waiting for resolution RAZBAM Situation Post Archive (will be deleted)

[Oban]

16 minutes ago, Rainmaker said:

Well, can only speak for me, but my thoughts are that you shouldn't openly make the accusation unless you are also prepared to openly defend it.  Its one to have a rift between companies, it's another to openly accuse the other party of a crime.  Let's not forget or omit, only one party did that.

Totally agree, the burden of proof always lies within the accuser, that being said, IF it all goes to a full on court hearing, which could be several months, or even longer, if that accusation was found to be false, then ED are finished, and instead of 3 modules that are currently effected, the entire collection and platform will vanish, along with any credibility within the community.

IF the accusations have merit, then... well I'm sure the picture painted for Razbam won't be pretty either.

It's a mess of epic proportions.

[freehand]

3 minutes ago, Oban said:

Totally agree, the burden of proof always lies within the accuser, that being said, IF it all goes to a full on court hearing, which could be several months, or even longer, if that accusation was found to be false, then ED are finished, and instead of 3 modules that are currently effected, the entire collection and platform will vanish, along with any credibility within the community.

IF the accusations have merit, then... well I'm sure the picture painted for Razbam won't be pretty either.

It's a mess of epic proportions.

What accusation ? 

[SkateZilla]

Just now, freehand said:

What accusation ? 

There's 2.

RB Says ED with held the sales shares.

ED Says RB Breached contract which led to the sales shares being with held.

Technically there's already admission of non-payment, so ED just has to show the breach of contract.

[PhantomHans]

I regret having gotten involved in this mess.

I bought DCS to have some fun flying simulated fighter jets.  Not to give money to people in exchange for whatever this is.

 

 

Solve your problems and get your stuff together already. 

[Silver_Dragon]

2 hours ago, Horns said:

Even if a professional/military version of the sim never existed, a third party actively assisting users in violating the EULA by using it for other than personal use would be a violation.

The only reason the drama affects the product and consumers is because Razbam decided to stop providing the support they are obliged to. If they have an issue with terms of a contract being met (eg payment) the place for that is the courtroom. Of course, if they don't have the capacity to trade - and if they haven't even had enough to pay their workers, that would mean they've been trading while insolvent for a while - they can (and in my country would probably be required to) put Razbam into administration and allow the system to run its course. At least then users would get clarity on the future of their products - and for that matter, depending on where in the world the action happens, the F-15E module may well be purchasable by another entity who are willing and able to finish it, provided conditions are met.

Business disputes are what they are, but the only party who's chosen to make this the consumer's problem is Razbam.

Searching, I found them...
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/training-simulation/vrgineers-to-showcase-latest-f-15e-fighter-simulator-that-could-soon-replace-live-training-at-it2ec/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=auto_post&utm_campaign=news_promo
 

https://vrgineers.com/press-release/f-15e-strike-eagle-trainer-by-razbam-vrgineers-arriving-2023/

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2023/4/24/vendors-debut-portable-f-15e-simulator
 

Very very strangle... appears some versions of DCS World with other simulatios (XP/P3D?), on military simulator events...

And that pic on hoggit, has very confused...

 

Edited June 8, 2024 by Silver_Dragon

[Rainmaker]

4 minutes ago, Oban said:

Totally agree, the burden of proof always lies within the accuser, that being said, IF it all goes to a full on court hearing, which could be several months, or even longer, if that accusation was found to be false, then ED are finished, and instead of 3 modules that are currently effected, the entire collection and platform will vanish, along with any credibility within the community.

IF the accusations have merit, then... well I'm sure the picture painted for Razbam won't be pretty either.

It's a mess of epic proportions.

I dunno if I would quite go to the level of the first part....but yes in general to it all.

But so far....the dots I connect from what's been out there...either don't make sense....or they don't connect to anything yet.  And the developers and the paying customer are in fact the ones on the biggest losing end of all of it.  I can't honestly sit here and say that either one of those is being looked after in the situation.  There are choices to be made that could change that in the interim that helps both of them but....

