Yskonyn

Creative Lab's soundcard are very good concerning sound quality. Their driver support can cause some serious headaches though. I have been using Soundblasters since I have a PC and they never ever dissapointed in giving quality sound. But if you go for one be ready to fiddle with drivers for a bit (there are some 3rd party driver packs which are actually better than creative's).

I have not flown with the X65 at all so no comments there, but I wanted to chime in about the supposed specialization of the TMWH. Ive got mine now for several months and been flying A10, BS, RoF and CoD with it. Its equally suitable for each and everyone of them. Programming it is a joy and with a little creativity you can map all functions you need. No, indeed its not realistic to fly a vintage plane with an F16/A10 stich, but nor is it with the X65. ;) I really dont see how this specialization should be a problem. I use paper cutout overlays over the throttle for example in other sims. In the end I at least have a HOTAS that actually looks like real aviation kit, albeit in a modern jacket. I am sure the X65 is a great piece of kit (I am a fan of Saitek myself too), but for me the WH is just tha shizzle! ;)

Thanks for the feedback, 14th_JAR! :thumbup:

Not available anymore.

Not available anymore

That's marketing talking. ;) Personally, I wouldn't even think about using my TIR in any BF game because the pace it too high. One second you're in a cockpit where TIR would be nice, the other you're dead waiting for a respawn timer to tick down and start as a soldier again where the old adagium of mouse and keyboard still reigns. Now you could switch the TIR on and off of course by mapping a convenient key, but I doubt I will adapt to TIR in a BF game at all. I have no doubt BF3 is going to be just as popular and as fun as BFBC2 or, as most PC players have been craving for; BF2. All the signs are there and I personally have seen nothing yet to think otherwise. Only the new music.... gawd that music! :helpsmilie: Awful, at least in the trailers with that overdriven noise. ;) Most of the videos I suspect are SP trailers, which makes sense, because they have been rather big about changing the BF experience with BF3. In BFBC1 and 2 there already was a fun (but short) SP campaign and they aim to expand that in BF3. So basically you get two games in one box; the new SP experience (which is not that new, but more a wink to Call of Duty) and the awesome, teamplay, multiplayer experience, now also with jets again, just like the big old BF2 had. :D :joystick: Will I be using my WH HOTAS? No, of course not! Mouse and keyboard FTW! Yes, even in the jets and the helos. :book:

Well there is that same 100% multiplayer in there, Dratsa. Not sure what you mean. The aircraft footage is indeed from the SP campaign and therefore does not depict the multiplayer gameplay. BF was and still is all about multiplayer.

I have the CH Pro Pedals, but the two things that always annoyed me are a) the spacing of the two pedals; it feels like they are too close together, and b) the spring feels awkward with small rudder changes. I have them for lots of years now and always managed to use them, but lately I was wondering wether it would be a good choice to change to Saitek's pedals instead? Mind you, I do not want to spend huge amounts of money on a peripheral that's less important than, say HOTAS or TIR, but it needs to be decent enough. Would you warrant an 'upgrade' from CH's to Saitek's yourself? I realise the Combat Pedals go for about 199 euro's. That would be the absolute maximum I would want to spend, but the question is; is it worth it over CH's? How's the spring on the Saitek? How's the spacing? Thanks guys!

Hi Migo, Not to be nosey, but I couldn't help thinking you would probably ditch flightsimming as a whole if you're selling both your TIR and your HOTAS. Of course, you're not obliged to answer at all, but am I correct? If so, sorry to see you go, buddy. What made you decide to leave this fantastic virtual world? In any case I hope you sell your stuff. Good price on the WH, but I think in relation your asking price for the TIR is a bit high. Good luck.

What would explain the stuttering then? Isn't that usually a harddisk thing, granted FPS are high? If your FPS can't keep up you also get stuttering, but that's a different kind and the OP claims FPS were not an issue. So if you turn off vsync, the thing that can happen is more frames are put out than the monitor can display and sometimes a frame is out of sync causing the tearing. With vsync on it only waits for the buffer so you wont get tearing. How could this cause stuttering? Not to say that you're wrong, by the way, I am just curious from a technical point of view.

AKG is a solid brand. I am sure you will have many hours of enjoyment from them. I don't like 'room'ized' effects or other sound filters for the most part. I am all for clean original sounds, hence I never put on the Chrystalizer or CMSS3D effects on my X-Fi soundcard. I hope the Corsair will cater well to my 'vanilla preference'. ;)

Where there multiplayer hosted Dynamic Campaigns in Falcon 4? I can't seem to remember, but if there were, then that was a true 'MMO sim'.

The only incredible thing was the sound. But I had to cringe at all the unrealistic stuff in there. Nonetheless BF3 will be a very nice game. Quick fix action game and hell, it's got jets, so! :D

I have just ordered myself a Corsair HS1A (normal flexi-jack, HS1 is USB) headset. Normally goes for around $99, but I got it in a special sale for $40. Once its here I will post my findings, but here's a link already to the product page to see if its something you would be interested in: http://www.corsair.com/pc-computer-audio/gaming-headsets/gaming-audio-series-hs1-usb-gaming-headset.html And a review (note they talk about the earcups being 'very large'?! Even YOUR ears should fit! ;) ) http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/peripherals/2010/09/11/corsair-hs1-review/1

:( Now this drives a stake right through my heart, EtherealN! Never took you for the cruel type. ;)

Welcome to the fray!

