Rhinox

2nd hand Saitek-x52 from eBay. A new one costs ~100 bucks, so with a little luck you could find one used for less than 70...

Before we start comparing results, I'd suggest you get the last version of AS SSD benchmark (which as of time of this post is 1.6.4237.30508 ). Your version (1.5.3784.37609) does not support ssd-controllers with on-the-fly compression correctly...

Definitely. I expect number of on-line servers increasing rapidly. So far the only way how to bring your own DCS/LO server is... to assemble one. Very rarely can you lease server in hosting companies, because what they offer usually lacks any graphics (which is absolutelly correct, a server should not have any graphics, be it windows or X11). Command-line (or web-browser) controlled dedicated server for DCS/LO (maybe linux version) is something I'm dreaming of. And is the thing this game is missing badly...

Well, topic says "impressions/questions", so I have one: Question: Do not you think $30 for ~20MB product is... somehow unproportional, especially compared to $40 for BS/A10C? No offence ED-guys, but I think you overshot a little this time... Impression: I can not help feeling like cash-cow. First BS1->BS2 "upgrade", now this. I do not have problem with paying if I get adequate value for my money, but this is not the case. Honestly, this might be the most expensive 20MB of software I have ever seen...

Add good SSD (sata 6gbps, synchro-mlc) and you will never regret it. A good one 128GB you can get for ~100-120€, i.e. Vertex3/4, m4, i330 etc. It's worth every penny...

Congrat macedk, must have been a hell of experience! Some time ago I visited one fighter-squadron airbase and had a chance to try their mil-grade MiG-29 training simulator. Luckily I got a little more time (thought it was still too short!). It was of similar setup: huge hemisphere (I guess diameter 6-7 meters), 6 projectors. Viewing range about -110/+110 degree (left/right), -20/+100 degree (down/up). Pit itself looked like real 29, just cut off somewhere behind pilots seat. All controls were quite stiff (THW is kids' toy compared to it). What surprised me were strong "kicks" I got into stick whenever I tried to pull +10g. My hand ached after a few of them! After a few minutes I felt very comfortable, and even achieved a few "victories" (AI was really dumb, but this was above all flight-sim, not fight-sim)... I told the mil-guys watching over I'd like to have something like this in my living-room. They said no problem, a few million $ and I can have it. Seems you can still buy everything in Russia... :-)

One for me! Where can I sign it?

For some time I was running DCS:A10C on "minimum system requirements" and it was real pain in a**. So I'd say "recommended system requitements" are closer to real minimum requirements. BTW, does DCS:World really require internet activation? I remember someone from ED saying it is free...

FYI i5-2500k memory controller requires 1.5V for dram-modules per specification. I would *not* recommend increasing memory voltage. You are out of specs even now...

There are still similar events going on, i.e. "Georgian Incident" (51st) or "OpFor" (104th) to name a few...

It is not difficult to find another set of benchmarks with quite different results. And you need not to go too far. Look the next page where i7-950 (despite of lower nominal and turbo-frequency) is faster than i5-2500k in MyriMatch and Euler3D. Similar for some game-benchmarks (i.e. source-engine, metro2k33, etc.). Maybe bigger L3-cache (8MB i7-950 vs 6MB i5-2500k) plays role here, or tripple-channel (i7-9xx) versus dual-channel (i5-2xxx) memory controller... I do agree that Sandy is a little stronger per clock, but not much. It is just evolution of previous architecture, where some parts have been even scaled down...

I'd be very surprised if you'd get more than +10% fps with this upgrade. From cpu-architecture point of view, there is not much difference between i7-930 and i5-2500k. I know, it is 45nm vs 32nm, Bloomfield vs SandyBridge, 8MB vs 6MB L3, but "power per MHz" is about the same. With good air cooling you can run i5-2500k @ ~4.5GHz, that is ~10% higher cpu-frequency than your current i7-930 (4GHz). *If* cpu is bottleneck in your system, you get +10% more fps. Not much more...

??? Despite of having 6950 (unlocked to 6970) I never heard of any "flashing boxes" problem...

Honestly, I think there is nothing hard to decide here. TH is way better than CH (had both of them). And concerning ministick, THW has two additional mouse-axis on the back side of the right throttle (the same as mini-stick on x52 throttle). You can use it for looking around till you buy TIR...

[OT]: I just keep wondering why do people still buy old&crappy TN+Film, when there are plenty of IPS/PVA/PLS LCDs which they could get for about the same price? Really do not understand. Go to some good HW-shop and watch the difference with your own eyes! Trust me: once you try IPS/PVA, you will never go back to TN...[/OT]

AFAIK DCS uses directx as gfx-api. This makes portability (I mean true, not wine/cedega) much more difficult compared to opengl which was (and maybe still is) used and supported extensively by Valve. Gabe Newell was for some time strong supporter of open standards and highly critical towards M$-proprietary directx api. Things have changed a little and opengl is somehow loosing ground in games-development...

