Aapje

@sirrah The F-86F is still being sold for $50 today and on the shop page there is absolutely no indication that you are buying something that is built to poorer standards and is not getting updates. So how would a random consumer who looks at the store know that some modules are built to lower standards? And it may also be off putting to consumers of new (early access) modules to see that some significant bugs never get fixed in those older modules, which raises questions about what state newer modules will be left in. Isn't the entire marketing claim by ED that DCS World is not a game that has a limited shelf life, but a modular platform that will keep getting more and more modules and updates? Anyway, I argued before that I think that DCS is painting themselves into a corner by adopting this strategy of adding more and more things, while it seems impossible for them to maintain it all. And I also think that all the weight of having to keep the existing modules working and somewhat up to date, will slow down development on the game engine greatly. It's the job of ED to manage expectations. Otherwise they create their own critics.

@Rifter Even fairly limited contact between the motors and the outer shell can result in a decent amount of heat transfer if the main issue is a relatively slow build-up of heat. This is not a CPU or GPU where immense amounts of heat get output for potentially very long consecutive periods, and the CPU and GPU chips have little mass of their own, so they very quickly get overwhelmed with heat if not cooled in a very efficient way. These motors have way more mass than a chip and thus can buffer way more heat.

I think that this is really a feature request that should be split up into a different topic.

@trev5150 A few chords is different to copying an entire software package. Your personal preferences/morals simply don't reflect the legal reality, and that poses a risk to buyers of the product. We are not a hive mind and you do not speak for 'we'. Everyone gets to make up their own mind whether they support this ethically and consider the legal risks to Moza.

It's going to sell like hotcakes. I'd just wait a few months if you can control yourself.

What I know is that the more code/modules are in a project, the more work it is to maintain everything. And it's worse when the platform is getting changed, since that tends to require fixes in other code/modules. And the state of the art moves on too, so older modules either fall out of favor or need to be brought up to modern standards. But if modules will not generate enough sales if you bring them up to the state of the art, but you also can't abandon them, because the people who bought them expect to be able to keep using them, then the project will forever have modules that cost effort to maintain, but have low sales and reflect poorly on the product. So I have a hard time seeing it as a sustainable model to keep making modules, creating more and more work in maintenance and making it harder and harder to improve the game engine, without causing tons of rework in existing modules. Then the project is likely to run out of developers to maintain the standards they started with and certain features will never be implemented, because they require an excessive amount of (re)work. There is a reason why certain competitor products are releasing new game engines, either leaving old content behind on the old engine, or demoting old content to second tier status, and adding ways to get income from upgrading old modules. I personally think that a pivot will need to be made in the next few years, in a way that will anger many people, but that is needed for the long-term viability of DCS.

Another video on the subject.

Nevertheless, there are better and worse moments to upgrade. But of course it is your choice. I myself also picked a suboptimal moment to upgrade my platform because I had other reasons.

I think that you have a peculiar definition of popular. There are zero new WMR-headsets getting produced. And in the SteamVR survey, 4% of headsets are WMR. And with only some Windows users being gamers, and only a small percentage of gamers engaging in PCVR, and only 4% of those gamers using WMR, that makes for a very small percentage of Windows users that use it. I fully understand that MS doesn't want to take all the effort to validate that it keeps working, and to do bug fixes if it breaks, for each release. It sucks for Reverb users, but this is the way of the world. When new technology comes around you typically have competing standards. If you buy into a standard that loses out, your hardware is not going to stand the test of time. 'twas the same for Betamax vs VHS.

EU prices (have to) include sales tax, and the tax is higher in EU countries anyway than in the US.

If they took the code and translated it into a different programming language, then this is no more legal than if I translate Harry Potter to a different language and sell it as my own. That's obviously not legal. By default, copyright law doesn't grant permission to distribute someone else's code (or derivations of such), but the GPL gives permission, as long as you follow the rules. Moza didn't follow the rules, so then they don't have permission to distribute. Easy as. The only real question I see is whether the evidence presented so far is sufficient in a court of law, but copying variable names that refer to VPForce seems like it has a good chance of being regarded slam-dunk evidence. And it's likely that with a little digging, far more evidence can be found. Anyway, this is a big legal risk to Moza and buyers of the base, since at any point, Walmis can sue and force Moza to stop providing their software, as well as ask for a substantial claim. And the courts are unlikely to see this as an accident, and willful copyright infringement can result in a $150k claim in the US alone. And Walmis can sue in the EU and other places as well. Even if Walmis doesn't want to run the risk or put in the effort, any other FFB competitor can at any point take on all the risk & effort of a court case, if they team up with Walmis to run Moza out of town with tar and feathers. PS. All of this has been known for a long time, and there is already an established method to copy the functionality of existing code, without running the risk of getting sued.

