waiting for resolution ED/RAZBAM Situation Info & Discussion

[deadghostjt]

1 hour ago, AndyJWest said:

Frankly, if I was doing business with a subcontractor who looked for 'loopholes' in a contract between us in order to use my proprietary IP (my only major asset, and the core of my business) for purposes other than those it was provided for, I'd seek to terminate the relationship at the earliest opportunity. 

But "you" left those loopholes there in the first place. So it's your own fault if the court is not on your side. If you wanted a part of the deal you now can't have that either. You lose all the modules, because of your big ego and you get your customers mad. Well played. Court may give you IP win if you fight it, but if your ego thinks you can't work with these people anymore you still lose the modules and make customers mad. Well played again.

[AndyJWest]

8 minutes ago, deadghostjt said:

But "you" left those loopholes there in the first place. So it's your own fault if the court is not on your side. If you wanted a part of the deal you now can't have that either. You lose all the modules, because of your big ego and you get your customers mad. Well played. Court may give you IP win if you fight it, but if your ego thinks you can't work with these people anymore you still lose the modules and make customers mad. Well played again.

Sorry, I'm not interested in playing Fantasy Court. Nobody has produced the slightest evidence that this supposed 'loophole' exists. And frankly, I can't see how claiming that it does, or that Razbam had been exploiting it if it did, would make them look any better.

If this comes to a court case, there's a slim chance we might get conformation one way or another, but as of now, all of this waffle about loopholes looks like nothing more than wishful thinking. 

As for losing modules, nobody wants that, but inventing excuses for Razbam while trying to shift all the blame onto ED does absolutely nothing to make an agreed settlement more likely. Razbam know what this dispute is actually about. So does ED. They are the ones that are going to have to sort this mess out. If they can.

 

[Mike Force Team]

When the ordeal is officially resolved, ED is likely to give us an official response. 

[MAXsenna]

When the ordeal is officially resolved, ED is likely to give us an official response. 

I don't think so. And why would they? What would it solve?

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Mike Force Team]

It would give closure and resolution. 

[AndyJWest]

Just now, Mike Force Team said:

When the ordeal is officially resolved, ED is likely to give us an official response. 

I'm sure they would say something. It is unlikely to go into any detail regarding such questions as to whether 'loopholes' had anything to do with it. Disputes like this frequently end with nothing more than a statement that 'a settlement has been agreed'. This one would presumably be followed by some sort of statement regarding the future of the modules. Expecting more is unrealistic: ED would have nothing to gain from saying more.

[MAXsenna]

It would give closure and resolution. 

For some, while probably open up a whole other can of worms for others. We would never see the end of it.

Edit: What Andy wrote.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Nightdare]

3 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

I don't think so. And why would they? What would it solve?

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk
 

 

Indeed, I think the paying customers would rather see how ED is going to actually prevent repeat situations like this again

Because apparently, they have not done their due diligence they had prior trouble with a 3rd party developer

[MAXsenna]

 
Indeed, I think the paying customers would rather see how ED is going to actually prevent repeat situations like this again
Because apparently, they have not done their due diligence they had prior trouble with a 3rd party developer

Exactly! This is the only additional response we need, apart from it being resolved or going south!

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[deadghostjt]

3 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

Sorry, I'm not interested in playing Fantasy Court. Nobody has produced the slightest evidence that this supposed 'loophole' exists. And frankly, I can't see how claiming that it does, or that Razbam had been exploiting it if it did, would make them look any better.

If this comes to a court case, there's a slim chance we might get conformation one way or another, but as of now, all of this waffle about loopholes looks like nothing more than wishful thinking. 

As for losing modules, nobody wants that, but inventing excuses for Razbam while trying to shift all the blame onto ED does absolutely nothing to make an agreed settlement more likely. Razbam know what this dispute is actually about. So does ED. They are the ones that are going to have to sort this mess out. If they can.

