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

[Beirut]

7 hours ago, lee1hy said:

How to hide "RAZABAM" whole section in DCS forum? 
 

 

Pretend it's not there and don't look at it. 

[unclesneep]

I bought the mirage2000 not realizing it was a razbam module.

The cold start tutorial is broken

The included campaign is broken starting with the first mission.  

I understand that there's a spat going on.. but they should at least support the base missions and campaigns that ship with the module.

[MAXsenna]

I bought the mirage2000 not realizing it was a razbam module.
The cold start tutorial is broken
The included campaign is broken starting with the first mission.  
I understand that there's a spat going on.. but they should at least support the base missions and campaigns that ship with the module.

The training missions were broken way before the spat was a thing. Like at least two-three years ago. Both the campaign and campaign missions are free and not encrypted, so are easily opened in the Mission Editor. It's actually kinda strange no user have taken a look and fixed them. Look at the converted fee campaigns for helicopters that have been converted from other modules to the new helicopters. I'm no ME wizard, and wouldn't know even where to start unfortunately.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[nessuno0505]

There is not a single DCS module that does not have a significant number of bugs, even gross ones: just go into detail a little deeper than a startup routine and a takeoff and landing circuit for them to jump out at you. The one and only difference is that for non-Razbam modules you can continue to cultivate the hope that sooner or later they will be fixed.

Edited October 20, 2024 by nessuno0505

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

3 hours ago, unclesneep said:

I bought the mirage2000 not realizing it was a razbam module.

The cold start tutorial is broken

The included campaign is broken starting with the first mission.  

I understand that there's a spat going on.. but they should at least support the base missions and campaigns that ship with the module.

A few remarks:
- Yes the training missions have been broken for years now. This doesn't have anything to do with the current disagreement, but is because the training missions and the included campaign are made/maintained by a single person who simply put has too much weight on his shoulders.
It's not the fault of that one person, but of whomever decided it was a good idea to put that responsibility solely in the basket of one person, without a contingency plan.
- I fully agree that the bare minimum of support any module should get is to make sure the training missions/tutorials are 100% in working order. "Onboarding" matters and "quit moments" are a very real thing. I understand this is a very dynamic process for an Early Access module since things can and do change, but I myself have requested before that both ED and 3rd parties check their own modules at least once or twice per year to make sure the training missions still work as they should to help not only those who recently purchased said module, but also those who decide to revisit it after a (long) break.

[MAXsenna]

4 minutes ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

I understand this is a very dynamic process for an Early Access module since things can and do change, but I myself have requested before that both ED and 3rd parties check their own modules at least once or twice per year to make sure the training missions still work as they should

I agree with everything. I just want to emphasise, that should a module receive updates/changes to features that impacts the training missions. Then the training missions should been have updated in the same update. The training missions are completely useless if this isn't done. In real life this have had regrettable impact on aviation security. (Yes, I have seen every Aircrash Investigation/Mayday episode ). 

[NineLine]

5 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

 

 

The training missions were broken way before the spat was a thing. Like at least two-three years ago. Both the campaign and campaign missions are free and not encrypted, so are easily opened in the Mission Editor. It's actually kinda strange no user have taken a look and fixed them. Look at the converted fee campaigns for helicopters that have been converted from other modules to the new helicopters. I'm no ME wizard, and wouldn't know even where to start unfortunately.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk
 

 

We can fix missions, but we most likely will not fix anything that is short of game-breaking until things are settled one way or another.

19 hours ago, exhausted said:

I know I am supposed to give my unwaivering support to ED in this thread

Nowhere did we say that, and your post is still there. Weird. 

On 10/19/2024 at 5:32 AM, Horns said:

I disagree.

The 'updates' you mention for older modules are generally just compatibility fixes. ED have stated they will maintain compatibility for the Razbam modules from the DCS side, since they wouldn't be maintained from the dev side if RB fold or leave.

A feature complete module has indeed finished its development, because there is no further obligation to expand the scope of the module. A dev always has the option of adding to a module, that doesn't mean it isn't finished before that happens. Think of it like a movie, the original theatre cut is complete when it is at the release stage, it is not 'incomplete' or unfinished because of the possibility a Director's Cut will come out.

Overhauls are particularly a can of worms when we talk about Razbam, but as you didn't go into them I won't either.

 

This is correct, all we can hope for is to maintain the current functionality no more no less. That said the modules our of EA are great in their current state, and while its easy to say they could be better, I can also safely say they are great as they are. 

[Horns]

4 hours ago, unclesneep said:

I bought the mirage2000 not realizing it was a razbam module.

The cold start tutorial is broken

The included campaign is broken starting with the first mission.  

I understand that there's a spat going on.. but they should at least support the base missions and campaigns that ship with the module.

