Rhinox

OK, I understand, but why do we have to download something we do not need? That's just useless wasting of disk-space and download pipe. These "all-in-one" mega-packages are step away from modular software where one picks just what he needs. What if you translate it later in 100 languages? Should we prepare for it and buy a few TB drives and a few T1-lines in advance?

LOL, just because of multiple languages download size of i.e. A10C was increased from ~300MB to ~1.1GB ??? ED, you do not mean this seriously...

Rule number 1: Do *NOT* buy "TN+Film" LCD! Look for much better IPS/PLS/PVA instead. Do not let yourself to be fooled by response-time...

If you put it that way, i5+SSD is imho better option. i7 has in addition hyperthreading (useless for DCS), 8MB L3-cache (vs 6MB i5, not a big difference), and 3.9GHz turbo-boost (i5 "only" 3.8GHz, but both can be clocked to about the same frequency). Benefits of i7 are negligible, or better said, of no use for DCS. On the other hand, SSD is great thing...

But I was not arguing about quality of acmi generated from track. Just about your remark "...I can't spend double the time to generate Tacview records...". Time is not a problem (because you can speed it up), quality is. And fidelity of track-generated acmi-files does not depend on the speed you are replaying track-file (apart from cases when your drive is not fast enough and you get some extra stuttering).

Yes I have. I even compared acmi-files created at 1x, 2x, 4x and 8x speed. No difference. Or in other words, equally off reality (including the track file)...

Have you ever heard about time acceleration while playing tracks?

I do not recommend i3 for DCS. It is low-end cpu, targeted at office-pc etc. Number of cores/threads is not the only difference. For example, they have different amount of level-3 cache: i3 has 3MB L3-cache i5 has 6MB L3-cache (except for low-TDP models i5-23xxT and i5-34xxT which have 3MB too) i7 has 8MB L3-cache (LGA1155) or 10/12/15MB L3-cache (LGA2011, depending on type) (all desktop cpus)

Negative! 1. IIRC, this option ("Real Time Online Analysis") was created intentionally for some purpose and is present only in "pro" version 2. Even before Vyrtuoz implemented this, there were other ways/tools of exploiting "export on" option.

What is that "Chezh download version" (P51D & A10C)? Some new language even google-translator does not know?

Your mobo supports ddr3 up to 2400(!), so why not going for it? 8GB/DDR3-2400 gives you better results in DCS, than 32GB/DDR3-1600. When talking about bottlenecks, mostly cpu/gpu/ssd is mentioned. But memory-speed is another one...

Download "AMD System Monitor", unzip, and let it run. Start DCS, play for a while, and then check diagrams (or files, if you selected output to file). This software can monitor cpu-load, main memory-usage, gpu-load (only for amd/ati graphics cards), and gpu-memory usage. The curve close to 100%/full is your bottleneck. If none of the above mentioned, then your cpu/gpu is waiting for data and either RAM-speed or HDD-speed is the bottleneck...

None of them. I would pick i5-3570K. 1. cheeper then those two, 2. "ivy-bridge" (22nm, 77W TDP, DDR3-1600), 3. hyperthreading for flight-sim is useless.

That is very sad news, but honestly, it could have been expected. Announcement/registration came too late, in addition to that known problems with DCS made participation at least questionable (speaking only for myself, I still struggle with instability even with the latest 1.2.3, which I did not observe with FC2 or A10C/BS). But I trully believe LLTM will rise from the ashes next year. DCS will get more stable, beta-modules get mature, perhaps some dcs:fighter will be released by then. And LLTM2014 will be much better than LLTM2013 could have ever been...

Is this the same "Virtual Baltic Bees" team which took part in some virtual airshows? I'm curious because I have read somewhere this team had been disbanded and ceased to exist...

Hm, seems that card was defective maybe. I have 6970 too (actually, 6950 re-flashed to 6970) and never seen any "white blobs", not even while overclocking...

Once in the past I used software which made it possible to use notebook-screen as 2nd "local" PC screen. I think it was called "maxivista" or something similar. It worked on client-server model, some kind of network connection between PC and laptop was necessary (wifi or lan). For PC it was like 2nd screen with all pros and cons. But I do not know if it is still actively developed...

But Google-translate can! Кузнецов = Kuznetsov ;-)

Sadly true. This problem persists from the old lomac-days, and if it changed at all, then only to become worse...

I asked this long time ago, as I wanted to implement "LO-server viewer" in my web-page (similar to teamspeak-server viewer). Sadly, there is nothing like that, and what's even worse client-server (and client-masterserver) communication protocol is not documented (asked for info but they refused to reveal it), so it's kind of difficult to code something without going deep into reverse-engineering... I think in this case (and maybe a few more) ED is maybe "over-paranoid". I understand they want to protect their intelectual property, but I can not imagine how could I damage their business with just simple server-viewer, or master-server browser...

Very strange label for paying customers. Especially when it comes from ED Testers Team...

Apparently you write faster than read. So once more: Tuesday, 04 September 2012 DUXFORD, UK, September 1st, 2012 – The Fighter Collection and Eagle Dynamics will release Lock On: Flaming Cliffs 3 for Windows PC in September 2012. Lock On: Flaming Cliffs 3 Pre-Purchase Available Wednesday, 07 November 2012 04 September 2012 vs 07 November 2012! Clear enough?

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/ http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=93633 "...The Fighter Collection and Eagle Dynamics will release Lock On: Flaming Cliffs 3 for Windows PC in September 2012..."

Do you think it is correct to announce release of a product and just AFTER THAT ask community? I'm really curious, because I'm working in software industry myself, and we do it in exactly opposite way: first we collect feedback from customers, ask them what they expect/want/need, then we create new software version and announce release... Correct me if I'm wrong, but was not multiplayer stability something community wanted badly (speaking now only for myself: more than anything else!)? Or do you mean we have had it "for months already"? Man, I have been online-playing DCS/FC since the old LOMAC-days, and honestly, never in all those years have I ever encountered so many server disconnects and random game crashes as in the last few months...

So it was us (community) who caused this multiple-month delay? We (cit.) "cried out" and that's why you (ED) cancel planned release??? You (ED) announced release of DCS:FC3 for September/2012 and you did not hold the promise. You (ED) announced release of FC3 1.2.3 patch and you did not hold the promise. Still see no difference?