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

[cfrag]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

How do you know they did?

Because it happened. One of  the measures of a CEO is how they handle internal stuff, and not let it spill to the customer. That entire dispute is internal, and having it affect the customer is a failure to contain an internal screw-up. Put differently, if you go to a dentist, and they screw up your procedure you aren't interested to hear why, you don't want to hear that the practitioner had a spat with the owner. You simply want your teeth to be fixed. 

I want my modules (Farmer, Harrier, Mudhen, Mig and Falklands) to be fixed; I can't be bothered to know why or who in ED's internal processes screwed up. I expect professionalism, and that, currently, seems in short display. I don't give a rat's behind who "Ron" is and what their alleged failings are. ED, please - fix my modules, and spare me the drama.

[Dragon1-1]

52 minutes ago, cfrag said:

Because it happened. One of  the measures of a CEO is how they handle internal stuff, and not let it spill to the customer. That entire dispute is internal, and having it affect the customer is a failure to contain an internal screw-up.

If it can be contained at all. ED tried, and would have kept it contained had RAZBAM CEO not brought it into public. It should have stayed internal, and that's how ED has been trying to handle it. Sometimes you can't help when the other party insists on not cooperating.

52 minutes ago, cfrag said:

Put differently, if you go to a dentist, and they screw up your procedure you aren't interested to hear why, you don't want to hear that the practitioner had a spat with the owner. You simply want your teeth to be fixed. 

It's a little different. Yes, I want my teeth to be fixed and my money back (as compensation for me having to live with the results of their mistake). However, in that case, I can also settle for my money back, and then more money to pay someone else, entirely unrelated, for fixing my teeth properly. If the practitioner had a spat with the owner, then I might be inclined to take the second option rather than bother with waiting for them to resolve their differences. In that case, there are options that I, as a customer, can take to affect my personal outcome.

DCS is a closed environment, so no such luxury. You can buy those modules from RAZBAM (Falklands aren't affected, BTW, only the aircraft), or you can keep your money. There aren't multiple Mudhens to choose from in DCS. 

In fact, I've had a front row seat to something quite similar last year (already related in one of the thread's previous incarnations, BTW). A group of people signed up for a trip to the Arctic onboard a sailing ship, starting from Iceland. They all flew to Iceland only to find the captain who was bringing the ship to Iceland had wrecked the engine and the headsail, so they weren't going anywhere. They rightfully asked the ship's owner for their money back... but the owner has no money, because the insurance company won't pay, and they won't pay because the captain insists he's the hero for sailing his crew out of a storm he sailed them into in first place. He also blames the ship, the crew before him (on which I was on, which is how I know it's BS, my captain also couldn't believe the man's chutzpah), and everything but himself. I'm following the case because aside from my own good name as a sailor (which isn't really in doubt, given that nobody believes the other captain's story), I also have some paltry sum of money I'm supposed to get back, and I also know the ship's owner is a great guy who doesn't deserve to be out of pocket for someone else's bad seamanship. The whole thing is hopelessly stuck in court.

In this case, I know the ship's owner did his best to vet the captains, he sailed with the guy, there were no indications back then that he'd do something like that, though others have now gone on record he was known to take unnecessary risks as captain. Still, given that sailing was literally the man's day job, this brouhaha is on him and him alone, as far as I'm concerned. Oh, and he also lacked proper insurance, meaning that when the court does rule against him, actually getting all the money out of him is unlikely.

Edited July 13 by Dragon1-1

[Hammer1-1]

9 hours ago, felixx75 said:

But it's so much fun and so much easier to put all the blame on one person...

 

 

Yes, you can do it that way, but it is in no way objective (since you are of course leaving out all the other circumstances), but quite deliberately a subjective decision.

Since I don't know what happened and what the circumstances were/are, I'm not accusing anyone (especially since it doesn't do anyone any good to accuse anyone). There will be a solution at some point (whether we like it or not, we'll have to see), but we certainly won't find out exactly what happened. And to be honest, I don't really care because I have no influence on it either way. Why should I concern myself with the situation between ED and Razbam? I can't do anything about it and neither can you. But I can state my opinion about how people here on the forum only badmouth one side or the other because they don't like them.

But I won't change you and I won't change this thread anyway. So it will continue exactly as before. So I should just ignore this thread (and all others). Have a nice Sunday everyone, I'm out. 

I guess the only way you will accept this truth is if it happens a 3rd time, right? Or will you just continue denying said reality?

