waiting for resolution ED/RAZBAM Situation Info & Discussion

[Gary]

If I am correct - It is my understanding that many of the current DCS modules (A10 and Iraq map as just two examples) started life as TBS modules and we get a sort of trimmed down version without some details the military want to remain confidential.

Shame the TBS website was removed as this was my go to source of "possible" future modules and terrains in the past.

Not that it was a direct 1 to 1 port over from TBS to DCS of course.

Regards,

Gary

[supersylph]

According to the latest news, there will be some new air defense units in the future game.Does the compatibility mentioned by ED include updating the RWR information for RAZBAM modules?

[Hammer1-1]

1 hour ago, Mike Force Team said:

@Silver_Dragon It was new information to me, even if TBS has been around for a long time.

When i see the missions the developers create or new full-fidelty modules being released, there is some super-duper proprietary things used. In the end, we have fun shooting down the bad guys.

Mike Force Team 

TBS is just DCS for the military. Never been nothing new.

[NineLine]

1 hour ago, YoYo said:

Btw. Total Battle Simulator is nothing new, right. I watched this video, about 80% of these issues were discussed here or on Discord, so it's more of a summary. I admit I haven't heard about A-29 being moved to TBS.

That is because, generally, the military side of ED is not open for discussion on these forums for many reasons, and even this topic, while it might have some entanglements, it's not something we will really discuss. 

[ThorBrasil]

25 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

TBS is just DCS for the military. Never been nothing new.

Out of curiosity, I would like to know what the TSB has that the DCS does not. Are they the same functionalities? There must be modules that we never dream of one day reaching the DCS.

[Pipe]

29 minutes ago, ThorBrasil said:

Out of curiosity, I would like to know what the TSB has that the DCS does not. Are they the same functionalities? There must be modules that we never dream of one day reaching the DCS.

Like the F35?

[NineLine]

1 hour ago, ThorBrasil said:

Out of curiosity, I would like to know what the TSB has that the DCS does not. Are they the same functionalities? There must be modules that we never dream of one day reaching the DCS.

As I said above you, only DCS here please. 

[Mad Dog 762]

I just watched Spudknockers video on the origins of this situation.  If it is accurate....wow.  How insanely stupid.  Throw away 4 major money making modules to go behind ED's back to develop a sim for the Ecuadorian Air Force which has 72 total aircraft???  How good of a financial decision can that be?  Thats like Lilly Miller shutting down their pharmacutical factorys to sell dime bags on a street corner!!   I mean geez....that can't be right!  Nobody is that dumb!!    I was just starting to re-learn the F-15E hoping this might get resolved....but now....waste of time.  Back to the old A-10C I go.

Edited yesterday at 01:31 AM by Mad Dog 762

[jojyrocks]

23 hours ago, Hammer1-1 said:

we still have models in DCS that hail from the Flanker 2.0 days (and thats just how far back I joined...could be even earlier). Id rather have those models updated rather than keep using 30 year old models thats supposed to be "modern".

Yeah...that is also what I was saying as well, we do still have those old models of Mig 23, 27, Su-7/22, Su-30 etc AI models, which are not updated and for some reason, we are getting updated models that are more ground assets which we barely see.

 

These planes, it is so glaring with some of those models looks like it is from as you say Flanker 2.0 days plus Lock on. Kills the immersion. 

 

Maybe we will see them updated possibly in the next 5 plus years, hopefully... 

 

This RAZBAM dilemma is a huge letdown, on a life support with us left to simmer and waiting for the news at some point in the future, looks like it is going to be a loooong wait. Beating a dead horse at this point...

[Hammer1-1]

14 hours ago, Tank50us said:

realistically speaking (and sorry ED for going down this rabbit hole), in about 99/100 engagements, even if you do see them, they're basically like one of those black silhouette ID cards. It's a fleeting glimpse of something quite some distance away. Case in point:

You'll notice that that's an F-16... but can you tell what model? it's load? what livery it's got on it?