No, it's the opposite, and even then it is a combination of the bus size and how many bits are used per GB. Once the 3 GB modules get used, cards can have 50% more VRAM for the same bus size. And it is also possible to run modules with half the bus width, so they could make a 24 GB 4070-variant right now, although the bandwidth to each memory module would be halved.

About bus size, what actually matters is how fast the data can be transferred to and from the VRAM. This is a combination of the speed of the memory and the size of the bus. I expect a big uplift on this front for the Nvidia 50x0 cards because the new GDDR7 memory has much higher speeds, even if the bus size is not increased. And the 4080 Super uses faster memory, so the actual difference with the 7900 XTX in memory bandwith is a bit less than the difference in bus size would suggest (736.3 GB/s vs 960.0 GB/s).

Hmm, that is very naughty (also, legally so).

Keep in mind that the 5080 is rumored to be announced at CES very early in Januari. I would personally wait for that, also since the 9800X3D should drop in price by then. And the Reverb G2 is end of life, so you might want to start planning a replacement.

There is no issue if they copy the functionality, rather than the actual code.

No, 7800X3D's come in two variants, with 1 CCD and those with 2. Basically, they create a bunch of CPUs with two CCDs and 3D V-Cache. The ones that are fully functional get sold as 7950X3D. Those that are a little bit broken get sold as 7900X3D, where 2 cores are disabled on each CCD. Then other chips have a completely broken CCD or connection between the CCDs and they get sold as 7800X3D. But demand is greater than what can be supplied with these partially broken chips, so they also create CPUs with 1 CCD and 3D V-Cache. These get sold as the 7800X3D if they are fully functional and if 1 or 2 cores are broken, they get sold as a 7600X3D with two cores disabled. In general, a crucial aspect of manufacturing CPU and GPU chips is to make sure that those with defects can still be sold, for a lower price. It is much more expensive to have to toss a CPU/GPU chip in the trash, rather than sell them for a lower price.

So do you consider map releases successful that see almost no use in MP? At that point that map is not just unappealing to a subset of players, but the evidence suggests that the map is not usable for an entire game mode of DCS. I would suggest that such a situation, with many players remarking that buying maps gives very little return on what they cost, might require a bit of a rethink. Yes, but making lots of products that stay in early access for a very long time, or have serious issues after release, is also a shame. At the end of the day, you can't do everything and choices have to be made between different alternatives that all have their pros and cons. In this thread a lot of people are making suggestions that some choices should perhaps be made differently. And spreading yourselves thin doesn't necessarily mean that you deliver more, since there is a cost to getting back into something you set aside for a while, and for keeping track of a lot of half-finished projects. I assume you mean B2B, because the consumer gaming market is also professional, as most of those gamers do pay you.

The question is whether this is a sustainable approach. If people start to feel that their spending is not giving them what they want, or even feel deceived, then they may stop spending. And it also generates bad PR when lots of people have negative things to say about the product. It can even result in a death spiral where to maintain income when people leave, more choices are made that maximize short term income, over long term health of the project. Futhermore, should the game focus on a 'specialized community', or should it focus a bit more on growing the community? Perhaps that requires choices that return a bit less income in the short term, but grow the player base and in the long term, result in more players that are happy to keep spending. As some of the posters have shown, statements have been made by ED employees that create expectations, which then haven't been met. I think that not acknowledging this, but implying that customers have unrealistic expectations through no fault of ED, is a bit of a cop-out. It's not really fair to set expectations by making statements and then chastising people for having those expectations. You keep repeating this, but I see people complaining that some of the goals that you are working towards don't seem that appealing, like making maps that have relatively little use or making a questionable dot system. Getting to the finish line fast is as much about speed as it is about going in the right direction.

It seems like a missed opportunity to not release a low-resolution base map for free and then sell the high-res version/sections. That way the value is much greater for those who buy, since they can actually use the map to play against their friends and/or in servers with enough players. And players who don't buy the high-res map also get more value out of their other purchases. And it is also highly beneficial to campaign makers, who have a much bigger audience if their campaign features these maps.

Is that a guess, or do you actually have it working? That extension is intended for a Winwing base, while the Moza base has a Trustmaster connector.

In my opinion, Moza's software should handle the switch of the axes. It doesn't make sense to have to change it in every game separately, if that is even an option.

Keep in mind that you will stop getting security updates after the end of next year, so at that point you are risking getting hacked.

The worst part is that they seem to be befuddled by the issues. How can it be that reviewer after reviewer runs into issues, that Intel themselves didn't find? Don't they test their own product like a reviewer would? It's so embarrassing for such a big company.