Voyager

Given that a copyright is a non-physical entity, one generally does have to be able to show some traceablity to the originator when said originator is no longer in existence, before one can assert that one is the new owner. And given the infamous Nintendo vs Universal lawsuit, just because an entity asserts they hold copyright to something does not make it, in fact, true.

Ok. So say they do assert copyright over the material, what evidence should they be able to provide to support their assertion? The material is over 75 years old, and the only association seems to be with the company that bought the company that the original owning company reorganized into.

From what I've seen in benchmarks, the 6800 XT runs better in DCS, is comparable in MSFS2020, but has a major incompatibility in Il-2. By major, I mean the 6800 XT is currently behind the 5700 non-XT in those tests. So, if you are looking at just DCS, a 6800 XT should be good, but if you're a broad spectrum flight simmer the 3080 will be more consistent across the board. This may change as AMD and the various flight sim games release patches and updates. Also, we are expecting the 40 series and 7000 series cards to launch some time next year, so depending on how long the shortages last, it may make more sense to get one of those instead.

So, was wondering, how does one figure out if an aircraft is still under copyright somewhere? I'd assume if it was from an existing corporation you'd just start there, but how does one check for companies that have been brought out byultiple entities? And how does one check to see if anyone ever retained copyright of the form? As I recall, it needs to be renewed periodically, and will lapse of they don't. Had an idea for a thing that would use some of the old Seversky designs, but I know they've been gone for a long time. I mean Fairchild burned their documentation on the entire line rather than spend the money to sort it out of the F-105 stuff, and as near as I can tell, their remnants seem to have gotten bought out by Elbit. Where does one even start?

Is that 640 mph at the tip with the aircraft at a standstill? From what I recall, the top speed in motion becomes a combination of the rotation and aircraft velocity. I think I need a whiteboard to draw what I'm thinking the forces are... I'll try that tonight when I'm back at my decktop.

Ah, found it. Thank you. Interestingly, the P-47B, C and D models pre-25 appear to have has a 3050 RPM limit, so not much on a change between the engine versions. I wonder how that interacts with the throttle recommendations for diving? I also wonder what mach speed the tips are at at that RPM? I recall that there was a big drag spike when the prop tips start hitting the transonic region, which leads me to wonder if that could counter the flight speed acceleration on the prop RPM? Have to think about how to analyze and test that.

@grafspee Where were you seeing the 3060 max permissible RPM from? The P-47C/D manuals I've got (AAF Manual no 50-6) list the redline at 2700 rpm, while the P-47N (AAF Manual 51-127-4) only goes up to 2800 RPM. They're pilot training manuals rather than engine vendor specs, so they certainly don't tell the whole story, but I am interested where I could find those numbers. Thank you, Harry Voyager

naca-wr-l-439 Full-Scale Tunnel Investigation fo the Presure Distribution over the Tail fo the P-47B Airplane.pdf@grafspee Found where I'd seen the stall angle referenced: NACA L-439 notes that the P-47B stall angle is just before 17.1 degrees AoA. As I recall most of the contemporaries were in the 20 degree range. Not sure if I have a test report where they actually tested it though.

Haven't been able to find the reference again yet, but the P-47 uses the Seversky S-3 airfoil, not one of the NACA airfoils that nearly every other WWII aircraft used. Severky was a bit of a wild designer and would sometimes just do things. As I recall the S-3 air foil was one of them. I recall it had a very low induced drag, comparable to the later NACA laminar flow wing designs, but only in certain angles of attack. It was weird.

There used to be a post up on what documents could and could not be posted, as well as guidelines for who to discuss a corner case with prior to posting, but can't seem to find it. Ran into something that would be useful to the home cockpit builders, but also recalled it was the sort of thing that would require official ED review first, so didn't want to go trompling toes in the process. Thank you, Harry Voyager

On the original subject, as I understand it, the P-47 has a noticeably lower max AoA than its contemporaries, so while it may have been forgiving is a standard stall, for what I've seen, it is quite prone to nasty accellerated stalls. On the power settings and impacts of props driving engines. I need to go find the early P-47 split-s manuals, and check to see exactly what it said about throttle settings. I'd recalled that it said to "idle" the engine before entering, but I may be mis-remembering what it actually said.

@SmirkingGerbil On the dive recovery flaps, those are there to support recovery from getting into compressability. They are not drive brakes or intended for dive bombing. You might simply be coming in too steep and to fast and mushing into the blast radius.

@Waltan If you are already at 4.7 Ghz on you 8600, then a 9700k or 9900k would not get you much, maybe 5-6% if you get one that pins at 5ghz. Basically, everything from the 6000 to 10000 series are the same architecture, and only differentiated by clock speed and core count. From other testing, it looks like a Zen 3 CPU at about 4.8-5.0 Ghz is equivalent to a Sky Lake chip at 5.3Ghz, so likely about 12% faster than what you've got now. It's expected that the Rocket lake chips, due to launch in the spring, are going to be about 10% faster than that, but will be limited to 8 cores, and be end of life for the 1200 socket. The Alder Lake and Zen 4 chips should be coming out in 2022 and are expected to be game changing, but I'm not sure they will have significantly higher single core performance. Basically, are you near any key breakpoints that you're trying to pass, and do you play any games other than DCS?

