Rhinox

Did you close "Warthog Cover" web already? I wanted to order one set for me, but all I see there is "out-of-stock", and no way to put it in shopping-cart...

Is it possible to uninstall LO 1.0.x as soon as LO:FC 2.x has been installed? I suppose once installed, those products are actually independent from each other, despite of LO 1.0.x being required during LO:FC 2.x installation. If it is so, I'd like to get rid of LO 1.0.x, it is just taking space on my expensive ssd-drive... BTW, how actually is this checked during installation? Does LO:FC 2.x installer looks for specific LO 1.0.x files (I do not believe it checks all of them), or registry entries, or what? Even if LO 1.0.x is required all the time (not only during LO:FC 2.x installation), it would be much better to keep just required "footprint" of LO 1.0.x, instead of full LO 1.0.x installation...

Not sure, but I think all >=HD5900 support at least 4 screens (HD5700/5800 mostly only 3). So OP should be able to run up to 4 screens with his 6750. BTW, new TH2GO is expensive as hell, costs ~220-230€ here (AT), which is about the same as HD6950. Maybe it is better to buy one more graphic card instead of TH2GO. Running them in SLI is another plus, in addition to having plenty of dvi/hdmi/dp outputs...

Congratulation to your new rig, seems to be real monster. But I'd be carefull with memory-modules: i5/i7 2x specification sets maximum to 1.5V, and you should take it seriously as memory controller is in cpu. Yet the module you selected needs 1.6V. It could maybe run with 1.5V using less agressive timing, but then the question is, why should you pay extra money for features you can not use? Looking in price-tags, GSkill Ripjaw X 1600 7-8-7-24 1.6V costs ~50% more than GSkill Ripjaw X 1600 8-8-8-24 1.5V (at least here). IMHO it is money wasted. i5/i7 is unsensitive not only to timings, but to frequencies too. Even 1333/1600/1866 does not make any big difference, only in some particular synthetic benchmarks.

It is simply because those Flex (saphire) IceQ (HIS) Frozr (MSI) etc versions have different PCB & components. Standard bios does not work for them. You'd need "flex-version" of 6970s bios if you want to update flex-version of 6950. And it'd work only if there is no physical difference between them (as it is in the case of standard 6950 & 6970). You can find plenty of hw-forums where this is being discussed. BTW, 6950/6970 have two bioses which can be switched over so even if someone screw something while reflushing bios, he can always safely return to previous version. Anyway, I'm more the guy who wants to get max from the money invested. That's why I like overclocking/unlocking so much! :-)

There is also 1 reason not to buy flex edition: that is if you want to unlock deactivated stream-units and "upgrade" your 6950 to 6970. This is pretty easy, 90-95% of standard 6950 graphic cards (ati-layout, 2GB) can be unlocked. With non-standard versions (1GB, different PCB) your chances are much lower...

First of all, thank you for this great model, combatace. Excelent work! I've never used external views so much as during last few hours... :-) Just a small suggestion: could you please start using version numbers when you upload updated/fixed/changed model? That way it is easier to check lockonfiles and find out if your model has been updated since my last visit, or not. I have downloaded your model 3 times, now I have three archives, with the same filename, but different size...

Thanks for all answers, now I'll turn my question to practical side. I have GTX460 (rest: i7/870 4x2.67GHz, 4GB ram, full-hd screen). Now which option is better from LO/DCS-user point of view: 1. to buy one more GTX460 (~170€ here) and have them both running in SLI 2. or to buy some other card in ~200€ price level (GTX560Ti, HD6870, etc), use it "solo", and sell my old GTX460 for a few bucks? According to some common graphics-focused benchmarks (unfortunatelly, no LO/DCS) GTX560Ti is ~30% faster than GTX460 in high resolutions. Do you think the 2nd GTX460 in SLI brings less, or more than that?

I did not find any benchmarks, that's why I'm asking here: How is LockOn & DCS scaling up with SLI (NVidia) and/or CrossFire (AMD/ATI)? How much could one obtain with buying 2nd graphic cards? I know there are games where performance of sli/crossfire is really impressive, one can gain 80-90% more fps, compared to single card. On the other side, there are games where benefit of sli/crossfire is negligible, not worth buying the 2nd card (~10%). So how is it in LockOn and DCS?

Hm, I must have missed that info. I remember someone from ED wrote here they had dedicated server on "to do" list. But not they are working on it right now...

Agree. Negative. If you can afford to spend a few hundreds $/€ on SSD, you can spend a few tens $/€ on RAM too. SSD is still much slower than DDR, so do not use it for swap. Even better, turn swap off, if you have plenty of RAM. Very big fat negative. Indexing not only reads, but also writes periodically small chunks of data to disk, which is the best way to kill SSD performance, and exhaust its write-cycles. Moreover, indexing does not bring any real performance boost. The same as for 2: buy RAM instead, and use SSD for what it is meant to be used. When it comes to disk read/write, "readyboost" is even worse than swap on most systems, as it reads/writes to readybosst-medium even long before it is really necessary just for the case more memory might be needed, than what is currently available. BTW, some operating systems use swap the same way: try to keep RAM mirrored in SWAP all the time, utilising free cpu/io cycles, just for the case more memory is needed (then simply some memory-page is marked as "free & paged", no need to wait till it is copied it to swap, as it is already there). Agree, with one exception: do not use all your space. It is worth to keep some space empty. Wear-leveling works better if you have at least 10% space free...

