Aapje

And none of that conflicts with what I wrote. In fact, that is exactly why I am against the kind of kind of reasoning where everything that harms consumers, is blamed on Razbam. Even if Razbam is completely at fault in all respects of the conflict between the two, then ED can still have legal and/or moral obligations to their customers, and you can have an opinion on whether they are meeting those obligations. This brings me to: I intentionally try to talk about general principles, rather than get very specific, since we lack a lot of details. But I can give an example, with the caveat that this is merely a possibility and I don't have the facts to know whether the assumptions in the example are true. But it can illustrate the general principle: Lets imagine that the contract between ED and Razbam contains a huge fine for whatever Razbam did. At that point, ED can feel entitled to collect this fine. However, collecting that fine may bankrupt Razbam, or make the prospect of further collaboration with ED a non-starter. In that case, ED could decide to reduce their claim to a figure that is sufficiently punitive to Razbam so they would never do it again. They could even look to criminal law for inspiration, and sign a probationary contract with Razbam, where part of the fine is not collected unless Razbam offends again. And then in turn, Razbam would return to work on the consumer modules. In such a scenario, ED would lose out on part of the fine, but they would do the right thing for the customers of DCS. But again, what they can do depends on details that we do not know. However, the way things went does suggest to me that ED didn't do as much as they probably could.

@cfrag That entire comment has nothing to do with the statement that you are responding to. That the dealings of ED with consumers was impacted by the dispute between Razbam and ED is a fact, and the matter of guilt is quite irrelevant to that specific issue. So I don't understand why you bring that up, in this context. All that is needed for my statement to be true is a certain impact to consumers (like a lack of updates and the removal of modules from the store) and evidence that this is caused by the conflict between ED and Razbam. Again, everyone agrees on this, including ED and Razbam. In fact, this is on of the few things that ED has made a statement about.

It is a fact that the dealings between ED and Razbam resulted in an end to the maintenance and further development of these modules by Razbam, and later on their removal from the store, which impacts consumers. This has nothing to do with knowing or not knowing anything about legal matters. The above sentence consists of facts that all sides agree on.

Allegedly. We still don't know the extent to which Ron actually breached the contract and such. Even if he did, there could have been options on the part of ED to prevent this from spilling over into the public. For example, did they communicate with Razbam in an escalating or de-escalating way? Did they give room for negotiation or did they present a take-it-or-leave-it choice (the latter greatly increases the chance that the other party will 'leave it'). Did they back Razbam into a wall, or give them a decent way out? Etc. There is really a lot more possible nuance to this than a black/white view where all the blame gets put on one side. But even in that case, you can also blame that in part on ED, because ED has the power to decide who can develop for DCS and what standards they demand from the subcontractors. And you can even take a further step back, and blame ED for the decision to work with subcontractors in this manner in the first place, where they don't have the kind of control compared to doing it in house, and as a result, you can have these big quality differences, as well as the subcontractors making decisions that ED doesn't like. My opinion is that the buck ultimately stops with ED, given their position of power and given that they are the ones actually selling the products to customers. So up to a point, I think that ED should be willing to eat a loss even if it is not really fair, when that is in the best interest of their consumers and their reputation.

With leaks, the general principle is 'Cui Bono': who benefits? Most of the leaks so far have been painting ED in a bad light, so presumably those came from the Razbam side. This video puts all the blame on Razbam, not mentioning the questionable choices that ED has made, or holes in this narratives that paints ED in the best light. For example, the narrative from the video that Razbam merely had to sign a contract to fix everything and that there is no reason not to sign it, is obviously a one-sided narrative. Surely Ron had a reason not to sign, and the video shows its bias by not even addressing it. If the video had a statement that: 'Ron objected due to clause X,' then the viewer could decide for themselves whether that objection could have any merit. And 'sources' of course have bias and they can be wrong too, so from a journalistic point of view, this seems like a poor video, based on a single source without verification of the claims, while a good journalist would only publish if they either had multiple sources, or would have done a lot of fact-checking on whether their source is reliable. Neither seems to be the case for the video. So for me it is no different from the other leaked stuff: a perspective, with an agenda, that has to be taken with a lot of salt.

@Lenux I'd look for a phone holder for in a car, that you can attach to the back of the monitor and that can stick up over it, and has a ball joint on the phone holder (most do). That way, you can make a 180 degree bend and you can twist the holder to the perfect angle. For example: https://aliexpress.com/item/1005007327130092.html https://aliexpress.com/item/1005004233938917.html https://aliexpress.com/item/1005006457745382.html https://aliexpress.com/item/1005008704418122.html https://aliexpress.com/item/1005006849857200.html Etc. There are about a gazillion options for this. Key is to find a flat or moderately curved surface on the back on the monitor where you can attach it to, and then figure out what length of holder you need to make it go over the monitor.

Only reviewers would have it at this point in time.

