waiting for resolution ED/RAZBAM Situation Info & Discussion

[OmasRachE]

And don´t forgett that we have fast evolving deep learning models that are quite good at analysing and translating code. 

[Shot]

I'd assume that ED knows their own API quite well, that helps to more quickly understand what has been done by whatever 3rd party.  But it anyhow doesn't help if no source code is available or if no resources has been planned in to maintain and support something like this.  The point of having 3rd party developers is... to NOT have to deal with this yourself.  

[AndyJWest]

2 minutes ago, OmasRachE said:

And don´t forgett that we have fast evolving deep learning models that are quite good at analysing and translating code. 

Why would anyone want to translate the code?

Ad for analysing DCS module source, there is zero possibility of LLMs being able to do any analysis worth the trouble, since they won't have been trained on similar material. THey'll just resort to their usual default of churning out plausible-sounding BS.

 

[OmasRachE]

vor 3 Minuten schrieb AndyJWest:

Why would anyone want to translate the code?

Ad for analysing DCS module source, there is zero possibility of LLMs being able to do any analysis worth the trouble, since they won't have been trained on similar material. THey'll just resort to their usual default of churning out plausible-sounding BS.

 

True, but fast evolving.

[Shot]

What I tried to say is: An existing module would only become incompatible if the API changes.  If the API changes, ED is well aware of that as they have changed the API.  So keeping something "workable" should not require that many resources.  Adding all the missing features might be a ton more work.  Also, if a new version 3.0 requires new API calls etc. - the only one who knows very well what needs to be done is ED. 

[MicroShket]

However there is another situation, as I know: OH-58D team for a moment(?) have lost most if not all of its programmers. Module is supported and that's great. But what's the future of this module if Polychop CEO, or how it should be named correctly, will lost the ability to update the Kiowa?

[AndyJWest]

3 minutes ago, OmasRachE said:

True, but fast evolving.

There seems to be a fair bit of evidence that the rate of LLM development is slowing down, to the extent that we may already have almost reached the limits of what it can practically achieve. Ultimately, they are nothing but next-word-predictor algorithms, built to fake 'intelligence' by being fed humongous amounts of dubiously-sourced data.

[Kang]

Please, the tech-bros need you believe that it is 'fast evolving' and be useful to... well, anybody at all 'soon'.

[AndyJWest]

1 minute ago, Kang said:

Please, the tech-bros need you believe that it is 'fast evolving' and be useful to... well, anybody at all 'soon'.

Yeah. As per the last great development in AI, or whatever. And the one before that. I'm old enough to have seen all this before. Along with how fusion power was going to make electricity too cheap to be worth metering, automation was going to result in the working week reducing to 15 hours, and genetic engineering was going to eliminate hunger. And I'm still waiting for my flying car and my robot butler...

[plott1964]

43 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

Nice numbers you've invented there. If only they meant something. Or did ChatGPT invent them? Either way, they are meaningless.

No sir. They are generalized estimates based on decades of my own experience in the software and aerospace industry and ones I have used to prove to my management that gaining access to source code is vital and worth the money. They may be meaningless to you but from my experience, having the original code for any type of software development improves future development and saves money in the long run.

Edited 2 hours ago by plott1964

[AndyJWest]

3 minutes ago, plott1964 said:

No sir. They are generalized estimates based on decades of my own experience in the software and aerospace industry and ones I have used to prove to my management that gaining access to source code is vital and worth the money. They may be meaningless to you but from my experience, having the original code for any type of software development improves future development and saves money in the long run.

Your management actually needs proof for that? The mind boggles...

[JuiceIsLoose]

1 hour ago, plott1964 said:

I thought there was a statement that ED made stating a settlement was reached at the end of 2024 to resolve the dispute. Understanding the confidentiality, my question is "There is still no resolution?" Sorry, just confused.

See below for a message from 9L regarding this. Seems like an agreement was signed in 2024 but hasn't been implemented as agreed. I'll leave it as that as that is the only public information ED has shared about it.

 

On 7/25/2025 at 12:42 PM, NineLine said:

It was agreed to by both parties, and as stated, we are hoping it will still be implemented as agreed to. 

 

 

[plott1964]

LOL Yes, of course Andy. They are managers!

Edited 2 hours ago by plott1964

[JuiceIsLoose]

null@NineLine Why is this marked as the solution?

[Nightdare]

4 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

Sorry to hear that, but please understand we can not list this currently, as mentioned above there are confidentiality considerations.

 

No need for confidentiality clauses, as they all agreed to your post-Hawk decree that

"all future 3rd party agreements are now required to make the game files available in case they are no longer able to support their product."

Are you saying this statement is incorrect?

understandably, probably some were agreed on (but not started development) prior to this date, so would fall under old clauses

 

The only thing your customers are asking is, which post-2018 modules fall under that new ruling,

This is a product warrantee question, not a confidential contract inquiry

 

[NineLine]

1 minute ago, Nightdare said:

 

No need for confidentiality clauses, as they all agreed to your post-Hawk decree that

"all future 3rd party agreements are now required to make the game files available in case they are no longer able to support their product."

Are you saying this statement is incorrect?

understandably, probably some were agreed on (but not started development) prior to this date, so would fall under old clauses

 

The only thing your customers are asking is, which post-2018 modules fall under that new ruling,

This is a product warrantee question, not a confidential contract inquiry

 

It depends on the timing of the contract signing. And this also doesn't take into account other evolutions of the contracts; all of this is not something we will be discussing here. 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

2 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

Why would anyone want to translate the code?

Ad for analysing DCS module source, there is zero possibility of LLMs being able to do any analysis worth the trouble, since they won't have been trained on similar material. THey'll just resort to their usual default of churning out plausible-sounding BS.

 

That'd also not be something that ED would want to do simply because of the legal Pandora's box it opens up. I'm no fan of RB, but using an LLM to unravel your work is beyond the pale. I don't think there'd be a court in this world where that would be dismissed.

Edited 52 minutes ago by MiG21bisFishbedL

[Dragon1-1]

55 minutes ago, NineLine said:

all of this is not something we will be discussing here. 

It's reasonable for us to ask which modules are at risk should anything like that happen and which aren't. That much shouldn't fall under the NDAs. Someone could, for instance, avoid buying specific modules that aren't covered, as opposed to avoiding buying anything new for DCS, period. It is not unreasonable for the customers to ask for this information, as it is in their interest to know whether their module is at risk of ceasing to work in case the devs have a falling out with ED.

[AndyJWest]

15 minutes ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

That'd also not be something that ED would want to do simply because of the legal Pandora's box it opens up. I'm no fan of RB, but using an LLM to unravel your work is beyond the pale. I don't think there'd be a court in this world where that would be dismissed.

I was referring to analysing legitimately-obtained source code. You're absolutely correct as regards to say decompiling executables. Intellectual property rights are a big thing, and taken seriously both by courts, and by anyone with any sense working in software development. Hence ED acting so firmly when they believed their IP had been  misused by RazBam.