Aapje

I'm not a lawyer, but I doubt that one can get away in all jurisdictions with making promises and then tucking 'we don't have to keep any promises' away in the EULA. I consider the fact that ED has been doing semi-refunds to be an admission that they are legally obliged to do so. PS. Apparently we can't discuss certain things here, so that makes it even more pointless to talk here.

Consumer law is about what are reasonable expectations on the part of the consumer and whether those expectations are met. Those expectations can be contextual, but also created by the seller. When something is sold as early access, with the promise that certain functionality will be added later, then it seems to me that a reasonable expectation is indeed that this functionality will be added. And in many jurisdictions, the law will probably recognize these as obligations that have to be met, or else the customer can ask for legal remedies.

Yes and no. There is definitely a risk that you don't get what you expect to get, however, if promises have been made that influenced people's buying decisions, then there is a legal obligation to fulfill those promises.

LOL. Too late for that. It is a known issue that the quality of the controls on the Ursa Minor is subpar and worse, that they will just blame the user for abusing the joystick, even when this is not the case. My advice is to do whatever will result in a refund through Paypal the fastest. Don't concern yourself with their reputation, but simply set out your case clearly to them, dispute it when they blame you, and set a strict deadline for them to come up with a resolution. And then file a full refund claim with Paypal when they fail to resolve it within that deadline. Then get a VKB Gladiator NXT.

Nothing wrong with this kind of repair. These battery packs are just generic Chinesium parts that can be replaced with other generic Chinesium parts. Just make sure that the voltage matches. The mAh is the capacity of the battery and that merely determines how long it lasts, but is not a compatibility concern. You only need to make sure that there is no risk of shorts.

I can only see this being useful if you have additional software running that is either fairly demanding on the GPU or extremely demanding on the CPU. It's very unlikely that this is the case for a normal DCS setup. Generally, for gaming you can't just combine a lot of slow computers together to speed things up, since latency is such a big deal.

That seems very unlikely given how these parties seem unable to resolve this in a private and expedient manner, both because this breakdown in cooperation provides a poor basis for working together, but also because the business case for cooperation has been damaged a lot, with many people going to be reluctant to buy future Razbam DCS modules.

See the allegedly leaked letter of demand: https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fx3i7zy89lsvd1.png%3Fwidth%3D611%26format%3Dpng%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D5405272c7de37460511f8b7a6e63c5b211c3c1e7 So it's for MCS, which is also called TBS here on the forum. And Ron appears to have posted some images of the plane on LinkedIn: Says the person making personal attacks with no supporting evidence to back that up.

@draconus Almost without exception, games don't scale very well with overall processing power. What you need is enough processing power to handle all the tasks that have to be done. Then in addition to that, there is the code that is the bottleneck, and that is generally relatively little code that benefits greatly from a high clock speed. Furthermore, the code needs data to process. Code does not only become a bottleneck due to a lack of processing power, but it can also bottleneck because it doesn't have the data available in the local cache and needs to wait for the comparatively slow RAM. The X3D-cache really helps to ensure that the data that is needed for the crucial code is available. Being bottlenecked on waiting for the RAM tends to be much worse than waiting because the CPU is a little slow, because you get a huge disparity in wait times between the situation where the data is available and when it is not. It's much worse for the gaming experience to have stutters (fast then slow then fast then slow) than a consistently slower experience.

This does not at all address my point that this very same logic would then apply to Razbam, if one is judging with a level of inconsistency. If it is not manipulative for ED to leave it out, then why is it deceptive for Razbam to leave it out? In fact, if we follow your logic, then we should conclude that there is nothing deceptive about Razbam's statement, because if the two products are truly entirely separate, then there would be no legitimate reason for ED to withhold payment for DCS sales, over a conflict over TBS. After all, they have nothing to do with each other, according to you. So then ED should have simply paid out the required funds for the DCS module sales, and then should have handled their grievances over the alleged TBS issue separately. And Razbam would then be completely legitimized in complaining about not getting paid for the DCS module sales, without having to reference the alleged TBS issue, because the products are completely separate (at least, according to you). So your argument falls apart with the barest of scrutiny and you are actually legitimizing the statement by Razbam, ironically enough. It's pretty funny that you just now actually swayed me to consider Razbam's statement to less obviously deceptive than I thought previously, since you have convinced me that Ron could have acted based on your logic. I like how you are trying to frame it as something nefarious, when I merely point out all the bias and absurd logic being used. Note that I'm not the one who is attributing sole blame on one side based on speculation and bias (which regularly is even admitted to, at least in part).