[Hammer1-1]

4 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Searching, I found them...
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/training-simulation/vrgineers-to-showcase-latest-f-15e-fighter-simulator-that-could-soon-replace-live-training-at-it2ec/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=auto_post&utm_campaign=news_promo
 

https://vrgineers.com/press-release/f-15e-strike-eagle-trainer-by-razbam-vrgineers-arriving-2023/

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2023/4/24/vendors-debut-portable-f-15e-simulator
 

Very very strangle... appears some versions of DCS World with other simulatios (XP/P3D?), on military simulator events...

 

I wouldnt be surprised if Razbam were still working on FSX related platforms, it was their gravy train back in the day and its not like that stuff couldnt be ported over easily to P3D.

 

[Silver_Dragon]

3 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

I wouldnt be surprised if Razbam were still working on FSX related platforms, it was their gravy train back in the day and its not like that stuff couldnt be ported over easily to P3D.

 

Meanwhile that will plausible. But, How appears not only RAZBAM F-15E products, and other DCS World modules on that stands?

[Hammer1-1]

14 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Meanwhile that will plausible. But, How appears not only RAZBAM F-15E products, and other DCS World modules on that stands?

Razbam had built an F-15E with IRIS Simulations back in the day, with M2M doing most of the engineering IIRC. Guess what else they had? A Mirage 2000, AV-8B, GR7/9....my faith in Razbam products were already on thin ice when they came to DCS, Ive no faith in them producing anything of substance from here on out anymore.

[Horns]

1 hour ago, Rainmaker said:

And...the word 'if' is still present there isn't it?  What do you have to go on thus far?  Trust?  That would be the only thing that's out there to this point.  For the last three decades I have had the same mantra in my line of work.  "Trust but verify".  You can be my own mother...I trust you...but I'm also going to verify what you tell me or what you have done before I'll accept it.  Not doing so can get people killed.  So far....the other 90% is missing and hidden under a cloak of secrecy.  You can't know....but just 'trust' us.  I don't personally buy into that thinking.  Specially when it comes to someone else's livelihood and whether someone is 'guilty' of a legal accusation.  You are basing that all on a lot of 'what if's' and second party statements...and only an affected party...not a non-bias one.  Certainly not a judge.

Since we are speaking what-if's.  What if you were a party that holds all the leverage...holds the money....and just says if you want money you might be rightfully owed...you need to put up additional money on top of that for legal council in order to come get it.  Not our money...customer money.  Meanwhile...we'll just sit on it till then and say you are guilty of X without a legal proceeding.  We won't take you to court ourselves to prove accusations and have a judge rule on it, we'll just make our own ruling on this one.  Just playing...what if's. 

 

When someone mentioned the supposed EULA violation you responded by talking about the relationship between DCS and MCS being muddy. I simply pointed out that a relationship or lack thereof didn't make any difference. I have no idea whether the rumored breach actually occurred, which is why that little word 'if' is in there. The only thing I'm taking as a fact is that Razbam have said they won't maintain their modules. The statement that followed from Prowler didn't actually contradict that, it said that it wasn't their intention to abandon the modules. That doesn't mean they'll be doing any maintenance any time soon either.

I don't love non-payment happening in the business world in general but it is common and the possibility is foreseeable. Being prepared to meet the costs of legal disputes and collecting money owed from uncooperative parties is something any reasonable business factors in from day 1. So working with your what-if: Are you really suggesting that ceasing support of Razbam's modules instead of bringing timely legal action might been done with the customer's best interests in mind?

[Silver_Dragon]

1 hour ago, Hammer1-1 said:

Razbam had built an F-15E with IRIS Simulations back in the day, with M2M doing most of the engineering IIRC. Guess what else they had? A Mirage 2000, AV-8B, GR7/9....my faith in Razbam products were already on thin ice when they came to DCS, Ive no faith in them producing anything of substance from here on out anymore.

Pardon?.... nop. RAZBAM - IRIS was a war vs teams when ED open the 3rd parties by 2013-14.... I remember IRIS claims a F-15, a F-14 and other modules.... meanwhile RAZBAM claims a F-15E and a T-2 Buckeye..... IRIS disapear as 3rd party on ones mouths and never talk anything.

Edited June 8, 2024 by Silver_Dragon

[Jayhawk1971]

Aren't legal expenses insurances a thing in Ecuador?

