Flight Sim World: Closure Announcement - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 73

Thread: Flight Sim World: Closure Announcement

  1. #26
    Didn't quite escape.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Somewhere in the Middle, UK
    Age
    50
    Posts
    2,342
    Quote Originally Posted by bazzar View Post
    Unfortunately, for developers interested in FSW as a platform, one of the major issues was with the licensing rules. Unless a license was held for a particular brand, an add-on of that subject could not be supported. That made the whole thing too limiting and just too hard.
    Yes. That's DTG policy for things distributed by DTG - they and the add-on author have to be licensed to use imagery and names.

    The same does not apply if, like JustFlight/JustTrains for instance, you don't sell through DTG/Steam - then it's your decision what licenses you get and your head on the block of you don't get them. One of the most popular TS third party developers, Armstrong Powerhouse, got a very snotty letter from Virgin Trains a while ago, which forced him to stop selling products with their branding on it - he evidently hadn't licensed it. Other developers have sorted out their own licensing and are happily selling properly branded products through their own sites, with no DTG involvement at all.

    The FSW team said that they were going to be using the same terms that the TS team used, so the same would apply there. It's this whole "Official" versus "Unofficial" add-on thing, still.

    I do agree entirely that they clearly hadn't fully thought through what they were getting into with the flight sim hobby/industry. They might have had a roadmap, but they didn't communicate it clearly, they had an utterly pointless "early access" period, where the product barely changed from a consumer viewpoint from it entering and exiting the EA period, plus they knew exactly what had happened with Flight and yet they did almost exactly the same thing again. You cannot enter a marketplace that contains a number of fully-featured incumbents and expect to get away with an unfinished product. Again, I also agree that they should have started small and marketed differently - like the bush flying sim currently in development is doing - if they weren't going to put in what is considered "core" content (particularly jet powered flight) at the time of launch.

    XP11 and AeroflyFS2 should, realistically, be what we as a community are now pushing to become what we want. Both have most of it already and add-ons that provide the rest, but both could be improved upon as core products. Unfortunately, because so many people choose to misinterpret or blatantly ignore the P3D licensing, they have invested heavily in "what they know" and now want that to become the default sim, even though L-M have no interest at all in supporting them and could cancel pretty much all of the licenses that people hold with a broad stroke. It wouldn't put a tiny scratch in their balance books to lose the consumer market that they specifically state the sim is not to be used in.

    Ian P.

  2. #27
    Didn't quite escape.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Somewhere in the Middle, UK
    Age
    50
    Posts
    2,342
    @Naruto_kun Yes and no. Yes, it was and still is sour grapes. Robert Randazzo demanded effectively partnership rights, with open access to the DTG development team, but nothing in return for DTG other than the PMDG developing for the platform. You are, though, entirely correct that the cageyness and lack of communication was one of the major problems. We really had to push and push and push to get them to admit that they were going to use the same arrangements as TS has regarding add-ons. How many months and repeatedly asked questions did it take to get them to say "yes we will support freeware".

    That said, I don't think it was malicious as such. Yes, part of it was because they release their own content - which neither L-M nor Laminar research do - and therefore they do want to push developers to publish through them. That I think is one of their biggest mistakes, because if you create an open platform, but then pretend that nothing that isn't published by you specifically doesn't exist, then you create the kind of hate that DTG get. It's their own stupid fault, in that instance. Also, I still say that they hadn't got the slightest clue what they were getting into. I don't think they had the answers to most of the questions people were asking them. They're also exceptionally closed and cagey when it comes to future development. They say that it's because they've got burned in the past when they have announced content and then, for whatever reason, it hasn't been able to be released.

    In my opinion, again, I think L-M and Laminar have got it right. Release and support only the core package and allow 3rd parties to build on that. Because DTG are trying to both be the core package developer and sell content for it, they're creating a massive rod for their own back. If they admit that other paths are available, which are inevitably going to be more lucrative for add-on developers, then why should those 3rd parties publish through DTG? They're stuck between the rock of needing to push people to release "official" content and the hard-place that people think that only "official" content exists and therefore DTG are just trying to steal all your money because, obviously, you have to buy all the add-ons available, don't you?

    Ian P.