OK, we'll have to accept it. I'd like to point out just two things: 1. there is still probably much higher number of LOFC players, than DCS:BS+DCS:A10C players (ok, this might change till the time of next LLTM). 2. If I look at missions which were part of competition on this LLTM, half of them could be hardly played with DCS:BS or DCS:A10C (dogfight, bvr-day, bvr-night, aerobatics). If we had DCS:fighter, I'd vote for DCS with all my heart. But I doubt we will get it this year...

I agree. I would like to attend next LLTM, but without LOFC it will be much less fun for me. There is no fighter in DCS (and I doubt there will be one at the time of the next LLTM), while BS & A10C are more suitable for cooperative missions. A lot of players (incl. me) appreciate truly high realism level of DCS-serie. But until there is DCS:fighter, I still keep flying LOFC too. Head-to-head combat with real opponents is simply very attractive. I hope organisers of LLTM will reconsider this...

Hi, I'm in the process of upgrading my PC and I decided about most of components (i7-2600k, Sabertooth P67, Corsair XMS3 2x4GB) except for graphic card. Is there some benchamark/test of various graphic cards, tested with LockOn/DCS? I did not find anything, so I'm looking for advice here. I narrowed candidates down to cards with these GPU: 1. NVidia GTX 560 2. AMD/ATI HD 6950 They both cost about the same (~220€ here). Generally their performance should be about the same too (in some HW-tests GTX560 has marginal lead), but as I said, I did not find any test comparing them in LO/DCS, and that might be different story. Nearly all tests I found are now done in dx10/dx11 (and drivers are optimised for dx10/dx11 too), while LO/DCS is afaik dx9.0 based. Quite naturally I want to get most for the money spent. Here are pro's and con's I have found: HD6950: + can be unlocked/upgraded to HD 6970 by flushing bios + more memory (2GB) (+ maybe no more "shadow cloud bug"?) - higher power consumptioin - longer (larger) GTX560: + better overclocking ability + shorter, fits easier into smaller cases + lower power consumption - less memory (1GB) - "cloud shadow bug" (I had it on all NVidia cards) - "fraps causing massive fps drop" bug Are there any other things I should consider? Which of these two cards would you recommend as more suitable for LO/DCS?

Quick answer: no, and yes! I suppose, with DCS:A10C it is the same, as with LO:FC 2.x: ED tried silently to prevent it, without even single notice anywhere about LO:FC 2.x not being allowed to run on virtual machines (and I have to emphasize this!), but there are "certain ways" how you could circumvent this. And at least in case of LO:FC 2.x, I can say now, it was not very difficult... Without going deep into detail, check my topic concerning LO:FC 2.x running on virtual machines (which forum moderators were so kind to close & lock before I could eventually reveal too much :-) ): http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=56356

Damn it IS argument! No one can expect me buing software like a cat in a bag, full of surprises, of which I get infor just AFTER buying it. "...THIS LICENCE AGREEMENT (“LICENCE”) IS A LEGAL DOCUMENT..." - that's what is inside of eula. And if it is a legal document, it *must* respect valid legal system, in the country where software company wants to make business. I do not know how's that in your country, but I bet it is very similar: what is not explicitely forbidden, is allowed. Otherwise, how would you know you are doing something ilegal? You would have no chance to find it out...

That is what I said: if you copy vmware-guest to other machine, any software relying on "footprint" of the hardware must be re-activated (be it windows itself, or LockOn). Using VMw does not help to circumvent copy-protection, neither is it intended for it...

What I personally find ridiculous are customers, who let themselves cut like sheep, and instead of protesting they even thank for that. But I'm not that kind of man, as you might notice... "...blatantly..." - never heard this word, but I like it. I will use it one day... say "...software company blatantly cheated me with incorrect and incomplete eula"... :-)

Oh yes, and while they had enough time to include some check-routine blocking LO on VMw, they did not have enough time to put 2 lines of text into eula... :-)))

Why should I? License.txt does not say running LO on VMware is forbidden... :-P

Yes, but license also says: "...Program will perform substantially in accordance with the accompanying written materials...". It is not like only me, as a customer, has obligations, and the company can send me whatever crap, not bearing any responsibility at all... Oh c'mon, man! We both know, it is not like that. ED spent a lot of time taking care of LO *will not* be allowed to run in VMw. How's that they suddenly forgot all about it when writing license? :-) First of all, hardware-virtualisation is one of top 10 terms in IT nowadays. It is nothing new, nothing exotic or rare. Actually, it started many years ago, with ms-dos and its "ram-disk" (which is a kind of hardware emulation). And second, that's what I think why there is nothing about running LO on virtual hardware in licence.txt: ED simply did not want to give anyone hint to try it. But it was just a question of time, when someone comes with such an idea... Yeah, dual-boot is nice feature. Yet I can not afford to interrupt all services running on my multi-purpose server every time when I reboot into windows to run LO... :-| "...THIS LICENCE AGREEMENT (“LICENCE”) IS A LEGAL DOCUMENT..." And as such, it must obey laws. It is not part of law, but must exist within a legal system... Anyway, I already solved this problem, and can assure you, LO is running on VMw, and even better than I expected...

