waiting for resolution ED/RAZBAM Situation Info & Discussion

[Silver_Dragon]

10 hours ago, pepin1234 said:

What makes differences between DCS Mi-24 and never made by ED DCS Su-25? You made Mi-24… Belsimtek? Bulgaria had (maybe all them were ended to the current war) Su-25K. Please go ahead and make the same Mi-24 and Mi-8 move for exported or obsolete Soviet aircraft! The list is long! Su-25K Bulgarian, MiG-25 some where in a museum from ex Baltics republics, Su-22M4 ex GFR and now Poland and more and more. Make Belsimtek 2.0 move please

Belsimtek rejoin by ED long before the Mi-24 project was launched. It's one of the studies that handles the modern modules, and no, there won't be a Belsimtek 2.0. Any Russian/Soviet aircraft requires a license from the current rights holders. This isn't just about making a Su-25K, and that's it. It's already part of DCS World. Sukhoi could issue a cease and desist order, or, as has happened in the Russian section, ban all its helicopter russian / soviet products in Russia (remember the Tu-22M project). Everything requires a license, and contract negotiations..

Edited Saturday at 04:21 PM by Silver_Dragon

[Oban]

3 hours ago, Nightdare said:

 

No they don't

Logic trumps your feelings

Your morals be damned if I (RB) can't pay my bills because my boss (ED) isn't paying me

Very flawed logic.

If I behaved in an innapropriate manner within my company, resulting in suspension of payment, or termination, who's fault is it that you can no longer pay your bills?

This is how life works, you do something your company feels is detriment to their operations/reputations, you get fired or suspended without pay until investigations are complete, they're under zero obligations to keep paying you because of your bills..

[Tank50us]

6 minutes ago, Oban said:

This is how life works, you do something your company feels is detriment to their operations/reputations, you get fired or suspended without pay until investigations are complete, they're under zero obligations to keep paying you because of your bills..

Someone gets it. And before someone chimes in with "What about Unemployment?" well, if ya mess up enough to get canned, you don't get that either (especially if you did so knowingly). The same is true here. If what ED says about the situation is true, then RB lost the right to collect a check until such time as a new contract is signed. I mean, even without the SuperTuc fiasco, if this was just about a contract issue, then ED's still in the right here. If RB let a contract expire, and didn't renew, then ED would have no legal obligation to pay them a dime until a new one is signed. But since this is a breach of contract, it effectively voids the existing one which brings us to a new contract being needed.

Seriously people... if you're going to engage in anything where the dollar amounts have a bunch of zeros and commas... sign a freaking contract before anything gets going.

[Nightdare]

9 minutes ago, Oban said:

you do something your company feels is detriment to their operations/reputations

 

Not 'feels', those are gonna make a very bad severance defense in a courtroom

but that which are set in the rules for your employment, these rules are part of your contract, firing you for what's not in the rulebook is gonna open up a can of worms

My CEO may be morally opposed to my long hair, but nothing he can do about it, as it does not violate any law

[Hammer1-1]

5 hours ago, Nightdare said:

 

No they don't

Logic trumps your feelings

Your morals be damned if I (RB) can't pay my bills because my boss (ED) isn't paying me

Morals? IN BUSINESS??? 

Keep it in black; morals and employees are sacrificed to SATAN just to keep it in the black...can totally make a shot at Zambrano here, but apparently sensitivity training is in effect in this thread.

Edited Saturday at 03:40 PM by Hammer1-1

[Czar66]

5 hours ago, Nightdare said:

Your morals be damned if I (RB) can't pay my bills because my boss (ED) isn't paying me

Thinking ED is somehow Razbam's boss is probably the root of ~50% of the nonsense on this thread.

Both companies were co-operating into ED's IP which is DCS. RB is not an ED's studio, so they can't be ED's employees in any shape.
If one exploits the other's IP, bad things like this happens.

[Nightdare]

14 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

Morals? IN BUSINESS??? 

indeed justified sarcasm, there are only contracts and rules

When excrement hits the archaic climate control, pleading and begging make no money

 

7 minutes ago, Czar66 said:

Thinking ED is somehow Razbam's boss is probably the root of ~50% of the nonsense on this thread.

 

I used it as metaphor

[Czar66]

6 minutes ago, Nightdare said:

I used it as metaphor

If you didn't meant exactly what you wrote, I'm sorry. It is hard to not read that way.

It's just threading the needle too hard on ambiguity.