  3. #28
    @IanP, out of curiosity, since there's a great many developers here at SOH, who/what products are you the developer for?

    Also I agree with most of what you've said, but I have to respectfully disagree on one point. P3D would be the logical replacement for FSX users since most advanced FSX addons have been converted to 64 bit at this point and/or are in development by most developers. Such as A2A converting all their lineup to P3D. Also many developers have already stated that they are moving to P3D only.

    LM is essentially ACES all over by again. Most guys went there from MS. I don't see any situation in which they would would wipe out the developers ability to produce content.
    MACH 3 DESIGN STUDIO
    Heatblur Rivet Counting Squad™

  4. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by 000rick000 View Post
    . . . . . .Also I agree with most of what you've said, but I have to respectfully disagree on one point. P3D would be the logical replacement for FSX users since most advanced FSX addons have been converted to 64 bit at this point and/or are in development by most developers. Such as A2A converting all their lineup to P3D. Also many developers have already stated that they are moving to P3D only.

    LM is essentially ACES all over by again. Most guys went there from MS. I don't see any situation in which they would would wipe out the developers ability to produce content.
    Two points from someone on the outside who has "blatantly ignored the P3D Licensing", (although in my defense I do use it for training purposes) P3D would be the logical choice to replace FSX were it not for the licensing restrictions already mentioned. That makes any thought of P3D ever being an "Official" replacement a mute point. . .won't happen.

    Also, developers, especially those who are producing GA aircraft, would still have the ability to produce systems heavy versions geared specifically to Flight Schools with much higher price tags and probably not lose any sleep over loss of revenue from those of us who are using the Sim for Entertainment purposes and don't want or need something that detailed. JMHO
    USAF Retired, 301st Fighter Wing, Carswell AFB, Texas
    My SOH Uploads: http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforum...erid=83&sort=d

    Current System Specs:
    FSX/Accel | Windows10 64bit
    Motherboard: MSI760GM-E51(MS-7596)
    CPU: 3.9GHz AMD FX-4300 Quad-Core | RAM: 16GB DDR3 1333
    GPU: NVidia GTX 970 (4GB GDDR5)

  5. #30
    I don't understand why the argument as to why we are no longer able to use P3D all of a sudden? What is happening to cause the users that are using it now to be required to stop using using it? Are you guys saying that LM will just in a while decide to make all licenses"professional"? For what purpose? They already have set their licensing. And have it approved under contract from MS as valid. There's literally no reason for them to change it. Especially if they don't"need" our revenue, then there's really no need at all to change from what they have now. At any rate. I see just the opposite. LM has been making huge strides to increase the features and improve the development for developers. I don't see that as a step toward alienating single users.
    MACH 3 DESIGN STUDIO
    Heatblur Rivet Counting Squad™

  6. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by 000rick000 View Post
    I don't understand why the argument as to why we are no longer able to use P3D all of a sudden? What is happening to cause the users that are using it now to be required to stop using using it? Are you guys saying that LM will just in a while decide to make all licenses"professional"? For what purpose? They already have set their licensing. And have it approved under contract from MS as valid. There's literally no reason for them to change it. Especially if they don't"need" our revenue, then there's really no need at all to change from what they have now. At any rate. I see just the opposite. LM has been making huge strides to increase the features and improve the development for developers. I don't see that as a step toward alienating single users.

    Good points Rick. I also believe LM have the elephant in the room that is the fact they know perfectly well what P3D is used for by some of its customers from USN down - they have pitched the licences perfectly as they are.
    Jim
    NAVIGATION; The art of knowing where you are without having to crash into it first.

  7. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by 000rick000 View Post
    I don't understand why the argument as to why we are no longer able to use P3D all of a sudden? What is happening to cause the users that are using it now to be required to stop using using it? Are you guys saying that LM will just in a while decide to make all licenses"professional"? For what purpose? They already have set their licensing. And have it approved under contract from MS as valid. There's literally no reason for them to change it. Especially if they don't"need" our revenue, then there's really no need at all to change from what they have now. At any rate. I see just the opposite. LM has been making huge strides to increase the features and improve the development for developers. I don't see that as a step toward alienating single users.
    I will only make this observation, it appears from your post that you are unaware of the licensing restrictions for P3D and everything that surrounds that as it pertains to our use of that program. Early on in the P3D Forum it was stated that no discussions would take place concerning the P3D EULA in that Forum. We have stuck to that and it probably shouldn't be discussed here either.
    USAF Retired, 301st Fighter Wing, Carswell AFB, Texas
    My SOH Uploads: http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforum...erid=83&sort=d