In situation when Kinect4win is cheaper than tir5 a lot of us thought about it. But I think devs are on move now. If software starts supporting Kinect natively, I'll be pleased to get rid of that strange cap I have to wear whenever playing DCS/LO (honestly, I look like an idiot with that cap on my head, but I'm not saying I look much better without it)... Problem is NaturalPoint took great share of the market and I'm pretty sure they forced exclusive agreements at least with big players. So it will not be easy to make way for Kinect, at least in old titles. Maybe using mouse-emulation approach as with FaceTrackNoIR...

Only the one who wants to run dedicated server would buy it. This would probably be groups of players (i.e. virtual squadrons) sharing additional costs for one common dedi-server license. And concerning "one more game license" wersus "dedicated server", I'd expect dedi-server to be more suitable to run as server (hardware resources, stability, security, command-line only, for linux, etc.). I would sure pay for true dedi-server even twice more than for one more common client license...

I doubt. DCS is written for windows, and I do not think they coded it in gcc. So probably substantial amount of work must be invested in 1. stripping the whole gfx-stuff, and 2. porting the code to linux. From this point of view, dedi-server for Windows would be much easier to do. On the other side, I think for us (users) linux dedicated server would be better. It is easier to find linux hosting services and frequently cheaper (at least costs for system-license falls off). And although there might be games where dedicated server is free of charge, I doubt it will be the case of DCS. And honestly, I do not care (if the price for dedi-server license do not exceed let's say $100). But I think dedicated server would definitely boost selling numbers for the whole DCS-serie and make it more popular...

AFAIK Lucid Virtu is supposed to "switch" GFX used from Intel Graphics (on i5/i7 cpu) to dedicated one as soon as you need it (i.e. games, 3d-rendering, etc). Otherwise only Intel Graphics is used. If DCS is not recognized by Lucid Virtu, it means DCS will be rendered using Intel Graphics resulting in huge fps-penalty (if it is able to run at all). It does not bring anything special for DCS (not a single fps more), but it has some advantages while you are in desktop-mode as it basically "turns off" dedicated GFX (resulting in less power-consumption, lower noise-level, etc). Not sure how effective it is, but the idea looks interesting...

Let me refresh your memory: "...Following the Ka-50 “Black Shark”, TFC/Eagle Dynamics will introduce additional aircraft modules to the “DCS” world like the A-10A “Warthog”, AH-64A “Apache”, and other aircraft at the same exacting level of detail. Each of these aircraft will be available in retail and online and can be purchased as stand-alone simulations or integrated with other modules. It will also be possible to purchase each aircraft as an add-on at a reduced price for consumers that have already purchased a DCS module..." While not talking exactly about DCS-core and DCS-modules it still talks about "modules to the DCS world". It also gives option of "either stand-alone or integrated module", which again is not true now because DCS-parts are released first as stand-alone simulators, and later modified to be compatible with those resleased previously... Take this not as criticism. I'm just a little dissapointed by the way how this very ambicious project slipped a little "of the track". But I'm pleased to see there is some effort in ED to put it back on the right path... Honestly, this model of stand-alone simulators was not sustainable even in medium-time perspective, because from each other dcs-part the amount of "compatibility work" increases. It was only question of time when ED abandones it, or let DCS "die of beauty"...

I think advantages of core-based system easily prevail over disadvantages. Even if we have only two DSC-modules now (3rd on the way), a lot of work must be invested into "compatibility patches" and it would increase with every new addition. Actually, I'm surprised ED drifted away from "core-based, pluggable modules" system, which they announced with DCS:BS a few years ago and then silently abandoned...

1. That is your opinion. After working for ~20 years as win/lin-admin mine is a little bit different... 2. Moa started this "win vs lin" flame, not me. I just reacted to his claims. Actually if you scroll a little back you find my opinion that windows and linux are about equally (un)stable, if gfx-interface is included. The only difference is in linux you can get rid of X completely and very easily. In Windows this is nearly impossible (iirc there is some windows version without gfx-interface, but that was specially prepared)...

That is clear to me. I did not say it was ported to linux from windows. I think it was originally developed for some "big" unix... Stability of windows under load is very poor. I'm running some analyses on my works' desktop and after each one I have to reboot, because system does not simply "recover" and responsiveness is bad even when load has been removed. Moreover graphics interface is the component which causes instability frequently. My desktop is running Win7 and when it crashed, it was always because of bug in gfx-drivers. Similar for linux: kernel itself is very stable, but it is very easy to crash X. So if ED is going to make dedicated server, then: 1. only command-line (no gui at all, only web front-end if necessary) 2. if possible, for linux (or able/allowed to run in windows virtual-server)

Then you probably did not shut it down. I guess you just put it into sleep/hibernation. Check power management settings of your pc...