Despayre

So you don't have a use-case, just wanna complain about something, but that's ok. Got it.

I fly only the 14 and now, the 15, both every day.. the 14 has sooo much more feedback already... the 15 drives like a big mushy Buick by comparison... But ya, it would be cool to add that just for realism.

Ya, I read it... You: "Dr, it hurts when I do this..." Dr: "Don't do that." What is your valid use-case for having to do this IRL? We're not test pilots.

"unless" is a qualifier that is just disingenuous. It has extra capability. If you wanna state "if you take out the extra capabilities, there are no extra capabilities." then I agree with you, otherwise, that's a bit of a tilt in your measuring system... Older CPU's can't do it, newer ones can. I also see that you're comparing AMD cpu's, which is legit, however, I was referring specifically to Intel CPU's, and I'm sure there's an edge case or two that you could find there too, but it's definitely not the norm. I'm not a fan of AMD so I can't claim anything about those chips. "less than doubled in single core" - true, but again, you neglect to mention that because of increased transistor count (Hi Gord!) again, there's far more cores on the same chip... you can't just dismiss that. They're more powerful... analogy... "Ya, sure, that V8 is more powerful than my V4, but if you take away 4 cylinders, it's not much more at all, I'd call it woefully little." I just can't personally get there as that being a valid argument. Thanks for explaining your methodology anyway though, but we've definitely wandered off-topic, and well into Nerdville, which is ok, cuz that's where I live at work, but probably best not to continue cluttering this thread.

This statement is untrue. Not sure what you're trying to suggest here, but if you can't get the Eagle up to 55,000 for some reason, you're doing something wrong, it *definitely* can get there.

Yes, transistor count, I was keeping it simple because the details are irrelevant here, but, you are correct, it's transistor count, not CPU computational power. However, the second half of your statement that computational power grows woefully little, well... that's just wrong. Either way, the distinction is completely unrelated to the discussion at hand. For whatever reason a 13 year old CPU that was NEVER the spec for this is not surprising to have problems, and I suspect it impacts extremely few people... and finally, as I've said every time, I still think it would be a good idea to add that note about AVX. And linking a forum post from a 3 year old article talking about even older Celerons and Pentiums (also which pretty much no one uses, esp here) doesn't do much to sway anything, ok, so there's 2% edge cases, instead of 1%.. still minor minor, and still should be mentioned, and still should be refunded until they do mention it, when requested.

Neither would I, but since CPU power doubles every 18 months (Thank you Gordon Moore) and that CPU is 13 years old, or 8.6 CPU-doubling generations ago if you prefer, That's a heavy ask of a CPU from that generation, and while the Xeon is almost certainly faster at many things than an i-3 or even some i-5's of that era, that's not what the spec requires you to have. A fast Xeon is not a compatible faster version of an i-3. Terrible analogy time... you have a mini and a dumptruck. The spec calls for a mini, but you argue your dumptruck should be fine, since it does everything the mini can do... until you come to the part where there's a tunnel that's only 5ft high.. and now you know why the spec is the mini... in this analogy, AVX=tunnel with 5ft ceiling. But again, I agree with you, there *should* be a note, and I think until that note gets put up, it should be refunded if requested. I remain at, it's a very good idea, but I don't see it as mandatory, I also don't think that as a percentage, there's very many DCS players running with 13 year old gear that are going to have this problem, but I don't know that to be true (but I'm still pretty sure ).

I think it would be a good idea for sure, however, "mandatory" would suggest it's not already posted somewhere important, but I'm unaware of any hardware that meets the minimum spec, as laid out by DCS, that doesn't have AVX abilities. Do you have a CPU that meets or exceeds these specs, but doesn't have AVX support?

100% agree it should have been mentioned, however, as pointed out, those CPU's are over 13 years old, and flight sims are known to want the best hardware they can possibly have, so this isn't really a surprise (generally, not specifically here, speaking), and I get that "shock moment" when you can't take out the "new shiny thing (tm)", but it's not super-reasonable to ask a state-of-the-art flight sim, and it's very latest edition, to dial things back so that 13 yr old hardware can run it too... or at least, I wouldn't expect it to jump to the front of the line for fixes, while it's still in EA and lots of functions aren't there yet. Still, bummer, I get it...

Lower left panel behind the joystick, there's something that says speed brake (air brake?) and looks like there's a light for it, but it doesn't seem functional yet (and might be something else entirely *shrug*) but I noticed it.

Cuz you need to have better AIM? No need, I'll show myself out now...

Yup, right in front of the throttles... hold down until the light turns green and you get a solid tone. Take-off trim is now set.

I've seen it after repairs (on the Tomcat), where I had the same issue, the solution was to cycle the chocks... have the ground crew place them again, even though they are already there, and then they will remove them... haven't had the issue with the 15 yet, but let us know if that works.

Hey Icarus, quit that.

OMG, you are so funny! Love that dry sense of humour, keep it up!

Nothing, even if that's not how you wrote it. Particularly impressed that you assume I was talking about you (I wasn't), but now that you mention it... are we gonna find you in the ridiculous amount of threads whining about it not being released yet too, or can you tell us you're at the very least, not a hypocrite too?

....and within seconds, we have the apparently mandatory whining... Anyone wanna bet how many times we can find these exact same ppl whining about why it hasn't been released before now too?

Jester Menu, Crew Contract, Shut-up. (or maybe it's just "stop talking" )

OMG, what is that video? There are children here!

What's an NDB beacon, and how would I use it?

Pretty sure Ben Guiron should be big enough to support a couple commercial liners. (and I thought it could use a few too)

Says someone that doesn't work at either company, has no idea what's actually going on has no idea when the release date actually will be has no idea what internal testing problems were discovered has no idea what the actual problems (if any) are, and what it takes to fix them has no idea if there's any connection to the Sinai map at all in the first place has no idea if the decision to delay came from Razbam or ED, or both has no real stake in getting the module out, and as bug-free as possible (and pls, don't start telling me the 50 bucks you spent on pre-order is some kind of lifechanging dollar amount) but somehow, actual beta testers who've seen this rodeo time and time again, and who have an awful lot of experience with these things, are the ones missing the point? I think not. The irony is rich.

It was the weekend. Take a breath. Relax.

Well, whatever you guys did, it's way better. I no longer look like I just finished a bottle of tequila before I attempt to taxi out to the runway.

haha, you must be new here... ANY time there's even a WHIFF of a release date (real or imagined), and it's not met, the entire forum seems to lose its mind for a week. (... and just to be clear, it's actually not the entire forum, it's just that, on the internet, as always, a small group of whiners that don't understand anything that's going on make a vastly disproportionate amount of noise)