Seriously, unless you're using a pod, you're not gonna see much detail. And if you're in something like a Phantom, you won't be using one. More modern jets with tools like the Sniper Pod? Sure. But in the case of most of the aircraft in DCS? Nah.

what about interdiction? interception? escort? Im not dogfighting a Tu95 Bear or a Su-7 fitter which between the both of them have a combined whopping 30 polygons.

4 hours ago, ThorBrasil said:

Out of curiosity, I would like to know what the TSB has that the DCS does not. Are they the same functionalities? There must be modules that we never dream of one day reaching the DCS.

umm...going out on a limb, but classified information we're not privy to in these jets. Mostly ITARS related stuff, but model the aircraft more realistically. Again I dunno, thats not here or there but its for military contracts.

Edited yesterday at 02:40 AM by Hammer1-1

[Hammer1-1]

9 hours ago, NineLine said:

Ive...had days like this..

[YoYo]

7 hours ago, NineLine said:

That is because, generally, the military side of ED is not open for discussion on these forums for many reasons, and even this topic, while it might have some entanglements, it's not something we will really discuss. 

Yes for sure, its different topic and not for us :). Good day!

Edited yesterday at 05:21 AM by YoYo

[Father Cool]

10 hours ago, Mad Dog 762 said:

I just watched Spudknockers video on the origins of this situation.  If it is accurate....wow.  How insanely stupid.  Throw away 4 major money making modules to go behind ED's back to develop a sim for the Ecuadorian Air Force which has 72 total aircraft???  How good of a financial decision can that be?  Thats like Lilly Miller shutting down their pharmacutical factorys to sell dime bags on a street corner!!   I mean geez....that can't be right!  Nobody is that dumb!!    I was just starting to re-learn the F-15E hoping this might get resolved....but now....waste of time.  Back to the old A-10C I go.

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.   

 

 

[Tank50us]

10 hours ago, Mad Dog 762 said:

Throw away 4 major money making modules to go behind ED's back to develop a sim for the Ecuadorian Air Force which has 72 total aircraft???

makes ya wonder how many zeros and commas were to be part of that contract....

Alternatively maybe Ron thought it would be too small to notice... I dunno

One way or another, it's a borked situation

[LordOrion]

16 hours ago, TobiasDeVil said:

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

More or less like a "my cousin said me that...".

[cfrag]

I cannot add a single fact, and yet, it seems that there are people who may lack imagination and/or experience. If (and that is a large IF) Spud's (probably also partisan) musings are partially true, then we also could consider the following hypothesis:

• ED has professional (TBS) and amateur markets (DCS). I believe that this is established fact. 
• It is entirely possible that the professional market eclipses the "amateur" (consumer) market when it comes to ROI. I think this is likely.
• Let us hypothesize that the professional market is very profitable. In that case licensing and services for TBS are likely to be a significant source of income for ED
• Let's further hypothesize that RZ saw themselves in a position to move into that professional market without licensing TBS themselves, meaning that they may have seen themselves as being in a position where they could provide services (and charge prices) similar to TBS without having to pay for licensing to ED.
• If RZ saw themselves in a position to move into that professional market without licensing TBS (i.e. provide services and licenses) to their clients, that would represent a clear threat to ED's professional (TBS) business model.
• In this case (and I am NOT saying that this is so), a logical move could be for ED to protect their interests by having RZ sign a TBS-related contract, securing their professional market source of income, and preventing RZ's clients to enter into TBS-like contracts without ED (note: not outright barring RZ completely, but allowing it only with/through ED).
• If RZ signed a TBS contract, they would likely have to pay license fees for any TBS-like services (i.e. services that build upon ED tech) that they offer to clients.
• We do not know the licensing structure, in that market, and it could be very different from ED's consumer licensing structure (which we don't know either). RZ's entire business case for entering the professional market may have collapsed if they included the TBS license, making it very unattractive to sign.