 

I just said what happens in both cases if there are loopholes or court decides in your favour. In both of these cases you lose the modules if your high horse ego can't make deals with these people anymore even if they are the bad guys. Customers are still mad. Being morally right doesn't give you anymore wins you can actually deliver with your actual leverage. You could still make the best outcome of the bad situation if you play your cards right or morally win and have nothing. Moral wins don't actually count as wins usually. Many such cases.

[Silver_Dragon]

On 4/29/2025 at 9:15 PM, TobiasDeVil said:

Well why not? How far from the truth is his report?

No, the intention is to link a professional license to build profesional products, which existed since the Ka-50/A-10 era (about 18 years ago), with a very recent dispute between ED and a third party, simply to add fuel to the fire, on a matter that is simply an opinion... not an act of faith.

[Silver_Dragon]

On 4/30/2025 at 1:09 PM, Father Cool said:

I look at Spudknockers video slightly differently to you. The video is a little disingenuous I feel, crafted to make Razbam's part in this to seem ridiculous. However as a business they are not going to throw money away and they are not going to refuse to sign a contract unless they feel that the terms of that contract is unfair.

This is of course speculation on my part as I know as much as anyone else but from what Spud was saying it seems that EDGE is owned by ED and is used by governments for flight sims in TBS. That engine is also used in DCS of course. Also from the video Spud states that there is nothing wrong with Razbam developing an aircraft for governments to use in TBS, it is not classed as going behind anyone's back in that regard. Razbam have a contract with the FAE and that's nothing to do with ED, and this is where it gets muddy. 

If it was simply a case of signing a new contract with ED to allow the rights for a module that they were doing for DCS to also be used in TBS then I am sure Razbam would sign it post haste. Why would you not? However it seems obvious here that ED are wanting some monetary cut from the deal with between RB and FAE and that's where the dispute seems to lie. Again purely speculation but my feeling on this will be that RB has done a deal with FAE for the development of the A-39 and FAE separately pays ED for the use of TBS as software. The A-39 must use EDGE because TBS uses EDGE and that's what the FAE are paying for.

It seems to me that the dynamic here should be that ED makes money from the use of EDGE and TBS and RB makes its money from the contract for the development of the A-39 to use on EDGE and subsequently TBS. 

For Razbam not to sign the contract there absolutely has to be something in that ED contract that states a certain percentage of the deal between RB and FAE is paid to ED as well. If that's the case I think that RB have a point. It is akin to Bill gates demanding a cut from every program ever developed to run on windows. Doesn't happen. The product that ED is selling there is the use of EDGE and TBS by the governments (a substantial payment I should imagine) not subsequent software developed to run on it by third parties.

Whilst I am not against ED asking for a small fee (although again the FAE is clearly locked into a contract with ED and the use of TBS I am sure), I suspect that the contract is in RB's eyes asking for too much.

Originally I was unaware that the military level simulator was also an ED product so the accusation of RB using IP made me think that RB were using ED's code to make their own simulator, however that is clearly not the case so for me the dynamics have changed massively.

It's ok to say you're flabbergasted that RB wont sign the contract but unless you know what the contract asks for then you can't comment really on what you would do.   

Someone seems to be deliberately forgetting that the DCS W already has a EULA that limits what you can and can't do with DCS World. One of the first points is that DCS W can't be used for any professional or commercial product. Both the SDK/TDK and others will have these clauses, and possibly more restrictive ones.
https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/es/support/license/

It wouldn't be surprising if TBS, or whatever the professional version is now called, were even more restrictive... especially when ED has been using it for almost 20 years, and judging by old videos by Simon and others, has many professional contracts with very specific clauses...
 

Quote

In consideration of you agreeing to abide by the terms of this Licence, Eagle Dynamics SA hereby grants to you a non-transferable, limited right and licence to install the Program and the Documentation solely and exclusively for your personal use on the terms of this Licence. All rights not specifically granted under this Licence are reserved by Eagle Dynamics SA and, as applicable, Eagle Dynamics's licensors. GOVERNMENT AND COMMERCIAL ENTITIES MAY NOT USE THIS SOFTWARE UNDER THIS EULA. Government and commercial entities wishing to use this software in conjunction with training or demonstrator applications must obtain a license directly from Eagle Dynamics SA under a separate pricing structure and terms of use.

