Kuky

ah well... maybe I missed the point... I'll re-read later again :)

ok... then how exactly does this same FoV create an object, say 10m long, 50m away, which in real life would span around 5° FoV, make 5° on your monitor? Your monitor (most average 22") spans only around 30° FoV (depends how far you sit), so this 5° aircraft would be 1/6 of the monitor width... quite large aye? but because sim FoV is way more than 30° (say 60°) then this aircratf would be only 1/2 of that (1/12 of the monitor width or 2.5° FoV). Get my point? You can't use same FoV for different monitor size and seating distance, that is exactly what I am talking about, and me of all the people get this. :music_whistling: So 1 size fits all FoV (sim's FoV) is not the best at all. The only reason it was set as it is is because then it gives the player kind of, natural FoV (so that you can see most of the cockpit in sim) but is not matching real FoV.

hm, why need biger monitor? You can still use TrackIR (or similar device) to move view around. As long as objects apear at correct size and they have good lighting properties I think that's sufficient.

That is the math, to get propper (realistic) size of the image of the object in sim, you need to match in-game FoV with that of your monitor (calculated from your eye(s) distance from monitor and monitor width). Once you get right FoV and objects apear at right sizes, then to get more realistic visability (I think) would be to get all LOD's with proper lighting properties (specular / light reflection), I don't see what is wrong with that aproach.

yeah, I looked into display properties, and there is options to scale but either I don't know how to use it (I tried) or it doen't work. I still need to try this to see if your theory of larger pixels start showing objects closer in is right. No, I don't think having larger monitor is cheating, but you could say I am at advantage from those having small er monitors, but only if I fly online :D (which I don't for a while now) :megalol:

yes it's 4K res. How do you get 720p I wonder, when I set that it only uses small part of the monitor, not the whole monitor space.

I just tried to see how far I can see the An-26B. First I locked it with radar, and was looking when I would see it... I could see the faint dot at about 12nm but if I was too look for it (if I didn't know where to look) I wouldn't be able to see it guaranteed. It started becoming more noticeable at around 6nm, and at 5nm it was fairly visible (I think I could spot it if I was just looking for it without radar lock). So that's around 10km which is not that bad... and it was not against the sky, it was against the ground.

er... you already have option to set each AI unit to different levels of skill. I usually set them to random (so I never know what I get).

yes, I think this would be way easier thing to change, let AI be less "uber", you can never please all people no matter what you do and you can never compensate for different screen sizes and resolutions, people's actual eye sight, so to work on AI is far better option in my opinion. I also think that changing the aircaft far LOD's could help also, ever notice that some aircraft actually do make dots at far distance... I think F-14 or MiG-31 does it. I don't think ED has yet looked into that avenue... and I think they should. But anyway, I'm gonna keep out of this conversation now... let everyone chip in with what they thing, ED can see that way how people feel.

Zooming in is a cheat because when people do it they get FoV way smaller than what their real FoV actually is... it is equivalent to using binoculars.

who uses 720p these days? Anyway, even with 1080p vs 4K 2160p... the same object size will be twice the number of pixels (if using same FoV). So 1 pixel on 1080P will be 2 pixels on 2160p. One more thing we forget.. FSAA. In old days there was no FSAA, so especially with smaller resolutions, an object that needed to be shown would take up 1 pixel, large® in size then now, and due to no FSAA it would still out easily. Now do you want to trade good visuals and loose the FSAA to see these pixels stick out? I think not. So I say again, you can't have everything.