    Current System Specs:
    FSX/Accel | Windows10 64bit
    Motherboard: MSI760GM-E51(MS-7596)
    CPU: 3.9GHz AMD FX-4300 Quad-Core | RAM: 16GB DDR3 1333
    GPU: NVidia GTX 970 (4GB GDDR5)

  8. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by falcon409 View Post
    I will only make this observation, it appears from your post that you are unaware of the licensing restrictions for P3D and everything that surrounds that as it pertains to our use of that program. Early on in the P3D Forum it was stated that no discussions would take place concerning the P3D EULA in that Forum. We have stuck to that and it probably shouldn't be discussed here either.
    Thanks Falcon. Noted.
    Jim
    NAVIGATION; The art of knowing where you are without having to crash into it first.

  9. #34
    people are ignoring the licensing issue because LM is ignoring the licensing issue, they say what the contact says they have to say and that’s it, the don’t do anything to verify the terms are being followed and have never gone after anyone for violating it, they don’t even check that ppl getting the academic version are actually students. I think we can put that issue to rest
    Oh, I agree completely, but it was brought up and I decided to elaborate in my previous post. Rick asked questions that made it appear (to me at least) that he was unaware of the EULA and it's obvious restrictions so I elaborated. . .again. I agree though, it's out there, it's being done on a daily basis, get over it and move on.
    USAF Retired, 301st Fighter Wing, Carswell AFB, Texas
    My SOH Uploads: http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforum...erid=83&sort=d

    Current System Specs:
    FSX/Accel | Windows10 64bit
    Motherboard: MSI760GM-E51(MS-7596)
    CPU: 3.9GHz AMD FX-4300 Quad-Core | RAM: 16GB DDR3 1333
    GPU: NVidia GTX 970 (4GB GDDR5)

  10. #35
    I'm fully aware of all their licenses. Me mentioning that LM has licenses is not the same thing as asserting what each represents or which one applies to an individual circumstance. That's clearly NOT what is being said in my post. It's no secret that LM has 3 options, Professional Plus, Professional and Academic. Yup I mentioned them again, by name this time (Voldemort!) I was asking if the reasoning behind the arguments, is that you guys think that at some point they will abandon the Academic and stick with only the remaining (and factually more expensive options)? This in no way is a discussion of what option is best suited for whom. It's a clarification of the process in which the argument is based. That is all. I don't want to break any forum rules, and I don't think any have been...I agree, we can move on....I think it's a moot point anyway. I think we're actually all on the same page.
    MACH 3 DESIGN STUDIO
    Heatblur Rivet Counting Squad™

  11. #36
    Members +
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Cape Town, South Africa
    Age
    71
    Posts
    1,267
    Please guys, this discussion is not about P3D & it's licensing! Get over it & please move on, back to the real topic.

  12. #37
    Didn't quite escape.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Somewhere in the Middle, UK
    Age
    50
    Posts
    2,342
    000rick000: I've been involved in the FS community since FS4 and Compuserve FS Forum, during which time I have worked with, tested for, advised and done background work for a large number of developers, including a number who post here. I've not exactly been quiet over the past 25-odd years of involvement in this hobby and industry, including making my fair share of enemies and friends amongst commercial developers. I've reviewed FS products for Avsim, I was one of the editorial team at simFlight until health forced me to step down. For the past ten years or so I have produced freeware sceneries - something I started doing as far back as FS5, with the UKDT team, but it's mainly been for organisations I've been involved with, such as VAs or bush flying groups. I've never bothered Googling myself because I'm not that self-centred, so have no idea how easy it is to find mention of me, but I'm in a dozen or so commercial product manuals, have published around 100 reviews and have run or helped run a large number of websites throughout the hobby. I have been around a lot in the background, just not usually standing up and shouting about it, unless I get wound up about something. I've also been called all sorts of rude and derogatory names by people who disagree with me, so if anyone thinks they can come up with new combinations, feel free... No rewards for coming up with them, unfortunately, except maybe a congratulatory emoticon. Sorry!