 

[Mike Force Team]

When ED says something like "dispute resolved" or something else, we have closure and resolution. I agree that we would see more comments for a short period of time. Eventually, the interest might decline after a short period of time. In the end, this forum topic might be locked and archived.

[MAXsenna]

When ED says something like "dispute resolved" or something else, we have closure and resolution. I agree that we would see more comments for a short period of time. Eventually, the interest might decline after a short period of time. In the end, this forum topic might be locked and archived.

Apologies then Mike. Of course they will give us that response. I assumed you wanted a statement of what happen, and that's not gonna happen. My bad.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Mike Force Team]

If we see a new map, a new rotary, or a new fixed wing, then we might focus on it because it gives us pleasure amd something new to learn.  

 

[Father Cool]

4 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

Frankly, if I was doing business with a subcontractor who looked for 'loopholes' in a contract between us in order to use my proprietary IP (my only major asset, and the core of my business) for purposes other than those it was provided for, I'd seek to terminate the relationship at the earliest opportunity. 

The thing is, what is the 'loophole' here? As I said in my post, the dispute is not that RB are using ED's code for purposes other than it was provided for, they are not. The FAE (according to Spuds video) is using TBS legally (and I assume paying ED for the privilege) and as such RB developing an aircraft for it using the EDGE code is also legal and in fact necessary for it to work. RB are not selling ED's code as if its their product they are selling a service to the FAE that interfaces with EDGE and therefore has to use that code, which without the core engine supplied by ED is useless. The whole thing as stated on Spuds video implies that ED already source the EDGE engine to FAE (correct me if I am wrong). The new contract with ED presented to RB for the development of the A-39 therefore must have had some clause in it that gave a further financial gain to ED and RB obviously deemed the conditions unfair or else would have signed it without issue.

[Father Cool]

1 hour ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Someone seems to be deliberately forgetting that the DCS W already has a EULA that limits what you can and can't do with DCS World. One of the first points is that DCS W can't be used for any professional or commercial product. Both the SDK/TDK and others will have these clauses, and possibly more restrictive ones.
https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/es/support/license/

It wouldn't be surprising if TBS, or whatever the professional version is now called, were even more restrictive... especially when ED has been using it for almost 20 years, and judging by old videos by Simon and others, has many professional contracts with very specific clauses...
 

 

Not at all. As I stated in my post, according to the Spud video the FAE already use TBS (which uses the EDGE core engine) for their simulators and therefore the statement in the terms here: Government and commercial entities wishing to use this software in conjunction with training or demonstrator applications must obtain a license directly from Eagle Dynamics SA under a separate pricing structure and terms of use. Will have already been met under a contract with FAE to use EDGE. RB making effectively a module to run on that is a separate contract between ED and RB for development purposes and is of course subject to a different contract. ED are of course within their rights to set out pricing for RB to develop an aircraft to run on TBS however I am guessing here that the % was too high in RB's opinion. All I am saying it that to blanket state that RB are just being insane not to sign it is naïve. For all we know ED may be demanding 50% of the fee or something which would be outrageous if they already have a contract in place for the FAE to us TBS in the first place. RB have to make a project financially viable and I would assume the T&Cs of the new contract made it not.

[AndyJWest]

1 minute ago, Father Cool said:

Not at all. As I stated in my post, according to the Spud video the FAE already use TBS (which uses the EDGE core engine) for their simulators and therefore the statement in the terms here: Government and commercial entities wishing to use this software in conjunction with training or demonstrator applications must obtain a license directly from Eagle Dynamics SA under a separate pricing structure and terms of use. Will have already been met under a contract with FAE to use EDGE. RB making effectively a module to run on that is a separate contract between ED and RB for development purposes and is of course subject to a different contract. ED are of course within their rights to set out pricing for RB to develop an aircraft to run on TBS however I am guessing here that the % was too high in RB's opinion. All I am saying it that to blanket state that RB are just being insane not to sign it is naïve. For all we know ED may be demanding 50% of the fee or something which would be outrageous if they already have a contract in place for the FAE to us TBS in the first place. RB have to make a project financially viable and I would assume the T&Cs of the new contract made it not.

