VEAO & Hawk discussion (please mind the forum rules)

While I welcome ED for being more demanding on 3rd parties, I can also understand that they are refuseing to sign a contract like that.

But the amended contract came about after it became obvious that VEAO had completely dropped the ball, not before.

If you create a problem, then complain about the rules brought in to stop you causing the problem again, you should expect to have your integrity questioned (especially if you've now caused grief for everyone else).

I don't think the source code coming to ED is a guarantee for customers that the module continues to work well with DCS World. The core evolves so fast, that after a year without maintanence it's full of bugs anyway. And then the legal problems with the licence givers ...

I think we must accept that modules can and will cease to work in DCS.

There is no 'leaving it enabled as is with no further updates'. It HAS to be updated, at least as far as maintaining compatability with the game engine every patch.

ED does not have the code to do so.

VEAO will NOT do so, and will not give ED the code.

End result : it's dead, ED cannot do anything even if they want to.

This is why the new policy is : all devs must provide ED the code to their modules so this does not happen again.

May the truth be somewhere in the middle...

It’s somewhere not in their statement at least.

But the amended contract came about after it became obvious that VEAO had completely dropped the ball, not before.

A primary reason their statement doesn’t buy them one ounce of sympathy from me.

I think we must accept that modules can and will cease to work in DCS.

This is fundamental. There will 100% come a time when older or less popular modules become (more) unsupported (than they already are). I hope that day is a long way off, one of my personal favorites is still the Ka-50. I also hope ED or any 3rd party does the right thing and announces a roadmap for discontinuation at least a year in advance of that discontinuation.

Nothing to start, support of 3rd Parties is and always there, its also improving all the time.

I did not ment to start on supporting your 3rd party devs. As I am not one, I can't say if it is true or not that there is nearly to none documentation, help or comunication. (As Veao said in their letter).

I was speaking more about the root problems of DCS, like a lot of known bugs, problems and things that just would need improvements.

DCS is rapidly growing and there is maybe just a small team that can't fix everything and has to concentrate more on modules that bring money.

ED did state the reason why the Hawk had to be pulled: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3739973&postcount=257

 

Blame VEAO.

A usual it is poor communication from ED.

Explanations about dlls I can understand but where was the explanation? Buried in a thread! If ED had placed that explanation as a no. 1 sticky at the top of the VEAO Hawk forum it would have been clear to everyone. Instead they simply announce to an intelligent commmunity who always expect explanations that it has been withdrawn and only did so in a passing newsletter which many do not read.

I see, by chance, that the whole VEAO forum has been moved to Legacy Versions so anyone with questions will need to know they did that. Even there, there is no "top of the list" official explanation post. It would be more helpful to leave a single VEAO explanation post and re-direction link to the Legacy forum in the 3rd party forums where people would expect to find it instead of, again, requiring us to know where to start digging. It could be left in place for say a year then removed. It's just poor communication.

Covered ad infinitum in this thread . Can play in 2.53 & earlier versions only .

Yes, "in this thread", all 45 pages and 400+ posts of it. That is no way to communicate.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3813884&postcount=10

Yes, "in this thread", all 45 pages and 400+ posts of it. That is no way to communicate.

 

 

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3813884&postcount=10

Have some Brie with that whine ?

You asked the question . It was answered .

A usual it is poor communication from ED.

 

Explanations about dlls I can understand but where was the explanation? Buried in a thread! If ED had placed that explanation as a no. 1 sticky at the top of the VEAO Hawk forum it would have been clear to everyone. Instead they simply announce to an intelligent commmunity who always expect explanations that it has been withdrawn and only did so in a passing newsletter which many do not read.

 

 

I see, by chance, that the whole VEAO forum has been moved to Legacy Versions so anyone with questions will need to know they did that. Even there, there is no "top of the list" official explanation post. It would be more helpful to leave a single VEAO explanation post and re-direction link to the Legacy forum in the 3rd party forums where people would expect to find it instead of, again, requiring us to know where to start digging. It could be left in place for say a year then removed. It's just poor communication.

It's also in the newsletter.

If you ''hardly read'' the newsletters, that's your problem. ''A bulk email sent to all users''.... yeah, that's totally poor communication. They completely didn't count on people ''not reading'' it. They really should have placed a personal phone call to every person.

''Klem... it's Wags, from ED. Yes, THE Wags. No, I can't fax you my autograph. Look, there's been...... an altercation. Things with VEAO didn't work out. We sent in a team, lead by Nineline, to try to forcibly recover the code.... yeah, like the Death Star plans... anyway, they didn't make it past the automatic gate. Turns out they needed ANOTHER code for THAT. So, Klem, here's the situation. We can't fix the Hawk anymore, and VEAO won't fix it for us. So, as a last resort, we've come to you to ask your advice..... PULL YOURSELF TOGETHER, MAN (or woman)! This is no time to panic! We need a decision, stat!''

