KLR Rico

Yes, 1.4+v is super high. AFIK, you should tread very lightly for anything over 1.3v. Is there another windows utility or anything that might have taken control over the voltages? For example, my Asus board uses "AI Suite" to change mobo settings in windows.

That video was amazing! I'm going to go fly the P-51 right now! Perhaps the pre-oil pump is a modification the owner did, engines tend to get a lot better treatment when you're the one paying for the maintenance. :)

AFIK, when the activations run out they regenerate at 1 per month.

As it exists right now, it would appear that the wing is presenting a huge amount of drag to the rocket's exhaust stream. Also, the video isn't a similar situation to the rockets because those are morars being fired out of a closed tube, not a rocket hanging freely under a wing. Watch MLRS systems firing on youtube and I think we have something closer to what happens on the P-51 than a mortar.

^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoilless_rifle

^ Ha!

It seems that the point of the OP is "My PC ran FC2 just fine, but it struggles with DCSW 2.8+" The game's graphical quality improved over time... and so has the hardware to run it. Time marches on, visual quality improves, hardware becomes outdated; upgrades are inevitable.

Every now and again a thread pops up filled with nothing but sarcastic and amusing replies. I'm glad to see this isn't one of them.

I also think it would be great to have it in the loadout menu. Perhaps somewhere away from the other sliders, so it's not adjusted accidently.

^+1 on freetrack; if you have any complaints on the hardware you only get to blame yourself. :)

I don't see what all the commotion is about, it's a useful training tool that will have zero impact on players that don't want to use it. Put the option right next to unlimited ammo and labels.

:thumbup: Great book, and those stories never get old to me!

You can also run performance monitoring software to see the load the CPU and GPU. While DCS is running, you're pretty much always going to have one core maxed out, so look for that first of all. Start with the graphics on the lowest settings and monitor the GPU load. I started increasing the details and testing in an A-10 campaign mission (they're all very "busy" missions) until I hit ~90% GPU load. The 90% target gives some buffer if you ever run into missions that need more polys or if weather/effects cause an extra load.

I'd still lean towards a CPU bottleneck. DCS is basically single threaded (audio has it's own thread), so clock speed has a greater influence than core count, so the 160 MHz you gained probably won't add up to much (5.3%). I see on the specs that both your rigs have 1,333 MHz FSB's. I wonder if that's also a choke point...

+1 on the cooler. My xeon rigs all have HUGE stock heat sinks.

Don't forget the hawg's vertical stabilizers hide the exhaust signature for a good portion of those off-angle rear aspects.

So, any other "casual player" concessions ya'll want to come clean about? ;)

+1!! Anything that degrades realism in favor of playability should be an option.

^ Tanker pilots log "combat" hours and get "combat" metals. ;)

GAME MODE?!?

^ And when the TR fails and pilot responds by entering autorotation, it's different how?

I'll buy anything released for DCS, but a tanker would be a waste of resources that could be spent on "fun" planes. I've been working the KC-135 for the last 4 years and I've flown on a few AR missions. While it's awesome seeing another plane that close in flight and the view from the boom pod is pretty amazing, the whole flight profile isn't terribly exciting. Basically standard IFR flight and at some point another plane flies up and the boomer sticks the nozzle in the other jet, then they go away and then it's back to a regular IFR flight and landing. :) Don't get me wrong, it's fun to watch & experience, but there's not a whole lot more to it than flying any IFR flight in FSX aside from the CRM and specific AR procedures. The boom doesn't do a whole lot, it looks a lot tougher to be a receiver. However, I'm a huge fan of anything DCS and I'd buy it, I just think there are other heavy aircraft with a lot more exciting missions, even a slick C-130.

Sigh... car engine /= game engine, let's get off that track. You get higher framerate while displaying more detail through optimization. The move to the DX11 api, for example.

I think $200-250 is the sweet spot in the GPU price/performance game. IMHO, the current fleet of GPU's in that price range don't offer the performance advantage over your 660 to make an upgrade worthwhile, but they probably will by next summer or fall. And of course, I agree with the point on waiting to see how EDGE performs.

I know this is the nth thread where the 130 has been requested, but I'll chime in again to say, "I want". :) I worked 'em for 8 years and they always hold a place in my heart as one of the most badass aircraft out there; an underrated but awesome machine.