Rhinox

Switched to this 840/Pro from Intel, and agree. This one is real beast! Very high R/W, and IOPS is double so high as 330/520/710. 840/Pro comes with zero over-provisioning (256GB is really 256GB), and let user decide (at any time, even with system installed) how much does he wants to have. BTW, 830/840/pro series is the only one where all basic components come from one house: nand-chips, ddr-chips (cache) and controller, all is samsung-made...

Three things: Luck, patience and faith. Honestly and with full respect to ED, I would not call DCS even "beta" (no matter which module you pick). For that it is way too unstable and buggy. IIRC, such a very early build is called "alpha" version in software industry...

IMHO all mobos for s1155 have max 4x DDR3 (4x8GB). It is chipset-limited. If you need more RAM, you have to switch to s2011 (X79, max 8x DDR3) or s1366 (X58, max 6x DDR3).

Is it really so simple? No registration required, or something?

Thanks, it worked. Maybe time to update dcs-website, because it contains misleading info (probably valid for standalone dcs modules, but not since dcs:world)...

How can I deactivate all modules before upgrading my PC??? I checked dcs-web and only info I found is "To force activation dialogue to appear hold down Shift button on keyboard and then launch multiplayer game shortcut", but this simply does not work. Normal multiplayer game is started as usual. I also checked dcs user manual included with dcs installation, but there is not a single word about de/activation...

Unbelievable, what you put together in one box: 6 years old cpu (and about as old ram with low frequency), and brand new high-end gfx. Very out-of-ballance configuration, imho...

Plenty, but you have to supply more info! - public or private IP (on wan of your router)? - static or dynamic? - your modem/router support port-forwarding ("virtual server")?

That diagram looks strange: 1. Traffic speed should be b/s (or B/s, kB/s, kiB/s, MB/s, MiB/s, etc., simply data_per_time). If you evaluated cumulative amount of data transfered, then it might be in "kilobytes", but rising all the time, never going down! If at some time "t" you have already transfered "x" kilobytes, then in time "t+1" you can not have transferred less than those "x" kilobytes... 2. I see there "50000-100000 kilobytes". Not sure what it is (see point 1), but if you meen "kilobytes per second", than you have really high traffic, because 100000 kilobytes per second =~ 100 Megabytes per second (not sure if you mean "kilo" as 1000, or 1024)!

Agree. HT brings nothing in DCS, actually only 2 cores are used. And instead of m4 I'd personally recommend 840/pro (higher R/W, IOPS, MTBF, 256b-AES, 5 years warranty, for ~same price).

I'd say if changing gfx-settings does not have impact on fps, then your bottleneck is something else, probably cpu. You have AMD graphics, so try to download & run "AMD system monitor" in background. It will show what (cpu, gpu, ram, or gfx-ram) was maxed out while running DCS...

Excelent news, man! I was checking lltm-web regularly and was quite dissapointed seeing it down, thinking of the worst. I'm happy I was wrong! BTW, for us "non-lowlanders": what is that "WZZRD"?

Depends on gfx-settings. But he can easily find it with "AMD System Monitor":, let it run in background (iirc it can export data into file too), start DCS and let it run for some time. Then he can see cpu/gpu usage, main-ram/gpu-memory usage, etc. The one topped at 100% is probably bottleneck...

ED: maybe time to adjust those hw-specs to something realistic! Your customers deserve fair treatment. I had once the same rig like those "recommended system requirements" and it was real pain in a** to play DCS:A10C on it. I doubt it got better since then...

AFAIK you can not host mission with just DCS:W, you need at least one module...

Go for IdeaPad Y580. In configuration with GTX660M/2GB, 4GB RAM and i5-3210M (dual-core) you can get it for ~700€ (~£560). That imho is reasonable minimum worth to think about using it for DCS. If you have a few bucks more, pick the one with i7-3610QM (quad-core). But GPU is definitely the parameter you should look for in the first place! Forget all those GT5/GT6... crap, they are very low-end GPU. You need GTX and even that will not be too much! Remember, GTX***M (mobile) is not the same as GTX*** (non-M, aka desktop).

I think this general statement is not always true for R-27ET in passive (optical) mode. Especially for head-on targets you get LA pretty late, when target is deep within the missile's zone. ET (and T) does not have datalink, so it gets LA only when missile seeker locked on target. But heat signature of head-on flying target (in its forward hemisphere) is not strong enough to be detected by missile seeker as soon as the target gets into kill missile's zone. It is detected much later...

Seems to be something similar to Intel's "hyper-threading". But at least Intel came with new slogan for it (which might be even bigger marketing crap)...

I have both TH-Warthog and x52(pro&non-pro). Some time ago I wrote review for our squad's web and tried to compare them, but I gave it up. Honestly, they are uncomparable. TH/Warthog and TH/Cougar are class of their own. What you can eventually compare is price/value ratio, where x52(pro) might be tight winner (for ~1/3 price of THW you get imho more than 1/3 value of THW). In all other aspects THW is better (handling, stability, programming, look&feel, durability, material, etc). The only thing I'm missing is possibility to switch profiles in game, as I mentioned previously... I do not say x52(pro) is bad! But if you put it on the table, next to TH/Warthog, difference is obvious. I used x52 for years and was satisfied. But now, after having TH/Warthog for ~2 years I would not like to go back to x52. If you mean it with flight-sims seriously and can afford it, go for THW...

No war actually. AMD simply can not keep with Intel these days. Price/performance, tdp/power, manufacturing process... that all speaks for Intel...

Well, as this is "THW vs X52" topic, I dare to "steal" it (but only a little) and ask: Is there any possibility to change THW target-profile in game (i.e. using some hotkey)? I have used this extensively with x52, but can not find way how to do it for THW. And I'm missing it badly... I have different target-profiles for different planes, but sometimes I do not know in advance, which plane I'm going to fly (depends on which is free on dcs-server). The only way I found is to Alt+Tab out of DCS, switch to Target, reload new profile, and go back to DCS. Unfortunatelly, this Alt+Tab switching sometimes causes DCS to crash...

Are you sure you are "139"? ;-)

I'm affraid there is no such a thing as "moving" engine to dx11. ED would have to create new 3d-engine from the scratch...

Well, if you can not force LOFC to assign axis to command-controlled wheel brake, then make axis to issue command which controlls breaking (iirc it is "w")! I think this is known here, but maybe you missed it: Use software, and create corresponding profile for your pedals. If you want to control intensity of braking (as I wanted), then the trick is to create quickly repeating sequence of "w" (wheel brake) pressing and releasing. I have saitek-pedals as you, so I use Saitek Profiler (or as they call it now, Smart Technology, btw ugly peace of software!). Split your pedal-axis into 20 successive non-overlapping bands and assign quickly repeating "w" (wheel brake) commands of different length, i.e.: band_01: w_pressed_for_1ms - w_released_and_wait_19ms (and cyclic repeat) band_02: w_pressed_for_2ms - w_released_and_wait_18ms ... band_19: w_pressed_for_19ms - w_released_and_wait_1ms band_20: w_pressed (full braking, no brake/release cycle) One "press-release" cycle (with different press/release ratios for different bands) takes 20ms, so it is repeated 50 times per second. Quickly enough not to notice any visible "shaking" of your jet. This way you can controll braking by pedals and even controll intensity of braking (the more you press pedal, the "more" wheel-brake you apply), which is good i.e. during landing in formation with more jets together (when leader can not apply full braking). Of course, this way you can not controll left/right wheel separatelly, that is a limitation of LOFC. And do not open chat-window while braking, or you'll be surprised by seeing "wwwwwwwwww..." :-)

...which you can fix very easily...