Do you feel special now that I took the time to write this for you?

But the amended contract came about after it became obvious that VEAO had completely dropped the ball, not before.

 

If you create a problem, then complain about the rules brought in to stop you causing the problem again, you should expect to have your integrity questioned (especially if you've now caused grief for everyone else).

Nail and head. The new contract was their fault, not ED's.

Adding the bit about the future investment is also exactly why they were so maligned on these forums, always promising bigger and better things but never delivering on the simplest of their goals. VEAO's dishonesty with the community was their biggest downfall. If they owned up to their struggles, people would have been more sympathetic to their cause, they also might have been less likely to invest in their future projects such as the P-40.

I own the Hawk but only flew it once. I remember flying it into the ground at about 500kts and just bouncing straight back up as if nothing had happened. I never flew it again, it was by DCS standards, a bit rubbish. DCS will continue to grow, as will the competent 3rd party developers and we will all be better off without VEAO in the ecosystem.

Unless of course you are going to refund my money.

Should have done your homework champ.

ED EULA

5. RETURNS AND EXCHANGES All charges incurred when purchasing download DCS products from the DCS Store are not refundable

Thanks to the majority of you who have explained. The core problem remains, I ask ED to explain why we can't have the Hawk (which isn't in the newsletter announcing its withdrawal) and the net result is that it is to be found "Buried in a thread"

That is unprofessional.

You should read the newsletters then.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3734679&postcount=176

I still think a passing newsletter, especially one that does not fully explain, is not a reliable way of communicating such a fundamental issue.

I see I have recieved a 'Warn', presumably because I asked questions.

I still think a passing newsletter, especially one that does not fully explain, is not a reliable way of communicating such a fundamental issue.

Indeed, there should be a sticky for this. It's not the kind of information you should have to go looking for in back newsletters.

Your warning was from 2017. We dont warn people for asking questions.

I remember it. I thought they time-expired.

Thanks to the majority of you who have explained. The core problem remains, I ask ED to explain why we can't have the Hawk (which isn't in the newsletter announcing its withdrawal) and the net result is that it is to be found "Buried in a thread"

 

 

That is unprofessional.

No, the result is a newsletter update. How is it their fault a user doesn't pay their due diligence and read those?

No, the result is a newsletter update. How is it their fault a user doesn't pay their due diligence and read those?

I'm going to say one last thing and then leave it because I just don't have the time or energy for people who indulge themselves instead of simply answering the question.

Reading a Newsletter is not 'due diligence'. I have no contractual obligation to do that, it is simply passing information that melts away with the next one and I happened to miss that one for good reasons. Due Diligence in a matter as important as this is ensuring your customer can find the full information in the place he would reasonably expect to find it, i.e. the VEAO forum - stuck to the top of the list because it overrides anything else beneath it.

Thanks again to those of you that gave informative answers.

I have paid at 19th February 2015 an amount of $31.99 for this product: Hawk T.1A for DCS World by VEAO Simulations (pre-sell).

I have never enjoy a bit of the aircraft and only later did we get some more enjoyment with its development.

It is amazing how the internet and digital products work. It is a great lesson indeed as other have stated, never to buy a pre-sell or beta product unless directly from ED staff.

I am not happy with the solution and in the future these contracts should be revised, if the costumer does not receive what it was promised, then there should be a refund or any other means of compensation.

I was never contacted about this resolution on the Hawk, this means that from a costumer point of view, it is really a bad service.

Please revise your pre-sell contracts.

They have revised it!......i to got burned.

Not ED's fault

I'm going to say one last thing and then leave it because I just don't have the time or energy for people who indulge themselves instead of simply answering the question.

 

 

Reading a Newsletter is not 'due diligence'. I have no contractual obligation to do that, it is simply passing information that melts away with the next one and I happened to miss that one for good reasons. Due Diligence in a matter as important as this is ensuring your customer can find the full information in the place he would reasonably expect to find it, i.e. the VEAO forum - stuck to the top of the list because it overrides anything else beneath it.

 

 

Thanks again to those of you that gave informative answers.

Actually, it sounds like you just don't like the answer you've been given, but okay.

Sure you're not obligated to read the newsletter. You're also not obligated to take an umbrella on a rainy day.

The Hawk

Not wanting to harp on about why the hawk got removed and the fact that a lot of people actually paid money for that particular module. I don't want a refund, all I want to do is fly the plane. Would it not be possible to reinstate the module but only in beta. I have noticed that the module is still part of the core mod folder but is not available anywhere to fly. Would it not be possible just to have it available in DCS World Beta version please.