Jump to content

Danakar Endeel

Imperium Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Feedback


Danakar Endeel last won the day on February 6

Danakar Endeel had the most liked content!

About Danakar Endeel

  • Rank
  • Birthday 09/01/1975

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    The Netherlands

Recent Profile Visitors

4,339 profile views
  1. Who knows At any rate I like how they took the original concept design and combined it with the larger round thrusters. Also feels like the thrusters are positioned properly now with all that center of mass to thrust stuff that they always talked about. The old diagonal layout made it look like the ship would nosedive when firing the thrusters.
  2. New engine layout shown during ISC today. I think it looks good; at least the thrusters now look more proportial in size compared to the size of the ship in my opinion. The ones shown during Citizencon looked too small for some reason; like someone slapped fighter thrusters on a corvette. I think the horizontal layout is also much better than the wierd diagonal split layout of the Citizencon version where the housing around the thrusters also had a wierd shape that didn't line up with the rest of the rear. Not sure how to describe it properly but the whole thruster arrangement on the Citizencon version felt rather tacked on and messy while this new version feels much cleaner and orderly. Getting a little bit of Star Destroyer feel from this new version.
  3. Apparently during the status conference the Judge directed the parties to try and resolve the Motion without intervention from the Court. CIG and CryTek have now filed a joint document in which they say they are close to a resolution and ask the court to vacate the Hearing that was scheduled for tomorrow. https://docdro.id/bSYH9xp The Judge has sent out her Order to vacate the Hearing and to rule on the Motion to Dismiss after February 21 2020 unless CIG and CryTek submit their resolution before that date. https://docdro.id/ud6SPmt Guess we now have to wait and see what happens.
  4. No problem! I figured I'd check for alternatives just in case to see if there might be a way for you to get both a Carrack while still being able to get a Hercules without it costing you a kidney. It's a shame those $0 Vanguard-to-Merchantman CCUs can't be gifted as I still have two of those in my Hangar as well. At any rate, if at some point you want that Merchantman-to-Hercules CCU just let me know. Who knows; you might come across someone with a giftable Andromeda-to-Merchantman CCU for cheap or something as the Terrapin can be upgraded to an Andromeda for only $5.
  5. Well, I don't know if you happen to have any old $0 Vanguard-to-Merchantman CCUs lying around as apparently those were never removed when Turbulent activated their "$0 CCU removal script". You see; I still have a $10 Merchantman-to-Hercules CCU in my Hangar. I'd be perfectly fine to gift it to you as I have another in my BuyBack. That would give you the option to upgrade that Terrapin in the Explorer pack to a Warden at some point and from there to a C2. Just let me know as I'm just offering options.
  6. A few days ago I was on a Reddit thread where people were talking about the Carrack. Turns out the UEE Exploration pack became visible to people once they reached $750 pledged. So if you're close to $750 that pack might still be an option as apparently I was wrong and you don't have to be full Concierge ($1000 pledged) to have it become available.
  7. Just realized I didn't answer your other question. I'm definitely sticking with my Carrack as -to me- it's the closest thing to having my very own SSV Normandy kinda 'hero ship'.
  8. Yeah, Concierge is at $1000. I figured I'd mention that pack just in case.
  9. Are you close to Concierge? If so you might consider getting the $695 UEE Exploration 2948 Pack as that one is currently still available. This pack (and the Mega version) may be removed soon though as it now offers a ridiculous discount compared to the 'value' of the ships in that pack ($960); especially now that the Carrack went from $350 to $500. It also comes with LTI, 20k UEC, SC + SQ42 game packages, and you can buy it with Store Credit. https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/Packages/UEE-Exploration-2948-Pack
  10. Not sure when the Judge will actually rule on the motion; but the hearing on the motion is set for the 7th of Febuary according to the Judge's order. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6256484/97/crytek-gmbh-v-cloud-imperium-games-corp/
  11. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6256484/115/2/crytek-gmbh-v-cloud-imperium-games-corp/ CryTek's 'opposition' to CIG's opposition to CryTek's Motion to Dismiss sounds like a whole lot of rambling contradictory nonsense where CryTek apparently can't make up its mind nor make a proper argument as to why it should be allowed to be dismissed without prejudice and without conditions. They also appear rather desperate in proclaiming that they are not running away multiple times and stating that it only wants a temporary stay. If they didn't want to run away but just place things on a temporary hold then why did they file for a "Motion to Dismiss" and not a "Motion to Stay"? A "Motion to Stay" would have been more appropriate if CryTek actually intended to pick up where it left off. "Once CIG stops delaying Squadron 42 and releases it in a manner that constitutes a breach of the GLA, Crytek will re-file its claims with the utmost of confidence." Re-file with the utmost of confidence ... but only IF the game releases with a possible breach. Yeah right, from my perspective CryTek has ZERO intention to re-file at all because SQ42 will be released on Lumberyard and the Amazon email found by CIG during Discovery blew both their remaining claims out of the water. CryTek just wants the Judge to dismiss without prejudice so they can jump ship before a final ruling is made and get that $500k bond back so that CIG will be left 'holding the bag' regarding their own legal defense fees. "Breach of the GLA is based on Development of Squadron 42 as a standalone game, not the actual release of Squadron 42" "CIG spends much of its Opposition arguing that Crytek had to have known that Squadron 42 had not yet been released as a standalone game from the start of this case." So which is it CryTek? Is developing SQ42 or releasing SQ42 a breach now? First it was developing, then it was releasing, and now it's developing again but it needs to be released so ... "CIG can't hide anymore"? All this flip-flopping from CryTek makes no sense yet CryTek has the nerve to claim that CIG is the one doing the flip-flopping. Also funny how they are still harping on and on about their GLA when the Judge already ruled that CIG was allowed to switch to the Amazon license. Here's hoping the Judge will see what CryTek is trying to pull here, get fed up with CryTek (again), and order a dismissal WITH prejudice so we can all move on.
  12. Good to hear things have worked out in the end. Hope you enjoy.
  13. Yeah, here's hoping it will work. Not sure if this might help but you might also want to delete your USER folder as sometimes that can fix certain issues. By deleting it, the system creates a new fresh USER folder when you log in.
  14. I think it was just some wierd bug where your account somehow wasn't telling the game you had a game package or something. Normally buying either the Aurora MR Game Package or the Mustang Alpha Game Package would give the person access to the game immediately.
  • Create New...