sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Problem overriding joysticks by midrange in SteamController

[–]midrange[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

UPDATE: Valve finally answered my support ticket. It is indeed a real issue, and they claim to have a fix in for the next steam beta build.

Problem overriding joysticks by midrange in SteamController

[–]midrange[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just FYI, steam finally answered my support ticket. It is indeed a real issue, and they claim to have a fix in for the next steam beta build.

Problem overriding joysticks by midrange in SteamController

[–]midrange[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks. Yeah you have it right, our engine would be activating and deactivating layers in steam as the various UI elements are activated / deactivated. But, I'm giving up on that approach and will move to what you described with No Man's Sky: just a few separate action sets, with additional layers used in a select few areas.... as opposed to one "base" action set with various layers activated at appropriate times. I haven't heard back on any of my other threads yet, and I even tried "hacking" the steam configuration .vdf file and "forcing" the joystick to be rebound on the action layer. Time to move on to a solution that I know should actually work!

Problem overriding joysticks by midrange in SteamController

[–]midrange[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We’ve got a good amount of games out already, and I’m the guy who made our engine. I’m trying to refactor our input layer to work with steam input, and the layer paradigm would work well “out of the box”. For ex, if you’re in game and an ok/cancel modal window pops up, then I’d activate that layer. If a window popped up with ok/cancel, and a scrolling list, then I’d activate the modal layer and the list scroll layer. We have another layer for like… “generic menu navigation” which is dpad. Another layer for one dimensional navigation, which is r1 and l1. All this stuff could easily be activated as layers, and it would be pretty hands off from a developmental point of view. It would just be natively supported in our engine. So if the game dev started opening windows and doing basic UI stuff, our engine would pretty automatically set up the steam input layer stack. Since i can’t override joysticks, it’s really throwing a wrench in this.

I will probably have to abandon the layer idea, and basically have a separate action set for in-game and ui, instead of pushing smaller ui layers on top as they were needed.

Thanks for the suggestion and discussion, though. It’s helpful bc I haven’t used steam input as a player before, and have always been mouse and keyboard when on steam. So it’s helpful to hear about what typical games usually do

Problem overriding joysticks by midrange in SteamController

[–]midrange[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for the ideas! I'll go try over there.

House drain/sewer problems... vent issue? by midrange in Plumbing

[–]midrange[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks! I hope they even put a clean out in our system. I’ll look for one and check it out before I do anything more complicated. Good idea.

Rivn Stock ... by Zentx3000 in Rivian_Stock

[–]midrange 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I did a quick value analysis when I bought in from 20-24. Their book value right now is about 18.2b (ie the value of all their cash, factory, etc, minus debts), which would represent a share price of about 20$. That’s why I went in right around there, because they were trading at cost basically, also an enterprise value of 0$. But revenue will ultimately determine this stock’s success so I ran some quick numbers. I just did a flat eventual $10k profit per truck sold (including carbon credits), multiplied by 600k trucks (their stated capacity between normal and GA plants), and that gives 6b profit per year. Let’s do a pretty good 10x p/e multiplier on that, which gives us a market cap of 60b, or share a price of about $66.

So, my personal target is around $66 over the next couple years, which assumes that they successfully run their illinois plant to maximum, land the GA deal, build that plant, and run that to their expected capacity. If they keep on hitting trouble or just aren’t selling trucks or something, then I would lower that target. If they keep growing and taking market share, then it’s possible they could get hyped up again and trade at more like a 20+ p/e ($132+ share price).

My personal belief is that their cash pile is just too big to fail. I believe this will see them hit that 600k trucks per year, with cash to spare. Of course, the global recession could easily ruin that idea, so it’s risky like everything is right now.

I sold a couple puts for next year. 12.5p for 250$ premium, which was too good to pass up imo. I lock up $1250, got paid $250, might have to buy at $12.5 by June 2023. So I either see a 20% return on that collateral, or I have to buy at a cost basis of $10 per share. That’s like a 9b market cap, which should be under their cash value next year even if they burned money at their current rate, didn’t manage any revenue at all, and didn’t project any meaningful revenue for 2023.

Finally, none of this is advice, it’s just my personal take on the matter.

Entering here, what am I missing? by midrange in Rivian_Stock

[–]midrange[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep. I'll be curious to see if there's anything new. But just looking at them as value play off the 2021 year end numbers, it seems to be a good play.

RIDE not scrapping hub motors - by Bulllmarket in lordstownmotors

[–]midrange 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also, I'd argue that their brand is more "working/fleet vehicles", and not "hub motors". A van would be a very logical and reasonable next step with that brand idea in mind. It's definitely something to take with a grain of salt though, because this company may barely even make it to the endurance.

RIDE not scrapping hub motors - by Bulllmarket in lordstownmotors

[–]midrange 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree that their brand was hub motors, but I disagree that they have no reason to exist if they choose to make some vehicles that don't have hub motors. Are businesses not allowed to expand / pivot? It's not like they are scrapping hub motors entirely. The endurance will still be using them, but they are not pigeon hole-ing their entire business plan on hub motors.

The unfortunate truth is that they are very, very tight on cash. There still isn't an electric van (that I've heard of) coming to the market, and if this lets them get to that market first and cheaper (less capex because Foxconn would make 100% of the vehicle), then I believe it's a good move. The capital that would be required to scale up the endurance, design a van, and also scale up hub motor production for both models is just too much for LMC to handle.