Except that's not actually what you are doing, since you are basing your comments on a lot of speculation. You are just not making it clear that it is speculation, and present it as if it is based on fact. That's why I never claimed that the loophole exist, but rather that we cannot dismiss the possibility of a loophole. It is honestly rather telling that you characterize carefully hedged comments as 'vague waffle.' Your claim that there is not a loophole is actually a claim that is unsupported by evidence. Again, the contract is not public. You don't have it. So how can you be sure that there is no loophole? You can't, obviously. I never said that they are routinely incompetent, that is just you putting words in my mouth. I merely said that it is a definite possibility. There have been cases where lawyers missed a loophole where the stakes were way higher than here. For example, the J. Crew refinancing loophole, where J. Crew managed to remove $250 million of collateral from a loan agreement, which they then used to get new loans.

Defining limits on what others can do is not at all easy. According to the rumors, Razbam didn't exactly do what the rules are written to prevent, which to develop a module for DCS that is sold to non-consumers. Ron might have thought that he had found a loophole. Stating that you know that Ron is in the wrong, even though the contract is not public, and the exact behavior is not fully clear, is irresponsible. Your gushing over how perfect contract lawyers are, ignores that you don't even know whether Razbam asked a contract lawyer their opinion on whether what they did was legal. And contract lawyers are not gods. Lawyers in general are primarily trained to communicate without ambiguity, how words tend to get interpreted, and how judges tend to judge. However, they don't necessarily have the domain knowledge to know what the contracts should guard against, especially for smaller companies like ED, that probably won't have enough work to keep even a single lawyer busy for more than a few days a month (in contrast to a company like Disney, for example). Also, there are many grey areas in law, where no one knows for sure how the judge will decide, also because there is a lot of leeway in what judges factor in, and to what extent. For example, there can be a big difference between them sticking strictly to the exact words of the contract, or them factoring in the intent behind the contract. You realize that your are praising an armchair legal expert just because he says the things you want to hear, right?

Super cards are simply a refresh halfway through the 2 year life cycle of the platform, which either replaces a card that doesn't sell well (anymore), or adds a missing (half)-tier to the line-up. Often they are actually better binned silicon. For example, the 4070 Super has more cores enabled than the 4070. This was almost certainly a response to the 4070 not being sufficiently competitive with the 7800 XT. The 4080 Super also had more cores enabled. And note that framing it as slightly 'off' silicone is a bad way to think about things. A very large number of chips has at least some defects, and the manufacturers deal with this by binning the chips in categories like so (percentages just chosen as an example): Bin 1: 99-100% functional Bin 2: 95-100% functional Bin 3: 90-95% functional Bin 4: 80-90% functional Then they sell bin 1 as the most expensive variant of the chip, but then they still disable 1% of that chip so that all chips in that bin meet the specs, even when that means disabling perfectly good parts of the chip. And bin 2 goes into the second-most expensive variant, etc. And you need to keep in mind that these bins exist across their product lineup, from professional cards, to desktop cards, to laptops. For example, the 5090 is actually bin 2, with 21760 enabled shaders. The top bin of that chip with 24064 enabled shaders only goes into the professional cards. All of this is planned out way in advance, and if anything, they often hold back the top-performing chips in each bin, for if they later want to introduce a card with better specs. The chip factories can pump out chips very fast anyway and they produce in batches, so usually they end up with a large supply of chips very early on. Then those get used over a much longer period.

We already know that 'weak' FFB devices like the Moza base cannot replicate real forces, which go to 40 pounds of force in the F/A-18C for max pulling to the rear. In non-fly by wire planes, the force can go way higher and overpower the pilot. So you probably need the upcoming Winwing 60 Nm version to have a chance at some level of realism. And I doubt that pilots could even tell you what is realistic, since the absence of major G-force will mean that the experience is totally different at the extremes. So it's not going to feel the same to them when sitting in an office chair, even if you would make the stick behave identically. The prototypes had a fixed stick, but this would result in pilots inputting roll when they only meant to pull, and vice versa. Also, pilots would not know when the limit was reached, so they would put maximum pressure on the stick, and would actually bend them. So they changed them to have a dead zone, ¼ inch of stick movement, and a hard limit after pulling 25 Lbs. You can actually buy dedicated force sensing sticks that mimic this, although that means an extra stick if you also want to fly non-force sensing planes. FFB devices allow you to have different behavior from the same device. The F-22 increased the travel of the stick by a lot, so FFB would allow you to mimic this. And the F-35 allows for the stick behavior to be programmed, so an FFB base is really the only way to mimic this (in theory even in the same way as on the real plane). Yes, although the software implementations are rather bare bones right now.

The Super-releases are all about fixing issues with the pricing or specs of the tiers, so it depends a lot on how the current card will sell when supply improves. I suspect not well, and that they will not ask more. I also expect they need to fix a lot of tiers, so we'll see a lot of Super-cards. In a year the production of GDDR7 3 GB modules will have ramped up a lot, so prices should have come down by then, and there should be enough supply to put it on a lot more cards. The Super-release is a halfway-release, but since the 50-series was delayed, it's hard to say whether they will delay the Super-cards as well, or go back to the regular schedule.

