efs2

I just love the crackle of that V-12. Sweet.

Well, that's better than under-thinking it. And you're the man with the answers!

RIF I get the feeling you're not really reading my posts. As I noted, I am planning to re-build my PC. I am not going to try to run the sim on my current rig.

Well, I'm glad to get through the gristle to the meat. And from an insider at that. Regarding that last bit first, the research I've done over the past couple of days finds that the value of the /3GB and /PAE switches ranges from none to very little for most users. I don't know how much of a risk they represent. But it doesn't matter. There is no real reward to weigh against it. http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00015.htm As for the effect on FPS - the actual question I asked - "a substantial and appreciable increase" is a big factor. Has testing produced a specific estimate or range - i.e., x fps versus y fps? Or is your description based on anecdotal evidence? Either way, it is helpful. Regarding the issue of stability, the CTD rate you cite for 32-bit OS - 80 percent or more per session - is remarkable. I'm surprised the developer would even release the game in a 32-bit version. But even if I have to upgrade to the 64-bit OS, that move would apparently be a little less painful than I thought, if my license is good for a 64-bit version. Thanks for the info.

0 for 2 Your assumption that my current hardware is 64-bit is incorrect. It is 32-bit. Nonetheless, my new hardware will be 64-bit. However, as far as any general performance increase related to running a 64-bit OS, I'm sure I would enjoy my email or letters opening in 1.9 seconds instead of 2.6 seconds. But that would not be enough of an incentive for me to buy hundreds of dollars worth of hardware. That's just wrong, or at least very misleading. The end of "mainstream" support has had little or no practical affect on me and most other Windows XP users. Non-security hotfixes have been dropped except for customers who pay fees. Which is what I think you were referring to. Under "extended" support, security hotfixes and updates, as well as other updates, continue free of charge. And there will be no further development of the OS. Well, okay. As noted, Windows XP is 10 years old. I doubt there was much more to be squeezed out of it. But at least I can send a receive a fax. :thumbup: "Some" truth? :)

Non Sequitur City As much as I enjoy being mocked in the third person, I find it odd as a reaction to what I consider a rational approach of asking a couple of questions to gather pertinent information. As I noted in my original post, I am upgrading for the sole purpose of running this sim. Otherwise, my OS, as well as my hardware, performs without problems at every purpose for which I use it. So what would I gain by "upgrading" the OS otherwise? And I would be willing to bet that for every "fanatic adherent" of XP, there are two Windows Vista or Windows 7 users who upgraded to the latest, greatest OS the day it was released without any thought as to whether they need it. I'm sure Bill Gates is very appreciative of your support. But forgive this fanatic if I don't just uninstall my perfectly stable, don't need to re-install it every year, copy of Windows XP x32 and buy and install Windows 7 x64. Also, you somehow seem to have inferred from my two posts, comprising - what? - three question that Windows 7 x64 is not a consideration. And you have made that incorrect inference the focus of your responses. Perhaps if you looked at the questions asked and considered them as tools for gathering information, this could be more helpful to me or anyone else in the same situation. To make it as clear as possible: I have not said I will not upgrade. What I did do is ask whether there is any FPS advantage to Windows 7 x32 or x64. And I noted that I asked specifically about Windows 7 x32 because I have a copy on hand. Stability is also an issue. But that is less of an issue that requires input regarding the experiences of other users. The hardware in use is also a factor. So if I first try Windows XP x32 or Windows 7 x32 and find the game to be unacceptably unstable on my system, I will decide whether to upgrade to Windows 7 x64. As for the argument that because support for Windows XP will expire in 2014, I should upgrade now, why? If something changes and an upgrade to Windows 7 x64 outweighs the hassle of upgrading, I will upgrade. Otherwise, I will upgrade in 2014. Which strikes me as a rational approach.

Just How Much RAM Does This Hog Eat? I understand the load times are shorter with more RAM. As for stuttering based on memory swaps, as I indicated, I intend to install at least 3GB of RAM. Are you saying that the sim uses more than that and will actually go to the swapfile in the game?

I am preparing to re-build my PC - just to run DCS A-10C (sigh) - and would like to confirm my understanding of OS information set forth here. I intend to re-install a 32-bit version of Windows XP but have a 32-bit copy of Windows 7 I could install if it would help. However, what I read here leads me to think there would be no FPS advantage to doing so. In fact, even upgrading to the 64-bit version would not add FPS. Is that correct? The only advantage offered by Windows 7 is that it supports a greater amount of RAM, which improves load times. However, even that may be marginal because of the 3GB switch available to Windows XP users. Is that correct? And feel free to offer any other insights regarding operating systems.

Can you do that in the F-15 in the sim? It's been awhile. but I think I remember reading that is a feature that is not modeled.

In the photo of the Su-33 posted by shamandgg, are the wing flaps touching the vertical stabilizers? :huh:

Nope. I've seen references to it, but never any discussion that would explain what it is. And a search at LockOnFiles did not turn up a download called LOPE. So what is LOPE? And where do I get it? edit: I found it. The LockOnFiles search function apparently is not to be trusted. I'll probably be back with more questions later.

No. I have that mod. I saw some references to the GBU mod some time ago and most recently in the "Saturday Night Cheaters" thread: http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=17765

I've seen references to a mod that allows A-10s and Su-33s to carry GBUs. Where can I find it? Thanks.

Where can I get that mod? Thanks.

"Seeker" is a slang term for the guidance system on the missile, which contains a small RADAR transmitter and receiver.

GPS-guided bombs are generally ineffective against ships, because they engage in the annoying tactic of moving when someone tries to bomb them. I'm curious. Have F-15E Strike Eagles and F/A-18s dropped JDAMs from similar heights, distances and speeds?

