Jump to content

VEAO & Hawk discussion (please mind the forum rules)


FZG_Immel
 Share

Recommended Posts

No, because in the end the skin and cockpit would just...slowly disappear over successive patches because the .dll's never got updated.

Intel 8086k @ 5.4ghz | 32gb GSkill Trident Z | Asus Z370 Maximus X Formula| Asus TUF 3080Ti | eVGA 1000w psu | Slaw RX Viper 2 pedals | VKB Gunfighter Mk3 MCE Ultimate / Virpil MongoosT50 |  HP Reverb G2 | Windows 10 Pro

If you have no time to fly all of your airplanes, you have too many...like me.


 My wallpaper and skins

JTF-13 Recruiting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 460
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

You can fly Hawk in DCS 2.5.3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would it not be possible to reinstate the module but only in beta.

 

 

No. The Hawk was not removed/disabled. ED were unable to keep it in the sim due to them not having access to the required source code files for the module. The DRM for the module requires it to be re-compiled for every new build of DCS. Once 2.5.4 went live it was no longer possible to keep it in the sim in it's playable form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no other third party buy the hawk for continuing support and sale ? if VEAO doesnt want any more work on it, they can sale to other maker like razbam.

 

i bought hawk, and i am 2.5.4 DCS


Edited by jpbordi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

no other third party buy the hawk for continuing support and sale ? if VEAO doesnt want any more work on it, they can sale to other maker like razbam.

 

i bought hawk, and i am 2.5.4 DCS

 

As far as I have understood it, ED wanted to do exactly this but veao didn't want to sell/give anybody the rights to maintain it. Additionally it is extremely hard to work with the borked code of somebody else.

Louis|Dancer, foundation member of the digital Swiss Air Force, a group of enthusiasts trying to imitate everything that has to do with Swiss military aviation on dcs. If you want to join us, contact us via instagram.

our youtube chanel:dSAF

our instagram:dSAF

 

my rusty pc: msi gtx1080ti / ryzen 5 2600x / ga-ab350 gaming motherboard / 16gb ram / rift cv1 / warthog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no other third party buy the hawk for continuing support and sale ? if VEAO doesnt want any more work on it, they can sale to other maker like razbam.

 

i bought hawk, and i am 2.5.4 DCS

 

I'd imagine it isn't theirs to sell. Despite their claims of grand investors I presume all VEAO assets are now the property of their creditors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd imagine it isn't theirs to sell. Despite their claims of grand investors I presume all VEAO assets are now the property of their creditors.

 

If that were the case I would imagine that their creditors would be eager to sell. However, their lawyers might not be so eager if they think a better deal could be made elsewhere. Especially if Chris and Pete have no funds to pay said lawyers.

ASUS ROG Maximus VIII Hero, i7-6700K, Noctua NH-D14 Cooler, Crucial 32GB DDR4 2133, Samsung 950 Pro NVMe 256GB, Samsung EVO 250GB & 500GB SSD, 2TB Caviar Black, Zotac GTX 1080 AMP! Extreme 8GB, Corsair HX1000i, Phillips BDM4065UC 40" 4k monitor, VX2258 TouchScreen, TIR 5 w/ProClip, TM Warthog, VKB Gladiator Pro, Saitek X56, et. al., MFG Crosswind Pedals #1199, VolairSim Pit, Rift CV1 :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I was mad enough to buy it but only because I watched them fly through the highlands of Scotland being chased by the old tornado which has sadly retired. Now there’s a module I’d buy twice! I saw veal were talking about a typhoon and Tucano so thought that would be a great trio to fly in similar to what the RAF real world pilots do. Shame I wasted my money and the company folded. ED were right to dump them when they couldn’t make deadlines and just talked the talk. Sure I feel aggrieved about being cheated out of cash in buying a module I can’t fly however I’ve spent a fortune on scenery and planes in FSX which I rarely fly now and instead love the scenery and realism that DCS brings. I do believe Flying endless circuits around Bantumi helped me get my real world pilots licence although you would ask what does an A10 have in common with a Cessna 152 ! Well they’re both quite slow !, so the moral of the tale, don’t bear a grudge I’m happy to applaud ED with what they’ve achieved and the pleasure they’ve brought to me and will continue to support them as time goes on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite the statement. I agree with the community that VEAO had more than enough time to complete the Hawk and their failure is mostly due to a lack of talent and/or resource mismanagement. Their statement is obviously an attempt to save some face while airing dirty laundry and deflecting blame. But, just because the laundry’s dirty doesn’t make it untrue.

We all know there are plenty of decade+ old bugs that ED refuses to acknowledge, much less address. While we find it annoying, imagine having to work intimately with and around that code with little documentation or support, hoping change after change doesn’t break your own product. Still, their statement says, “an example being 4 bugs...in 2014”, then fails to give any actual example. I find it hard to believe ED would hold VEAO financially liable for ED’s own bugs, and even if they tried such a boneheaded move there is recourse for such things. But penalties for letting your own bugs languish for eternity? Sounds good to me, I just wish ED were subject to their own rules.

And a post of mine from December:

 

It’s honestly kind of shocking to learn that ED may now require 3rd party source code in escrow. Like it or not VEAO’s code is their IP and likely one of their only assets. To be required to relinquish control of this asset in the event you need it most (business failing) would be a huge liability for any company, and certainly a non-starter for any potential investor in said company. Because of this I actually doubt the escrow requirement is true as portrayed in the statement, or at most it’s a small part of a much bigger picture. But if it is true it’s going to cause some serious reconsideration by any future third parties about developing for DCS World.

Anyways, an interesting read for sure, as long as you take it with a lot of salt and recognize the author’s motivations. While it doesn’t change my almost entirely negative opinion of VEAO, it does provide a small glimpse into the murky behind-the-scenes dealings that ED engages in.

Oh, and the “as a British business” thing is pure bullshit.

Good riddance VEAO.

 

Saw the VEAO statement, couple of thoughts as someone who writes software for a living :

1. Holding the source code in escrow sounds like a reasonable request.

2. Being fined for bugs in someone else's code does not. I would have walked away too if somebody tried to foist that on me.

 

I appreciate that there may have been things that needed fixing in the commercial arrangements between VEAO and ED, I just hope that the cure wasn't worse than the illness when it comes to encouraging a thriving third- party add-on environment.....


Edited by IanHx2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...