not at all conditions

What do you expect to see at 10nm (18Km)? A small fighter aircraft, at front aspect (where it is hardest to see) 18Km is still way in BVR. My honest opinion is that most of you guys exaggerate a lot, and I know most of you do not have propper FoV set for your monitor (it should match your real FoV the monitor spans in respect to your eye). To add to this, many talk how they can see far out, bla bla... well its easy to see something when you are 1) still, 2) know exactly where to look at, and even then you don't see it immediately, takes few seconds to look/scan and 3) you are not "searching" the sky (meaning short time glimpse on any specific area). Have any of you seen video's of real dogfight training? Have you ever heard the pilot say "where did he go"? Doesn't that give you a clue that visual is indeed lost even when you are already in merge? Anyway, I am a firm believer that scaling is the wrong way to go about it in my opinion. Instead, proper lighting effects, reflections, etc need to be added for far LOD's), but we'll see what ED will do (if they do something about it). PS: I use 4K monitor and pixel size LOD's are not impossible to spot, IF you know exactly where to look at. And you can't have everything (FoV & Resolution) with PC like in real life, it will always be some trade off. Zooming in is cheating in my eyes (always has been) and scaling thing up won't be any different. But if it does happen, it'll be SAME for everyone... so unless you fly against AI, it won't matter, as every person will have same helper (you will see him better, but he will he see you also) PPS: voted Totally unnecessary

yes, HD7970 will run 4K

I'm afraid they forgot the wires.... it would all tangle up... or your pc would need to be fixed on same platform, to rotate with you. This can knly work with wireless controllers

Well size of fonts is related to number of pixels, not relative to screen percentage. So higher resolutions will give smaller fonts. I personally don't find it unreadable, but I do find it inconvenient for messages to be placed in top left and right corners, makes them hard to notice and read (not because they are small but at weird angle to look at)

You can try kicking the rudder as you're at high AoA but I doubt it would work as I think there should be no airflow over the rudder to make it effective, and that you need thrust vectoring... but maybe if you have dual throttle you can push only 1 engine into high power and that should give it some chance to flip like that. But nice move aye :)

This is a very good idea I think, making engraved panels is the hardest bit (and the "face" of the pit so to speak). Switches and wiring you don't see. I like to eventually get something like this, but I don't know for what aircraft yet and when I will do it :(

To make sure everything is really stable and your temps are in order, use IntelBurnTest to stress test the oveclock, and use CoreTemp to check CPU temperatures. These two tools are most reliable dor this. And yeah, it's the increased voltage that shortens the lifespan of the CPU.

If that is under full load (100% CPU utilisation) and say after at least 15min of full load run (not just few min run) then those temp's are still alright. I would not let it get to 60°C, that would be my limit. That will shorten the CPU life, but as it's old CPU anyway who cares? If you kill it maybe it'll push you to do an upgrade ;)

Of course cost is ALWAYS a factor, if not everyone would be making new airframes instead of "reusing" them :) Well time of development of new airframes is a factor also... politics is factor also (how much is wanted to spend on weapons etc, what are they needed for, what to expect in future... many many things). So rotating few pylons a few degrees is maybe least of their "worries".

What do you mean by "missiles are now being subjected to constant forces they weren't designed for"? You saying missiles are not designer to widthstand a few G's? :doh: At the end of the day, if this was such a huge problem that you make it out to be surely people that design aircraft (professionals) wouldn't have done it. :music_whistling: You don't think they weigh the pro's and cons of each setup, design and what not?

There is already a way to filter out higher requencies by editing .sdef files but there is no way to filter out lower frequencies, so as I also have a ButtKicker, and while back I wanted to do this also, I have now placed a feature request to ED to add ability to add a low frequency filter also in these .sdef files... so fingers crossed they can do it and have time to do it.

Well yeah, could be other reason(s) other than to reduce drag, only way to know for sure is to ask the manufacturer. :)

Most likely to reduce air drag (at particular speed), air doesn't flow parallel to aircraft, as it hits the nose and rest of the fuselage parts, it changes direction and creates high pressure pushing out air more distanst from the aircaft also... but then this creates lowe pressure further down along the aircraft frame... making the air suck in closer... so basically air curves in and out around the airframe, and at that part where the fueltanks are attached, is most likely where air travels towards the airframe, so they angle fueltank to follow this air stream.