whitehot

You are right: summertime exacts a bad toll on components cooling. Whatever cooler u got, the "baseline" temperature is always the room one. Time ago, I was observing the temperatures of my CPU at idling, and was under the impression that a dominant factor to them is the vcore voltage. Yet after some tests, in which i observed the temps with different currents, I had to acknowledge that there is basically no difference in temps, even with 0.3-0.4v change in current - The explosion of summer instead bringing idle temps up by at least 5 deg celsius.. In regards to liquid vs air cooling, I can just report abt my experience, which as already stated, is very positive with a closed cycle cooling setup, that replaced one of the best air coolers available (some years ago). Don't forget that liquid coolers also make owner's life much easier, in the sense that there is not anymore a great need to construct a precise airflow inside the case that takes into account the design of the air-cooler on the cpu - You have the front fans pushing in, the rear ones pulling out, and the pump on the cpu working on its own, with its radiator out of the way.

the diatribe about noise vs dissipation is as old as the first aftermarket coolers. Being an overclocker, I'll pick dissipation over noise all the time - I also consider the definition of "noisy" not very proper, at least the definition that is being used normally by specialized sites. My point is that, if you are somebody who is willing to spend money on a good aftermarket cooler, you intend to perform overclocking, at least to some degree. If you intend to overclock, then you are prepared to accept that compromises are to be accepted - and the factor an overclocker would renounce first is the noise one. I understand that some folks would not accept the noise produced by some high performance coolers - keep in mind that they become "noisy" when pushed to high power modes. The x-61 I have, in silent mode is much less audible that my previous noctua aircooler (which had two 120mm fans). For what concerns me, I would consider "noisy" a cooler that ruins the gaming experience by overwhelming the sound coming out the speakers. Which is something that has never occurred to me. Ofc, if you're building a rig to keep it sitting in the lounge while you watch movies on the tv, you'd want one that 's completely silent. But a gaming rig? I would add that most ppl I know with such puters, normally wear headphones playing - me being an exception unless using teamspeak.

u could look for the x41 https://www.nzxt.com/product/detail/145-kraken-x41-liquid-cooler.html It ain't that I'm a nzxt fanboy, but all the tests I looked into (tomshardware, overclock.net and so on) show that they beat both corsair and cm in heat dissipation

just don't fire your heat seekers as soon as you have a lock, get closer to the target - try to be closer than you ever been - and only then fire the r-73. Having a heat seeker with a rather long range launch ability doesn't make it very effective at those ranges - a maneuvering target using flares will almost surely avoid it. The reasons are mostly found in missiles kinematics, which are things that many folks, even DCS old timers, never take into consideration. Anyway, just keep in mind that with short range HSM (r-60, r-73 and aim-9 in DCS) the closer you are to the target the better the pK.

cool

if u are overclocking, get a nzxt Kraken X61 closed cycle liquid. I installed mine last week (very easy install), temps under load went from 90C (with my old noctua aircooler) to 60. It costs abt 150 bucks, but basically u can push ur cpu to new limits. I'll oc my old trusty i7 960, now at 4.0, to 4.4, maybe 4.6.