Welcome to the fray, grinch. I hope you will enjoy your time around here. Don't mind the looneys. ;)

Thanks for the input there, Yo-Yo. It made me look into things a bit further. It still remains a nice discussion though. In the end I think the dream of simulator devs would be to create one that is as much true to real life as possible. And indeed, I for one, have no idea about the technical mumbo-jumbo concerning coding stuff. As a real life pilot, however, I do know what would feel realistic, at least. And I do know what basics need to be involved into a mathimatical model for it to represent realism. Center of gravity is one of them, indeed. Aerodynamics seems like the most daunting task to program, if you ask me. It's so complex and even today the big brains learn new things about aerodynamic effects. I imagine that would be hard to code. Still, with some level of abstraction we can come very close to reality, or at least presenting a simulator that feels realistic enough. I think this underlines the subjectiveness in this discussion about 'what is realistic' even more. Details like fluid viscosity, temperature effects, torque in airframe, electric current, etc all make the simulator even more realistic when looked at purely. Still, these things are 'under the hood' for many end-users and might not add to the feeling of realism for them, as would go for a lot of 'under the hood' stuff.

^I was referring to IL-2 Forgotten Battles and its expansions. ;) But I could've been more clear about that.

^ Very clear explanation, there. Makes me think about my 'sims' in flight academy; one was a wooden 'bathtub' with a replica cockpit of some imaginary IFR suited aircraft. It was almost steam driven! ;) Still it, had a great flight model; you would stall when airspeed dropped below Vs, now can you believe that? Seriously though, it was a perfect procedural trainer indeed. Same goes for FNPT2 sims. They are static sims with visual modules pretty much resembling graphics you get in FSX. They model a certain aircraft and they have flightmodels approved of those modelled aircraft, but still you do not learn how to fly in an FNPT2. You learn how to procedurally operate that aircraft. That's different. Level-D sims are different, but they are approved for training students to fly on that specific aircraft. In these you actually do learn how to fly that particular aircraft. 'Seat of the pants feeling' of handling said aircraft is reasonably accurate (except for taxiing). This 'feeling' is very important for learning how to fly. Flying is very much a 'seat of the pants' affair. Feeling when an aircraft is dipping below its glidepath even before you actually see it on your instruments, for example, is how you know you've learned to fly for one thing. This is something you will never get in a sim, not even in a Level-D sim, because in the end this is a computer. And if you keep the numbers aligned it will stay that way. In an actual aircraft we have mother nature contending as well. And even if you fly on the numbers you can still drift off if you dont correct it. Just a small example.

I have it on Normal. Didn't check the other settings, but as I normally hate any HDR and Bloom effects in my games I figured Normal would be a decent setting. So far, it does not dissapoint. There is realistic HDR use, no action hero overdone effects. So what, from a more technical point, does HDR do in-game? It makes light reflection differnent, but what else? Any special effects affected by HDR?

Well regarding the flightmodels of ww1 and 2 a/c we should not forget the progress and hence changes we have seen in the way aircraft were developed then and how they are now. The whole certification process has been pretty much a trial and error procedure which has resulted in the system that is in place now for current aircraft, but was nowhere near as complicated back then. So naturally there is less data to work with for older aircraft being put into a sim, but at the same time we might need less data because the whole aircraft was less complex. Besides, ww1 and 2 aircraft were built and developed in wartime in an era where flight was still very much in its infant years. There might not have been knowledge about certain (aerodynamic) side effects then that we do take intoaccount now. So yes, ww1 and 2 sims are perhaps less work to code and might remain vague in their flightmodels but that is not neccessarily because of lack of data per se. Like EtherealN mentions; there are a lot of airworthy vintage aircraft and they are just as much a source of data then for example build plans.

I think this has pogressed over the years; For example in Dcs A10 wehave a fully cickable 3d cockpit instead of the 2d one of Falcon where the 3d cockpit only served as 'SA tool' so to speak. IL2 lacks both. It does not have a clickable 2d or 3d cockpit, instead you control everything with keyboard commands or mapped joystick buttons. This is an aspect of realism that has made big strides forward with dcs (and a10 especially), eventhough at the time we found it realistic in IL2 and Falcon. Thats how Id like to illustrate my point. Progress in hardware has made more processing power available over th years. Enabling devs to create more demanding engines to run their sims on hence upping realism in avionics and flightmodelling as a concequence but at the same time we were all amazed by the Janes sims of old back in the day, but They dont hold a candle to dcs. :-) Realism is perhaps subjective (to knowing hardware limitations for one) but as long as the sim gives a believable sense of flying around in an aircraft that seems to perform according to known specifications, speeds, rollrate and what not; i think we can conclude a sim is realistic. At least at the time it was built. Perhaps years later we kinda chuckle about how on earth we could have ever found a sim realistic! The old Ocean sims come to mind. ;)

:megalol: Agreed!

^ Google for DIY rudder pedals. You would be amazed to see how far you would come with an old joystick and some DIY skills. ;) While I agree rudder pedals would be the last piece of kit to invest in after getting a proper HOTAS and TrackIR, I would recommend to invest in a good pedal set nonetheless. In A-10C winds are decently modelled and you can make proper crosswind landings with pedals, besides; the A-10 has some serious maneuverability at low speeds where using rudder pedals can pull of some cool tricks. If you use a keyboard for rudder the downside is that a keypress is an instant 100% rudder pedal input. It's not an axis.