Horns
-
Posts
1309 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Horns
-
Opinion please: If a company in ED's shoes were to instead have continued with payments and essentially 'business as usual' while negotiating regarding the IP dispute, could that behavior have been taken as an indicator; either of (lack of) severity, or that there was an understanding that this should have an other-than-financial remedy? In other words, in your opinion, could continuing 'business as usual' conceivably have hurt ED's position?
-
I agree it won't take until 2030, but at the same time I don't think it's a good idea to grind on the question of 'when'. Pushing HB for an ETA won't help either IMO, if there's one thing the history of DCS module development tells us it's that complications are difficult or impossible to see in advance, so ETAs can't be that reliable anyway. I have no doubt that HB will make sure it's a worthy module when it hits EA, and I believe (and hope) *that* will be more of a driving factor than getting it out ASAP.
-
I hope this doesn't look like conspiracy theory itself but I know I'm getting close to the line, if this must be removed so be it and if it is I apologize... Having read the conversation, even if one grants it's genuine I honestly don't see it 'confirm' anything new that relates to the current dispute. Two guys from third parties - neither of whom run the third party the current dispute is with - speculating on the financial health of ED doesn't move the dial for me. We've already had people speculating that ED is out of money, ED are the only ones who actually know their own financial health and their motivation for actions. Shame on whoever posted that private conversation - again, assuming it's genuine - if they leaked it without Nick's agreement. What a betrayal in return for an expression of empathy.
-
You've pushed your own barrow pretty hard here too. Confirmation bias is a thing.
-
Ok, point taken. Perhaps I should have said "this question should be directed to Razbam as well".
-
We as consumers have been made to 'pay' because Razbam chose to cease support - if not for that, this wouldn't affect us regardless of the existence of other ED platforms. I agree this dispute shouldn't affect consumers, but IMO this question should be directed to Razbam.
-
Any 3rd party can cease doing business in DCS at any time, no statement can change that fact. ED have stated that mature modules will be kept working in the state they were when the dev left. If your concern is modules being unsupported I suggest you avoid EA modules, then you'll be sure what you're buying will continue to work regardless of what the future may bring.
-
Can I preorder? Edit: Shut up and take my money!
-
I’ll take a wild guess and say the only statement you’ll get is already in the OP. If/when ED choose to make a new statement the OP will be updated. I’m sure the CMs have noted your comment, but I doubt that will change the situation.
-
From the OP: Edit: For the response that has been given re labeling for the F-15E please see the final two sentences. Edit 2: I guess that doesn’t appear to directly cover it if you haven’t been watching the thread. The answer whenever that question has come up has been that they are selling it as the lawyers have advised. They won’t elaborate on that.
-
Any financial information, especially when it’s directly relevant to a legal process in progress, is definitely confidential.
-
Another one that should only be answered by lawyers, if at all - a CM commenting on that on a public forum would be nuts.
-
Saw your comment, that's the answer.
-
From the OP:
-
I think he's saying they'd need to find workarounds for each particular module, not that just building the updates differently would solve it for all of them at once
-
I understand, thanks for addressing it
-
I kinda fear we're giving that particular subreddit oxygen here. I take it ED accept that the report of how SE the radar bug originated is genuine?
-
It's still an EA module working as well as any EA module will. The refunds are being offered voluntarily, as such the vendor can set whatever terms they want. That may change later, pending the outcome of the legal issues between ED and Razbam.
-
There is nothing in the world that could possibly derail the Chinook release. There, fixed it
-
Gotcha, makes sense, cheers for weighing in
-
So, armchair fighter guy thinking armchair fighter things here. I'm thinking about this for real-world though, since we already kinda get this benefit in DCS... As fighter jets have got more expensive, many of them have reduced the crews that operate them from 2 to 1. Good reasons for it, since things like radar management, weapon selection and radio management becoming easier have meant that a good pilot can manage everything on his own, allowing fighters to be built smaller and lighter. Those economies have come at the cost of two hands, two eyes and a brain. However, we're getting closer to the point where communication will be fast enough to allow all of a pilot's tasks from the ground, allowing a decision to be made about whether a live pilot needs to be sent into harm's way. Of course there are big advantages, one being that you aren't vulnerable to jamming. Those same technologies could allow that pilot to delegate functions to ground-based squadmates, similar to a pilot having a WSO take charge of functions at present. I'm curious about the potential of assigning a ground-based WSO to assist the pilot in the jet as required. It couldn't be the same contract as when a WSO is in the cockpit, as the person on the spot would have to have the con, but having a second person available to assist the pilot if and when asked seems like a good idea, and a way to maximize returns without imposing the penalties that a second body in a second cockpit would currently. Letting the pilot concentrate on maneuvering while a WSO manages sensors during air combat, or having a WSO watching the FLIR full-time to alert the pilot to the presence of possible manpad launchers while on low level flight ingress to target seem like benefits that would maximize results and minimize risks. One issue I can see is the increased potential for reach-forward. I'm sure there will be COs who will want to push the button themselves, or who will want a CO pushing the button who's in the room with them, so that they can call off a weapon release at the latest possible moment. However, this is foreseeable enough that one would hope procedures would be developed to navigate most issues like this that might arise. What do you think, is having ground-based WSOs a lousy idea or does it have merit? Has/Is this being talked about already?
-
Oh no way Nick wagers that baby
-
500G?! Are you sure they aren't using the F-15C flight model? Edit: Joke, not criticism, easy typo to make, I'm sure I've made it plenty
-
The customer is not in the position of running the construction sites or making hiring decisions, they are buying the final products. But there's a further problem with that, the relationship between ED and their 3rd parties is nothing like a prime contractor and their subcontractors - that relationship is closer to something like the studio, Massive Entertainment, producing Star Wars: Outlaws for Ubisoft.
-
My mistake. I think that message will get through loud and clear.