[pepin1234]

5 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Belsimtek rejoin by ED long before the Mi-24 project was launched. It's one of the studies that handles the modern modules, and no, there won't be a Belsimtek 2.0. Any Russian/Soviet aircraft requires a license from the current rights holders. This isn't just about making a Su-25K, and that's it. It's already part of DCS World. Sukhoi could issue a cease and desist order, or, as has happened in the Russian section, ban all its helicopter russian / soviet products in Russia (remember the Tu-22M project). Everything requires a license, and contract negotiations..

Try another way to keep the disinformation. It’s getting old and everyone can see is not a believable story…

[Tank50us]

1 hour ago, Hammer1-1 said:

Keep it in black; morals and employees are sacrificed to SATAN just to keep it in the black...can totally make a shot at Zambrano here, but apparently sensitivity training is in effect in this thread.

I mean... like it or not, if you're running a company, and you're at risk of going under, and the ONLY option is to let a few people go to MAYBE balance the books and keep 100 more employed (including yourself)... is it really a bad thing?

I know there's someone who will bring it up... so I'll say it per-emptively... no... getting into that situation does not make you a bad businessmen that deserves to fail. The reason I say that, is because there are businesses that did everything right... but still went under, and collapsed. There are businesses that tried something they legit thought would work well... and collapsed. Heck, how many companies at the end of 2019 were seeing a lot of growth and thought 2020 would be a good year....... how many of them are still around?

An example of a bad businessmen is someone who has a chance to fix something, and chooses not to take the one or two actions necessary to keep that plane from making a nose dive.... and who do we know likely did that?

[Nightdare]

1 minute ago, Tank50us said:

An example of a bad businessmen is someone who has a chance to fix something,

 

According to who?

Don't get me wrong, but there is something as biased "point of view"s here in this thread

[Tank50us]

2 minutes ago, Nightdare said:

 

According to who?

Don't get me wrong, but there is something as biased "point of view"s here in this thread

I mean... a classic out-of-DCS example is Blockbuster, who had a chance to buy Netflix and make use of their on-demand service... they chose not to, when it was clearly gaining popularity. Did they know it would be as big as it is now? Probably not. But had they made the purchase, they'd likely still be around today.

[Dragon1-1]

9 hours ago, Nightdare said:

Logic trumps your feelings

No, it doesn't. If I don't feel like giving someone my money (say, because they're acting immoral), then you'll have a damn hard time convincing me I should do it anyway, "logic" or not. Guess what happens when enough people feel like this about a company (hint: has been happening to Tesla lately). 

Your logic is also bogus, because ED isn't paying because RAZBAM is screwing around. My point was, they should have thought about the community before they started screwing around. Quite frankly, I was already salty about being treated as a second class customer because I use Steam (the Mudhen discount debacle), and I resolved not to get the Mudhen until it's at least 30% off, which was the discount that they promised and then denied to Steam users. Turned out to be a good decision.

Companies who don't care about their customers' feelings are replaced by ones that do (unless it's a captive market, which DCS isn't). We are right to be mad at RAZBAM, and we are right to be reserved about buying their modules, even if this gets resolved eventually. If they resolve this and don't do anything stupid with the MiG-23 launch, they may start to earn back the trust that they lost. In business, trust is kind of important, both for consumers and for companies that hire contractors.

Edited Saturday at 08:04 PM by Dragon1-1

[Nightdare]

10 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

No, it doesn't. If I don't feel like giving someone my money (say, because they're acting immoral), then you'll have a damn hard time convincing me I should do it anyway, "logic" or not. Guess what happens when enough people feel like this about a company (hint: has been happening to Tesla lately). 

Your logic is also bogus, because ED isn't paying because RAZBAM is screwing around. My point was, they should have thought about the community before they started screwing around. Quite frankly, I was already salty about being treated as a second class customer because I use Steam (the Mudhen discount debacle), and I resolved not to get the Mudhen until it's at least 30% off, which was the discount that they promised and then denied to Steam users. Turned out to be a good decision.

Companies who don't care about their customers' feelings are replaced by ones that do (unless it's a captive market, which DCS isn't). We are right to be mad at RAZBAM, and we are right to be reserved about buying their modules, even if this gets resolved eventually. If they resolve this and don't do anything stupid with the MiG-23 launch, they may start to earn back the trust that they lost. In business, trust is kind of important, both for consumers and for companies that hire contractors.

