No i know how to link against a dll, it’s just that it creates an unecessary level of indirection and precludes the compiler from doing any compile time optimizations that would benefit from a larger compilation unit.
Probably a dumb question, but what are the chances someone can decompile the affected .dll and alter the timebomb date to the year 2100 or something?
I literally do not understand a word of that! But it’s alright. I can eat the sausage* without knowing how the factory removes most of the rat sh*+ before stuffing the slurry of pig parts into a tube. Knowing just makes me loose my appetite.
*Don’t know why I had the “the” there. Fruedian slip?
2 Likes
For starters:
Essentially, everytime the program calls a function, there is some overhead involved with that. When you have the source code, the compiler can do what is called “inlining”, that is, it can insert the entire body of the function instead of calling the function, saving the function call overhead.
There are many more types of optimizations the compiler can do at compile time, but in a nutshell, it is beneficial to performance to not have too many levels of indirection.
3 Likes
Assuming that Galinette was doing contract work directly for RB, the positive in all of this, is potentially ED could hire Galinette directly. There may be non-competes floating around in all this, but non-payment to one party usually absolves the other. Same as far RB’s various IP’s (AV-8, F-15E, etc) in all this, a breach of contract may cause the rights and code to end up in ED’s space. Or that might be the negotiated end result of a settlement versus owing large sums of money they just don’t have. The end result might actually turn out to be a positive for the consumer.
6 Likes
decompiling / deconstructing the DLL and disabling it at this point, since we know the developer intentionally put it there to protect his IP, is a violation of the EULA for DCS.
1 Like
I’m not sure of the ethics or viability of the Budgie Mod that @Torc linked above, but it seems to work well with the current build. At least in the 1.5 hours of testing that I did last night.
2 Likes
Someone say budgies?
3 Likes
I completely agree. Even if I do ask my people to chip in from time to time for maintenance of our base and its surroundings. It’s never assumed and I try to not put any pressure on anyone to join in.
So ah… what way forward is there? How can the strike eagle ever be completed?
4 Likes
Wait for this mess to settle down to see if Razbam stays in the DCS game. Then make a Kickstarter titled “I Want You Back, Galinette”.
I don’t even own the F-15E but I’ll chip in to keep Galinette in DCS module development.
2 Likes
TBH, with the long and winding history of the Mudhen, I am utterly flabbergasted that they found devs to work on that project, let alone someone so competent. And that they agreed to work in advance.
3 Likes
I about died when I read this. Thanks, needed the laugh today! 
3 Likes
Viability is however long the community (or at least Slasher) want to continue supporting it, and IMO the ethics are that you’re restoring functionality you paid for that was removed in a way you weren’t expecting.
ED has not killed the thread on the official forum.
Gallinette even hinted (assuming the post is real) that it would be easy to work around his timebomb.
This isn’t exactly right-to-repair, but it’s gotta fall under a lot of the same considerations, right?
4 Likes
There’s a difference between agreeing to work in advance. and working for almost a year for free after RB’s sales revenue was withheld.
1 Like
I might change that to:
“after allegedly RB’s sales revenue was withheld. The alleged reason being for violating the terms of their contact with ED and using ED’s core IP for profit without ED’s consent and allegedly without any pass through of revenue.”
Lot of rumors floating around in all this.
4 Likes
Yeah, this has got to trigger at least some EU consumer protection laws, right? Purposefully disabling a major feature of a product, without consumer knowledge or consent, does not fall within the bounds of “it’s Early Access you knew what you were paying for.”
2 Likes
Yeah I mean… Agree 100% on this.
Hard to consider RB innocent.
So official fix for the radar issue in the upcoming patch (allegedly … it’s in the announcement of the delay of the patch - we’ll wait to see if the fix is real).
Almost as if ED is supporting the products they sell like I said there was some evidence for with the whole Mirage Charges Switch thing (sorry - that’s not aimed at anyone here, I’m just taking some flak in other fora for not jumping on the ED BAD!!11 wagon without any thought and need to vent)
7 Likes
it’s likely the Fix Galinette submitted to ED, and the r’dit groups just gripped because they still think it should have been an immediate zero delay turn around in integrating said fix *(or in this case, updated DLLs with TB/DMS code removed)…
but with SEVERAL things being added to DCS, there’s a lot of new things to integrate, users griping about delays, have never worked in software testing or development.
5 Likes
4 Likes