Edited July 13 by Hammer1-1

[Aapje]

6 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

First post:

Quote

On 6/18/2024 at 12:55 AM, NineLine said:

Without entering into the details of matters that are confidential to the parties, we firmly reject the allegations that the current disagreement between Eagle Dynamics and Razbam Simulations would be as stated by Razbam “due to circumstances completely beyond our control" and that it is "a situation that Razbam Simulations did not seek".
 
On the contrary, the current disagreement is the result of improper actions that have been taken by Razbam Simulations, in breach of its contractual obligations towards our company and of our legally protected IP rights, and for which we are seeking a reasonable and forward-looking commercial outcome rather than entertaining legal claims.

So your 'facts' are that you believe vague statements by the employee of one party in the conflict with no actual proof being supplied, rather than the vague statements by the other party in the conflict (or accept that both may be wrong)...

This is just a textbook case of bias.

In fact, you even admit that you do not judge this case based on the facts of this case, but that: "All I'm assuming about Ron comes from how he handled other issues before." Even if there is a basis for that prejudice, it doesn't change that such prejudice is not the same as having actual facts about this case. And again, it is not true that one side has to be fully wrong and the other side fully right when there is a conflict.

Note that there are also allegations, allegedly supported with evidence, that ED itself has broken contracts. So why are you not assuming negative things about ED based on their alleged behavior?

PS. NineLine's statement is actually quite weird, since on the one hand they claim that their legal contract(s) have been violated, but also that they don't entertain legal claims. With the knowledge that ED has apparently been withholding all payments for a very long time now, this can just as easily be interpreted as them having more confidence in their ability to strong-arm Razbam into doing what ED considers reasonable, than in their ability to prevail in court, which raises questions whether ED's belief of what is reasonable, would be considered reasonably by an independent judge. Of course, I can't speak to the exact internal deliberations by ED. But this is an example of how things can be a lot less one-sided than you make it seem.

Edited July 13 by Aapje

[Kang]

So, do we go for the 'inaccurate narrator' trope with this project? I'd personally prefer it to go a bit of a 'Vantage Point' kind of deal in which we skip back and forth between various narrators and see their respective versions acted out as if they were fact. Perhaps the comparison isn't quite right, but you know what I mean.

[cfrag]

Nah, we have long since reached the "angels dancing on the head of a pin" stage. Everything here is merely performance art.

[Hammer1-1]

4 hours ago, Aapje said:

So your 'facts' are that you believe vague statements by the employee of one party in the conflict with no actual proof being supplied, rather than the vague statements by the other party in the conflict (or accept that both may be wrong)...

This is just a textbook case of bias.

In fact, you even admit that you do not judge this case based on the facts of this case, but that: "All I'm assuming about Ron comes from how he handled other issues before." Even if there is a basis for that prejudice, it doesn't change that such prejudice is not the same as having actual facts about this case. And again, it is not true that one side has to be fully wrong and the other side fully right when there is a conflict.

Note that there are also allegations, allegedly supported with evidence, that ED itself has broken contracts. So why are you not assuming negative things about ED based on their alleged behavior?

PS. NineLine's statement is actually quite weird, since on the one hand they claim that their legal contract(s) have been violated, but also that they don't entertain legal claims. With the knowledge that ED has apparently been withholding all payments for a very long time now, this can just as easily be interpreted as them having more confidence in their ability to strong-arm Razbam into doing what ED considers reasonable, than in their ability to prevail in court, which raises questions whether ED's belief of what is reasonable, would be considered reasonably by an independent judge. Of course, I can't speak to the exact internal deliberations by ED. But this is an example of how things can be a lot less one-sided than you make it seem.

Nobody ever said ED is free of sin here, you know. With that said, ED never took their frustration out on their customers because thats just bad for business. It takes a special kind of person to use the customer as a hostage.

[utplayer01]

The Problem is that Razbam would produce the Super Tucano for the Millitary. ED only wants a new contract with Razbam for this. Than we all could get the Super Tucano for DCS. But Razbam has only Dollars in her Eyes. Thats the point.

[Dragon1-1]

On 7/13/2025 at 6:57 PM, Aapje said:

Note that there are also allegations, allegedly supported with evidence, that ED itself has broken contracts. So why are you not assuming negative things about ED based on their alleged behavior?

Because I haven't seen a single shred of this alleged evidence? Ron's previous antics are out there for all to see. Is it prejudice? You could argue that. There's, however, also a saying: fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Past behavior is an absolutely valid argument with regards to present behavior. If someone has a habit of not keeping their word, are you just going to blindly say "I'm sure they kept their word this time, and the other guy may be wrong"? Well, if you do, I have a bridge to sell you. And if he really is innocent... tough luck, should've stuck to his word the first N times he didn't. It's going to take really good evidence to convince me otherwise. FYI, courts and judges look at one's past behavior all the time, and it's not considered prejudice. Yeah, it sucks for the occasional convicted thief falsely accused of stealing something, but this situation is rather less common than a thief stealing again, and usually actual evidence saves the day in the end.

