waiting for resolution ED/RAZBAM Situation Info & Discussion

[Hammer1-1]

2 hours ago, Aapje said:

Where is that evidence then?

Evidence is all around you, you just dont like what you see. Quit asking dumb questions.

[Aapje]

1 minute ago, Hammer1-1 said:

Evidence is all around you, you just dont like what you see. Quit asking dumb questions.

Right. The evidence is all around, I just can't present it to you...

 

[NineLine]

1 minute ago, Aapje said:

Right. The evidence is all around, I just can't present it to you...

 

"evidence"

[Hammer1-1]

Just now, Aapje said:

Right. The evidence is all around, I just can't present it to you...

 

You know...I can show it to you, its been showed to you by other people better than me. I cant understand it for you, or see it for you. I get it; you love cheerleading for Ron. Put your big boy panties on and just know that all you gotta do is accept that 2+2=4.

[NineLine]

You guys can also share your evidence in DMs if you are so bound and determined to change someone's mind, but yes, please keep to the first post here. 

[Hammer1-1]

3 minutes ago, NineLine said:

You guys can also share your evidence in DMs if you are so bound and determined to change someone's mind, but yes, please keep to the first post here. 

evidence. Im pretty sure I can get evidence of who definitively shot JFK and he will still question it because it doesnt involve LHO. No, at this point, its monkey business.

[Aapje]

51 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

You know...I can show it to you, its been showed to you by other people better than me. I cant understand it for you, or see it for you. I get it; you love cheerleading for Ron. Put your big boy panties on and just know that all you gotta do is accept that 2+2=4.

You could link to a comment showing this alleged evidence too.

And again, calling people out on making unproven claims is not cheerleading, it is simply not being biased.

Edited 14 hours ago by Aapje

[Hammer1-1]

31 minutes ago, Aapje said:

You could link to a comment showing this alleged evidence too.

And again, calling people out on making unproven claims is not cheerleading, it is simply not being biased.

 Conjecture is all you're going to get no matter how hard you try. The only narrative thats out there is the only narrative that fits 100%. You dont like it. Bummer. Calling a cheerleader a cheerleader isnt being biased.

Edited 13 hours ago by Hammer1-1

[Mainstay]

3 hours ago, Kang said:

In other words: the whole safety clause reasoning was only there to placate the customers at the time and, since this is now all confidential, we as consumers have no clue whether or not this applies to any given product.

That means we would be wise to assume it does not. One might go as far as saying the whole talk about how the VAEO thing won't ever happen again was simply a lie.

In any case, thank you for giving a clearer answer on it.

Hear hear! This is what is going to cost you customers.
If you can’t guarantee your own rules on  releases that were based on after the VEAO situation then why should we trust any 3d party module at all? 
Especially when you say you can’t comment about this…. 

[Nightdare]

56 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

No, please re-read what I said. 

thank you 

I did,  according ED themselves, per december 2018, all new agreements after the Hawk are subject to the 'new' rules concerning sourcecode/files

I can't think of one logical reason ED is unwilling to divulge this basic information if module agreements are pre- or post Hawk, as the latter should be equal for all 3rd parties across the board

At least no reason that does not impact the validity of the message ED posted about the contractual way forward after that debacle

 

52 minutes ago, NineLine said:

As I am aware, newer modules and teams have been compliant with all aspects of contracts signed. 

I'm sorry, that's a political non-statement, as this does not elaborate if these contracts have the Post-Hawk stipulation in them

[JeffreyC]

It may be something you have on the back end we don't know about, but I would have my client in such a position have all 3rd party developers sign an addendum for all modules sold no matter when the original contract was executed to put in force the provision. 

[SilentxXxHunter]

35 minutes ago, Nightdare said:

I did,  according ED themselves, per december 2018, all new agreements after the Hawk are subject to the 'new' rules concerning sourcecode/files

I can't think of one logical reason ED is unwilling to divulge this basic information if module agreements are pre- or post Hawk, as the latter should be equal for all 3rd parties across the board

At least no reason that does not impact the validity of the message ED posted about the contractual way forward after that debacle

 

I'm sorry, that's a political non-statement, as this does not elaborate if these contracts have the Post-Hawk stipulation in them

All “new” agreements… the Razbam contracts were already signed prior to the Hawk issue. 

[Nightdare]

13 minutes ago, SilentxXxHunter said:

All “new” agreements… the Razbam contracts were already signed prior to the Hawk issue. 

 

probably yes, but it shows a bigger problem: how many more contracts are older than we suspect? Chinook? F4U?

ED apparently doesn't want us to know which 3rd party modules carry the old risk

And who says we won't be seeing this problem arise again in the next 7 years? I don't know how many older versions of DCS you wanna install?

[Shibbyland]

18 minutes ago, Nightdare said:

 

probably yes, but it shows a bigger problem: how many more contracts are older than we suspect? Chinook? F4U?

ED apparently doesn't want us to know which 3rd party modules carry the old risk

And who says we won't be seeing this problem arise again in the next 7 years? I don't know how many older versions of DCS you wanna install?

We will definitely see this come up again. Possibly not via a ron zombrano kamikaze run but it will come up. It's tough to be in business and there are going to be 3rd party devs who, despite their best efforts, just don't last.

[Aapje]

3 hours ago, Hammer1-1 said:

 Conjecture is all you're going to get no matter how hard you try.

OK, so you admit to not having evidence and only conjecture.

So when you said that you had evidence, you were lying, weren't you?

3 hours ago, Hammer1-1 said:

The only narrative thats out there is the only narrative that fits 100%.

There are multiple narratives out there, so what is this nonsense about there being only one narrative?

And you are not even explaining what narrative you are talking about, but this seems to be a pattern with you, where you just keep insinuating, rather than actually writing things down. This strongly suggests that you are just bluffing, and can't actually write things down.

3 hours ago, Hammer1-1 said:

You dont like it. Bummer. Calling a cheerleader a cheerleader isnt being biased.

Again, I have never been a cheerleader for Razbam. You seem to have a severe problem with the truth.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

5 hours ago, Aapje said:

Right. The evidence is all around, I just can't present it to you...

 

I mean, it's hard to present it when you don't want to see it, but go off, king.

[Oban]

So many dead horses being flogged here. 

3 hours ago, Aapje said:

Again, I have never been a cheerleader for Razbam. You seem to have a severe problem with the truth.

PMSL..........Pot .....kettle ....Black 

[MicroShket]

6 часов назад, Nightdare сказал:

contracts... Chinook?

Nani?

[NineLine]

7 hours ago, Nightdare said:

 

probably yes, but it shows a bigger problem: how many more contracts are older than we suspect? Chinook? F4U?

ED apparently doesn't want us to know which 3rd party modules carry the old risk

And who says we won't be seeing this problem arise again in the next 7 years? I don't know how many older versions of DCS you wanna install?

The Chinook is an ED produced module. 

8 hours ago, Nightdare said:

I'm sorry, that's a political non-statement, as this does not elaborate if these contracts have the Post-Hawk stipulation in them

I'm sorry, that is not public info, and this thread is on the RAZBAM issue, please stay on that topic. Thanks.

[Nightdare]

3 hours ago, MicroShket said:

Nani?

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

The Chinook is an ED produced module.

 

Woops, slight mixup, exchange with any recent 3rd party release

[Lone_Hawk_13]

Can someone, preferably ED confirm if the 3 ratbam modules (harrier, m-2000 & F-15) will continue to work/function as desired? As from what I have read on the first page it seems like they will but in a recent post from ED they say that they will work in DCS 2.9 and kinda implying they will start to break from 3.0, if they do begin to break will ED offer a refund for all the modules as it will technically be them that will have broken them due to updates?

[Tom Kazansky]

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

Eagle Dynamics will do its best to ensure that these modules continue to function in 2.9.X.

form the 1st post.

[Horns]

13 minutes ago, Lone_Hawk_13 said:

Can someone, preferably ED confirm if the 3 ratbam modules (harrier, m-2000 & F-15) will continue to work/function as desired? As from what I have read on the first page it seems like they will but in a recent post from ED they say that they will work in DCS 2.9 and kinda implying they will start to break from 3.0, if they do begin to break will ED offer a refund for all the modules as it will technically be them that will have broken them due to updates?

What we can currently be sure of is that ED will continue to seek to keep these modules functional for the duration of 2.9.X, there is no current commitment beyond that.

I can't tell you if ED will offer refunds, what I can say is that there is no responsibility on ED to make sure updates don't break third-party modules, it's on module devs to maintain compatibility, so no, it won't be ED who broke them if that happens after 2.9.X - you could ask Razbam how they plan to compensate users as they are the devs and are therefore responsible for compatibility, but I doubt you'll get the response you'd want.

If a module does cease to be compatible with a future version of DCS, I believe ED will offer access to the last build that module functioned with - but that is something someone official would need to confirm.

[Lone_Hawk_13]

Thank you horns, I didnt look at it in that way, as we deal with ED so I kinda got tunnel vision in my view. Is it correct that the module maker is completely responsible for fixing any game breaking issues? If so given that i dont think we will ever get the full, unbiased story of what happened, do we have real power to get a refund from razbam? Also was it ever confirmed that ED held money from razbam, if so than wouldn't that mean in part ED still has our money

[Esac_mirmidon]

Its four.

The Mig-19 will be deprecated also