    A number of people I know, including a few I count as friends, have been involved with DTG FSW, either as part of the DTG team or with 3rd party developers. I met Aimee, for example, when she worked at Flight1. I've communicated with Dan Dunn on and off for donkey's years and finally got to meet him at last on the DTG stand at the JF/F1 Cosford flight sim show last year. While I am no longer involved in any commercial activities, on a personal level, I was constantly hassling members of the DTG team for answers to questions both because I wanted to get my own developed (yes, it's pretty low quality but it exists) freeware into FSW and because I personally wanted DTG to actually produce a viable sim. I'm also - just full disclosure, as it's irrelevant to this thread - a moderator on Matt Peddlesden's* personal Twitch stream and, as a result of that, got co-opted as a moderator on DTG's official Twitch stream. I don't envy anyone that job - the sheer hate that DTG generates, usually based on evident fallacies and partial information**, is incredible! When people on a FSW stream chat asked why I had a sword when I wasn't a DTG employee, Cryss's response was that my sword was forged in the fires of hell and that no mere human could take it off me, which was quite amusing. I guess it's up to the TS team to decide whether they're more than mere humans now, although I was invited told that I was free to wield the sword as necessary on the last TSW stream, too. I only swung it once, to give someone posting obscenities 10 minutes on the naughty step.

    Doug actually offered me a job with DTG at one point, which I declined. I'm glad I did, given what has transpired since then. While I still have a huge amount of time for DTG's staff, my opinion of their senior management has taken a lot of dents recently, for a variety of reasons.

    I've had my say on PMDG's statement anyway and have nothing more to add on that. The evidence that supports what I've said is all public domain, although as I said before, some of it has only been in the public domain since October/November last year. In fairness to PMDG, they had already decided to look no further into working with DTG, so may not have known that. In reality, they have enough contacts in the FS world who are aware of what DTG are announcing, that I very much doubt they were unaware of the answers that a lot of people - including me - worked for so long to extract, yet they still rolled out the same - already privately and now publicly - proven untruths to gloat about the failure of the product. That makes me angry, both because it's childish and unprofessional, but also because their previous statements have been widely used as reasons not to support DTG's efforts in any way. "Robert Randazzo said it, so it must be true" - even though he never actually said a lot of the things that have been attributed to him.

    I think most of us agree that DTG engineered their own product's downfall by not learning from the mistakes of others and not listening to advice. My only contact with anyone in the FSW team since the announcement has been via social media to a friend, asking if they're OK (I haven't received a response yet).

    I'm going to be quiet on this thread now unless summoned, because I think I've said everything I want to and I'm more than aware that I'm typing way too much.

    Ian P.

    * - The Senior Developer for Train Sim World.
    ** - Pretty much entirely DTG management's own fault!

  13. #38
    Very Good! It's just nice to try and place people with a face of some kind since there's no human interactions here. It's sometimes easy to forget that we're all real humans that if we met in person we'd likely treat with more respect that is sometimes shown in forums. I appreciate getting to know you better! It helps me understand context in what is usually a very poor form of linear communication (forum threads). All the best,
    MACH 3 DESIGN STUDIO
    Heatblur Rivet Counting Squad™

  14. #39
    Not to defend Robert's position, but DTG themselves were very ambiguous with their initial statements regarding 3rd-party participation. That history is still preserved at AVSIM in their forum postings. Their original statements did in fact imply that all sales would have to be made via the Steam platform. My own initial contacts corroborate this position as I was being told that ~60% of the sales price would be divided up between Steam and DTG, with the remaining ~40% being remitted to our company on a quarterly basis.

    It was only about nine months later that this position was softened when DTG began insisting that there was no requirement that 3rd party sales had to be exclusively available via the Steam channel, but could also be sold via the developer's existing sales channels. That was a significant change in policy, but still not good enough in my considered opinion.

    About seven months later, their position changed yet again with the requirement for the Steam portal being abandoned, and it was now apparently okay for anyone to sell for the FSW platform through their own existing outlets. At this juncture I'd not yet seen the numbers of active users DTG had forecast, so I pretty much lost immediate interest in developing, especially so since the (partial) SDK had yet to be released. It was pretty much impossible to develop for FSW without the tools, so I adopted a wait and see attitude.

