Flyby

I'd say yes, flying the length of it. Not like flying from England to Berlin, but for the sake of online flying in a fast strike aircraft (thinking of attention span here) it'll do nicely. Still have to haul some fuel or refuel to make it, imo. ;) Flyby out

I could go to many tech forums, and I have, and never receive the perspective of flight simmers. So here I ask you about: how important the response time of your monitor is to your simming experience? when is ghosting, and/or other monitor-related visual distractions, if any, noticeable to you as you go flying along in your flight sim? What sims are you flying where monitor response performance seems to be an issue? if anyone using a 120hz monitor for flight simming, what is your opinion of it's performance? (maybe write a review as a separate thread?) what is the response time of the monitor you are currently using, and (obviously) is it acceptable for your flight simming experience? I did a search, but did not find the answers I was looking for, so anyone who provides info here will be greatly appreciated. Sorry to be a nuisance!:music_whistling: Flyby out

OK. enogh about the E. I give in. per the list of to-be-released DCS aircraft add-ons, there is no deep strike two-place fighter among them. So I can stop asking now. I just turned 59, so I guess I'll be blind, cripple and crazy by the time DCS gets around to one.:cry: While I'm at it, I did a search for the AH-64a Block 49a. I can't find a thing on it. Anyone got a handle on this one? Flyby out

well OK Viper, but I get to fly the plane!!:D:D:pilotfly: Flyby out

my official stance The Strike Eagle would be a very interesting bird for a two-seater multiplayer-capable aircraft. I thought of it wishfully but the Tornado will do. Any such two-seat deep penetration strike plane will do. There is a Russian equivalent from Sukhoi, though I forget the series number. I'd fly that plane with another breather on board. It's the mission, and the type of plane (two-seat deep strike) that intrigues me. So, sorry for the fuss about the "E". DCS, give me something that you have info on!:D Flyby out

and don't forget about artistic license!:megalol: I'm just pulling your leg(s) guys. Rhen makes excellent points, but we are talking about a computerized simulation, and with Black Shark the combat simulation has taken a nice step forward in that field of representation (from what I've read - I don't have it yet). That's why everyone raves about it. No, it's not close to the real world, but no desktop pc can accurately represent the real world. That's where the term "suspension of disbelief" applies. It's a big thing among simmers. We all respect our real life military pilots. Just remember that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. ;) Flyby out! PS don't make me go "wise man" on your asses too often. It messes with my sense of humor!:pilotfly:

I like that!:D:D Otherwise I bow to the wisdom of DCS, and the views expressed here about keeping it real as it can get. PEACE! Flyby out

"There is no reconciliation. There will be no 'artistic license'. No military manuals (and other resources), no plane" OK. Sounds simple enough to me. "About the only thing you'll see 'artistic license' on is probably the electronic battlefield, as well as weapons performance in some cases, or specific parts thereof that are classified. No such 'artistic license' however will be taken in general." What?! Bbbbut you just said...:huh: So electronic battlefield, weapons performance, or specific parts thereof that are classified could, in fact see some artistic license? But not generally speaking? Can I assume this infers a one-way street in the sense that what is known but cannot be shared may in fact be generally represented, but not accurately enough to violate a classified rating? If that's the case, I'm good. :smilewink: (I guess I'm wrong about this) Sounds to me like "artistic license" if used in the context of broad strokes is a no-no. But, what the hell. I'll petition the DOD to loan me a copy of the Strike Eagle manuals, and get back to ya. ;) I understand. No contract. No plane. But I am in sympathy with T-stoff. I have my hopes and wishes. Not looking for a fight or parsing of meanings here, guys. DCS's pathway is OK by me. I have acceptance. But nothing is 100% absolute in the simming world. That's my opinion, and I'm sticking with it. Flyby out

EtherealN, How to reconcile? A study sim implies a simulation with one craft being the only human-operable, like the Falcon series. A survey sim implies several craft available as human-operable, as in the IL2 series. "Yes, you ARE talking about survey sims here. You are explicitly saying that a simulation series the whole point of which is it's fidelity to the real thing should use "a bit of license" in it's avionics implementation. THAT IS A SURVEY SIM. And that is what LOMAC was. It absolutely is not what the DCS brand is being built to be, and would destroy the brand." OK. So when DCS releases the A10, it will be a stand-alone? Are study sims all stand-alone simulations? If so, are all survey sims necessarily less advanced in model fidelity than study sims? "The difference being that it simulates things faithfully. It doesn't guess, it doesn't approximate, and it doesn't do things "just for fun". It simulates the real thing using real data from the real thing. That is the defining difference between a study and a survey simulator." I don't believe DCS or anyone else can produce a sim to that standard for use on a desktop pc. I only have to look at pictures of the damage models to appreciate that. I don't think it's all based on data either. Some of it must be artistic license. Oh sure a lot of real data was available for Black Shark. Credit where credit is due, obviously. But in the interest of "game play"...well nothing is 100% So if I believe that, and I do, it's just a matter of degree by which real data and artistic license coexist in a simulation; thus dividing the study from the survey (by degrees). So there may be (has to be) some approximating. That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it. For the record, I was not implying that it was OK to do things just for fun when estimating the elctronic capabilites of any give two-seater multi-role plane. We are talking about DCS, after all. I dare say they may have the resources to make an educated guess about sytems capabilites that would not be too far off the mark, and provide decent game play. Maybe not so much with newer tech, but the Strike Eagle has been around for a year or two now. Other than these minor points, I concede to your views. Flyby out

