flybye

Yeah thanks a lot. That's all I've been playing with now and god knows how long I'll still be at it. :P Yep, I remembered how much I hate motion blur. Neat little test, though. :)

I think it is also fair to say much of it is based on user perception. Kinda like how some people can't tell the difference between regular milk and skim, some people can't tell the difference between different frame rates. :)

Unfortunately, I have not had much experience with motion blur. And when I did, it just simply felt like it made things worse almost like if there was a delay between mouse movement and my cross hairs. And this did happen to me in UT3. I haven't tried Crysis as nothing has been able to excite me as much as Unreal Tournament 2004 did, but that's another story. :music_whistling: I actually found motion blur pretty annoying and completely disliked it when first introduced to it. Actually, everyone I knew trying to make the transition from UT2k4 to UT3 found it annoying. Maybe it's juts an old gamer thing. I don't know. :joystick: It's funny that you brought up refresh rates. As most people have LCDs now, it is a waste of time to try to reach over 60hz as that is what I think most LCDs cap at. I'm still running a Sony 24" 16:10 wide screen CRT with my refresh rate tweaked at 95hz. :D But even so, I believe 100fps is a good "average" amount just to make sure you will not drop below 60 or 50 during a high motion/high action scene. Or do you think that with motion blur, a fixed scene at 30fps will stay at 30fps the moment a lot of action is put into play and not cause any frame drops?

Yeah, like I mentioned before, we really wouldn't be able to do much with it. But think if we do need to get low enough for some good pictures, we would still need to A) Take a shot of the correct target B) Evade missiles Yeah, its certainly boring compared to an A-10 mission, but I'm the type that likes i diversity and I certainly wouldn't mind doing a spy mission every once in a while which would still be interesting if we have to evade missiles and radar.

>10fps = Unplayable 10-30fps = Tolerable but barley playable 30-60fps = Certainly playable reaching fluid like as we get to 60fps >60fps = Fluid motion. Anything more and we just can't tell the difference I've played a lot of first person shooters in my life, and I can tell you, you do not want to fall anywhere under 30fps. Minimum any hardcore sim/gamer should shoot for is 60. Anything above that is the buffer zone. You want to be able to at least play the game 100+fps in most instances so that it can drop down 10-40fps during the action filled scenes to maintain that fluidity. Believe me you will be very annoyed if your machine skipped a frame causing you to lose your shot. I can't explain why Movies and TV look perfect with high action at 30fps and I won't pretend I do other than that I think its due to no processing being done. TV is just a slide show as opposed to the increase/decrease in polygons that have to be calculated in a game amoug other things going on like shader calculations, lighting, movement, etc.

How bout the SR-71 as a suggestion to add in? Although we wouldn't be able to do much with the SR-71 being a spy plane, I think it would simply look amazing to fly. I wonder if the game's engine would allow us to fly high enough to see what the regular SR-71 can see at 80,000ft..

Fair enough. I'm really looking forward to it once I upgrade then. Thanks again. :D

LOL I can't play it! Current specs: Opteron 165 @ 2.9ghz (Similiar to a core 2 duo @2.5ghz) 2GB of ram.

Wow guys thanks for all the replies! HOTAS: Not a problem. I've had crazy key binding configurations all my life. Even with my G5 mouse, I have a weapon even for side and left scroll on this thing and a custom program that lets me flip between 2 weapons when also side scrolling and up/down scrolling. Essentially, I've had 8 guns directly attached to my scroll wheel. Don't get me started with my keyboard. :D I am curious about something, though. Many speak of the amazing things that can be done with the mission editor. Are there any options for surprise placement of enemies? Not sure if I would really like to always know where the enemy is. I do believe I am greatly leaning towards getting a copy now. The only thing stopping me is my computer. I'll be doing an upgrade very soon and A-10 will be one of several games I'll be doing this upgrade for. I just have to do a full upgrade with CPU, MB & RAM. I have an 8800GTX with 768mb of vram and I'll see how that goes in the beginning with an overclocked i7-950.

Hi all. First post here and considering A-10. I got a bit overwhelmed here when I saw the cockpit some of you guys sport, though. I was like wow :fear: How am I supposed to compete against that! Very impressive setups, though. I did a lot of sims back in the mid-late 80s with Jet and other various flight sims. Of course, with the introduction of Doom & Quake, FPSers consumed me. But I've always had space for a good sim in my heart. Wing Commander..X3..Tie Fighter vs X-Wing. Throughout the years, I've noticed one thing of me. I either like something really Sci-fi or something really challenging. Give me something with both and I'll be in heaven! I'm in odd ball, though. I hate these "modern warfare" FPSers. Just too boring for me. Walk around with a gun, get capped, wait 15s, rinse and repeat. I loved Unreal Tournament 2004 and was even in a clan for it going nearly 4 years back in the day. I need something different and unique with lots of objectives. Although this is modern warfare, it has that element of micromanaging your equipment. I simply loved the thread here of someone's A-10 being shot, fuel was disrupted in some way, and they had to manually prime and restart one of their engines in mid flight. First thing I said out loud after reading that was "Yeah!" A-10 looks unique in the sense of how the sim offers you a plane that must be managed and kept alive during all sorts of scenarios. It's complex and I love that. But is it too complex for me? I'd be a somewhat casual gamer to it and am afraid I'd have to reread the manual every time I want to fly out. I'm not hardcore enough to cut out my own flight seat with a butter knife, but am pretty sure to invest in a good stick & throttle. My PC would not be dedicated to it as there are still other games I like to play. And I'm looking for long term, too. I've had too many games recently with a very little price/playability ratio. I've logged nearly 3000+ hours with Unreal Tournament 2004. I can be in the long hall if I like it enough. I would probably play about 5-10 hours a week. But how much of a disadvantage would I be at if I were to fly against one of these guys with 4 touch screens for the entire cockpit? I tried Hawkx, but felt it was far too gimmicky for me.