Originally Posted by Vaderini
Could you do an overview about how Tango went through working for pretty much every 3rd party developer, with eventually becoming a persona non grata within DCS and getting banned (of course)?

Never got that story fully, and i'm learning a lot of new stuff in this interesting overview popcorn

I'll be honest, I never got the full Tango story. What I got was lies hiding the truth of what was taking place behind the scenes.

Back to 2013, VEAO were being hammered about implementing a rear seat. The L-39 had been announced by ED as having rear seat implemented. Chris said the code had to be completely redone back then for a rear seat.
Little did he know that the entire aircraft would need to be re-coded once EDGE was finalised. Did VEAO have knowledge that the entire aircraft would need a complete recode for EDGE and ignored it?
or was it at that moment that the blame shifted from Tango to ED? rest easy gents, I will get to that moment in due time.The blame at this point at the beginning of 2014 could be laid squarely on Tango.
We as consumer's do not need to have the full story to gather that much. 2014 was when the delay's began.

Right before in that post above from Chris, VEAO were on the search of an AFM coder.

[Linked Image]

Did VEAO come out then and honestly say there was an internal issue (infighting) that would delay the Hawk as a complete re-write of the code would need to be carried out? nope. It was still
"Full steam ahead" Tango himself said here at SimHQ that because his code was still being used, VEAO were contracted to keep paying him a percentage of sales from
the Hawk (shame he has deleted the post) Pretty sure it was in this forum Here

What we know is that in order for Tango to be cut loose completely from VEAO and prevent a percentage of sales going to Tango. All of Tango's code would need to be removed from the Hawk.

A product delaying complete re-write from start to finish, Was ED informed of the situation? I'd reach out for comment but being banned unfortunately prevents me seeking answers.

What we know is that months later, ED must have got word on the situation.

I like the earlier "we have the full support of ED"

to the now "fm away from ED"

[Linked Image]

And the earlier collaborations where VEAO mentioned "we will be sharing infomation blah blah blah....."

That does not look like ED where that keen to share information, especially regarding AFM's EFM's PFM's .DOC .PFD etc etc etc

If they were, VEAO chose to ignore it an do their own thing.