So, it's easily conceivable that there exists a constellation where significant sums are involved (I have no experience with defence contracts, but I am aware that contracts in the public sector are usually much, much more interesting than the consumer sector, and potential profits are larger by an order of magnitude). RZ may have hoped to be able to enter into that professional market without having to bring along (and/or pay licensing to) ED.

Signing the TBS contract could indeed have made - from RZ's point of view - ED the senior partner, or at least a major partner in the deal. That can go against the grain of the people at RZ if they believe that they did the entire acquisition work, and all they get from ED is - as they see it - a "we want a cut of your profits". I'm NOT discussing the legal side here, nor who is right or wrong. If large sums are involved (and they almost always are when defence contracts are in the mix), things tend to get difficult - especially if smaller companies are involved who have difficulties seeing past the large numbers. If a "dream-business case" collapses because of unforeseen (or perceived unjustified) expenses, this can be very upsetting even to experienced managers.

All of that is pure conjecture. I'm merely trying to point out that it is quite easy to come up with explanations (not justifications, explanations) for the dustup.

Edited 16 hours ago by cfrag

[deadghostjt]

If ED has only leverage not paying the salaries (not the court case itself) as the video says, isn't that a bad position in the beginning with? I mean if both sides are going to see this one in court, then why not settle other than DCS part just in court and leave current DCS modules out of it. There's no actual reason for both not to make money on the side of it with their working modules running in DCS as they should. Court will decide if some party is entitled of more they would currrently have with making a deal good enough for both parties. If either of the side is afraid of court's decision would not favour them they should be the ones making effort to come up with better deal for other party to maximize their potential outcome while minimizing their risks.

Edited 16 hours ago by deadghostjt

[BIGNEWY]

Folks you have already been warned once by @NineLine, keep the conversation here about DCS. 

[Tank50us]

43 minutes ago, deadghostjt said:

If ED has only leverage not paying the salaries (not the court case itself) as the video says, isn't that a bad position in the beginning with? I mean if both sides are going to see this one in court, then why not settle TBS just in court and leave current modules out of it. There's no actual reason for both not to make money on the side of it with their working modules running in DCS as they should. Court will decide if some party is entitled of more they would currrently have with making a TBS deal good enough for both parties. If either of the side is afraid of court's decision would not favour them they should be the ones making effort to come up with better deal for other party to maximize their potential outcome while minimizing their risks.

It's one of those "incase of fire break glass" things. Kinda like having a shotgun by your bed. It's there if someone decides to FAFO, sure... but you don't want to be put in a position where you have to use it (because ain't no one winning there). Same holds true here. ED probably has a few things written into contracts that we don't know about that are designed to protect their IP, their bottom line, and make sure everyone wins in the end. The situation getting to where it is now is that Shotgun vs the Burglar moment. One way or another, Servepro (the lawyers) are making money when it's all said and done.

[deadghostjt]

1 minute ago, Tank50us said:

It's one of those "incase of fire break glass" things. Kinda like having a shotgun by your bed. It's there if someone decides to FAFO, sure... but you don't want to be put in a position where you have to use it (because ain't no one winning there). Same holds true here. ED probably has a few things written into contracts that we don't know about that are designed to protect their IP, their bottom line, and make sure everyone wins in the end. The situation getting to where it is now is that Shotgun vs the Burglar moment. One way or another, Servepro (the lawyers) are making money when it's all said and done.

This is kinda like nuclear deterrent. If it stops the war it's useful and serves the purpose, but in case war has already started the deterrent didn't work and should not be anymore actually used to mutual destruction if there is still a way to cut the losses and make peace. Cutting salaries didn't clearly bring RB to sign the deal so ED should acknowledge that and go back and continue with normal module co-operation with RB while seeking their justice in court other way. Maybe sweetening their deal proposals if that's the easiest way still. Getting RB modules back working will bring both revenues and customers probably will be satisfied and buying other modules too again. There's nothing more to be won with this current situation anymore. Court will deal the justice for the other stuff or lead somewhat better deal for both before that.