Well artistic license didn't stop Janes F/A 18, or F15E and those were fairly successful sims that are still being played today. Such license didn't stop LOMAC/FC from being enjoyed either. Sure there are performance issues that aren't "quite there". Ever read the complaints about Oleg's FMs in IL2? Oh and let's not forget Jane's Apache LongBow: still has a following and being played. So, one might suspect that too much artistic license might lead to a less popular result and jeopardize the "main draw" of the sim. But with artistic license, done in moderation, the main draw can be preserved (as demonstrated by the sims I've mentioned here). Maybe I should have referred to it as technically artistic license? That might imply an intelligent extrapolation of capabilities based on varied and verifiable knowns(?). That's been done. Perhaps DCS can do that too. (at least in my opinion) No. I am not a purist. Flyby out

EtherealN, "no no no no" but then you add: "That said, if they were to find sufficient resources to make a study of the Tornado or Tomcat or, for that matter, two-seat Eagle, I'd be game for that. I would warn however that it is much more likely that they would get information for the F14 or Tornado than a top-line modern product like the F15K." :huh: Jane's F15 Strike Eagle was a study sim, iirc. I'm not talking survey sims here. Although by the time DCS adds more planes/choppers to it's field the sim might appear to be a "survey" sim of sorts at first glance. Also, as I stated, maybe DCS could use a bit of "license" in fleshing out the electronic systems; do an approximation of what they suspect to be the true capabilities of those systems. Things can always be patched subsequent to the release. "First of all, survey simming is something they have already done, and getting a two-seat jet isn't important enough to re-do it. Secondly, if they introduce survey elements into DCS they will have absolutely annihilated a brand that they have spent a lot of effort to build." IIRC DCS plans to release a dual-occupancy aircraft that can be occupied in a multiplayer setting. If that's true, then any two-place aircraft could be modeled (provided DCS has sufficient information to do it to it's standards. I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just pointing out a few things from my perspective. I'm the first to admit I don't know the mindset of DCS. I'm just a hopeful guy. JDski, I still have a DOS version of EF2000 somewhere. I recall paying $240.00 for a 3d Voodoo card many years ago. It had all of 2megs of memory, iirc.:D Flyby out

OK, I did a search and the F15E has been brought up plenty of times already. I'm just taking a turn at it too. ;) After reading the article in the link, I could not help but wonder if DCS will produce a two-seat strike fighter, and maybe even a tanker (AI, as in LO/FC). I know DCS likes to have the nth degree of knowledge about a given project, but a simple flight of fancy with some components or systems might not be too out of line. Would it? Read the article in the link, and you'll see the F15K variation of the Strike Eagle, electronics suites. http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f15/ So a little imagination would not be a bad thing. After all, a few years back there were several F22 sims on the market, and don't forget the EF2000 series too. Great fun, and a little guess work to boot. Anyway, drool over the idea of flying deep strikes in a multi-seat strike fighter in multiplayer (with yer bud in there with ya). Refuel on ingress, refuel on egress. Maybe fight your way in. Maybe fight your way out. The main thing is get there, pound the target then get out. Hey Matt, it's ok if you guys dream a little. Dream us up a nice strike fighter as an addon. Flyby out

something about access times here... speaking about SAS hard drives, I found this: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sas-hard-drives,1702.html It gave me a look at the benefits and the drawbacks. Certainly when building a gaming rig, I want to keep in mind the micro-stutters that might be caused by the system waiting for the hard drive to catch up. Flyby out

an Article from AnandTech about scaling multiple GPUs. Some might find it interersting: http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3517&p=1 Flyby out.

an interersting article on SSDs this article might be of interest to some of you http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=669&type=expert&pid=1 Flyby out

hey tiggr, you list your processor as an Intel i7 695 Extreme. a type-O? As for the dual-GPU cards out today, I think they are better suited for showing good fps at very high screen resolutions like 25xx or higher where their power can really be tested. Also, since DCS is operating on an old graphics engine, I wouldn't think that it could take advantage of newer GPU technology. The new engine just may, and even that would probably be well suited on a modern single-GPU card. (I hope). I am hopeful that SoW will tax new single-GPU cards, and maybe even test duals too, but I think for the time being most sims rely more on cpu power, and are not up to testing GPU power just yet. I've read where Crysis tests GPU power at the highest resolutions (and a strong processor along with it). HardOCP tests GPUs with quad processors clocked at 3.6ghz, and they state they run at that clock to eliminate the cpu as a bottleneck when testing GPUs. I wonder what sort of fps one can get on Black Shark using a good old CRT? Or on a new 120hz lcd monitor? Flyby out ps some links of interest per my POV: http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTYyNSwyLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA== http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTYyMywxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

some interesting articles I found today the first link talk s about Lucid's Hydra. The second link talks about overclocking an AMD Phenom X3 &20 on air. http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12128&Itemid=1 http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12139&Itemid=1 it's always something. ain't it?

thanks for the links! Flyby out

what's in the bag? I like your style, CE. it's a little odd, a little twisted, but good clean fun! :D The chips look good though! ;) Flyby out

No cheese and onion crisps as far as I know. But you know what? I'm sure someone here in the USA sells them in some form. If a buck can be made selling them here, they're here. Flyby out I guess you can floss with a 72 year old virgin, get that cheese out and drive her crazy at the same time. eh?

may you get your just desserts in Paradise: a 72 year old virgin!:D

good results. Now, spoil us with some Black Shark benchmarks.

hope these help be sure to let us know how your efforts turn out. http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3502 http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTU4MCwsLGhlbnRodXNpYXN0 Plenty more on the web, but there's such a thing as TMI. ;) Flyby out

great feedback GS2! Any drawbacks at all with regards to online gaming? It really sounds like the perfect solution for me. Secure enough. I can place my gaming pc in any room now (once I can buy it),and I don't have to drip and snake wires. Also, can you give a bit more info about how your modem is connected to the adapter? My modem has a USB connection that is unused. thanks! Flyby out

:P:pilotfly: