Horns
-
Posts
1309 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Horns
-
I unexpectedly had to reinstall Windows 11 this evening. I've got my full DCS install on another drive and I was hoping there's a way to use DCS_updater to reinstall DCS without needing to wipe and re-download. I tried using "DCS_updater update" and "DCS_updater repair" but DCS is not in the list of installed apps. Can anyone offer a way to do this without wiping and starting again?
-
I’d like to ask something that’s been in the back of my mind, obvious relevance to the Razbam problem but I’m not asking specifically about the mudhen: Would it be possible for a module under active development to be voluntarily sold between devs (third parties or ED), and would it require permission from parties other than those involved in the sale (eg the aircraft manufacturer or government departments)? Would there be any other hurdles that you can share?
-
True that the customer bought a module expecting it to be completed. Module development is something that Razbam is directly responsible to customers for, I suspect there won't be more forthcoming than the last official announcement where Ron Zambrano stated they don't intend to abandon their product. Hopefully when the dispute between ED and RB is over RB will clarify what the future looks like for the F-15E, although I wish it could be sooner.
-
Because we continue to take an interest in an ongoing situation. Feel free to not participate.
-
Without meaning to take us OT, the Eurofighter might be one thing that would cause me to miss a fully developed F-15E module if we don't get one - it would be fun to get some kind of feel for the difference between a multirole fighter built to emphasize strike like the mudhen vs a swing-role fighter built to emphasize air-to-air like the Eurofarter
-
Roger, shot per word incoming. Edit: I love all you mofos
-
Thanks for the reminder: Not just smack talk, unsubstantiated smack talk. No doubt each side has their defenders and detractors, but if it’s not backed up by official word from at least one party, it’s fit to be flushed.
-
Just what's in the first post Edit: There's a lot of smack talk based on second-hand information going around in various places on the net, but the first post has everything official. Beyond that, the only thing I can think of is that I think (hope I'm not butchering the meaning) ED have said they will keep the Razbam modules working as they are now, ie they will ensure nothing that works now will break due to updates.
-
The academy staff aren’t giving classes anyway, so access to their training devices is immaterial, ie Razbam staff being unable to access their products has nothing to do with anything while they refuse to work on them. While they aren’t doing updates there’s nothing for them to playtest.
-
ED gives Razbam free access to DCS so they can work on their modules. Razbam have said very clearly they won't be working on their modules until this is settled. I'm surprised it's taken this long to revoke their access. If a gym hires a yoga academy so the gym can offer yoga classes, that yoga academy's staff will obviously get access to the gym to do that, and under those circumstances the gym probably wouldn't mind if the yoga academy's staff use the facilities to stay in shape. If there is a dispute between the gym and the yoga academy, and that yoga academy informs the business they won't be giving classes until the dispute is resolved, it stands to reason access to the gym would be revoked until the academy resumes offering classes. If that means the yoga academy's staff can't use the gym for their own fitness during the dispute that's unfortunate, but that's not why they have been given access to the gym to begin with.
-
Why would ED comment on an individual user's posts about access to internal systems? As for it being a bad sign, ED isn't obliged to comment whenever someone sees or reads something that makes them nervous about the situation. It's the same as always: ED will comment when they have something to say and a substantial reason to say it.
-
You have just made a very good case for why releasing public statements will do nothing to help the situation. As far as who's right and who's wrong, most people don't care, and even if ED proved their case beyond doubt, what then? If anything, that will make people more worried about the future of the F-15E, not less. ED proving or not proving their case does absolutely nothing to tell people what the future will hold, which is exactly why ED are doing the right thing waiting until this dispute is resolved and they can provide a roadmap for the future.
-
Ok, so you feel that companies should be transparent about business disputes, I sort of understand that. You do acknowledge that’s not common practice though, yeah? Your standards for deciding how you regard businesses are far you alone to set, and it’s a good thing to contribute them to the conversation, I’m just pointing out that not a lot of businesses would meet that.
-
Please note that ED's 'claim' was a reply to a statement Razbam had already made. I'm sure ED would much rather have handled this professionally, ie without making statements to the public.
-
Razbam is responsible for delivering that manual. Their arrangements for getting it done are irrelevant for customers. Razbam can take things up with their contractors, but I guess that’s another thing not getting done right now.
-
They also said we’d get the Mirage 2000-5 and the Harrier AV-8 II Plus, not to mention the features that were supposed to get added to the AV-8B in the game now. If we’re going on track record, Razbam’s claims are not something to base expectations on.
-
What Mizzy said is accurate, and as one person who spoke about the missing features of the AV-8B I reiterate that that has nothing to do with the ED/Razbam dispute. However, please remember that we don't know how realistic or remote a 'worst-case' outcome for these modules is. Even if the dispute itself had the outcome of Razbam having no further involvement in DCS, that wouldn't necessarily mean module development couldn't continue under another dev. Negotiations, as far as we know, will take an indefinite amount of time, and there is no reason I know of to think that couldn't stretch beyond a year. At some point one party may decide it's taken too long for their liking and they might seek to take the dispute to whatever arbitration is provided for, but that process would also take an indefinite amount of time on top of however long the negotiations have already taken. As frustrating as it is, the answers to these questions have to be "we don't know". The only thing I can say that might be somewhat reassuring is to remind you that ED are offering to refund purchases of the F-15E from their store in return for store credit, so that means you can decide when negotiations have taken too long *for you*. If the dispute has an outcome you're happy with, you can always repurchase the module when that happens.
-
A quick search of the current thread for posts containing “committed” and “eagle”, and a separate search for “committed” and either “F-15” or “F-15E” didn’t turn up anything that resembled that. There was a post from one of the mods saying they were “committed to solving the problems”, speaking of the dispute with Razbam generally. Maybe the comment you describe was said before one of the culls or in the older thread, or the same meaning was conveyed in different words, but everything I remember reading from the mods was very careful to be non-committal about the future development of the F-15E that, personally, I’d need to see the post to think otherwise. Same would also go for any commitment to do anything beyond keeping any other Razbam model functioning as it currently is.
-
Good point about the bomb fuzing - anyone know if that changed before April 4? I think that was Zero Day. If the dispute is still ongoing when ED can't avoid doing some things that don't work with the old RB modules, that might be when they'll offer the version of DCS they last worked with. Hopefully that won't happen until there is clarity regarding the road ahead and longer-term plans can be made.
-
Third parties are responsible for the state of their modules. If they aren’t in the condition they should be that’s the responsibility of the dev, not ED. The visor hasn’t stopped working because of an update during this current dispute, so that would be on Razbam. In other words it’s not going to get fixed right now, just like if Razbam hadn’t downed tools. Edit: The way I probably should have put that is: ED has said they will ensure problems aren't caused by updates during this current dispute, this problem hasn't been the result of an update. ED aren't responsible for doing Quality Control on Third Party modules.
-
I don’t and won’t play DCS as a live service game, and I wouldn’t buy modules if there was an ongoing cost. If a module came packaged with an iteration of DCS it worked with I’d buy, otherwise I wouldn’t; I could live without constant improvement to the engine and I have zero interest in multiplayer. Single player offline all the way for me. Edit: Didn’t think about how terrains would work. I don’t know if a different way of doing things would work, but I wouldn’t pay an ongoing fee. If modules (including terrains) cost more to cover a one-off access fee (maybe $20 - $30 USD) I could live with that. This is all pretty OT anyway.
-
I'm with you on the Harrier being unfinished (and the M2K being finished long after it was claimed to be feature complete).Regardless of that post by Alpha Juliet on their Discord suggesting the F-15E would finance further work on the Harrier, if they were prepared to be held to adding what's missing - such as the rest of the manual - they wouldn't have moved it out of EA. We can't expect anything to get added to the Harrier, whether Razbam are involved in DCS or not.
-
Developers don't ever get paid to maintain their modules, they do it so that they can continue to sell them with the latest features in DCS. Whatever you might think of or call ED's actions they are standard business practice.
-
Razbam not receiving payments seems to be an agreed fact, whereas the IP breach is disputed, so I’m with you that far. Whenever the IP breach happened, it seems like there was already a contract to release the F-15E. I know I’ll sound like an a*s as I speak Archaic accountant here, but bear with me… ED releasing the module as planned means Razbam are still earning revenue too, even if they aren’t receiving the cash flow yet. As far as we know there is no dispute that Razbam are entitled to that revenue, and they should have it listed as an asset in their balance sheet and profit and loss statement. ED haven’t disputed that Razbam are owed that money. and ED’s financial statements would list the money withheld as a liability. Both Razbam’s and ED’s financial statements should note the outstanding dispute, and the possibility that Razbam will be found to owe ED for that. This means that once the IP dispute is resolved, any money Razbam is found to owe for that is subtracted from the amount ED has withheld, any balance is paid to Razbam and both parties are financially where they would have been (at least in theory) had Razbam’s payments not been withheld, save for any adjustment due for the IP breach. Alternatively, if there was a contract to release the mudhen and ED had refused to, they may well have been liable for loss of sales and more. Any liability for this comes straight out of ED’s pocket because there was no sales income to deduct it from. The amount owed for loss of sales would be theoretical, so maybe Razbam lose too if the final amount doesn’t match what they would actually have earned. Legal situation gets messier, and one side or both are substantially worse off, and that’s before we talk about the alleged IP breach. As far as any gain that Razbam might have made from the alleged IP breach is something I doubt we’ll ever hear officially. That’s because, AFAIK, any gain (or lack thereof) would not ordinarily be a factor in whether a party is liable; if they are liable, then any gain might factor into the final number. So unless we get a detailed rundown of how much ED receives (if they are successful) I doubt they’ll fill us in on any alleged ill-gotten gains.
-
One thing we might all be able to agree on is that it's good to see there is no indication in either party's public statements that there is any dispute about sales data, nor is there any dispute mentioned regarding whether Razbam is ultimately owed the money ED are currently withholding. We may not know what's being said privately, but at least we can hope one potentially thorny and time-consuming aspect of this may not be in dispute. Perhaps that means that once the IP issue is settled it will be simple math to take the applicable number for that from whatever Razbam is owed, and there will be clarity on who ultimately owes who what, someone can cut a check and we can move on a little quicker than we otherwise might.
