VEAO & Hawk discussion (please mind the forum rules)

If ED does their integratuon job badly, they are responsible. If the software provider doesn't deliver his software or stops delivering he is responsible.

 

Sure, I have said it before, ED should have let VEAO be a licensed third party dev. It only diminished the quality of the DCS experience when flying in MP. But this responsibility of ED has nothing to do with a refund.

 

Those who are responsible for the mess are first VEAO and second customers who blindly bought a product without informing themselves. That principle is valid for your eveyrday life too.

I bought tons of shit that I regret it. I don't expect refunds after a certain period. I hold myself responsible for that.

 

Gesendet von meinem SM-G965F mit Tapatalk

You really are tiring about your refund BS! Never asked for a REFUND! I don't even care about the bonus itself. But as a matter of principle, I expected a gesture from ED telling their customer they were not on their own on this.

I trusted ED to have integrated a decent product (it was not) from a decent company (it was not), when I bought on THEIR shop.

It complete bad faith to say I should have not trusted them for that. And it's ridiculous that you completely exonerate them from any responsibility too.

You really are tiring about your refund BS! Never asked for a REFUND! I don't even care about the bonus itself. But as a matter of principle, I expected a gesture from ED telling their customer they were not on their own on this.

 

 

 

I trusted ED to have integrated a decent product (it was not) from a decent company (it was not), when I bought on THEIR shop.

 

 

 

It complete bad faith to say I should have not trusted them for that. And it's ridiculous that you completely exonerate them from any responsibility too.

You are explaining to us that you are asking for a bonus refund that you will not use. Why would a company trust your words? If they do it to you, why not do it to the others? They probably would use their bonuses and cost real money. You are totally disconnected from business reality.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G965F mit Tapatalk

I wanna jump in and say that a seller is responsible for a product when it is sold through them, responsibility doesn't lie with the manufacturer unless the manufacturer is the seller.

 

Hence it is ED's responsibility if it is bought through the DCS shop, and VEAO's responsibility if it is bought direct from them. In many cases it was bought through the DCS shop.

 

I'm not sure if a refund is an entitlement so we'll assume it isn't, but I know in my country that if digital content is not fit for purpose, as described by the seller, or of satisfactory quality, it is my right for it to be repaired or replaced.

 

No idea how this works in practise, so I won't say more than some sort of a gesture from ED would be appreciated. Let's move into 2019 on a high note.

I agree entirely.

Should just contact the ACCC.

You know I am starting to get a little worried about how much you are questioning our communication and principals. We have done everything we could in this, we simply don't have the code to maintain the Hawk, and a refund or some sort of bonus would only impact ED and its customers somewhere else.

 

As someone that has admitted he barely flew the Hawk in the last few years, you are really fighting for something that is simply not going to happen.

It is my opinion that a gesture would have impacted you less than not doing anything, in the long term. Especially something like a symbolic bonus that wouldn't be used in most cases anyway. But the gesture would have mattered to a lot of people, including me. Right now, it just feels like ED told me. 'You got screwed, too bad, but we have no faults or responsibility here'.

I couldn't care less about the hawk Nineline. I made it clear many times. As I told you earlier, I think ED taking no responsibility for people who bought from ED and then getting screwed, without making a gesture toward them is sub optimal.

I don't see why you should be worried. I haven't posted about this outside of this sub forum, and I don't intend to. I also own all the modules and will buy all those coming. Being a good customer, I feel like I also have the right to voice my opinion about a company choice.

The only reason I have kept arguing about it though, is because a couple of people, especially one, have lied about what I said, my intentions and called me toxic. I wouldn't have posted any more if they didn't do that.

And it wasn't meant to be an offense, but in Switzerland and in France, ED has a reputation for sub optimal communications and public relations. I am not questioning anything. Simply stating facts. This new case is yet another example.

Instead of being worried, it wouldn't be useless to take notes and think about the next occasion to put ED in a better light.

Bonus point, discount or money refund all are a type of refund!

 

You are explaining to us that you are asking for a bonus refund that you will not use. Why would a company trust your words? If they do it to you, why not do it to the others? They probably would use their bonuses and cost real money. You are totally disconnected from business reality.