[Rainmaker]

5 minutes ago, Horns said:

When someone mentioned the supposed EULA violation you responded by talking about the relationship between DCS and MCS being muddy. I simply pointed out that a relationship or lack thereof didn't make any difference. I have no idea whether the rumored breach actually occurred, which is why that little word 'if' is in there. The only thing I'm taking as a fact is that Razbam have said they won't maintain their modules. The statement that followed from Prowler didn't actually contradict that, it said that it wasn't their intention to abandon the modules. That doesn't mean they'll be doing any maintenance any time soon either.

I don't love non-payment happening in the business world in general but it is common and the possibility is foreseeable. Being prepared to meet the costs of legal disputes and collecting money owed from uncooperative parties is something any reasonable business factors in from day 1. So working with your what-if: Are you really suggesting that ceasing support of Razbam's modules instead of bringing timely legal action might been done with the customer's best interests in mind?

I'll explain as may there was confusion on my behalf.  I should have shorted the quote up.  "And if someone isn't being treated properly by the other party in a contract they can always take that to arbitration - if they don't, that's usually for a reason too"  I took that to mean that you were referring to RB LLC not taking legal action?  Because they possibly had no ground to do so?  Or the lack of legal action thus far as an indication they had something to hide?  If not I apologize for misinterpreting.

And to the first part of that...it very much would make a difference when it comes to withholdings, etc if those are two separate contractual agreements.  From one side it has not been made clear whether they are related, members of the other side dispute that they are not....even if it relates to all that in the first place..  Heck, the whole 'IP infringement' accusation has not been made clear, so this is all speculation really.  See my earlier point about 1 or 2 posts ago on that.

[Mars Exulte]

3 hours ago, SkateZilla said:

I have more important projects that require my time than to go down the rabbit hole of rumors and outcomes. lol

 Sir, this is the internet. Rumors and rabbit holes are like 85% of everything. Also I see I've missed a bunch of drama the last few months

Edited June 8, 2024 by Mars Exulte

[PhantomHans]

I'm tired of all this, tbh.

 

We paid for modules so that we could play them.  Our money has been accepted.

It's time for us to get what we paid for.

This means ED and Razbam need to come to an agreement to satisfy us, the consumers.  If that agreement cannot be reached immediately, then I think it would be fair to provide us with reliable, truthful, official updates on the situation, from both sides.

This means that we, the consumers, need to be provided with progress on unfinished modules and with patches to address things that are broken.

This means that we, the consumers, need working, online, functional, authentication servers, OR, if that can not be provided, a patch to free us from that requirement.

 

 

 

I don't think these are unreasonable expectations.

How many of us would have bought DCS modules if they came with a disclaimer that we may not get anything or it may stop working at any time?

[Hammer1-1]

54 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Pardon?.... nop. RAZBAM - IRIS was a war vs teams when ED open the 3rd parties by 2013-14.... I remember IRIS claims a F-15, a F-14 and other modules.... meanwhile RAZBAM claims a F-15E and a T-2 Buckeye..... IRIS disapear as 3rd party on ones mouths and never talk anything.

 

M2M partnered with IRIS to finish the F-15E in FSX/P3D. I should know, I have it. IIRC they did the back seat portion, its been so long since I last flew it I hardly remember it anymore. I was refering to their FSX projects.

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php/81392-Metal2Mesh-Avionics-Upgrade-F-15E-(Aug-23)

Edited June 8, 2024 by Hammer1-1

[Heyjax]

I agree. I want my money back please. 

[Horns]

11 minutes ago, Rainmaker said:

I'll explain as may there was confusion on my behalf.  I should have shorted the quote up.  "And if someone isn't being treated properly by the other party in a contract they can always take that to arbitration - if they don't, that's usually for a reason too"  I took that to mean that you were referring to RB LLC not taking legal action?  Because they possibly had no ground to do so?  Or the lack of legal action thus far as an indication they had something to hide?  If not I apologize for misinterpreting.

And to the first part of that...it very much would make a difference when it comes to withholdings, etc if those are two separate contractual agreements.  From one side it has not been made clear whether they are related, members of the other side dispute that they are not....even if it relates to all that in the first place..  Heck, the whole 'IP infringement' accusation has not been made clear, so this is all speculation really.  See my earlier point about 1 or 2 posts ago on that.

