Aapje

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.

I don't think so. Escrow is normally used when both sides agree that a payment should be made, but only if the other party meets their obligations. However, that second party will incur costs in meeting those obligations, and they want a guarantee to be paid at least part of the payment if they meet their obligations. This is not at all the case here. ED apparently believes that their damages are greater than all the money they withheld, so they can use that money to pay for their damages. Razbam has no obligations that they can meet, to get that money, since the alleged damages cannot be undone, presumably. The way they might get (some of) that money is through a judgement or a settlement, if it gets decided that the damages are less than what was withheld. It can make sense to put the money for a settlement into escrow, when the other party also has certain obligations under the settlement. Then the money can be released once the obligations have been met. I don't see how this is any different from companies not paying contractors for work done. It is actually quite common for contractors to be screwed over by payments being delayed or not made at all, and the way for the contractor to deal with that is to go to court (or simply accept it). It is definitely not the norm for all contracted work to be paid through escrow. Companies would probably run into severe liquidity problems if they had to pay their contractors and such through escrow, because our economy has a huge amount of informal loans by companies paying late, which is effectively an interest-free loan. That is rather ironic, because I see you taking ED's unproven claims as fact. I'm actually way more even-handed, because I don't take either side. But of course that looks like bias, to those who themselves are biased. It is very obvious that consumers have a contract with ED, who they pay their money to. It's no concern of the consumer that ED outsourced the work to Razbam. It is the responsibility of ED to uphold their obligations to the customers, and if they cannot, they they need to compensate the consumer for their damages. If ED cannot uphold their obligations because of a contract violation by Razbam, then ED can try to get compensation from Razbam, but this has nothing to do with their obligations towards their customers. No, we know that ED has a responsibility to consumers to improve the F-15, because it was sold as early access with a promise of improvement. There also may be an obligation of Razbam to ED (and not to the consumer!) to deliver certain improvement. But this is a good example of you taking speculation as fact, since we don't know what the private contract between Razbam and ED says, exactly. That's valid for all the modules but the F-15. ED made a promise to consumers that the module would keep being developed. Do you really think that ED is allowing F-15 owners to undo their purchase out of kindness? Of course not. They know that they are violating their obligations.

This is just a biased view on the situation. You can just as easily frame it as: Razbam developed the module and is allowing ED to sell it on their store for a percentage of the sales price. Ultimately, the contract between the two parties is not public, but we can be sure that both sides have obligations, and we do not know for sure whether each side has kept their obligations and to what extent. Any violations can also be subjective, where the sides may disagree whether and to what extent the violations occurred. That's why we have an impartial court in the first place, so they can judge to what extent the subjective opinions of each side will be treated as (legal) fact. For example, ED seems to believe that they can keep all the money from the sales that they would normally have had to pay to Razbam, based on damage that they claim to have suffered due to Razbam's actions. But given that we know very little for sure about Razbam's actions or the obligations in the contract, we cannot know whether the courts would agree with ED that a violation occurred, that the damages are as large as claimed, that ED mitigated the damages as much as they should have*, etc. If the courts would disagree, then Razbam can claim damages, since they will not have been paid the money that they are due. However, it doesn't need to come to a court case. One of the main benefits of lawyers is that they tend to have knowledge of how courts tend to judge things, so they can advise their clients on what claims are likely to be adopted by the courts and to what extent. If both side agree sufficiently on what the courts are likely to decide, then a court case is typically not needed and they can compromise on the remaining difference of opinion. Basically, if the (financial, reputational, emotional, etc) costs of the court case are higher than their expectation of getting a better deal out of a court case, then it makes sense to settle. Note that the reputational costs can be very significant, and both sides can have an incentive to present their case to the public in a way that makes them look good, rather than in the most truthful way. * You are normally obliged to do your best to keep the damages you suffer as small as possible. Is this anything more than a revenge fantasy based on speculation (because it is mere speculation that Razbam took ED's IP)? The courts typically do not engage in this sort of vindictive prosecution, but look at the obligations of each side. The only way in which I can see ED getting the source code is if Razbam has to pay so much in damages to ED, that they can only pay by selling them their IP, or if the contract stipulates that ED has the right to the source code in certain situations.