    Nonetheless, I did experiment with trying to get our C310R Redux Edition into FSW with limited success absent the SDK, but was not terribly impressed. I am hugely disappointed at the apparent failure of the management of DTG, and in no way cast any blame whatever on the passionate and dedicated development team they'd assembled. I do hope that they all find gainful employment elsewhere soon, especially where their talents are better appreciated!
    Bill Leaming
    3d Modeler Max/GMax
    C & XML Gauge Programmer

    Military Visualizations
    http://milviz.com

    Intel® Core™ i7-3770k 4.2GHz - Crucial 16GB DDR3 - Dual Radeon HD770 1GB DDR5 (Crossfire) - Eco II Watercooling - Win7 64bit
    Intel® Core™ i7-2600k 3.4GHz - Crucial 8GB DDR3 - NVIDIA EVGA GTX-770 SC 4GB - Win7 64bit

  15. #40

  16. #41
    I think all those that say LM does not need the revenue from simmers are missing the point as to why LM makes P3D available to the public in the first place, they need the community of third party developers creating add-ons aircraft, scenery, weather, etc to flush out there simulators, those third party developers would not be so eager to do that if they only place they can see there add-ons in on an official lockheed simulator. If the community migrates away from the FSX/P3D environment to something else they are in big trouble because now they have to do all those extra pieces themselves.

    LM does have a marketing problem in that 'not for entertainment purposes' clause what will cause many ppl to not buy it (as you can tell from some of the comments in this thread). The end of FSW may give them an opportunity to renegotiate their contract with microsoft and or DTG so they can drop that pesky clause, relabel 'Academic' to 'Personal' and secure the future of there franchise.
    Joe Cusick
    San Francisco Bay Area, California.

    I am serious, and stop calling me Shirley.

  17. #42
    I would also like to clarify my earlier post about the long silence and very careful answers given by DTG team members at FSCon. I hope no one took it as coloring Stephen and Aimee's characters, but rather focusing on the tight situation they were in, knowing that if they said everything the project would have died right there and then, yet unable to make statements that would have put everyone at ease without getting nailed by the senior management.
    -JB

  18. #43
    I didn't realize that FSW allowed freeware or development outside their store environment. (Probably because I never saw any FSW freeware.) I've bought a stupid amount of payware add-on products for just about every sim out there, but it's taking cool freeware planes for test flights that keeps me engaged. I own FSW, but only have about four hours in it right now due to limited available content and no VR support.

    Licensing aside, LM as a business will never prioritize a consumer product. It's outside their core business, and when they're making $109 million-plus on each F-35, simulation software is going to remain a niche no matter how successful their platform becomes.

    What I think would be cool is if someone bought the consumer license DTG holds and does a deal with LM to a consumer-focused sim based on P3D. For that licensee, the consumer market would be a primary focus, and LM and the licensee would both benefit. But I'm just brainstorming here -- don't know of anyone who would do that.

    And despite my history with flight sims -- started on FS2 on the Commodore 64, was CGW's flight sim columnist in the 90s, etc -- I'd have to think twice about entering a market where the potential customers can react with the hostility and emotion that DTG saw.

  19. #44
    Regarding the P3D licensing, the line between "Entertainment" & "Learning" purposes is very fine. You're not required to be a licensed pilot nor actually plan to become a pilot to purchase the Professional license option. If you're using the program for your own purposes (training/learning), you're good to go, no one is going to question the fine details that usage. LM is very aware that there has been a cross-over segment of users from this side of the fence into a more true and focused definition of Flight Simulation vs a Gaming aspect of the overall platform. Many of the users of FSX and P3D are individuals who come from some form of Aviation background or are people who are interested in learning more about the various and vast aspects of Aviation. That fits well within the end user scope of P3D far away from violating it's intended use. LM is also very aware that the developers from this circle are absolutely vital to the long term success of their platform and drawing in more users which will ultimately grow the platform. Let us be honest here, most people who're looking for a arcade flight simulation aren't going to spend the serious money for P3D and it's addons. This realm of ours hasn't been am entertainment game now for a number of years. It's become a very effective learning tool.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  20. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Bjoern View Post
    Waiting for a clearing sale.
    They just finished up two sales back to back.
    The results may have just confirmed what they had already decided.