Seeing that several folks are citing overheating issues, there is another thing that comes to my mind. Modern systems are made to downthrottle the CPU speed if the cores temperatures are too high. It is in fact, a safety measure to prevent the CPU to overheat, which modern mainboards implement when the fans have already been put at maximum speed. In fact, modern CPUs tend to cycle their states, on the basis of how much processing power is needed to perform a certain work. The cycle goes like this: - The PC is booted, only the operating system is running so the CPU is basically idling. The system puts the CPU at its lowest output power state. - The user starts up a game. - The system realizes that, to run the game at the intended fps, it needs to raise the CPU speed. The CPU is hence brought to its maximum power state. - The CPU is now working at the fullest - heat rises up quickly. - The system detects the increase in heat, hence rises the fans speed gradually. - IF, the fans reach their maximum speed, AND the temperatures are not dissipated (following a curve that is defined by the makers of the BIOS/MoBo), the systems has to "downclock" the CPU, in order to generate less heat, that the fans and the heatsink can now dissipate. There would be two reasons by which this may be the OP situation: - Being in the hot season (at least if we are talking northern hemisphere), the temperatures rises. Ambient temperature affects CPUs like everything else - basically the "baseline" temperature is higher than during winter or spring; moreover, dissipators are less efficient, as ambient temperature is higher they can't transfer the same amount of heat from the electronic components to the surrounding air. - The OP changed its GFX card to a better one: in games like DCS often happens that, if a GPU is acting as a bottleneck, the CPU does not work at its full potential. Basically, for every calculation (in our sim, every frame to render), the CPU must wait for the GPU to have performed the "current" frame, before processing the next and passing it to the GPU again. This reduces the number of frames the CPU outputs in a given time, which result in fact, in a smaller workload on the cores. Which means, of course, less heat. Having installed a more powerful GPU could have then put more workload on the CPU (which is a good thing - everything is more efficient) and causing its downclocking by the system. Anyway, to determine if the nature of the problem is like this one, one has to monitor the temperatures of the CPU cores, the frequency at which they are working and possibly the speeds of the fans inside the rig. An utility like AIDA64 (there are many others, some for free) can monitor all these parameters and display them real-time.

do u still have the amd GPU u uninstalled when u put up the 960? u may try this : Re-install the 6870. Then use driver remover (or an equivalent utility) to totally remove the nvidia drivers. Then install the latest amd drivers and run the games. Do a thorough testing of the system, specifically, try to take note if the issues with fps changes keep happening. The 6870 should anyway run at more than 15, in DCS and in other games (if in some cases it doesn't, lower details and textures to have steady higher fps - it's just for testing purposes). If the amd card runs stable fps in games, then it's some hardware problem with the 960 - I would suspect bad VRAM, but could be something else as well. For example, is your PSU output in good health? 650 Watts should be enough to run the system you described with no problems, yet if the PSU current output is somehow corrupted, you may get weird effects like the ones described (which may be evident with the 960 if said card absorbs more power than the 6870 - although right now I 'm not able to verify the power requirements of the aforementioned cards)

If you downloaded the BS2 full version from the site and used your upgrade version serial to activate it's not gonna work. anyway: http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/downloads/modules/dcs_black_shark_2_upgrade/ this is the upgrade version, do the upgrade from this and then use ur serial :thumbup:

Time ago, I saved the Black Shark 1 dvd as a binary image on my hd, just to be sure, as the last time I had installed it, my dvd player seemed to have trouble reading it. it's about 4 gigs, works a-right and of course it's much faster than the dvd. Thankfully DCS has a drm which allows for this kind of things, although it's something that's only related to BS.

In my case, I still end up in vortex ring because for some reason I fail to correct the descent rate promptly while not looking at the vspeed indicators for a second or two. I guess something like, that when I get my eyes off the instruments and look outside to sight possible obstacles, the heli suddenly goes from 3-4 m/s to 5+ and from there on, things go south easily. My errors are ofc correctable with more practice - It's the kind of thing that, after having mastered most of the aircraft, still needs some time to be polished. Yet, it also may be one of those situations in which the simulator may actually be more difficult than RL: in RL the pilot can feel the descent rate, very much precisely. Also he can feel all the vibrations and the movements the heli begins to produce while it approach said state. He can react promptly and feel the subtle changes in applying collective corrections. In the sim, (I don't have force feedback and don't know how it does in this case) we have to rely solely on the instruments, as it is almost impossible (at least for me) to distinguish a 3ms descent rate from a 5ms one looking outside. Yes, the dcs hip makes sounds and the cockpit visibly vibrates when the rotor blades encounter the disturbed airflow - Yet when that happens, it is very often too late too react, especially at very low height. I may add that, in the cases where I managed to get out in one piece, I recovered by adding the more collective I could reasonably do (don't over do it or you end up stalling the rotor and losing the residual lift you may have) while pushing the cyclic forward, to get velocity and get out of the "disturbed" area - I feel it's the only thing to try and sometimes it saves the chopper, while sometimes at least it can reduce the descent rate and instead of crashing and killing the crew you slam on the ground and snap the tail.