 

OBJECTIVELY: if I were RB and think myself of being (or actually contractually are) in the right, I still have no option but to cease activities that do not make money, this is not immoral towards the customers but a basic result of receiving no income for the work that is done

What benefit does Razbam have ruining their company so you MIGHT fly your precious mudhen, by working headlong into insolvency?

"Quick boys, we have to finish this so Dragon1-1 can play his planegame before we're all homeless! No, we'll probably never see a penny of his money, but I'm sure he'll be grateful

No, you can't do things that actually turn a profit or find a new means of income, we're supposed to be moral, starving yes, but moral nonetheless, so keep going and serve the DCS fans' entitlement"

[NineLine]

14 hours ago, pepin1234 said:

What makes differences between DCS Mi-24 and never made by ED DCS Su-25? You made Mi-24… Belsimtek? Bulgaria had (maybe all them were ended to the current war) Su-25K. Please go ahead and make the same Mi-24 and Mi-8 move for exported or obsolete Soviet aircraft! The list is long! Su-25K Bulgarian, MiG-25 some where in a museum from ex Baltics republics, Su-22M4 ex GDR and now Poland and more and more. Make Belsimtek 2.0 move please

You should read my response a little more carefully, but regardless we are always trying to gain access and permissions to do a host of different aircraft, sometimes successful sometimes not. 

[Dragon1-1]

Just now, Nightdare said:

OBJECTIVELY: if I were RB and think myself of being (or actually contractually are) in the right, I still have no option but to cease activities that do not make money, this is not immoral towards the customers but a basic result of receiving no income for the work that is done

Yes, a basic and predictable result of breaching their contract with ED was. Their obligation was to not do that in first place. Or failing that, hang their heads in shame, sprinkle ashes on top, say "mea culpa, won't happen again" and accept their friggin' responsibility for this mess. ED would love nothing more for them to just "surrender", settle the dispute, and get back to being paid again. After all, ED is also losing money they would've gotten from RAZBAM modules.

That would have been a moral thing to do. You seem to think ED was going to withhold the money no matter what. Well, congrats on drinking Ron's kool aid, but that's not how it works. Yes, I'd expect them to keep it quiet, take a haircut if ED demanded damages, and get back to work so that their reputation, and the DCS community, doesn't suffer. I also expected them to keep their promise, repeated shortly before release (when they quietly scrubbed it) to give the full pre-release discount to Steam users. On both accounts, they failed miserably.

You seem keen on absolving them of responsibility for their actions. I'm not. This is on RAZBAM, not on ED, and they could likely end this situation at any time by capitulating to ED's demands. That's all I'm asking. They'll get my money if they show they deserve my trust and don't treat me like a second class customer again.

[Hammer1-1]

3 hours ago, Tank50us said:

 

An example of a bad businessmen is someone who has a chance to fix something, and chooses not to take the one or two actions necessary to keep that plane from making a nose dive.... and who do we know likely did that?

Im thinking its 100% obvious who chose to stop work on products, and its well known that Ron isnt exactly a diplomat when it comes to him not getting what he wants. A LONG storied history of being a hot head.

[Nightdare]

1 minute ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Their obligation was to not do that in first place.

 

First we have to establish they actually did, we are not privy to this (but I consider it rather plausible)

 

2 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

You seem to think ED was going to withhold the money no matter what.

 

No, I would think a company would at a certain point withhold payment if a contractor does not hold to the stipulations, but nowhere am I so naïve to think this will not have a response of the contractor somewhere down the line either

What you fail to take into account that for all intent and purpose, RB believes itself to be 'right' (and they might be, we don't know exactly) well, if they are, how can they be 'immoral'?

Good guys/bad guys? irrelevant They are merely logically doing the 'inevitable' when the funds dry up

 

Once we can speak from hindsight, yeah, we can apply 'morals', right now, we can only pick sides

[Silver_Dragon]

3 hours ago, pepin1234 said:

Try another way to keep the disinformation. It’s getting old and everyone can see is not a believable story…

What misinformation? Welcome to the real world. When other companies try to make a lousy truck or sports car and you have to go get a license... even in the "civilian" aircraft sector, if you try to make certain brands, they come down on you with a hammer. Now, imagine in the military sector (this forum has already provided extensive examples of what you can and can't do, with certain examples from the land military market).... keep thinking the whole world is a damn conspiracy theory.

[Dragon1-1]

6 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

and its well known that Ron isnt exactly a diplomat when it comes to him not getting what he wants. A LONG storied history of being a hot head.