    Not a lot of DLC for it at this point anyway.

  21. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by DennyA View Post
    I didn't realize that FSW allowed freeware or development outside their store environment. (Probably because I never saw any FSW freeware.) I've bought a stupid amount of payware add-on products for just about every sim out there, but it's taking cool freeware planes for test flights that keeps me engaged. I own FSW, but only have about four hours in it right now due to limited available content and no VR support.

    Licensing aside, LM as a business will never prioritize a consumer product. It's outside their core business, and when they're making $109 million-plus on each F-35, simulation software is going to remain a niche no matter how successful their platform becomes.

    What I think would be cool is if someone bought the consumer license DTG holds and does a deal with LM to a consumer-focused sim based on P3D. For that licensee, the consumer market would be a primary focus, and LM and the licensee would both benefit. But I'm just brainstorming here -- don't know of anyone who would do that.

    And despite my history with flight sims -- started on FS2 on the Commodore 64, was CGW's flight sim columnist in the 90s, etc -- I'd have to think twice about entering a market where the potential customers can react with the hostility and emotion that DTG saw.

    Yes, but what would be the point?

    DTG have just aptly demonstrated that the core ESP really, quite honestly, has no future. LM have it stitched up - whatever you want to call the license levels.

    Come on chaps - let us not descend into some Avsim to'oing and thro'ing; that's why we're in the Out House; we don't buy into that sh1t.

    Peace.
    Jim
    NAVIGATION; The art of knowing where you are without having to crash into it first.

  22. #47
    Directly from LM's page on the "professional" licensing option :

    "The license is available to those that are training, instructing, simulating, or learning."

    It's a pretty hard sell to argue that anyone using a sim of this caliber isn't "learning", even in spite of themselves. Thus, I don't understand the argument that personal users are somehow running afoul of their EULA?

    ... Says the guy still on FSX, so what do I know? ;-) (It does seem pretty clear though...)

  23. #48
    And we're back to the usual discussion about p3d licenses.

  24. #49
    I agree, let that be the last comment on what the P3D license allows and lets get back to the original topic.
    Joe Cusick
    San Francisco Bay Area, California.

    I am serious, and stop calling me Shirley.

  25. #50
    True LM wouldn't make a consumer product a priority, but if they can make more revenue from work they have already done, simply by negotiating a new license, you can bet that they would go for expanding it to the "entertainment" market. It's all about the $$$ and the second it becomes a revenue burden they can sell it off or simply drop it from their licensing options.


    Quote Originally Posted by DennyA View Post
    I didn't realize that FSW allowed freeware or development outside their store environment. (Probably because I never saw any FSW freeware.) I've bought a stupid amount of payware add-on products for just about every sim out there, but it's taking cool freeware planes for test flights that keeps me engaged. I own FSW, but only have about four hours in it right now due to limited available content and no VR support.

    Licensing aside, LM as a business will never prioritize a consumer product. It's outside their core business, and when they're making $109 million-plus on each F-35, simulation software is going to remain a niche no matter how successful their platform becomes.

    What I think would be cool is if someone bought the consumer license DTG holds and does a deal with LM to a consumer-focused sim based on P3D. For that licensee, the consumer market would be a primary focus, and LM and the licensee would both benefit. But I'm just brainstorming here -- don't know of anyone who would do that.

    And despite my history with flight sims -- started on FS2 on the Commodore 64, was CGW's flight sim columnist in the 90s, etc -- I'd have to think twice about entering a market where the potential customers can react with the hostility and emotion that DTG saw.
    Current System Specs :
    FSXA & P3Dv4 | Windows 10 Professional for Workstations (x64)
    Motherboard: Gigabit Z390 Aorus Ultra, LGA 1151, Intel based
    CPU: Intel Core i9-9900K @ 3.60GHz | RAM: G.Skill Ripjaws V 16GB DDR4 3600
    GPU: ZOTAC GeForce GTX 980 Ti AMP! Extreme (6GB GDDR5)
    HD: 1TB SanDisk SSD Plus | PSU: KDM 750W ATX Power Supply

Members who have read this thread: 0

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •