Gonzo01

Fox News today reports 15,000 hardcore gamers found dead slumped over their PCs, cause unknown. The only lead in the case was that they all had the same webpage open; Digital Combat Simulation - patch download :megalol:

:megalol:Why is it I suddenly feel the need to donate money to DCS (Developers Charity with Special needs). Great video StrongHarm, I was really touched. Can I get a HUG. Hey Viper is that a bug smasher your swinging around, or are you just excited to see us.:megalol:

:megalol:How come no coffee cup holders. I strickly asked for zero G coffee cup holders.:megalol: Thanks ED. Very much appreciate the hard work.

Hijack, Thanks for the idea, but I have to warn you this can be a very dangerous thing to do. First whenever you add a drive letter to a temp drive you run the risk of windows reordering your drives including your boot drive. I should know I was on the phone with ASUS for an hour trying to fix it. Thanks for idea, but be careful it's a bear to fix.

If you set up the Mission Goals in the Mission Editor, and you assign 50 points to Blue team if a unit is detroyed: in my case a Factory, shouldn't this award 50 points to the blue team. I check that the unit is dead, but it never assigns any points, even though I received a screen messages that the building was destroyed. When I hit the apostrophe key it still shows a score of zero.

Does the AVI Recorder in the Mission Editor for A-10C work. All I seem to get is a very large file in AVI uncompressed format that plays back at 1 frame ever second. I'm trying to find out if their is a bug so maybe we can get it fixed sooner than later. I usually setup for 1920x1200, 26 fps, quality 100%' and use AVI uncompressed then pull that hugh output file into Final Cut Studio Pro. Whether I play it in Final Cut or from the desktop on the PC it still plays 1 frame a second. Anyone have any ideas?:helpsmilie:

Is is possible when generating an AVI files from a track inside the Mission Edititor to redirect where it saves the output file? Currently, it places the file inside the movie directory. Reason for asking is that an A-10C track in AVI uncompressed format can get to over 200 GBytes in size depending on the length of the track.:doh:

:)Keep moving forward. Wish you well.:)

Always online except when testing missions

My money is on the stability of the Mission Builder and Radio Comms. I'll be happy when the AWACS stops referring to himself as Enfield.

Not sure why but I increase my speed setting from 1.0 to 1.2 and it gave me and extra 30 degrees of down view.

Is their any reason why my F-16C's SEAD group will not follow its waypoints to the threat zone, which are over 100NM away. They also seem to be flying at the wrong altitude; I assigned 20,000ft and their flying at 4280ft and yes I am not using metric and the sim is set to imperial and MSL.

Why do my AI aircraft sit on the ramp when another aircraft enters the mission I have been working on adding a dedicated SEAD flight, which has been working quite well. It launches at the beginning of the multiplayer mission and takes out the enemies radar so it can't launch its missiles. The problem I'm having is that they launch just fine if it's just me in the mission, but if my friend joins the mission the two F-16C's assigned to the SEAD task just sit on the ramp and don't taxi to the runway. Sometimes the number 2 SEAD aircraft taxi's a little, but they just sit on the ramp. The moment my friend leaves the mission they taxi out and takeoff. I am really baffled.

I recently received my Saitek Combat Rudder pedals and decided to try them out with DCS A-10C. I have to admit I was a little reluctant, due to past experience with Saitek software. But I will say I am very happy with them. Construction quality looks spot-on and the installation went reasonably well. Best advise is do not install the drivers if your using Windows 7 64 bit, DCS recognized them without there driver and software installed. I only mention this because I had to remove their software in order to get them to work correctly. DCS lets you program and fine tune them inside of A-10C. Took me a little while to get the brakes tuned, but all and all they feel great. I have to say they are the best rudder pedals I have own to date. Nice work Saitek

Spadje maybe you should re-read my post. This is not about hitting 5 Ghz, it's about coming to the limits of what Silicon can be used for in a processor chip. I am trying to help you and in the process educate you. By the way, you of all people should know that Futuremark is about getting the fastest FPS at whatever cost, and it is not about stability or longevity of the chip. Most of these people use Liquid Nitrogen as a coolant for what, a whole 13 seconds. It also might suprise you to know my background before you start questioning everything I say. I think it's fair at best that both of us agree to disagree and lets close this topic. Best Regards, Gonzo

There is no "single cause" to the decrease in clock speeds in chips. There are quite a few compounding issues that have essentially stopped the increase in CPU clock frequencies. 1) Smaller die sizes do all sorts of weird things. I don't think ten years ago anyone would have seriously considered that optical lithography would take us down to (and below) the 45 nm technology node, which is actually below the wavelength of light. Leakage current (due to fun things like quantum tunneling) is making static power of a chip become more and more obvious. As a result, dynamic power needs to correspondingly decrease to keep chips from melting. 2) Designing at a faster clock is very expensive. CPU designers are used to using exotic architectures (domino logic, for instance) to account for faster clocks, but ASIC designers are not. Development for slower architectures (ie, the classic static CMOS) has become a bigger part of the pie than CPU architectures. Developments in the former tend to migrate to the latter. 3) It's rather difficult to get data off of devices at high data rates. Multigigabit serializers are taking over major data paths. Although this doesn't have an inherent impact on CPU speeds, it means that bus speeds are becoming less important. 4) Pipelining only gets you so far. It's already common to use a pipeline simply to account for propagation delays along a wire. There's no way to improve those propogation delays short of optical interconnects. We're already past the point of considering RC time constants of interconnects. It's more common to hear about characteristic impedance (traditionally an RF phenomenon) of interconnects. 5) Memory bandwidth hasn't kept up with CPU bandwidth. At the absolute far end (graphics DDR RAM), it is possible to get about 1 GHz out of memory. However, more commonly used PC memories are not nearly so fast. As a result, the net benefit of a higher clock frequency is mitigated by any direct memory interactions. 6) Faster CPUs require bigger caches (to ensure that number 5 doesn't become as big of an issue - you don't want a CPU to have to go out to memory to do anything when memory is several orders of magnitude slower than the CPU). Bigger caches are incredibly expensive in terms of die area. This is why server processors are quite a bit more expensive than consumer CPUs. 7) People are talking about architectural differences, but SCDB's got the right idea -- it's a quantum-mechanics-level limitation of the actual silicon. We have plenty of researchers capable of addressing the architectural issues, but they're not being funded because of known physical limits. If you're wondering why we can have 9 GHz ASICs but not equally fast CPUs, it's because CPUs require quite a bit of silicon real estate -- all on the same clock (mostly the cache). It's just too long a distance for signals to propagate (which, as an aside, is just one of the physical limits -- the other is transistor switching). Broadly speaking it is a power issue. Chips today run at the absolute limit of power density; they generate just as much heat as the package is able to dissipate, and if the package could do better, you can be damn sure they would increase the power budget. You could make the chips go faster, but you'd have more power to get rid of. It's a classic engineering tradeoff. Is your engineering effort better spent on creating clever low-power tricks throughout the chip so you can run faster, or on creating more parallel circuits so you can do more in a clock cycle, with a slower clock? Complicate the equation by the unfortunate fact that your successful marketing to date is based on clock speed=performance (whoops), and by competitive pressures which mean performance has a time value, so that what's fast today is slow in a year, and it's a rather messy issue. Around 2000 the equation flipped as we hit the power wall. The design mentality of a speed race - keep increasing the clock speed - no longer makes sense when you need 10x the engineering effort to double the clock speed as you do to double performance through parallelism. I should also mention that while the transistors themselves are not close to their fundamental speed limit, the microprocessors contain large functional units that must complete all of their calculations within one clock cycle, and making these functional units fast enough can be quite a challenge, another source of the extra engineering effort that comes with increasing clock speed (or decreasing cycle time if you prefer). Timing margins shrink, race conditions are harder to deal with, etc. AMD has recently had trouble with the Translation Lookaside Buffer, and it is reported that the bug occurs only at higher clock frequencies. The RC interconnect delay comes into play here as well; wires are slow enough that you have to pay attention to their delay and put repeaters everywhere, another source of extra design effort. Essentially, the problem is that as features on a chip are scaled down, the resistance increases inversely to the width of the interconnect wire. That is, the resistance goes up as the wire gets narrower. The capacitance of the wire decreases proportionally to the width of the wire. That is, the decreasing width decreases the capacitance. When you combine them as R * C, one increasing and the other decreasing proportionally, it means that the RC delay remains constant for a given length of wire even as you shrink it. The RC delay determines the time it takes a signal to propagate from one end of the wire to the other. What this all means is that while shrinking features tends to speed everything else up, for example transistor switching delays, the propagation delay across the connecting wires does not speed up. So as you scale to smaller and smaller features, the dominant performance effect becomes the speed of interconnect wires, not the speed of transistors. The speed of the transistors becomes irrelevant. Your limitation is the interconnect. As you speed up the clock, the distance a signal can travel and the number of transistors you can reach in one clock period goes down. One thing you can do about it is to make fatter wires, but that becomes self-defeating as the wires take up more die space and cause the transistors to be farther apart, increasing interconnect distances. Another solution is the use of low-K materials for the insulators in place of silicon oxide. Low-K materials have a lower dielectric constant which reduces the capacitance. But ultimately, you reach a limit at which you can clock a chip and still get signals from one edge to the other in one clock cycle.

Intel themselves demonstrated an i7-2600K (where the "K" indicates the processor has an unlocked multiplier) running stably overclocked at 4.9Ghz on air cooling (Details not yet revealed).[10][11] This has gained some attention, as of 2010, it typically requires water or better cooling to achieve 4.9*GHz. Liquid Nitrogen Overclocking has refuted that it probably was not an accurate performance demo, saying "not a demo where the system was stressing all cores and threads, and it was not a statement confirming this could be maintained for 24×7 operation."[12] Liquid Nitrogen Overclocking has shown instances of an Core i7-2600K processor operating at 4.5*GHz on a P67-chipset motherboard, and a Core i5-2500K processor operating at 4.2*GHz using a H67-chipset motherboard. All other details are still unknown. Spadje don't believe everything you hear unless you can verify it yourself. I'm am not saying your wrong, I'm just saying be careful what you put out their based on your own understanding.

I am wondering if the reason were getting some better increases in FPS is because ED turned down the objects drawning distance? I see helicopters disappear on the ramp at 20 ft away, I see bridges only show up less than a 1000 ft above, making them impossible to bomb from low to medium altitude. I'm afraid Silicon based CPU are as fast as their going to get due to the heat limitation we have reached with silicon. I am afraid we are not going to see Gallium processors in the near future until the price comes down to under a million for 250 Ghz. Intel might stretch to 4.0 Ghz but any electrical engineer know's that Silicon breaks down at 4.6 Ghz if not cooled by liquid Nitrogen for no more than about 13 seconds. So unless ED is going to start using multi-core and off-load to the GPU were just trading Peter to pay Paul. ED is it time to take a look at some other options. I really love this sim, and I don't want to see it end up like so many other unfinished flight sims. It's been a long time since I have flown a sim of such high fidelity. Some nights I can't even go to sleep until i finish replaying the day's mission back in my mind to figure out what went wrong. I know you would never cut corners, so don't stop trying to make this the best sim ever. By the way, if were not going to get a Beta releases like originally promised, can we at least get a status update regarding what's be worked on.

Try reversing the Slider and invert the curve. Just select these two radio buttons and then make minor adjustments to the saturation axis depening on which toe brake.

I am running the latest beta drive for Track IR 5 and did not have a problem for a week, now the whole DCS program crashes and creates a DCS crash log that says: # -------------- 20110113-173937 -------------- C:\Program Files (x86)\NaturalPoint\TrackIR5\NPClient64.dll # C0000005 ACCESS_VIOLATION at 0C6325B4 01:000015B4 00000000 00000000 0000:00000000 Anyone have any ideas what I might try? This is what I found in the windows event log: Log Name: Application Source: Application Error Date: 1/13/2011 1:15:08 PM Event ID: 1000 Task Category: (100) Level: Error Keywords: Classic User: N/A Computer: Gonzo-PC Description: Faulting application name: Launcher.exe_DCS: A-10C WARTHOG, version: 1.1.0.3, time stamp: 0x4d10c086 Faulting module name: NPClient64.dll, version: 3.2.38.0, time stamp: 0x4d1d1fe0 Exception code: 0xc0000005 Fault offset: 0x00000000000025b4 Faulting process id: 0x1154 Faulting application start time: 0x01cbb34d955889d0 Faulting application path: D:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS A-10C Beta\bin\Launcher.exe Faulting module path: C:\Program Files (x86)\NaturalPoint\TrackIR5\NPClient64.dll Report Id: 0d369dc5-1f41-11e0-a59d-485b39702054 Event Xml: <Event xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/win/2004/08/events/event"> <System> <Provider Name="Application Error" /> <EventID Qualifiers="0">1000</EventID> <Level>2</Level> <Task>100</Task> <Keywords>0x80000000000000</Keywords> <TimeCreated SystemTime="2011-01-13T18:15:08.000000000Z" /> <EventRecordID>6322</EventRecordID> <Channel>Application</Channel> <Computer>Gonzo-PC</Computer> <Security /> </System> <EventData> <Data>Launcher.exe_DCS: A-10C WARTHOG</Data> <Data>1.1.0.3</Data> <Data>4d10c086</Data> <Data>NPClient64.dll</Data> <Data>3.2.38.0</Data> <Data>4d1d1fe0</Data> <Data>c0000005</Data> <Data>00000000000025b4</Data> <Data>1154</Data> <Data>01cbb34d955889d0</Data> <Data>D:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS A-10C Beta\bin\Launcher.exe</Data> <Data>C:\Program Files (x86)\NaturalPoint\TrackIR5\NPClient64.dll</Data> <Data>0d369dc5-1f41-11e0-a59d-485b39702054</Data> </EventData> </Event> Please Help

Will give a try, thanks Viper and Anastasiuss. Does DEAD flight just mean expendable or is there dedicated SEAD aircraft on the way?

Is there away I can use another aircraft to degrade enemy SAM radar so that I can get in close with the A-10C and take out a SAM site? Do any of the aircraft included have jamming capability that I can turn on at a specific time or is there another way to take out a SAM site like a SA-11 before it takes me out?

Has anyone figured out how to get Track IR Motion Controls to save with your profile using the new Beta 5.1 v2. Each time I go back in the Speed and Smooth reset back to 1.0 and 10.

It is a problem that occured in beta 4. I think it has something to do with the LOD's loading incorrectly. I'm sure ED is going to fix it. I notice that if you used the F2 key you can see the helicopter.

Gets in the way of seeing the avionics.