very nice, thank you

When I begun flying the hip I found it to be rather easy and pleasurable. In fact, I liked it from the first minute, unlike the chicken, in which I had several difficulties even taking off. I've read several people believing that it's the SAS system that makes the hip a cakewalk, yet I must say that imho it remains a stable and controllable platform even in a "stick and rudder" setting. In regards to your points: 1. What is it? Seriously, never heard of that. 2. ofc 3. Some folks tamper with those setting, but ED has stated that all the DCS aircraft are modeled to feel the most realistic with linear controls. In fact, real aircraft, both fixed and rotary, have linear controls (don't know if some new system - like the f-35 - may be configured in such regard, but I believe that most pilots would prefer a linear configuration all the times) 4. It is possible, just keep flying it and you'll get the hang of everything. 5. May be subjective, I'm better off with a light helo. Remember that more inertia also makes the heli more difficult to "stop" especially at higher speeds. In those situations, the transition phases need to be planned accurately. 6. Absolutely. Even after having logged several hours, and having the feeling of being able to control the hip in pretty much any condition, I still happen to enter vortex ring state some times.. If that happens, I normally manage to save the crew lives, yet the heli gets a snapped tail and the mission is a fail. 7. I don't use it, yet I would like to employ it in some cases with relatively long legs to the mission area. Ofc, not if among the mountains. Also, depending on the mission you're flying (the campaign is a good example, and it's one of the best DCS campaigns ever), give the doppler navigation suite a try. It may look a little "archaic", yet if employed correctly, it's an accurate system that will bring you to the spot you need to go. Being designed in the sixties, where no GNSS systems were available, the radar navigation gets the job done, although it needs some precision by the pilot. All in all, it's a good heli, a workhorse that will complete its mission at every latitude, weather condition, temperature - it will bring that cargo to its destination, or put those boots on the ground. It can mount a generous amount of external weapons in addition to the internal load, with rockets and several choices of guns of several calibers it can be devastating to anybody trying to approach the LZ with anything less armored than a MBT. In that regard, I would had preferred to have a version in DCS able to employ ATGMs, yet the Mi-8 is likely to be escorted by Mi24s/Mi-28s/Ka-50s, which would take care of tanks and IFVs at the LZ.

good news!

I remember surfing a site that described the nav-attack complex for the su-24M - nice stuff. The system has a mode by which the radar contacts are placed on a synthetic map of the battlefield, something like abris (with an older display), but with the ability to generate a real-time tactical picture of the scanned area. I had seen something like that, but in larger scale, only on usaf JSTARS aircraft. Anyway, a Fencer would make a really nice module, which would introduce also the ability for us to employ many of the weapons that are still confined to AI use in dcs (The tv-guided cruise missiles like the Kingbolt, the KAB series lgbs and the AS-17 asm, just to name some). Yet it remains to be seen if ed or anybody else would consider such aircraft interesting from a commercial point of view..

I recently (6 months ago) switched from a AMD card to a nvidia one (gtx 970) and noticed no difference in those fx. I did in fact notice something different in some light effects, but imho they are much better with the nvidia. I have been a simmer for more than twenty years, and I have had the luck of having both AMD and nvidia cards in my rigs, which I always tried to keep updated to run flight simulators at the best of their potentials (if budget allows.. ofc). With no doubt, installing my current card, the 970, I have had a sort of "unlock" on DCS, for the first time I could run it at the highest gfx details at very high fps. Anyway, keep in mind one thing: AMD cards are not by any mean technically inferior to nvidia ones. The problem is, though, that amd hasn't released a decent driver since years, and DCS is one of those games which driver developers are not willing to "waste" time over, by tweaking their software to run it at the best. The result is that in many cases, a medium-end nvidia card will run it better (means faster) that a high-end amd card (in systems with similar CPU performance). I have been called a nvidia fanboy in other forums, but it's an undeniable fact to me, that amd cards running benchmarks at much higher fps (driver devs care very much about benchmarks, as often folks buy cards based on that data, so they optimize their software to function great in them), find themselves running DCS at 15 fps average, while nvidia runs at 45.

looking great!

