Teej

IFF and target radar on UPS aircraft? (First saw this almost 30 years ago, and it was more appropriately listed for military down-gripes at that point) Heheheheh.

Hmmm. Someone will have to do some power dive testing. I'd think holding a low percentage throttle...like 10-20%...would greatly reduce / eliminate the problem....don't think you'd have to go into the dive balls to the wall. :D

Haven't flown A-10 for a while, but isn't 20,000 kinda low for a contrail? Were you hit?

Without knowing the code....beyond knowing it is CPU limited...seems like it would be an awesome use of extra threads (ie cores, for most of us in 2012) to handle the graphics for additional viewports. Not really counting on 9 women to make a baby in 1 month since all the data they'd be drawing based on pretty much already exists.

Hey, a DIY FOD kit! :D

Yup, there was a Nike site close to my house as well. It's a public park now. The old radar dish, and their water storage tank visible in the background...it had tennis courts set up on its roof.

Over 2 years of Warthog use and haven't bricked one yet. I leave 'em plugged in most of the time...unplug 'em when I need to... My FCC Cougar is feeling awfully neglected in the closet. :\

Also...in contrast to the F-15 video posted on page 1...it's not a bad idea to leave the boards / brakes out throughout the landing evolution, although this depends somewhat on the aircraft. You don't want to fly your approach at idle because due to mistakes, weather, whatever...you might find yourself with a sudden need for power, and at idle it takes several seconds to spool up to a useful RPM...seconds during which you could die. By flying with the brakes out, you keep the engine RPM up and power comes on almost instantaneously if you need more. There's really no "one right answer"...you can easily find pics/videos of A-10, F-15, F-16 etc all landing with and without airbrakes. I lean towards landing with the brakes out for the above reason.

OK...I'm looking to go triple screen in the near future (1-2 months). I'm wondering what those of you who have done this are ending up with for frame rate / settings compromises for the current DCS level (A-10C, P-51...should provide a rough indication of what FC3 will bring) I'm not one who has to have all the eye candy maxed out, but I don't want to have to run low settings just to barely be playable, either. Most interested in what you get with a native solution (as opposed to TH2G, SoftTH, etc) with a a 7970 or 670 / 680 single card solution. I would most likely be driving 5760x1200 (I have 1 24" 1920x1200 screen now and would probably get more of the same). Simplest way to give me a fair comparison is....what do you see sitting on the end of the runway at the start of the takeoff training mission (Batumi is hell on fps...)? For example, with my single screen GTX 460 and the settings below, I see 39-40fps in the default view at EOR in that mission. Usually in flight I see 60+ unless I'm closing in on Batumi.

Well...yes...there is SOME memory taken up depending on how much AA you crank in there, too. Forgot about that. But then, my eyes personally don't require those settings to be too high before I'm happy.

Honestly, the memory size (2G vs 4G) really shouldn't matter much when you're talking about a triple screen setup. The overwhelming majority of your video memory is consumed by texture caching, not screen draws. Put it this way....suppose you're running a 1920x1200 display...that's about 2.3 million pixels. Let's assume 32 bit color....so now you're talking 10 megabytes to contain what's on the screen. The way video works is to draw one frame while rendering another...so you need another 10 for the extra frame. So 20 megabytes of video memory per screen. Three screens means 60 meg. You still have 1940 megs of VRAM available with 3 screens on a 2 gig card.... On my 1G GTX 460 if I load up A-10C sitting at Batumi....I'm pulling this a bit outta my arse because I don't remember precisely....but if I set textures to "low", I use around 650M of VRAM...putting it to medium boosts me to 9xx somewhere and it still performs fine (generally 40-60fps, even on the ground at Batumi). If I set it to "high" textures, it maxes out the video and I get crap performance. One side note that affects video memory - I always set my max pre-rendered frames to zero as it's almost a necessity in multiplayer (big cause of microstutters is having pre-rendered frames that have to be scrapped because they're no longer accurate due to something another player did...) Obviously if you're setting that up around 8 (as I know some people do) that ratchets up the amount of VRAM you're using... The main point, though, is that the vast majority of your video memory is being used to cache textures - the same textures that will be used on other displays....so if you need 1.5G to run 1 screen....that does not mean you'll need 4.5 to run 3....more like 1.6G.

Gotcha covered. ;)

No - greasing the exposed surface of the ball won't help - that's not the contact surface.

I have no problem using and admitting to curves in DCS / FC even with my WH stick. The real jets have about a foot more stick length (figuratively...some have more than others though) and thus tons more throw. In the case of the F-16 you need 20+ pounds of pull to get max pitch authority. Flying with a linear curve on a stick with 2" of travel in each direction (at the top of your hand, not the top of the stick) isn't any more realistic than throwing curves on, gang. ;)

I replied over at SimHQ...

We're using something very similar to the 40% curves we were using on FSSB/FCC Cougars. We've varied a little bit over the past year in finding what worked best. I, honestly, never felt any "stiction" even before I put the extension (Metalnwood's setup) on. Being the kinda guy I am though I can never leave well enough alone and have added some moly grease to mine anyway. We do, as we have for years, fly with a touch of "nose down" trim in the game so that we're always off the center anyway. We did that even with the force mods when there was no movement.

"Sanitized for your protection."

Heh. How much are you going to spend on RAM in the next 10 years. Video cards? Processors? Motherboards? I'm just talking about _each_ category, let alone combined. Is not your control system worth its fraction of the gaming budget?

I've had no problems with your work on mine. The only issue I've had is 100% my own fault (I left too much extra length on the PS/2 extension and it popped loose once due to the way I had it stuffed in).

Mine is almost wireless. Just run it on one of these. http://www.amazon.com/Duracell-Instant-Charger-Compatible-Devices/dp/B0016Y9R6C/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1301891081&sr=8-2 Yes, it'd be nicer if it was built in...but eh. It works. Just strap it to the headset. Can't look any dorkier than wearing a headset and TCP anyway. :D

Screenshot from the test build? :D

You're so excited you started putting apostrophes where they don't belong? :) (verbs and plurals) :music_whistling:

Sprinklers on a race circuit? That's getting into shark jumping territory. For those who may not know the origin of "jumping the shark"... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_the_shark

GG only disputed the statement that the superbug was an "ultra-modern, well-documented" aircraft. The F-20, on the other hand, was a prototype. Only 3 were ever built. 2 of them were crashed. The final curtain on the plane was closed 25 years ago. I'd be stunned if anyone at ED even sat in a meeting and actually threw it out as a possible candidate....let alone actually deciding to do it. It, and its F-5 parents, are beautiful aircraft...but they're still not gonna sim it.

I'm not surprised you don't hear it in the F-15E community. One definite non-civilian place I've heard it - Dos Gringos. F-16 pilot musical group. Song "I wish I had a gun just like the A-10" http://www.dosgringosrocks.com/music-14.html The superhornets are referred to as Rhino in lots of official places. Among other things, the separate name is to make sure the cat / arrestor crews don't set the carrier systems up for the lighter jet. That would get ugly.