I've got it set to my IPD, and things seem right, at least in the F-14 and P-47. Have you tried taping out the dimensions of the Mirage III cockpit and seeing how they fit in person? I've gotten to sit in the cockpits of an F-16 simulator and a DC-3, and the F-16 was kind of like putting on the world's smallest pair of skinny jeans, and there were some real questions on how I was going to get disentangled from the DC-3. They are *not* big.

Looking at the timestamps, I think not is just that the article was written prior to 20H2 being released, and has not yet been updated for it. If I had to guess, someone in software decided to make the default, once you create the registry key to be zero, probably on the assumption that if you are adding it, it's probably because you want to turn that feature off. I am glad they added that control to in though. Those extra monitors have been driving me nuts the entire time I've had my Reverb G1.

Little add-on to cut the GPU Loading: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/mixed-reality/enthusiast-guide/using-microsoft-edge#monitor-and-input-handling-issues This is how you can tell WMR to stop generating a bunch of extra virtual monitors whenever you launch it.

@RodBorza You might also give this a look, and see what you might be doing different: It's a period training video for take offs and landings in the P-47. The later D models have more power, but the landing profile did not change until the P-47N and its new wing, so this should still be valid for the versions we have in DCS. It sort of sounds like you may be starting in at to slow of an initial speed and running out of glide to soon. It's been a few years since I watched it, and I hadn't caught the bit about checking to see your flap equalizer was working. That actually explains the whole flaps debate from another topic.

I ran into a series of P-47 helmet cams a while back: Note: I believe these planes do not have working turbo's so these would be with the full exhaust open. The thing to note is just how much of everything else you can hear, at least when the mike isn't in the slipstream: that waxes any other sounds, but you can easily hear him fiddling with the controls flipping switches, and the canopy thunk when it closes. I actually find them kind of soothing to listen too...

I'm very interested in seeing which way this goes, but I think the key tests will be when reviewers start bench marking FS2020 with these. My initial guess is that it will do a bit better than the 3080 in Dx11 games, and if you are running less than 4k resolution. I'm thinking it will also depend heavily on how good Zen 3 turns out to be for VR, as one of the big performance boosters is the smart memory access, but that is only available on Zen 3 CPUs. If Zen 3 cannon-balls it out of the park in Dx11 VR, then the Radeon 6K's should be very nice, but if we come out of it with the 10900K at 5.3+ still being the king of Dx11 VR, things may lean nVidia. Another open question is what nVidia will do in responce. There are rumors that they are considering bringing out a 3080 TI grade part, with 11 or 12 of the memory controllers enabled. That could bring 3090 grade performance at the $1000 price point. In raytracing, from what I'm hearing about compatibility issues, I'm not sure it's going to be a factor for another year or so, but I could be wrong. It will depend on what we see in the actual launch reviews. Overall, it's going to be very interesting winter...

You may also want to consider upgrading the CPU to a Zen 3 part before moving the GPU, for this game. At least in VR, we still seem to be single thread performance limited, even with a 20 series. FS2020, the closest as-like benchmark shows definite performance differences between the I9 and R9 parts.

An observation I found while I was debugging my laptop is apparently Dx12 and Vulkan can handle something like 3x the draw calls as Dx11. On the radar re-work, at this point I'm thinking it would be best for the devs to implement it via ray-tracing rather than a pure CPU process. We should have a fairly solid ray-tracing support come in over the next year or so, and it should be able to run it much better, and in theory, more simply, than a pure CPU based solution. Also, I wouldn't expect the graphics engine to be ready to take advantage of ray tracing for some time.

The big deal is that Zen 3 may finally break the 5ghz mark this time. But as other posters have said, it's best to wait for the Zen 3 reviews before making a decision. That will impact the motherboard selection as well; while we are expecting the X570 and B550 boards to support Zen 3, it won't be until live chips are in hand that we will know how well it will support. Further, RDNA2 is coming out in a month or so as well, which will either be in the performance class of the 30 series, or at least alleviate the high demand for them, so we should be seeing radical changes in the computer market in the next month or two.

As far as I'm aware there is currently only one flight sim engine that has made the transition from Dx11 to Vulkan or Dx12. Given the rather significant yields, and the rather significant differences in performance flight sims already see from other categories of engines, we should probably reserve judgement until after at least a second engine has gone low level. Honestly, given that flight sims are generally extremely CPU limited in a way that conventional AAA titles are not, and the Villain and Dx12 are explicitly about off loading the CPU, I'd expect flight sims to see much more lift that say, a heavily optimized benchmark game, which already runs a 100+ fps even when powered by a five year old toaster oven...

If we are lucky. It requires approvals and costs money to maintain classified documents. It's equally likely that every scrap of technical data of the D was destroyed once the last plane was retired and gutted.

From what I've seen, it's probably better to do the $800 and skip GPU generations. You usually get a 20% boost per GPU generation, so if you skip a generation, your looking at a 40-50% performance improvement when you upgrade. $400 for only a 20% improvement just doesn't feel worth it.