[Czar66]

13 hours ago, Mad Dog 762 said:

Throw away 4 major money making modules to go behind ED's back to develop a sim for the Ecuadorian Air Force which has 72 total aircraft???  How good of a financial decision can that be?  Thats like Lilly Miller shutting down their pharmacutical factorys to sell dime bags on a street corner!!   I mean geez....that can't be right!  Nobody is that dumb!!    I was just starting to re-learn the F-15E hoping this might get resolved....but now....waste of time.  Back to the old A-10C I go.

You're over estimating the money making capability of DCS against 'military contract money making'. Even if it is a tiny country. Those are in cosmic magnitudes of different. You got it inverted.

The 15E isn't really a waste of time for me atm, but good thing we have the old trusty A-10C, for sure. have fun...

2 minutes ago, deadghostjt said:

This is kinda like nuclear deterrent. If it stops the war it's useful and serves the purpose, but in case war has already started the deterrent didn't work and should not be anymore actually used to mutual destruction if there is still a way to cut the losses and make peace. Cutting salaries didn't clearly bring RB to sign the deal so ED should acknowledge that and go back and continue with normal module co-operation with RB while seeking their justice in court other way.

You're seeing this without the other 3rd party in the equation. Paying RB would mean a contract violation or break of trust on ED with other 3rd party that also agreed to similar rules. Why would anyone abide to contracts then?

That 'war' thinking is not helpful in this situation... it worsen things...

[Japo32]

What I know is we didn't receive any update, fix from any Razbam plane since long, and the "we will tell you when we know things" can be years, as a court can be produced in years and later court appeals, and meanwhile we waiting. And not only is solved with a refund from the F15E (the rest of planes?)
Razbam has a lot of responsability in this, but also ED, and I was in the Hawk fiasco, and was told that wouldn't happen again. Now it returns with 4 more planes. And yes, I know there are ED fanboys and Razbam fanboys. In the middle me, and others that want real support. Not wait for years (already one)

[deadghostjt]

4 minutes ago, Czar66 said:

You're seeing this without the other 3rd party in the equation. Paying RB would mean a contract violation or break of trust on ED with other 3rd party that also agreed to similar rules. Why would anyone abide to contracts then?

That 'war' thinking is not helpful in this situation... it worsen things...

Laws, rules and contracts are just a price list for breaking them. Yes sometime you need to be tough to make an example for the rest. But in this case the court is going to bring the justice either way of breaking the rules and getting back to co-operation is just you showing everyone that you want to actually still find win-win solutions with ur partners even there is some legal issues bending. They don't need to say aloud what their new terms are when agreed to get back to work. It doesn't have to be similar and equal others have, just to serve the current power balance of both parties. Just like someone gets better salary for their work than others maybe even for less work and others get better deals when buying stuff when you have better negotiators. Maybe the new deal is even worse than with other parties for RB but better what they could get without it. You never can tell when NDA:s are applied. Even this everything is just speculation of the situation because of the Spud's video.

[AndyJWest]

@deadghostjt: I very much doubt that ED was paying 'salaries' to anyone at Razbam. If Razbam's developers were getting salaries at all (rather than being subcontractors), it would be Razbam that paid them. Salaries are paid by an employer, to an employee.

 

 

 

 

[Tank50us]

26 minutes ago, Czar66 said:

You're seeing this without the other 3rd party in the equation. Paying RB would mean a contract violation or break of trust on ED with other 3rd party that also agreed to similar rules. Why would anyone abide to contracts then?

That 'war' thinking is not helpful in this situation... it worsen things...

that's why I went with the analogy I did. People may know you own the shotgun. But aren't willing to put you in a position where Serve Pro needs to be called to clean up the mess.

We know ED has the legal papers for just this sorta situation... but having to use them sucks, and eventually, you'll need to lawyers to sort it out. And in that case, they're the only real winners.