It doesn't feel like a suicide to me. In the famous case the pilot locked the other one out of the cockpit and downed the plane. But here it would require the nerve to do it with the other pilot present, and then doing it at the right moment, so there is no time to restart the engines, but also no time to abort. You would think that it would be hard to hold things together and execute a plan like that with the stress of having someone present and having to get the timing right.

This entire post, as well as your previous ones, tells me that this is almost certainly not the case, since at every turn you give one side the maximum benefit of the doubt and the other side the minimum. No amount of evidence is going to convince a person that will look for any reason to distrust evidence that points one way, and every reason to trust evidence that points the other way. Anyway, obviously I'm not going to post evidence here, since it is offtopic to the Razbam situation and would likely result in moderator intervention. But it's not that hard to find, and someone might even message you the evidence. So let me get this straight. You believe that Razbam agreed to make a plane for a third party in breach of contract, and that they are deceptive for leaving that out of their statement. But when ED left that same information out of their statement, you don't believe that it was deceptive. It's only deceptive when Razbam does it...why? And is it really 'naive bothsideism' when I recognize that Razbam tries to frame the issue in their favor by telling a half-truth, but ED is doing the exact same by leaving out their non-payment, which is not a framing that is to their benefit, even though it pretty clearly seems to be true and a highly relevant part of the conflict? And you believe that Razbam is using paying customers as hostages for refusing to yield to ED's demands, which to be clear, are secret, so we have no way to judge how reasonable those are, but when ED refuses to yield to Razbam's demands, which are also secret, they are not using customers as hostages. To me, this is all obvious tunnel vision and bias, where your bias just reinforces itself. You only consider the statements by Razbam to be 'obviously manipulative,' but not the statements by ED, because of this bias, but instead of treating it as results of your bias, you let the bias deceive you into thinking that your biased conclusions are objective, and a good basis for your bias. So you may think that your bias is based on evidence, but I see bias based on bias.

So your 'facts' are that you believe vague statements by the employee of one party in the conflict with no actual proof being supplied, rather than the vague statements by the other party in the conflict (or accept that both may be wrong)... This is just a textbook case of bias. In fact, you even admit that you do not judge this case based on the facts of this case, but that: "All I'm assuming about Ron comes from how he handled other issues before." Even if there is a basis for that prejudice, it doesn't change that such prejudice is not the same as having actual facts about this case. And again, it is not true that one side has to be fully wrong and the other side fully right when there is a conflict. Note that there are also allegations, allegedly supported with evidence, that ED itself has broken contracts. So why are you not assuming negative things about ED based on their alleged behavior? PS. NineLine's statement is actually quite weird, since on the one hand they claim that their legal contract(s) have been violated, but also that they don't entertain legal claims. With the knowledge that ED has apparently been withholding all payments for a very long time now, this can just as easily be interpreted as them having more confidence in their ability to strong-arm Razbam into doing what ED considers reasonable, than in their ability to prevail in court, which raises questions whether ED's belief of what is reasonable, would be considered reasonably by an independent judge. Of course, I can't speak to the exact internal deliberations by ED. But this is an example of how things can be a lot less one-sided than you make it seem.

Except that you are not actually just basing your opinion merely on facts, but on the speculation that the accusation is true, and are actually going further than that, by claiming that the alleged breach of contract was deliberate, which I don't think was even the accusation by ED, nor do we have any evidence for this. If I assumed the worst about you, like you seem to assume the worst about Ron, I could accuse you of misrepresenting the facts deliberately. But that would be irresponsible and unjust, just like your assumptions about Ron are irresponsible and unjust. We lack a lot of information and there could be a lot of facts that are unknown to us, that could lead to a conclusion of greater and lesser fault, and greater or lesser malicious intent, both on the part of Ron and ED.