 

Gesendet von meinem SM-G965F mit Tapatalk

Why would they trust me ? Because a company should trust regular customers, and show them. That's the whole point. Trust can only go both ways.

So far I have proven by my purchases that I used to trust them 100%.

You call me business ignorant, yet you seem to have absolutely no understanding in customer service value...

Rich again.

It is my opinion that a gesture would have impacted you less than not doing anything, in the long term. Especially something like a symbolic bonus that wouldn't be used in most cases anyway. But the gesture would have mattered to a lot of people, including me. Right now, it just feels like ED told me. 'You got screwed, too bad, but we have no faults or responsibility here'.

 

I couldn't care less about the hawk Nineline. I made it clear many times. As I told you earlier, I think ED taking no responsibility for people who bought from ED and then getting screwed, without making a gesture toward them is sub optimal.

 

I don't see why you should be worried. I haven't posted about this outside of this sub forum, and I don't intend to. I also own all the modules and will buy all those coming. Being a good customer, I feel like I also have the right to voice my opinion about a company choice.

 

The only reason I have kept arguing about it though, is because a couple of people, especially one, have lied about what I said, my intentions and called me toxic. I wouldn't have posted any more if they didn't do that.

 

And it wasn't meant to be an offense, but in Switzerland and in France, ED has a reputation for sub optimal communications and public relations. I am not questioning anything. Simply stating facts. This new case is yet another example.

 

Instead of being worried, it wouldn't be useless to take notes and think about the next occasion to put ED in a better light.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G965F mit Tapatalk

Why would they trust me ? Because a company should trust regular customers, and show them. That's the whole point. Trust can only go both ways.

 

 

 

So far I have proven by my purchases that I used to trust them 100%.

 

 

 

You call me business ignorant, yet you seem to have absolutely no understanding in customer service value...

 

 

 

Rich again.

Even if they trusted you, why should they trust me? I probably would take that bonus and use it. So?

Gesendet von meinem SM-G965F mit Tapatalk

You have no clue about doing business. Business decisions involving money are not based on trust on some customers. That's why they make you sign contracts before downloading or installing.

 

Even if they trusted you, why should they trust me? I probably would take that bonus and use it. So?

 

Gesendet von meinem SM-G965F mit Tapatalk

You are right. I agree that they should not trust people with no principles :thumbup::D

You are right. I agree that they should not trust people with not principles :D

ED made a gesture and have a discount to those who purchased it after October 1st. Thats as good as it gets.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G965F mit Tapatalk

God save us all from armchair consumer rights warriors @@

@Mizzy & Shagrat

You mentioned something about the code being double leased, effectively. Just to weigh in on that, technically the original license from BAE was to VEAO not ED persay, so in that sense yeah, ED's access was always partially limited in a way. For example, the Typhoon was killed in part over this very thing, ED as a third party to the agreement was not allowed to see the guts due to security reasons, as it was explained at the time, which was a condition for its acceptance into DCS.

So, in a way, that sort of constrained agreement could limit access or development, and it's POSSIBLE that could be why the code was not provided. I doubt we will ever know for sure as ED would be unlikely to discuss it out of turn, and VEAO will probably never return to explain some of their actions.

That aside, the assessment that the code was FUBAR is pretty clear, by VEAO's own admission. As a third party coming into somebody else's code that's already borked, it's likely the Hawk would end up dead, at least for quite some time, no matter how things turned out.

This is a dead horse. A really dead horse. Continuing to beat it is doing no one any good. The Hawk is gone and that appears to be the final word.

It isn't gone, it'll just never be finished, officially ;) sure mods will pop up eventually. Wallet is but a few grams lighter, and I've got exactly what I had to begin with, an unfinished aircraft.

At least lessons have been learned from this, all around, and ED should be in a better position to get a universally amicable outcome next time around.

It isn't gone, it'll just never be finished, officially ;) sure mods will pop up eventually. Wallet is but a few grams lighter, and I've got exactly what I had to begin with, an unfinished aircraft.