The impression I got is, ego the size of Elon Musk's with a fraction of his money and none of his political clout. Which really doesn't help when he's been caught doing something dumb and now has to admit to it.

It reminds me of a sea captain who is now rather infamous in my local sailing community. Last year he took a very strong, seaworthy sailing yacht from Oban to Iceland (I was on the crew that sailed her into Oban, you'd have to look hard to find a better ship), sailed her straight upwind into a North Atlantic storm (which everyone but him was aware of, it seems). He got a crewmember injured, ruined the headsail and the engine, and ended up towed into port behind a SAR boat. It wouldn't be so bad if he'd just admitted that he messed up (the ship was insured, though he wasn't...), but he thinks himself the hero of the day, who saved his crew in a storm. That he himself sailed into. Of course, the way he tells it, it's the fault of the previous crew (yeah, I quickly called BS on that), the volunteer SAR crew (yeah, he's gone that low), the weather, you name it. The ship's owner is now stuck with a court case, which will, in a year or two, establish what everyone knows by now (that he's an idiot who shouldn't be in command an inflatable mattress in a kiddy pool) and order him to pay the resulting costs. In case you wonder how he got to be the captain in first place, he makes a living sailing on the Adriatic, and he's apparently OK as a 2nd officer, and sailed with said owner in that capacity around the Horn on that same ship. Which only means he's had every reason to know better.

I really do think we're dealing with something similar here. Ron's mentality seems a lot like that captain's, it's always someone else's fault. A bad decision, that was entirely foreseeable to lead to trouble, but it was taken anyway, and now it's a matter of personal pride to keep defending it until the last possible moment.

21 minutes ago, Nightdare said:

What you fail to take into account that for all intent and purpose, RB believes itself to be 'right' (and they might be, we don't know exactly) well, if they are, how can they be 'immoral'?

There's a contract they have with ED. They either broke it, or didn't. Between the statements and the leaks, there's a strong likelihood that they did. I don't think they're saying "we should be allowed to get away with this", even if Ron gives this vibe. The actual case is more likely about "we shouldn't be punished for this as hard as ED wants to punish us". The previous communications from Ron suggest that he's not very good at taking it gracefully when he's told "you're wrong, you can't get what you want", but even if Ron is thinking the former, a sensible lawyer would probably push the latter angle. Of course, I doubt a sensible lawyer was consulted while Ron decided to make his public statements.

We don't need hindsight to make those statements, or to condemn what seems to be Ron making attempts to use public pressure to influence the case. It's behavior of someone who's losing, and has trouble accepting that. It seems to have worked on some, but it's not hard to see it's BS, even if we don't have enough info to see all the way through it.

[Hammer1-1]

52 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

I really do think we're dealing with something similar here. Ron's mentality seems a lot like that captain's, it's always someone else's fault. A bad decision, that was entirely foreseeable to lead to trouble, but it was taken anyway, and now it's a matter of personal pride to keep defending it until the last possible moment.

^^^^ 110%. Seen this starting back in 2013 with him. Pick up the phone because I fn' called it.

[pepin1234]

1 hour ago, Silver_Dragon said:

What misinformation? Welcome to the real world. When other companies try to make a lousy truck or sports car and you have to go get a license... even in the "civilian" aircraft sector, if you try to make certain brands, they come down on you with a hammer. Now, imagine in the military sector (this forum has already provided extensive examples of what you can and can't do, with certain examples from the land military market).... keep thinking the whole world is a damn conspiracy theory.

You don’t have idea what you’re talking about. The only I can tell you is that " Life have more opportunities and options, try another things "

now report my post as you often do…

[Dragon1-1]

Maybe if you backed your assertions up, you wouldn't be getting reported as often. Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Because it's quite helpful to provide some evidence that you do before accusing others of that.

[Mike Force Team]

Can ED just offer to buy out Razbam's full-fidelty modules? I am saying ED pays an agreed upon price to Razbam, receives the licenses, coding, and everything else related to the transaction. 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Maybe if you backed your assertions up, you wouldn't be getting reported as often. Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Because it's quite helpful to provide some evidence that you do before accusing others of that.

It's pretty clear why ED has not done the Su-25 yet. This is because they have outright said why.

They require publicly and legally available resources. If they can't get those, then it's no bueno. Those resources probably exist for the Su-25, realistically, but they need to find the correct entities to provide them.

Then, it's a matter of the allocations of resources.

In all, we will get one eventually, I reckon. Also, offtopic, so that's the last I'll comment on it.