No, you're right. A V-1 was aimed in the direction of a target city, and the range was determined by the amount of fuel provided. So when the fuel ran out, it dropped and exploded on impact. Thus the V-1, like the V-2 that followed, had no direct military value and is rightfully thought of as a terror weapon. Relatedly, V-1s were reportedly intercepted with some regularity by the RAF, and I have seen on the History Channel (U.S. television) a clip of one being blown up in mid-air by anti-aircraft fire.

I have noticed when landing the A-10 that my wingman is more likely to land with me rather than touch and go if my landing speed is low - 125 or less. Otherwise, no matter how much runway I give him or how pretty my landing is, he just flies away. Of course, this is the same guy who goes "defensive" at the first SAM launch and dumps all his ordnance. So I don't really give a crap whether he ever makes it home.

As a fellow Hog driver, I feel your pain. And since your question seems to touch on the issue of identifying targets in the game, I have a couple of thoughts to offer. First, identifying non-moving objects scattered around, as opposed to convoys and advancing armor, is tough. One solution that simulates a real-life answer is to put target diamonds on some of the enemy vehicles as though you have spotters on the ground with laser designaters. Another solution, the one I have gone to for the most part, is to load up at least one or two "D" model IR Mavericks just so you can use the 6x magnification, and the zoom-in feature on the display screen, to ID targets. It's tricky, but with practice, you can identify a target with some margin of safety. Of course, this method requires you to also keep an eye on the RWR to keep track of the Shilkas and Tunguskas as you fly in, and to keep your ears tuned to the radio for a launch warning from your wingman and the sound the on-board warning system makes when it detects an IR-missile launch - which, tragically, it does not always detect. Actually, if you can grow at least one more ear and maybe another eye or two, this system would be a lot more workable. And, perhaps most importantly to this method, you should learn the local language. :)

I was aware to some degree - probably from this forum - of the Raptor's capabilities against enemy planes based on its advanced avionics, but the planned capabilities against enemy SAM RADARs using SDBs is news to me. 60 nautical miles! I surmise that would be a release from at or near maximum altitude and serious forward speed, say 40,000+ feet and super-cruise @ 1.5+ mach? Anyway, however it gets there, that's pretty damn impressive and puts a very different spin on the basis of my question. Used that way, Raptors - and upgraded Super Hornets? - as ground attack aircraft would have serious standoff range, removing the battlefield danger I referred to. Assuming the SDBs are carried in the internal bays, Raptors could slip in undetected, or at least unlocked, by the EWR and SAM RADARs and release a payload of long-range SDBs from a safe range. They could then turn their attention to killing enemy fighters while the Super Hornets, Mud Hens and Vipers ingressed, dodging any IR SAMs and AAA, to drop their monster loads of JDAMs. So how long until the SDBs (aka Super-HARMs) are ready to go? You never know when the U.S. might want to take out SAMS and interceptors to allow deep-penetration precision air strikes to take out some sort of industrial sites hidden in widely spread out sites in cities and the countryside. :music_whistling:

What are the chances the Raptor will actually become a significant ground-attack aircraft? It can carry a small amount of ATG ordnance in its internal bays, but it is also capable (or will be) of carrying more on external pylons. Either way, it seems illogical to me to use such an aircraft in such a risky role - particularly if its stealth is lost because of external ordnance. And even stealth is no good against an eyeball and an IR seeker. Further, there are already some very good strike aircraft in the stable. My take on it is that the ground-attack capabilities are an add-on to pacify Congressmen who were reluctant to pay so much money for a pure ATA fighter, and the USAF has no intention of sending its Raptors into SAM sites. Or am I wrong?

Hmm, not exactly what I had in mind. Oh, well, slinking away .... edit: Oh, the colorful post has been deleted. Okay, slinking back ....

Thanks. I'm sure you're right. And since RAM is so cheap now, I will double up to 2048MB and see if that helps. However, I had hoped to spark a broader discussion around the question of how to diagnose what is causing a slowdown. - i.e., what are the symptoms of not enough system RAM versus not enough video RAM versus not enough rendering power? But I am so barely here that I don't draw much attention. So I think I will start personally insulting others. That always draws attention! You there, you suck! You, the other guy, you're stupid! And you, you stink! I bet I'll get some action now! :D Ed

A thread in the general discussion forum on RAM usage in the game touched upon some technical questions I have been pondering awhile. So here goes. I generally fly the A-10 and take big FPS hits when I fly through smoke, or sometimes when I take an F2 look while flying over a battlefield. So which would help more, an increase in the amount of RAM on the video card, an increase in the the amount of system RAM, or more rendering power - i.e., a better video card? When I check RAM usage with the Task Manager while in the game, it is never more than 600MB. I never check while flying through smoke or during the intense action that produces the slideshow FPS because that would almost certainly be fatal, and I don't like to die. So that raises the question of whether smoke and/or battlefield textures can eat up another 400MB so that the RAM is overwhelmed, and the game slows down while it visits the pagefile? Or is the problem more likely to be that the video card can't keep up? If the problem is a lack of onboard video RAM, is the slowdown caused by the game going to the system RAM? the pagefile? or what? And if the problem is that the rendering speed can't keep up - i.e., not enough pixel pipelines - then what? The images get there when they get there? My main system specs are: Intel P4 @ 3.0GHz Abit IC7 Motherboard @ 1GHz FSB Speed 1024MB PC3200 RAM @ 800MHz eVGA GeForce 6600GT w/128MB Onboard RAM) Thanks. Ed

You guys pay attention to warning lights and alarms? Not me. I just figure Shift/N is a normal part of combat flying. In fact, unless both engines are on fire, or the weapons control system dies, I just keep attacking. Kill 'em all! Ed