That's not true, you can delay or hasten your upgrade based on the situation. Part of being a smart consumer is recognizing the time to strike. That said, the 5080 is not a bad card to buy right now, aside from the pricing that may keep improving over the coming months. It has enough VRAM. But anything below a 5080 is not good, and there's a lot to be said to wait for a likely Super-version with more VRAM.

Yes, those are both AMD motherboards.

This is a good higher end motherboard: MSI MAG X870 TOMAHAWK WIFI This is a good budget motherboard: MSI B650 GAMING PLUS WIFI

Flight sims are not consistently growing as a market over the decades. They've been doing quite poorly if you look at how many games get made and such, and only recently got a resurgence. Anyway, it's going to be tough finding a job like that with just a training course. In general, lots more people are motivated to work in the games industry, rather than some more boring field like finance. So one thing you can try is to find a job in such a field and then transition over once you get some decent experience. Another option is to volunteer or semi-volunteer for a team like Team Fusion (https://www.facebook.com/teamfusionmod/), next to another job. Then once you prove yourself, you can move over to a more established company. But keep in mind that there are not that many companies making flight sims and thus not that many jobs.

https://pimax.com/pages/returns-refunds

It seems to work for others:

I also agree with @LucShep

Of course if you go up a tier and pay way more, you can get something better (if the 50-series drivers don't cause you issues), but not that many people are suddenly going to spend twice as much. And because of that the supply of second-hand 40-series cards is probably going to be low and the prices high.

Are they? The 50-series is rather poor and it makes little sense for 40-series owners to upgrade.

You are ignoring the issue of damages. The only reason why they can keep Razbam's share in the first place, is because they are claiming damages. Otherwise they would already have to pay. And if Razbam has to pay damages, then they will obviously not get all that money and perhaps none of it.

Just because it is the same brand doesn't mean that it is the same stick or even the same manufacturer. The manufacturers of the memory chips keep improving them, so later chips can be of a different quality, which then clashes with the poorer quality earlier chips. Also, occasionally the companies that assemble the sticks can get a better deal by getting the memory chips from another manufacturer and they switch over, despite keeping the branding the same. The safest is always to get a completely new kit of preferably 2 sticks. When sticks are packaged together, they are always from the same production batch and unless there is a manufacturing fault, they should be identical.

Just because people keep repeating something with zero evidence, doesn't make it true. Please give me actual evidence, if you have it. Also, back pay means money owned to an employee and it doesn't seem to be an appropriate word to use at all. This is not at all a logical conclusion. If ED believes that Razbam caused $ x amount of damages, then they can choose to pocket the money from the sales until $ x amount has been reached. The only way that Razbam would get (part of) that money, is if there is an agreement or legal judgement that states that ED is entitled to less than what they have earned during this period on Razbam module sales. I have no idea what you are referring to here. Please be more clear. What contract are you talking about, what part of that contract, and in what way does the decision lie with Razbam?

As some other person said, this is not true. They are giving out store credit, which is not the same as a refund. It is highly likely that ED is violating consumer law in many regions by doing this. Also, I think that ED was in the wrong for selling the Razbam modules for over a year without explaining the risks that customers are running when purchasing those modules, and for the F15-E to still be listed as early access, even though development of the module was stopped at that point, with no guarantee of that continuing. For comparison, Steam explicitly notes that Early Access games are not guaranteed to be finished, and they tell you if an EA game hasn't had an update in a long time. This is exactly what I mean by bias. Ron gets blamed for what he communicates and does, but those same people don't hold ED accountable for their communication and actions to customers, which are far from perfect too. So where is your hard evidence that (only) Razbam breached the contract and if so, the extent to which they did? Note that a mere statement by one of the parties with no details and no hard evidence to back that up, doesn't count. And I never said that ED had pulled the payments for no reason, nor that Razbam didn't breach the contract. So you are implying that I claimed all kinds of things that I in fact never wrote. Which speculation am I taking as fact? Please actually be clear about what you are referring to. If the leaked Letter of Demand is real, then the allegation is that a third party (whose name is redacted) signed a contract with a certain military to deliver that simulator, not Razbam. And Razbam is alleged to be part of this contract, by delivering the Super Tucano for use by that military, in exchange for a data package. Keep in mind that these are all just allegations made by one party, so even if the document is real, that doesn't mean that those allegations are true, or that the other side doesn't have allegations of their own that would not be in this document. According to the document, ED offered a resolution whereby Razbam would still develop the Super Tucano, but for the military side of ED. However, the document also states that ED had to put in a lot of effort and make concessions for this resolution, and that they were thus harmed, compared to a situation where the regular procedure would have been followed. The document states that the contract between ED and Razbam allows for ED to claim damages if the contract is breached, and that they are withholding funds to cover their damages. Note that from a legal point of view, withholding money to cover damages is very different from withholding money until the other side makes good on their obligations, but you seem to conflate the two. Didn't you blame me earlier in this same comment that I "take speculation as fact"? Now you are doing the same thing, but I guess it's different when you do it... Although to be fair, you didn't do the exact same thing as me, because I base my theory on a document that seems legitimate to me, while you just seem to be speculating.