j/k) in the Cold War was taken from a book called “Oceans Ventured - Winning the Cold War at Sea” by John Lehman. Quoted from the article: “he details how in Exercise Ocean Safari ’85 a new tactic for carrier operations was tried out. This major training event involved the USS Nassau with US Marine Corps AV-8A Harriers, HMS Illustrious and three US Navy carriers in the form of the USS Dwight D Eisenhower (CVN 69), USS Saratoga (CV 60) and USS America (CV 66). The focus of the exercise was the defence of Norway, which included testing the new tactic of an aircraft carrier using the country’s fjords as a protected environment from which to operate its air wing. The ingenious tactic involved using the topography of Vestfjord to hide the carrier from radar. Lehman explains: “The fjord was 70 miles long, very deep, with vertical mountains up to 3,000ft along both shores. The operational concept involved dashing from the North Atlantic at flank speed using full cover and deception until well into the fjord after an attack sub had fully cleared it of any Soviet subs. Captor mines would then seal off the fjord and the carrier would begin strike operations shielded from detection or attack by staying in the radar shadow of the high mountains“
-
I guess ED’s upcoming fulcrum won’t scratch that itch?
-
I’d thought the same thing about the fjords being awfully small for a carrier, but apparently it was something they trained - I’ll try to find the article I read to quote the source, and if I find I misunderstood in the course of that I’ll post that too. Thanks for the correction of ‘in’ rather than ’on’ - I was thinking of fjords as closer to rivers than seas Where I live we talk about being ‘on’ the major river, but then there is zero chance of any body of water freezing naturally here so this really is an exercise in imagination for me
-
Just wondering if anyone has heard of anything suggesting any of our third party campaign creators plan to make a Tomcat campaign on the Frozen Fjords of the Kola map? I don't know anything at all of the geography but having read a (very) little about training being done for those kinds of ops during the cold war, it seems like the premier carrier-borne cold-war fighter is a perfect fit.
-
If you think the EULA or ToS make Eagle Dynamics responsible to the end user for third party modules, what's your argument? According to you ED is already assuming responsibility to the customer for every module through the EULA/ToS, so customer satisfaction is just as safe as if ED did operate using the business model you suggest. I'd hope you understand that's not actually the case. If you genuinely think otherwise I suggest you stop wasting time arguing with me and approach your local consumer advocate.
-
Wondering if there be an f-14D in the near future.
Horns replied to jamse's topic in Heatblur Simulations
As good a reason to go to war as I’ve seen! Where do I sign up? -
If the module is as far advanced as we’ve been led to believe, even if Razbam leave the good news is it’s not unimaginable that another dev might acquire it and complete it.