Please provide a verifiable source for the claim that "the FAE already use TBS". 

[Father Cool]

2 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

Please provide a verifiable source for the claim that "the FAE already use TBS". 

As I said it was implied in the video, I would have to rewatch it. If they don't I still don't see how RB could provide it to them as they won't have the actual software to sell to them. The aircraft they were making interfaces with EDGE, they weren't selling TBS itself. They wouldn't be able to legally do that regardless of contracts.

Edited May 1 by Father Cool

[AndyJWest]

Just now, Father Cool said:

As I said it was implied in the video, I would have to rewatch it. If they don't I still don't see how RB could provide it to them as they won't have the actual software to sell to them. The aircraft they were making interfaces with EDGE, they weren't selling TBS itself.

You might be content to take Spud's word on this, if that is what he actually said. I wouldn't. Nothing much in the video was new, and most of it was hearsay. 

[Father Cool]

7 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

You might be content to take Spud's word on this, if that is what he actually said. I wouldn't. Nothing much in the video was new, and most of it was hearsay. 

Yes agreed, however the discussion was based on the supposed new info that he has had access to, this has shed new light on the situation for me and although Spud has approached the video in a way that tries to paint RB at fault I am left doubtful of this to some degree given what he is saying in the video. The video states nothing at all about RB trying to sell TBS to the FAE but an several occasions speaks about developing an A-29 for the TBS, which ED sells independently to the governments/air forces etc for flight sim purposes. As I said (and he says in the video) that's fine and above board, but ED want a new contract for RB to develop for the TBS side of EDGE, again understandable. My issue is with the reason RB is not signing it. It makes no sense at all given RB's modules and business within DCS and also their potential financial gain through mil sim development to not sign it. The only possible reason is that ED are trying to milk a lions share from RB's profits in the venture. Why else would RB throw the whole project and all of their existing DCS projects under the bus?

[AndyJWest]

@Father Cool

There are a heck of a lot of assumptions there. I'd agree that what is said in Spud's video doesn't make a lot of sense, but that's not good reason to engage in guesswork.

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, MAXsenna said:

I assumed you wanted a statement of what happen, and that's not gonna happen.

Not going to happen from ED. You can be sure that Ron will grace us with his own version of what happened unless part of the resolution includes an official gag order.

Edited May 1 by Dragon1-1

[MAXsenna]

53 minutes ago, Father Cool said:

The FAE (according to Spuds video) is using TBS legally

That was not said. 

The word "free" has been used in some posts above. FAE could download DCS for free, (and I guess break the EULA in the process). And RZ could provide the Tucano as a "mod" for free, in exchange for the necessary documents, scan an airframes etc. And then sell it as a DLC though ED. Don't really think that was the plan though.

27 minutes ago, Father Cool said:

supposed new info that he has had access to

Well, he claimed he had been sitting on that info for a year, but for those of us that have been following the dispute since it broke, it was nothing new under the sun, and was pretty much posted on places that shall not be named, same day more or less since RZ posted their statement. Except he claims that some people now, again, has come forward to him. Why would they do that? I guess he has been reading the same posts from other people that also claim they are privy to info, and have been posting screenshots, leaked documents and what not. I agree with you though, that he seems to be painting RZ in a bad light. Correct or not, there seems to be more to this story than he lets out. I guess he just doesn't know. Why would he?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he make a similar video last summer? Maybe he took it down.  

Personally, I don't understand why anyone would take anything he says at face value! 

[Father Cool]

27 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

@Father Cool

There are a heck of a lot of assumptions there. I'd agree that what is said in Spud's video doesn't make a lot of sense, but that's not good reason to engage in guesswork.

I kind of think it is though to a certain degree. If RB have refused to sign a contract that effectly means they can no longer run their business then I would assume that it is more than greed on their part. If the contract that ED proposed to allow them to develope the A-29 for the FAE were reasonable then they would have no reason not to sign it. Who knows.