Give me evidence of ED's shady behavior and my calculation will change. In my experience, past behavior is a pretty good indicator for future behavior, unless someone suffered a drastic consequence for their shortcomings, or less often a general life-altering event. 

Quote

PS. NineLine's statement is actually quite weird, since on the one hand they claim that their legal contract(s) have been violated, but also that they don't entertain legal claims. 

There's nothing weird about the language. It basically means "they screwed around and found out, but we'd rather settle out of court and have them go back to business rather than sue them". A lawsuit is a last resort, and tends to be hugely expensive for everyone involved. There's a reason the vast majority of them are settled out of court. In fact, it's very likely a full blown lawsuit would drive a small company like RAZBAM into the ground regardless of the outcome. What he's saying here is that ED is not interested in driving RAZBAM out of business, but would rather have them continue to develop their modules. Which is a sensible business strategy.

On 7/13/2025 at 6:57 PM, Aapje said:

So your 'facts' are that you believe vague statements by the employee of one party in the conflict with no actual proof being supplied, rather than the vague statements by the other party in the conflict (or accept that both may be wrong)...

Only one of the parties is posting obviously manipulative statements that appear to be designed to inflict pressure on the other party. Only one of them is using paying customers as hostages. Meanwhile, you appear to be engaging in naive bothsideism. ED might have their problems, but again, vague hearsay about them breaking contract doesn't quite equate to Ron's well documented history of hotheaded decisions and blaming everyone but himself.

Edited July 14 by Dragon1-1

[NineLine]

On 7/13/2025 at 9:57 AM, Aapje said:

PS. NineLine's statement is actually quite weird,

Just to be clear, I have made no statements, and anything I share is from ED management. I am sure you are aware, but for lurkers and such. 

[Aapje]

6 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Give me evidence of ED's shady behavior and my calculation will change.

This entire post, as well as your previous ones, tells me that this is almost certainly not the case, since at every turn you give one side the maximum benefit of the doubt and the other side the minimum. No amount of evidence is going to convince a person that will look for any reason to distrust evidence that points one way, and every reason to trust evidence that points the other way.

Anyway, obviously I'm not going to post evidence here, since it is offtopic to the Razbam situation and would likely result in moderator intervention. But it's not that hard to find, and someone might even message you the evidence.

6 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Only one of the parties is posting obviously manipulative statements that appear to be designed to inflict pressure on the other party. Only one of them is using paying customers as hostages.

So let me get this straight. You believe that Razbam agreed to make a plane for a third party in breach of contract, and that they are deceptive for leaving that out of their statement. But when ED left that same information out of their statement, you don't believe that it was deceptive. It's only deceptive when Razbam does it...why?

And is it really 'naive bothsideism' when I recognize that Razbam tries to frame the issue in their favor by telling a half-truth, but ED is doing the exact same by leaving out their non-payment, which is not a framing that is to their benefit, even though it pretty clearly seems to be true and a highly relevant part of the conflict?

And you believe that Razbam is using paying customers as hostages for refusing to yield to ED's demands, which to be clear, are secret, so we have no way to judge how reasonable those are, but when ED refuses to yield to Razbam's demands, which are also secret, they are not using customers as hostages.

To me, this is all obvious tunnel vision and bias, where your bias just reinforces itself. You only consider the statements by Razbam to be 'obviously manipulative,' but not the statements by ED, because of this bias, but instead of treating it as results of your bias, you let the bias deceive you into thinking that your biased conclusions are objective, and a good basis for your bias.

So you may think that your bias is based on evidence, but I see bias based on bias.

Edited July 15 by Aapje

[Hammer1-1]

11 minutes ago, Aapje said:

So let me get this straight. You believe that Razbam agreed to make a plane for a third party in breach of contract, and that they are deceptive for leaving that out of their statement. But when ED left that same information out of their statement, you don't believe that it was deceptive. It's only deceptive when Razbam does it...why?

 

The fact ED left this tidbit out is because its supposed to be for The Battle Simulator, not DCS World: two separate products with more strict contracts and higher standards -and therefore higher costs. Has nothing to do with us, therefore not for you to know or understand. They've made that abundantly clear, so what else would like debunked to destroy whatever narrative you're trying to feed?

[Aapje]

13 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

The fact ED left this tidbit out is because its supposed to be for The Battle Simulator, not DCS World: two separate products with more strict contracts and higher standards -and therefore higher costs. Has nothing to do with us, therefore not for you to know or understand. They've made that abundantly clear, so what else would like debunked to destroy whatever narrative you're trying to feed?

This does not at all address my point that this very same logic would then apply to Razbam, if one is judging with a level of inconsistency. If it is not manipulative for ED to leave it out, then why is it deceptive for Razbam to leave it out?

In fact, if we follow your logic, then we should conclude that there is nothing deceptive about Razbam's statement, because if the two products are truly entirely separate, then there would be no legitimate reason for ED to withhold payment for DCS sales, over a conflict over TBS. After all, they have nothing to do with each other, according to you.

So then ED should have simply paid out the required funds for the DCS module sales, and then should have handled their grievances over the alleged TBS issue separately. And Razbam would then be completely legitimized in complaining about not getting paid for the DCS module sales, without having to reference the alleged TBS issue, because the products are completely separate (at least, according to you).

So your argument falls apart with the barest of scrutiny and you are actually legitimizing the statement by Razbam, ironically enough.

It's pretty funny that you just now actually swayed me to consider Razbam's statement to less obviously deceptive than I thought previously, since you have convinced me that Ron could have acted based on your logic.

Quote

whatever narrative you're trying to feed

I like how you are trying to frame it as something nefarious, when I merely point out all the bias and absurd logic being used.

Note that I'm not the one who is attributing sole blame on one side based on speculation and bias (which regularly is even admitted to, at least in part).

[freehand]

Aapje you have evidence of ED being shady ? 

[Hammer1-1]

35 minutes ago, Aapje said:

This does not at all address my point that this very same logic would then apply to Razbam, if one is judging with a level of inconsistency. If it is not manipulative for ED to leave it out, then why is it deceptive for Razbam to leave it out?

 

....dude, believe what you wish. ED isnt required to discuss legal matters with us, nor should they. Its public knowledge Razbam was making the Tucano for the Equadorian AF, and its public knowledge that any entity that represents a government interested in training their pilots should look towards TBS and not DCS. Because its TBS, ED wants to keep this topic to DCS for everyone to not even reference this because its OT. Its kind of obvious at this point you dont care about the truth, so I will just remind everyone that there is - in fact - a such thing as a dumb question. Let it go, please? 

[draconus]

4 hours ago, Hammer1-1 said:

Its public knowledge Razbam was making the Tucano for the Equadorian AF

Link? Was it for DCS or other sim?

[Dragon1-1]

9 hours ago, Aapje said:

This entire post, as well as your previous ones, tells me that this is almost certainly not the case, since at every turn you give one side the maximum benefit of the doubt and the other side the minimum. No amount of evidence is going to convince a person that will look for any reason to distrust evidence that points one way, and every reason to trust evidence that points the other way.

There's a reason I gave ED more of a benefit of doubt that I gave Ron. I stated it. Reading comprehension 101. I'll change my opinion if you ever offer more than wild handwaving and wishful thinking. If you want to change reality by wishing very hard it was different, go to church and start praying, instead of posting here. Chances of success are similar, but the priest won't be telling you it won't work.

9 hours ago, Aapje said:

And is it really 'naive bothsideism' when I recognize that Razbam tries to frame the issue in their favor by telling a half-truth, but ED is doing the exact same by leaving out their non-payment, which is not a framing that is to their benefit, even though it pretty clearly seems to be true and a highly relevant part of the conflict?

Yes, it is. Non-payment is a normal and expected response to a breach of contract. Or do you want me to believe that Ron went "they're not paying us on time? Fine, we'll spend more money making a module for another of their products, for which EAF will pay us directly. That'll show them". It just doesn't work that way. I'll admit it's not impossible, given the quality of Ron's previous decision making, but it's still highly unlikely.

And even ED's payment issues did come first, notice how HB seemed to have been able to resolve that without all the drama we're seeing now (or making an unauthorized module for the military version of the sim). What seems more likely to me, again based on Ron's previous conduct, that he expected to draw an equivalence between those two situations, only for HB to call BS and refuse to back him. What you are doing is making the very equivalence tried very hard to get other people to make: ED doesn't have a perfectly clean record, so obviously it's their fault again. What he overlooked, and you willingly ignore, is that this situation is a little different and one party has a little bit more documented screwups. So to speak.

The offer on the bridge is still good, BTW. Very good condition, hardly ever used. I'll even throw in the original vintage railings.

[Aapje]

17 hours ago, draconus said:

Link? Was it for DCS or other sim?

See the allegedly leaked letter of demand: https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fx3i7zy89lsvd1.png%3Fwidth%3D611%26format%3Dpng%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D5405272c7de37460511f8b7a6e63c5b211c3c1e7

So it's for MCS, which is also called TBS here on the forum.

And Ron appears to have posted some images of the plane on LinkedIn:

 

22 hours ago, Hammer1-1 said:

Its kind of obvious at this point you dont care about the truth, so I will just remind everyone that there is - in fact - a such thing as a dumb question. Let it go, please? 

Says the person making personal attacks with no supporting evidence to back that up.

Edited July 15 by Aapje

[ChuckJäger]

Is there a world where this gets resolved and both parties continue working together?  I seriously am worried that any module supplier at this stage could pull out effectively putting a shelf life on their products.

To be constructive, the first module I ever purchased for DCS was the AV-8B Harrier while I was waiting for the F/A-18C.  I really love that and the F-15E - I do not know if I'd be interested in using this product if those modules went away or were rendered obsolete with future updates unless there was a solid plan to replace them. 

All that is to say, if ED and RB cannot pave a path forward - I would hope, at the very least, that ED would have a plan to replace these very relevant modules in the sandbox in short order.  

I do hope for a positive outcome here - but as the days/months/years drag by, that feels more and more distant a possibility.

[Aapje]

1 hour ago, ChuckJäger said:

Is there a world where this gets resolved and both parties continue working together?

That seems very unlikely given how these parties seem unable to resolve this in a private and expedient manner, both because this breakdown in cooperation provides a poor basis for working together, but also because the business case for cooperation has been damaged a lot, with many people going to be reluctant to buy future Razbam DCS modules.

[Horns]

1 hour ago, ChuckJäger said:

Is there a world where this gets resolved and both parties continue working together?  I seriously am worried that any module supplier at this stage could pull out effectively putting a shelf life on their products.

To be constructive, the first module I ever purchased for DCS was the AV-8B Harrier while I was waiting for the F/A-18C.  I really love that and the F-15E - I do not know if I'd be interested in using this product if those modules went away or were rendered obsolete with future updates unless there was a solid plan to replace them. 

All that is to say, if ED and RB cannot pave a path forward - I would hope, at the very least, that ED would have a plan to replace these very relevant modules in the sandbox in short order.  

I do hope for a positive outcome here - but as the days/months/years drag by, that feels more and more distant a possibility.

Hopefully one of the mods will correct anything I get wrong here...

I expect ED will tell you that they still seek a resumption of the relationship with Razbam as it was before, so there is still some hope. If that doesn't happen it is currently unclear what the status of Razbam's modules will be.

Your interest in DCS appears to be using it as an environment for the AV-8B and the mudhen, if that's the case and you're not a multiplayer user the worst-case scenario may not look so bleak. If Razbam did leave DCS and their modules ceased to be maintained, I believe ED plan to make available the final DCS build that those modules are compatible with. You can continue to use those modules with that build of DCS as long as you like; the modules will only cease to be usable if/when you update to the newest version of DCS.

Hope that helps to some extent.

[nilpointer]

I thoroughly enjoy DCS and I realize that by even replying to this thread (that I very occasionally check in on) that I too am making myself part of the problem. But honestly it needs to be said... are people serious? The level of armchair legal eagle action here is pure comedy. I assume most of you also have pretty busy lives and finite amounts of time to spend on things you enjoy? Is this thread really worth some of the energy expended on it?

Imagine repurposing that energy to actually do some of those enjoyable things... like even, say, DCS.... or touching some grass FFS.

Honestly, mind blowing.

[nilpointer]

1 minute ago, Aapje said:

Not sure why you consider yourself qualified to decide for others how they should spend their time.

And your comment is the most comedic (and lacking any form of self-awareness), since you do yourself what you criticize others for. And it seems to be an attempt to derail the thread from the topic, so it is trolling as well.

[Hammer1-1]

23 hours ago, Aapje said:

See the allegedly leaked letter of demand: https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fx3i7zy89lsvd1.png%3Fwidth%3D611%26format%3Dpng%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D5405272c7de37460511f8b7a6e63c5b211c3c1e7

So it's for MCS, which is also called TBS here on the forum.

And Ron appears to have posted some images of the plane on LinkedIn:

 

Says the person making personal attacks with no supporting evidence to back that up.

Dont let the fact that google can answer those questions for you. Find it ironic as well since you posted a tad bit of my supporting evidence, but ok. Gee, I wonder where they get their Super Tucano information from.... 

Edited July 16 by Hammer1-1

[SkateZilla]

This week on JetsOfLove: DCS....