There is a big difference between making a full simulator and making a module for an existing simulator, and it is not a good sign that you conflate the two. The allegedly leaked information suggests that the latter is the case and that RAZBAM signed an agreement not to develop such modules without a contract with ED. So then it is not so much an IP case, but rather a contract case, which can be very complicated, since all kinds of factors can play a role, like whether contract clauses are legal in the first place, whether the clause is actually violated, whether there was an attempt to obey the letter of the contract while violating the spirit, whether the courts would allow that, etc, etc. Note that according to the allegedly leaked document, the actual company who was to create the simulator setup was a third party, neither ED nor RAZBAM, so that makes it even more complicated, given that this third party would presumably not be bound by the same contracts as RAZBAM. From what I can tell, the attempt to paint this as a mere IP violation appear to be deceptive PR by one side of the conflict, probably because they don't want to divulge the contents of the contracts, and Spud's video rather one-sidedly presents the claims of that side. If they provide the 'context' you want them to give, they would probably be lying, given your misconceptions about the situation. Furthermore, you are assuming that they are even at liberty to disclose certain information. Your entire post strongly suggests that you don't understand IP law. You don't even seem to understand that there are different forms of IP, with different rules. For example, copyright is strongly protected and doesn't require any work to establish that right, but is only about the exact expression. It doesn't protect solution mechanisms, for which there are patents, which are far more restricted in a variety of ways (requiring registration, them being novel solutions and having a relatively short time limit). Also, the courts have established that APIs are not subject to copyright protection in the context of their use, so making software that calls an API doesn't violate copyright, even if the API calls use the same expressions as the API (which of course is needed for the calls to work). If you want to seriously talk about IP violations, you need to establish what kind of IP violation you are talking about, because they are very different; and how the IP was violated exactly. In general, it's absolutely not the case that once you have worked with a specific product, you cannot make a competing product. You talk about the question whether a third party module maker can make their own simulator, but this statement again seems to confuse things and is very vague about what you mean. Are you talking about the alleged module for a military that RAZBAM would make, because this is not a full simulator in itself, and would need to be bundled with DCS (or its military version). So that is not at all the same as developing a full simulator. That distinction matters a lot, but you completely ignore this due to how sloppy you are with your words. Your assertion that any company that makes either competing simulator (again, it is unclear whether you actually mean a module for DCS or completely separate software) would need to obey some vague cooldown period, suggests that you are projecting your experiences as an employee on this situation (and even then without understanding employee law). Cooldown periods can be part of employee contracts, but Ron Zambrano is and was not a DCS employee. With copyright and patents, there are defined expiry dates, which have nothing to do with how recently one worked with, or on a product. And if the actual issue is a violation of a contract, not a violation of IP law, then what matters is what is in that contract, so then all your talk about how IP laws works is not relevant to that. PS. Not sure why you made most of your comment bold.

This is almost always the case, whether it is human error by the pilots, maintenance or designers.

50 PPD is lower clarity and more FOV. 57 PPD is the opposite. Ultrawide is more FOV, high clarity, but less depth perception due to a smaller binocular overlap: https://www.roadtovr.com/understanding-binocular-overlap-and-why-its-important-for-vr-headsets/ The difficulty with all of these things is that what matters most to you is very personal. In fact, everyone has a different FOV, PPD and binocular overlap depending on their face shape. So to a large extent, it is a gamble. I would probably pick the ultrawide if I were to get one:

That is only about the original Crystal. Pimax has a bad habit of copying other companies, even when it doesn't make sense. For the original Crystal, they tried to copy the Quest, creating a headset that can be used standalone, with a mobile chip and battery inside. However, no one buys a Pimax for standalone, so they just made a headset that is more heavy than needed and requires charging (even when using it wired). For the Crystal Light and Crystal Super, they fixed this, by getting rid of the mobile chip and battery. The Super partially compensates for that due to the eye tracking, which allows proper foveated rendering (using a lower resolution for the area in your peripheral vision). With a 4090, you can definitely benefit from the Super's extra resolution, especially since there is also the option to use DLSS 4.

The Constellation Alpha Prime is also metal.

That is a very biased way to frame things, where it is assumed that ED is completely in the right, and it is purely in the court of Razbam to solve things. We lack a lot of relevant information to judge things for ourselves, so putting the sole blame on any party cannot be more than prejudice, mixed with at best a few scattered facts.

Yeah, and the people who buy early access modules, rather than wait for the module to be finished, are encouraging this behavior.

They are working on a dynamic campaign: And there already is a third party thing if you want something right now:

With Pimax it is a very bad idea to assume that they will achieve their roadmap.

In The Netherlands, you can now get it for 497 euro, which is $585, but keep in mind that is with 21% tax. It's 410 euro without tax, which is $482. And in my opinion, you are better off skipping the grip and getting a Virpil, certainly for what the MH16 costs. The Constellation Alpha is only slightly more expensive, but it is more featureful and better built. The big question mark with the MHG-grip is whether they improve the issues with the original grip. If they do, it can be a very appealing package at the right price.