 

At least lessons have been learned from this, all around, and ED should be in a better position to get a universally amicable outcome next time around.

Unless you stay with 2.5.3 it's gone!!!!!

 

You and a small handful of others are the only ones clamouring about a bonus or refund. We have told you what we can do on this, and that is it. You made your statement, great, we appreciate your feedback, but saying it a 100 times in this thread is not going to change or sway anything.

 

This will negatively impact us no matter what is done, what we have done is handle it the best we could with the cards we have been given. Unless you have something new to say, I don't see how this thread is progressing any further except to have some people arguing the same points with each other.

Yes it's only a handful of gripers and they will hammer the same message over and over again. No variation, just repetitive gripes... getting real tedious and we all know the culprits. How about telling them to STFU, get out more, see the world, go to parties have a few shandy's and take the medication :) I suggest closing the thread and closing the forum and re-open a new one with 'VEAO' removed from the title.

Mizzy

:-(

This is a dead horse. A really dead horse. Continuing to beat it is doing no one any good. The Hawk is gone and that appears to be the final word.

Couldn't have been well better said. And yet, people still ask the same questions that have already been answered...? :huh:

Many people have already said (including you) that this is just the same old being implied and people just cannot still let go of the fact that the Hawk is gone for good. :noexpression:

Why could ED not have just left it in, and if at some point some future update breaks it, then fine, it's broken, rather than removing it.

Is ED taking any action against VEAO or the guys behind it, that they're in a position to comment on yet?

TomCatMucDe

FZG_Immel

You two, just get a room already! ;)

Personally, when buying into any pre-purchase product, it is always with the understanding that I might end up with nothing.

If this is ever not acceptable to me, I just don't buy.

With the Hawk, I bought it in Jan 2015, have hardly ever used it, have never been too impressed with it. For me, this is just a case of sh1t happens.

Still, people have put money down, and they are quite entitled to complain, since they have not received a finished product.

To go off on a tangent, I pre-purchased the F-18 when the DCS engine could still do MSAA without FPS going down the toilet. When the F-18 arrived, forward rendering was removed, and my FPS were cut in half. I was very annoyed about that. Result? I'll never pre-purchase anything from ED again.

Why could ED not have just left it in' date=' and if at some point some future update breaks it, then fine, it's broken, rather than removing it.[/quote']

 

I supuse to work on future versions after the 2.5.3, that require the compiled dlls and other files with the module source code (That is missing by the VEAO negative of share them and ED has not access to them) with the proper DCS version (2.5.4+) , the module can´t working.

I supuse to work on future versions after the 2.5.3, that require the compiled dlls and other files with the module source code (That is missing by the VEAO negative of share them and ED has not access to them) with the proper DCS version (2.5.4+) , the module can´t working.

I think you misunderstand, I'm not saying ED could or even should update the Hawk, but that leave it in as is, and if someday an update to the DCS environment stops the Hawk working, then that's when it dies a natural death.

I don't see how say a patch that changes the F/A-18 or the Viggen, or adds a WW2 object should change anything at all with the Hawk, and logically it should not be able to because if that was the case then there would be chaos.

These things are modular for the most part, they really only depend on the core simulation environment itself, so until that changes then it should still work, and even then changes to that may not necessarily break it.

It seems a bit like shooting someone to stop them dying of a slow acting poison.

I think you misunderstand, I'm not saying ED could or even should update the Hawk, but that leave it in as is, and if someday an update to the DCS environment stops the Hawk working, then that's when it dies a natural death.

 

 

 

I don't see how say a patch that changes the F/A-18 or the Viggen, or adds a WW2 object should change anything at all with the Hawk, and logically it should not be able to because if that was the case then there would be chaos.

 

 

 

These things are modular for the most part, they really only depend on the core simulation environment itself, so until that changes then it should still work, and even then changes to that may not necessarily break it.

 

 

 

It seems a bit like shooting someone to stop them dying of a slow acting poison.

They need the dev to compiler their module together with a major updates. If the dev doesn't do it and ED doesn't have the source code, they just can't put it there.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G965F mit Tapatalk