In fact it's quite easy if an automatic or semi-automatic mode is employed. If you have DCS Black Shark, you can count that it works pretty much the same way, although I believe that a Tunguska operator has an even easier work since: - The system can be automatically steered towards the target by receiving the target's data through its datalink with air defence radars. - The tunguska has to point its cameras up to the skies, where there is no clutter - point sized targets are easily discerned from the background. Using a FLIR channel only improve this situation. Once the target is acquired (manually or automatically), it is auto-tracked and auto-gated by the tung cameras. The cpu onboard decides which is the best moment to launch the missiles. There is only one aspect which is still not clear to me, range-finding. If it is done by the on-board radar, it would make the target's rwr start honking. If the tung has a laser-rangefinder (it could be) then the target gets a warning only if it has a LWR (like the KA-50). Other ways to calculate range are unviable to a AA system, the only "stealth" one would be receiving the range parameters from an integrated air defense radar over the aforementioned datalink. As for the ability to spoof these missiles with decoys - no, chaffs and flare would not be able to seduce the missiles away. Yet, it must be remembered that the way the system is conceived, makes its missiles effective only against targets with low radial velocities (helis or A10s approaching or receding) The A-10C will detect the launch, because it has a MAWS, but it is in no way able to discern if the plane is actually the target of the missile (MAWS tends to report every missile that is approaching its parent AC, even at improbable velocities and angles)

If I had to express an ideal situation, I too would like to have FC3 level AC released, but it would be also very nice if the same modules would later be upgraded to full DCS, while keeping the option to buy only the FC3 level module. In that way, a customer would buy the FC3 level module, and decide, when it gets released, to upgrade to the DCS level one at reduced cost. This way DCS could make happy several kinds of customers, bsed both on their commitment to realism or their willingness to spend more money. Maybe this way there could be some erratic situation in multiplayer (folks having the same plane but with different difficulties), but I don't think that it would be anything beyond solving (mission designers can easily adapt their missions to said scheme, and game masters would pick mp missions on servers accordingly)

I always used the ecm sparingly, and only when being locked or engaged. imho, being the systems simulated in dcs all of defensive nature, they are made to degrade the performance of radars which are already going through the engagement process. Using defensive ecm constantly (which is something that sadly, many folks in mp normally do), is always a wrong tactic - your emissions start to appear all-over the enemy radars and, they just have to decrease their distance to you to burn-through. Also, in RL, would be something that would actually negate the ecm effect and basically give an advantage to the attacker - ECCM are deployed, and likely the attacking radar has the ability to work around the defenders ECM by shifting frequencies and employing other techniques. Anyway, even if in DCS we have a very generic model for this kind of systems, my opinion is that EMCON should be applied very strictly..

lol.. But I'm not sure u hit the a-10 in the end. And the near-crash..? :DDD

It went well - I managed to finish the mission after destroying the stinger team on the roof of the building. To eliminate the threat, I employed the upk-23 (impressive firepower that gun, on the hip). Just wanted to make sure it is one way by which people can complete this mission.

I'm in the process of finishing this mission and I have encountered the aforementioned problem. I will try to finish it by shooting the manpads to oblivion with guvs, I don't understand if folks who finished it already did that (read about somebody landing on manpads heads, others modifying the mission, which is something I'd rather not do). I'll be reporting here how that goes

+1

There are too few available public informations to model this kind of system in DCS, so basically the only ECM equipment being simulated is of a defensive nature (pods carried by aircraft which try to degrade search and attack radars). Also, the scarcity of informations precludes to answer fully to your request to provide a hypothetical synopsis of the situation - the limits of offensive ECM normally are in the range of frequencies they are able to disturb and what kind of output power they can pump in their transmissions, while the robustness to such systems lays in the ability of a given sensor to recognize it's being jammed and to change its operating frequency (the "agility" of a given radar for example). Not to forget, that nowadays electronic warfare would be surely joined by cybernetic warfare, as militaries employ a number of computer networks to manage data dissemination - networks which would become targets for attacks by opposing "hackers" as they are a vital piece in the management of the battle-flow.