Ron did choose to allow ED to keep selling the modules for a year, even though ED was pocketing all the money from the sales. You are ignoring that this situation is much better for ED than for Razbam, since ED was getting all that money, and Razbam got nothing. I don't really understand why you are blaming Razbam here, when they actually did do what you want for an entire year without any compensation. Do you really think that they are obliged to forever let ED profit from their work, without getting any compensation themselves? Your other suggestion that customers should be kept in the dark and that ED/Razbam should pretend that nothing is going on, while not fulfilling their obligations to their customers, is frankly appalling. To me it shows that you automatically side with ED no matter what they do, and completely ignore the obligations to consumers. Given that you are a consumer, I think that you are suffering from the consumer-equivalent to Stockholm syndrome.

It's the link to the Moza discord and you have to be in it for it to work: https://discord.com/invite/moza-racing-fan-club-976306826947743766 You can get better help there with the AB9 than here.

Perhaps this helps you: https://discord.com/channels/976306826947743766/1284450029196546141/threads/1300240282134249495

Let's say that I run a dog walking service. Then one day I get into a dispute with a customer and stop walking their dog. That is 'not doing it.' However, I see that the person decided to walk their own dog and I block the public sidewalk to prevent them from doing that. That is 'blocking.' I block the other person from doing something that they could do, if I didn't interfere. So not doing something for them and actively blocking them from doing it themselves are two different things. Now imagine a different scenario where I run a pizza place with a traditional stone oven. I get into a conflict with a customer and refuse to sell them my pizza. However, they then demand that I let them use my pizza oven to make pizza themselves, because they don't own one. I'm not actively blocking them when I say no to this, because they never had a right to use my private property or go into my kitchen. They demand a special privilege that they have no right to. ED has no rights to Razbam source code or tools, just like I have no rights to ED's source code or tools.

It is hidden a bit under the System settings. Did you check there? If it is missing, you might have to enable developer mode in your account. I did that a long time ago, because it is needed for side loading. Back then it was a bit of a hassle, but apparently it is fairly easy now. It should work thusly: Open the Meta Horizon app on your phone with the Quest on and near you Click on the headset icon on the top left Scroll down a bit and click headset settings There you should find the setting somewhere Then restart the headset

Developer settings and then Physical space features: They logically don't want to show it as a normal setting, because then people will turn it off, jump through a glass window, and then sue Meta for having died. --- Note that you can also reduce the sensitivity of the boundary. That is in the regular boundary settings, though. I personally set mine to the lowest sensitivity, but it will then only warn you if you get very close to the border of your boundary.

That is silly, because none of the paid modules have support and development by anyone other than the developer. They are not blocking anything. They are just not doing it. The only modules that are not dependent on the developer are the free open source modules, like the Skyhawk and the Super Tucano. How so? By continuing to work without pay? Do you really think that would be easy for them?

ED are only distributors of the modules, they don't own them. If they do want to own them, then that is a sale where Razbam can logically expect to get paid. Of course another third party developer, or ED, can make the plane modules from scratch. But it's probably not a scenario that makes a lot of sense financially, because there probably will be way fewer people that will be willing to buy the same plane again, than were willing to buy it initially.

Not sure what the point is of all this pedantic waffling. Your arguments fully support my point that the courts decide standing. The statement about an IP violation is almost certainly a lie, so that shouldn't matter.

Unfortunate, it seems to really work to put on weird faces for the thumbnails, but it also irritates me a lot.

That's not how it works. You are not magically safe from the law by being in a different country. The courts themselves decide where jurisdiction lies, and they tend to be pretty good at making sure that there is always at least one court that has jurisdiction. In this case, it is probably Swiss law, since ED chose Swiss law for their contracts.

No, they are founded assumptions.

It's more than hearsay, because a document has leaked with the allegations by ED against Razbam. Since neither side has called this a fake document, it's very likely real. That takes care of one part of what I wrote. The other part about not getting paid has been made public by Razbam, so that's not hearsay either. In my opinion, they made unsustainable promises, or at least created expectations that they cannot make good on. Even just doing maintenance on an ever increasing list of modules, means that it is ever more work to simply stay in place, let alone make progress. And many people expect continued development because a module is not done in their eyes, even though ED considers it to be finished.

My point was that the underdog has an incentive to make things public, also because PR damage does scale with the size of the company.