No offence man, but I think you'd better distinguish between "supported" and "allowed" (or "unsupported" and "blocked"). Who complained about "not being supported"? Check my question, I did not. I ask if it is allowed. That's quite a difference. I do not need support from ED concerning this, but I do not need bricks thrown under my knees either... But I have good reason to say, it is exactly what ED did. I checked licence and while it clearly names a few activities which are forbidden (copying, modifying, reverse-engineering, etc, it is quite long list) and ED did a few measures to prevent it, running LO on virtual hardware is not mentioned there. Yet it is intentionally prevented, despite of the fact, that LO *can* run on virtual hardware... I asked if virtual hardware is allowed or not, and I got an answer: it is not allowed. OK, but quite naturally the second question is: when it is not allowed, why is it not mentioned in licence.txt, or hardware requirements, or web-page, or *anywhere* so that potential customer could find it? And THAT is the right question...

First: "what is not explicitly forbidden, is allowed" is one of basic principles, which are followed by majority of legal systems. Second: no, you are wrong. My main problem is I checked hw/sw requirements & license, and based on the fact I fulfilled all what is required, I decided to buy a product. Yet this product does not work! Naturally, I feel myself being cheated. Do not you think a customer has a right to know that some way of using a product is intentionally blocked? I mean in advance of course, not just when the customer finds it himself and starts complaining... It is your opinion, and it is incorrect opinion... Well, someone has to be the first, has not? But do not tell me ED did not count with this possibility. How would they otherwise come to decision to block it? Nevermind, it is a perfectly legitimate decision they made. But ED decided not to inform potential customers about it. Instead of that, they have set up this kind of "trap". The best, what I can say about it is: a respectable company should not behave this way! Based on the above, I do not feel myself being obliged to follow the licence under which this product is distributed. Apparently, ED will not help me to solve this problem, but fortunatelly, there are "other ways". If this is what ED wants, ok...

I have been using VMw for a few years (6 or 7?), but of course I'm just user, not expert. But I think, each VMw installation generages unique identifier-prefixes for hardware groups. That way, if you move VM-guest from one computer to other, those identifiers (i.e. mac, or hard-drive serial) change. Software, relying on hardware ID check will complain and need to be activated again. On the other side, it is possible to change ID for almost every real hardware (disk serial, mac, bios, grapics, etc) so you could try to fool hw-check this way... I'm going further in this investigation with LO 1.02 (at least until this issue is solved: either ED helps me, or I will "fix" it otherwise) and I can tell you there *is* performance penalty, as with every emulation. Especially in 3d-gaming, it is quite severe. My 3dMark06 score in vm-guest is about 50-60% of those native to my computer. I'd say, 3d-performance I get in vm-guest now is about the same, as when running LO natively on 2-3 years old computer. It is quite much, but I want to use it only for running game-server. For that application, it is sufficient. With low details and everything unnecessary turned off, I get 20-80fps on those demo-tracks. I do not need more... BTW, if VMw Inc changes a few things, it would be very difficult for software to detect if it is running in vm-guest or native. Right now it is quite easy, as those guests use hardware-IDs like "vmware-bios" or "vmware-graphics" etc. I also tried to test Sun's (now Oracle) virtualbox, but its 3d-performance sucks hard so I gave it up right after testing with 3dmark...

You can "hide" drives, even if they are not emulated. No matter, if some hardware is real, or virtual. Apart from that, whats the sense of doing it? Well, ED does not explicitelly say it supports seagate hard-drives, yet surprisingly, LO runs on it! And they do not say LO supports my mouse and keyboard, and guess what? LO can use it without a problem! Any link on official document? And btw, there is a difference between "not supported", and "not allowed to run on"... __________________________________________ Edit: here are official hardware/software requirements for LO:FC2 Minimal system requirements: Windows XP, Vista, 7; CPU P4 2 GHz; RAM 2 Gb; Video nVidia/ATI 256 Mb RAM, DirectX9; 6 Gb of free space on HDD; Sound card; Copy protected, requires internet activation. Recommended system requirements: Windows XP, Vista, 7; CPU Intel Core 2 Duo or AMD X2; RAM 3 Gb; Video 512 Mb RAM (ATI Radeon HD4850 or nVidia GF8800), DirectX9; 6 GB of free space on HDD; Sound card; Copy protected, requires internet activation; Joystick. My virtual computer fulfills minimal system requirements, and with the exception of graphic card even recommended system requirements (iirc virtual graphics adapter in vmware has only 256MB of memory).