Ok, no that wasn't quite what I meant - just to be clear - I'm not suggesting that there was some sort of crime committed, I haven't even seen a claim like that let alone put any stock in it, so thankfully we can exclude that. Would they Razbam have grounds for a claim? For the sake of answering I'll assume ED have conceded that there has been payment withheld (maybe I just haven't seen the right post): that would be grounds to mount an action, for sure. Then a determination would be made about who owed what to whom and we could move on. I definitely didn't mean to imply that there was some secret RB feared would be outed, just that they might not feel confident about getting as favorable result as they would like.

I had actually taken your post talking about the separation between DCS and MCS as tacit acceptance of the claim referenced in the post you were responding to, but ok, I see your point on that, on reflection I probably took that a little far. I should have left it at something like "Whether or not the DCS EULA was violated isn't dependent on the potential customer having another option available". I'll add a note at the bottom of the post to that effect too. I haven't seen a specific statement from anyone on the supposed IP breach - or even a direct allegation one occurred - so I agree those details aren't clear.

[Silver_Dragon]

1 minute ago, Hammer1-1 said:

M2M se asoció con IRIS para terminar el F-15E en FSX/P3D. Debería saberlo, lo tengo.

 

FSX/P3d contend has none with DCS World here. All modules builded by RAZBAM, was build from scrath by that has complete diferent system and start to learn a complete new system. Yes, on that days, RAZBAM and IRIS "import" 3D models claiming future modules, making very poor MODs on 2013-14.... and the "actual" modules by RAZBAM (IRIS complete disapear) was the day to night comparation.

[IceyJones]

vor 11 Stunden schrieb BIGNEWY:

For the record RAZBAM have access to the tools they need and their repositories are open if they wish to update their modules. 

----------------------------------------

 

Folks I have had a tidy up in the thread, people making it personal will be moderated, if you can not treat people with respect do not post here, if you keep breaking the rules when posting you will acquire warning points and eventually lose access to the forum. 

 

would you work for free?

[Hammer1-1]

8 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

FSX/P3d contend has none with DCS World here. All modules builded by RAZBAM, was build from scrath by that has complete diferent system and start to learn a complete new system. Yes, on that days, RAZBAM and IRIS "import" 3D models claiming future modules, making very poor MODs on 2013-14.... and the "actual" modules by RAZBAM (IRIS complete disapear) was the day to night comparation.

Its not far from the imagination theres a way to port most of the 3D work over from FSX to DCS, and for the sake of argument the work was already researched as well. These are simply modules that Razbam were working on before they came to DCS -  yes they built them from scratch...but its still Razbams work. IRIS was always IMO a terrible 3rd party myself, and it so happened to be the exact same opinion of Razbam as well. Neither one of them were great in FSX. Great 3D models, terrible code.

Edited June 8, 2024 by Hammer1-1

[Silver_Dragon]

The claims....

 

[Hammer1-1]

14 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

The claims....

 

Im just glad IRIS left.

[Oban]

19 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

Im just glad IRIS left.

I had the IRIS F15E for FSX, it wasn't bad, also had the superbug.

42 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

Its not far from the imagination theres a way to port most of the 3D work over from FSX to DCS, and for the sake of argument the work was already researched as well. These are simply modules that Razbam were working on before they came to DCS -  yes they built them from scratch...but its still Razbams work. IRIS was always IMO a terrible 3rd party myself, and it so happened to be the exact same opinion of Razbam as well. Neither one of them were great in FSX. Great 3D models, terrible code.

 

I thought the same, as Razbam had a good Harrier GR7/9 for FSX, which would have been awesome to see in DCS, I never understood why it was never considered.
Most of the animations would be there, maybe textures would have needed to be updated to DCS standards.

Actually RB had a decent A7D/E/P as well..

[Silver_Dragon]

8 minutes ago, Oban said:

I thought the same, as Razbam had a good Harrier GR7/9 for FSX, which would have been awesome to see in DCS, I never understood why it was never considered.
Most of the animations would be there, maybe textures would have needed to be updated to DCS standards.

The initial Harrier module was "claim" as a GR7/9, but RAZBAM claim the english harrier was very restricted and dont have the necesary aproval and data to make them. Some mounts ago, the team claim with a FSR.1 has "imposible" to build by the radar restrictions by UK autorities.