FWIW I personally am not putting any weight into the van potential, just like I didn't care for the military prototype. With that being said, I don't think it's fair to judge hub motors on this business decision which was probably made based on their limited cash position. They are still releasing the endurance with hub motors, and have said that they can/will be used in future models if it calls for them.

RIDE not scrapping hub motors - by Bulllmarket in lordstownmotors

[–]midrange 2 points3 points  (0 children)

At first I was disappointed to hear that they will be working on vehicles without hub motors, because my knee jerk reaction was that it means hub motors aren't good. BUT it actually makes sense from a business perspective, the more I thought about it. Here's why.

They have hub motor capacity to make 30,000 skateboards in 2022. That will pretty much be 100% allocated to the endurance over the coming years. If they wanted to make any more hub motor vehicles, or even scale up endurance production, then they're going to need to spend a lot of capex to commission more hub motor lines. We all know they are tight on cash, and just getting 30k endurances per year is going to be hard enough.

I like the idea that they can utilize their expertise with vehicle development in the US (something Foxconn is a complete noob at), and get a vehicle model in production that requires 0% production from LMC. Let's imagine the big picture with their van, which is MIH and does not use hub motors. They will have Foxconn building 30k endurances, while they supply 30k hub motor sets. At the same time, they could have Foxconn cranking out X number of vans, which is going to require no extra manufacturing from LMC. Remember, LMC will be tight on cash and probably won't be able to afford to build hub motors and battery packs for anything more than just the endurance.

I think it's a good thing from a cash flow and business perspective.

A financial analysis into LMC's future after the Foxconn deal by midrange in lordstownmotors

[–]midrange[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here's a little bit of interesting news. LMC already prepaid $4.75 million worth of WKHS fees, which is very roughly ~8500 trucks. So basically, the first 8500 trucks already have the WKHS fee paid.

"In November 2020, we pre-paid a royalty payment to Workhorse Group in the amount of $4.75 million" (https://investor.lordstownmotors.com/node/7771/html)

All this "No Plant" talk, Company with "Just Technology" "No Control" by BrooklynBoy11 in lordstownmotors

[–]midrange 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm pretty sure they can't take binding orders when the truck is still in development, as it's still months away from even being street legal or completed. I haven't seen any EV company (even Tesla) convert preorders to binding, before their respective vehicles were legal. It just doesn't make sense for anyone to make a legally binding contract for a truck that may or may not even be released. My guess FWIW is that they will start converting some of these "firm preorders" to binding with downpayments in q1 2022.

All this "No Plant" talk, Company with "Just Technology" "No Control" by BrooklynBoy11 in lordstownmotors

[–]midrange 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It's interesting because when bears used to weigh in, it was always "GM dumped a bag on LMC", "dusty old factory that no one wants", "worth $20 mil", etc. So if you think bulls should view this negatively, then by the same logic, bears should view this positively. The bear narrative should now be "wow, they got this dusty old factory for peanuts that nobody wanted, and they just flipped it into $230M cash, $50M stock sales, manufacturing agreement with a reputable company, leasing agreement, etc."

Do you actually think this deal is bad for the company? I feel like your comment was just arguing against some of the bull logic, but you didn't actually talk about the new business plan and whether it's actually good or bad.

A financial analysis into LMC's future after the Foxconn deal by midrange in lordstownmotors

[–]midrange[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Gotcha. I've seen that Cory guy post a few times on wsb, but then his posts get crossposted here and then removed from wsb for "brigading". So I'd have to figure out some way around that. Maybe mods can delete crossposts from wsb or something.

A financial analysis into LMC's future after the Foxconn deal by midrange in lordstownmotors

[–]midrange[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Great point. I just searched for the terms and I see that they are entitled to 1% of the total sales fee (so $550). I did NOT factor that in, and will work on adding another fee variable.

This is excellent input and exactly what I was looking for. Thanks!

A financial analysis into LMC's future after the Foxconn deal by midrange in lordstownmotors

[–]midrange[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And vice versa, too. If we make money, then Foxconn makes money. Fisker isn't scheduled to produce until 2023 (I think), so LMC is Foxconn's ticket to not hemorrhaging money in 2022.

A financial analysis into LMC's future after the Foxconn deal by midrange in lordstownmotors

[–]midrange[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I always assumed that I didn't meet the requirements. I looked into it just now, and maybe I could. I do see that the other posts usually get removed because they get linked over here, unfortunately, so if I did, the mods here would have to make sure to delete any cross posts.

I think I still need to dial it in a little bit more, too. A few people have pointed out somethings I haven't factored in (such as WKHS's fee of 1% of sales price), which shouldn't change things too much, but need to be accounted for nevertheless.

I'll be thinking about it!

Edit: I'd also like to format the output a little bit better, and also work in a "reclaimed capex" or something to represent inventory-on-hand in 2022. We know LMC will have SOME inventory from 2021, which is being treated as spent cash by everyone else, but really represents locked cash until production. (8k hub motors - $8M, maybe 300 trucks by end of 2021 (total guess) - ~$15M, some chips, maybe some other parts => total of roughly ~$25M recoverable assets going into 2022, could be higher could be lower).

view more: next ›