Since you got to looking at the campaign I guess you may have got past the tutorial issue. If not and you are a French speaker, the DCS Downloads page seems to have a couple of cold start tutorials available. Otherwise, all I can suggest is YouTube.

[Mizzy]

On 10/18/2024 at 5:00 PM, NineLine said:

It's in the first post from an official announcement. Please don't start on the conspiracies again. 

As if he is going to listen 

Anyway, has Zambrano given an update he promised yet, or is it still in waiting as 'soon' ! I may have missed it, been playing DCS with my Son.

Mizzy

[NineLine]

3 hours ago, Mizzy said:

As if he is going to listen 

Anyway, has Zambrano given an update he promised yet, or is it still in waiting as 'soon' ! I may have missed it, been playing DCS with my Son.

Mizzy

I haven't seen any new updates. What does your son prefer to fly in DCS?

[Nightdare]

On 10/20/2024 at 12:04 AM, exhausted said:

I know I am supposed to give my unwaivering support to ED in this thread

 

No, you should be critical customer

ED is still responsible for any disputes which cost the customer money, since they approve and make available the 'products' other developers come up with, products which are only applicable on their program

Sure, maybe the only means of reminding ED of this responsibility is your wallet, but you have a means to remind them

 

But that is from an objective point of view, and you're not really objective

On 10/20/2024 at 12:04 AM, exhausted said:

it can be said that ED's equal resistance to outright solving the deficits is preventing or prolonging the fixes to the modules listed above.

 

It can be said, but what you are actual hinting at, is that ED should overlook this infringement to give you what you want

 

ED simply cannot allow misuse of their IP, (No company can...I sincerely wonder why people have such a hard time accepting this)

 

Look, unless ED loves courting the courts (no company does, except law firms), you can be sure they tried to amiably tried to resolve the situation prior to forcing the matter

Because no judge is gonna let you stop paying somebody money owed without a damned good reason

If Razbam indeed infringed upon IP, ED has no options than to follow the matter through, yes this has repercussions beyond the dispute between 'just' the parties, such is life/business

Deal with it!

 

On 10/20/2024 at 12:04 AM, exhausted said:

There is another word for this outlook: objectivity.

 

No, if you were objective, you would accept the premise that IP misuse is a no go and build your views from that

ED bloody wel SHOULD have resistance to this type of BS, you are basically telling them they need to keep paying the 'employee' that is 'robbing' them (and risk losing all their property), just to keep you happy?

....As if you would 'objectively' accept that if you were in such a situation? ...No, you would have to admit that at a certain point, you'd have to take action

 

Now, if you can show us info that RB did nothing of the sort ED is accusing them of, fine, we've just opened up a different avenue of discussion

But as it stands: ED, has an official statement of the situation and what action they took, RB is just creating drama, therefore, IMO, any resistance in prolonging your 'misfortune' is in RB's hands

[exhausted]

16 minutes ago, Nightdare said:

 

No, you should be critical customer

ED is still responsible for any disputes which cost the customer money, since they approve and make available the 'products' other developers come up with, products which are only applicable on their program

Sure, maybe the only means of reminding ED of this responsibility is your wallet, but you have a means to remind them

 

But that is from an objective point of view, and you're not really objective

 

It can be said, but what you are actual hinting at, is that ED should overlook this infringement to give you what you want

 

ED simply cannot allow misuse of their IP, (No company can...I sincerely wonder why people have such a hard time accepting this)

 

Look, unless ED loves courting the courts (no company does, except law firms), you can be sure they tried to amiably tried to resolve the situation prior to forcing the matter

Because no judge is gonna let you stop paying somebody money owed without a damned good reason

If Razbam indeed infringed upon IP, ED has no options than to follow the matter through, yes this has repercussions beyond the dispute between 'just' the parties, such is life/business

Deal with it!

 

 

No, if you were objective, you would accept the premise that IP misuse is a no go and build your views from that

ED bloody wel SHOULD have resistance to this type of BS, you are basically telling them they need to keep paying the 'employee' that is 'robbing' them (and risk losing all their property), just to keep you happy?

....As if you would 'objectively' accept that if you were in such a situation? ...No, you would have to admit that at a certain point, you'd have to take action

 

Now, if you can show us info that RB did nothing of the sort ED is accusing them of, fine, we've just opened up a different avenue of discussion

But as it stands: ED, has an official statement of the situation and what action they took, RB is just creating drama, therefore, IMO, any resistance in prolonging your 'misfortune' is in RB's hands

None of this is how objectivity works. There are distinct issues being claimed by each side. And, the idea that settling one supposed breach of contract with a different breach of contract rather than pursuing the remedies laid out in law puts any claim of your own objectivity to rest. To be perfectly clear, I am voicing my concerns with my posts and with my wallet; I haven't bought anything new in months, despite sale after sale. Turning this into a legal matter and paying lawyers assured both sides will end up worse; a victory from ED would likely squeeze Razbam for more than they can give; a victory from Razbam would likely spoil the relationship with other Third Parties. Not everyone is going to blindly believe assurances and claims, without anything to back it up. The only thing that would help has no chance of appearing: transparency. 

[Oban]

And in the real world, If I as an engineering company gave a subcontractor access to my patented engineering software under agreed terms and conditions , and that company then went on and used said software to enter into a negotiation/contract with another party, that they would have profited out of, without my permission to use said software outside of agreed terms and conditions, and without my knowleledge, I would be pissed, I would be pissed beyond belief, and I would exercise every aspect available to me to nip this in the bud, in the hope the subcontractor realised they were a bit naughty, aplogised for their "error in judgement

Now imagine that the subcontractor company basically said "frak you" , we're doing this anyway and be damned.

I'd go thermonuclear on them. period, and so would any other business when their "Intelectual Property" was being used and abused.

So who do you blame for that initial abuse? Do you blame the guys drilling holes and popping rivets, or the delivery drivers who would more than likely be oblivious to what's going on, or whats happened, or do you blame the CEO/CBO or other coprorate members who negotiated the outside deal?

 

[exhausted]

Your remedies for breach are in law and in the contract. You are free to defend any such deviation from law and agreement by paying lawyers to mediate it for you. This is virtually guaranteed to be the worst way to settle the conflict, but going "thermonuclear" is your choice. The only thing is, you will need a lot of luck to get people to follow you into such a mistake. It's no secret I am not on the cheer squad for this. 

[LordOrion]

13 hours ago, NineLine said:

I haven't seen any new updates. What does your son prefer to fly in DCS?

Mine (6 yo) like to fly F-5 and Mb-339 over Marianas.

The problem is that he likes a lot fly "kamikaze-style" crashing the plane on the ground by purpose

I still hope to have him flying as my wingman one day but the training process will be really hard

Edited October 21, 2024 by LordOrion

[MAXsenna]

Mine (6 yo) like to fly F-5 and Mb-339 over Marianas.
The problem is that he likes a lot fly "kamikaze-style" crashing the plane on the ground by purpose
I still hope to have him flying as my wingman one day but the training process will be really hard

Teach him to shave the trees, and you'll be all good.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

4 hours ago, LordOrion said:

The problem is that he likes a lot fly "kamikaze-style" crashing the plane on the ground by purpose

When my nephews want to try out DCS, I just tell them that if they crash the aircraft, my computer breaks for real. The hot-rod of the two (he's really just overcompensating for his very fragile heart of gold) is too afraid to try, while the other is too nice to do anything like that  

[Mizzy]

18 hours ago, NineLine said:

What does your son prefer to fly in DCS?

Hi, he's just started in DCS so it was my FC3 module and the F-5 which is a good start for beginners. He (Findlay) is 19 and works in software engineering and development (sponsored pre University) so he was kind of more interested in what code is used in DCS and faffing around in Lua. He likes blowing things up so he doesn't get that from me, I won't be able to help him in that endeavour. Which brings me to a question: when I retire form playing, does he have to re purchase all my modules or can he inherit them?

Mizzy

[Mizzy]

14 hours ago, Oban said:

And in the real world, If I as an engineering company gave a subcontractor access to my patented engineering software under agreed terms and conditions , and that company then went on and used said software to enter into a negotiation/contract with another party, that they would have profited out of, without my permission to use said software outside of agreed terms and conditions, and without my knowledge, I would be pissed, I would be pissed beyond belief, and I would exercise every aspect available to me to nip this in the bud, in the hope the subcontractor realised they were a bit naughty, apologised for their "error in judgement.


 

Perfect explanation and how I understand the situation rather than 'they haven't paid us' crud. Certain people who just piss and moan and don't get this must have a different agenda and why they have this agenda is a moot point, I would love to know their real motivations because the posts they put out don't make logical sense, just word salad.

Great post Oban.

Mizzy

6 hours ago, LordOrion said:

Mine (6 yo) like to fly F-5 and Mb-339 over Marianas.

The problem is that he likes a lot fly "kamikaze-style" crashing the plane on the ground by purpose

I still hope to have him flying as my wingman one day but the training process will be really hard

 

Love it 

[Mad Dog 762]

I have no idea who is in the wrong or right in this dust up.  What I do know, is it has taken away a lot of my enthusiasm for DCS.  I have always bought every module, even if it was one I wasn't crazy about, to support the program.  I love the Helo's.  But I have not bought the Kiowa, or the Hook, and I don't have any interest in any more maps or other stuff at this point.  I was very excited about the Strike Eagle, and now.....why bother?  

23 hours ago, NineLine said:

This is correct, all we can hope for is to maintain the current functionality no more no less.

So what it is, is what it is, and we can never expect any updates or improvements?  No point in spending time or money on it.  

[draconus]

1 hour ago, Mad Dog 762 said:

I was very excited about the Strike Eagle...

No point in spending time or money on it.  

I guess you never liked it in the first place because I now fly it like there's no tomorrow.

Edited October 21, 2024 by draconus

[NineLine]

9 hours ago, LordOrion said:

Mine (6 yo) like to fly F-5 and Mb-339 over Marianas.

The problem is that he likes a lot fly "kamikaze-style" crashing the plane on the ground by purpose

I still hope to have him flying as my wingman one day but the training process will be really hard

 

Kids do like crashing in DCS

3 hours ago, Mizzy said:

Hi, he's just started in DCS so it was my FC3 module and the F-5 which is a good start for beginners. He (Findlay) is 19 and works in software engineering and development (sponsored pre University) so he was kind of more interested in what code is used in DCS and faffing around in Lua. He likes blowing things up so he doesn't get that from me, I won't be able to help him in that endeavour. Which brings me to a question: when I retire form playing, does he have to re purchase all my modules or can he inherit them?

Mizzy

You control your account access. We cant help if you are irresponsible and accidentally gave him the login and password

2 hours ago, Mad Dog 762 said:

So what it is, is what it is, and we can never expect any updates or improvements?  No point in spending time or money on it.  

I was talking about the ones that are out of Early Access (aside from the map which will continue with that map team as it has). So they are not a waste of money AT ALL. The Harrier is still one of my favourite 3rd Party modules, and well one of my favourite aircraft. 

[JuiceIsLoose]

Can we at least get clarification that this IP issue is based on Eagle Dynamics SA IP? And not the military side of ED, EDMS? Because, as it has been pointed out a few times EDSA and EDMS are completely separate companies. Because if this had anything to do with ED Mission Systems I don't see how that would impact a contract with Eagle Dynamics SA who makes DCS.

[Nightdare]

18 hours ago, exhausted said:

None of this is how objectivity works. There are distinct issues being claimed by each side. And, the idea that settling one supposed breach of contract with a different breach of contract rather than pursuing the remedies laid out in law puts any claim of your own objectivity to rest.

 

There are no distinct issues, there is an action and a reaction over the same issue

1 allegedly breached contract, the other is forcing the offending party to still honor the contract (this is probably why the F-15 is still offered for sale)

To hold someone to their contract by legal means is not a breach of contract, the law will even support you on that!

 

Show me where a company cannot put sanctions on the offending party when they breach their contract!

Here the thing, even I *as an employee* can be suspended without pay, depending on what dispute arose, fraud for instance

 

18 hours ago, exhausted said:

Not everyone is going to blindly believe assurances and claims, without anything to back it up.

 

..then that's on them, they are not parties in this dispute, for all intents and purposes, they can still buy the early acces F-15, the other modules are still  playable

Funny how you are complaining ED reacted to a situation, while you yourself acted before a probable situation, so it's Ok for you to protect your wallet, but not for ED to protect theirs (and in the bigger picture: your licensed modules)

 

18 hours ago, exhausted said:

The only thing that would help has no chance of appearing: transparency. 

 

No, the only thing that would help is this dispute being settled, you don't need transparency for that

you don't even want that, you just want assurances you get to keep your toys regardless the outcome

 

17 hours ago, exhausted said:

Your remedies for breach are in law and in the contract.

 

First off, doesn't need to be stated in the contract, just "Sanctions may be applied (Up to -but not limited to, legal proceedings)" would cover it

And just an FYI, since ED is not in court for refusing to pay RB for over a year, I'm guessing their lawyers know more about this than you

 

17 hours ago, exhausted said:

 

You are free to defend any such deviation from law and agreement by paying lawyers to mediate it for you. This is virtually guaranteed to be the worst way to settle the conflict, but going "thermonuclear" is your choice. The only thing is, you will need a lot of luck to get people to follow you into such a mistake. It's no secret I am not on the cheer squad for this. 

 

Where did ED go "Thermo Nuclear"?

First off: They didn't post big on their own medium what RB did to them (sound familiar?)

Secondly: Are you privy to how long arguments lasted before ED actually placed sanctions on RB?

Thirdly: Not paying a contractor that abuses your IP is far from going "Thermonuclear" and actually a quite common and acceptable occurrence, as is RB still exists and happily promoting its business

Edited October 21, 2024 by Nightdare

[Nightdare]

3 minutes ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

EDSA and EDMS are completely separate companies

 

Owned and led by the same person (the software used is probably the same for both and owned separately and licensed by Nick grey to EDSA and EDMS), both companies could be negatively affected by the infringement

I do not know if RB does business with both of them