@cfrag I think that you are ignoring that there is a big disparity in size. The probably outdated figures I saw was that that ED has 190 employees vs 10 for Razbam. And this also reflects a difference in revenue. In fact, by not paying the share of the module sales, ED is choking off Razbam's financials. In general, ED has a lot more power that they can use. Ultimately, it is ED's choice to have a big dependency on third party developers, and that automatically means that the the buck stops with them. Because ED chooses to do business with third parties, the disputes with those third parties are not 'inner.' That is the consequence of ED's choice to work with (paid) third parties. This kind of arrangement typically generates friction, because the interests of ED and the third parties are not exactly the same, and they don't fall under the same corporate hierarchy that can resolve disputes and which aligns their financial interests. It's easy to say that they should not bother the customer with this, but there is no way to achieve this without violating the rights of ED or the third party developers. For example, VEAO left after ED demanded things from them which they found unacceptable. It would be a violation of their human rights if a third party developer is not allowed to walk away in such a situation, because they they could be forced into anything. But then the customer will see the impact if the module gets withdrawn or development stops. Probably, but that doesn't mean that the modules will remain in DCS. As far as I can tell, both parties have a financial claim on each other, one for payments due on sales through the store, and one for breach of contract. That part needs to be settled one way or the other. Then the other issue is whether the Razbam modules will get bugfixes and/or further development. With Razbam apparently being unwilling to sell the source code to ED, the only possible solution would be for the parties to mend their relationship and keep working together. But I find that hard to imagine due to actions from both sides, like the time bomb planted by Razbam, and the total stop in payments by ED.

Yeah, this is an amazing surrealist channel. Great writing too. 'Prisoners in a cage of freedom.'

If they would only sell the headsets after importing them to a US warehouse, then they would know what tariffs they had to pay.

This does not seem to be correct. ED apparently made an agreement with Razbam that allows them to make planes for the consumer market, but the accusation is that Razbam went behind their back to make a deal with a certain military to get the data package to enable them to make a plane, and then in exchange that military could use DCS to train their pilots. But ED doesn't want that. They want the military to use the military version of the sim, and to pay big money for that. If you look at the EULA of DCS, it says this: "GOVERNMENT AND COMMERCIAL ENTITIES MAY NOT USE THIS SOFTWARE UNDER THIS EULA. Government and commercial entities wishing to use this software in conjunction with training or demonstrator applications must obtain a license directly from Eagle Dynamics SA under a separate pricing structure and terms of use." And from the other side, there apparently are grievances by at least two third party developers over payments not made (or being delayed very long). PS. Note that I've seen fairly credible evidence of what accusations have been made, but not really all that much evidence to back up those allegations.

I personally think that for your average simmer who will never fly a real aircraft, it is pretty useless to try to make the stick actually act realistic, versus seem realistic or even just feel good. In many cases, the forces in a real plane would be higher than the base can handle, the pilot would get force feedback in ways that we don't or can't mimic (accurately), etc. AFAIK, every pilot who was put into a flight sim has at best said that it is quite good, but none have actually called it realistic. FFB or not. Motion rig or not. Etc.

They had issues with the data center chips, but that was related to the chiplet-design, so that would not have impacted the monolithic desktop/laptop chips. We can see by the A1 markings on the chips that they didn't do a respin of GB202 (the 5090 chip). Nvidia did say that they didn't stop production of the data center chips, while they made a fix, so it's quite plausible that the delay and then low supply of the 50-series cards is because they allocated more capacity to the data center chips, to make up for the yield issues with the data center chips.

Wait. And hope.

But it is very strange. If ED and RB can agree on a new contract that will satisfy both parties, then there is no reason why it has to drag on for over a year. At a certain point the contract has been examined in detail and all the arguments have been made, and you simply need to agree on a compromise that everyone can live with, or pull the plug. If they cannot (fully) agree, then you'd expect a court case to sort things out. ED is still selling the F-15E for $63.99 as Early Access, so if development doesn't resume, then I would call that deceptive trade practices. And you can argue that it's already rather deceptive to market it as Early Access, with no actual development ongoing. Due to the lack of transparency all around we don't actually know what the reasons are, and it is also very hard to guess at the reasons. For example, we don't know how profitable it is to make a DCS module vs a MSFS module, for a developer like Heatblur. Perhaps they are choosing to earn less by putting effort into MSFS, just to diversify their product line, so they don't suddenly lose all their income if the DCS income falls away. It's a very risky situation for any company to be fully dependent on a single other company for their income, and regardless of whether they still trust ED, I would advise any such company to diversify if reasonably possible.