ChandlerUSMC

:) Except, the actual systems on the actual aircraft doing the actual calculations rely on 286, 386, 486 and sometimes lesser CPUs. (that was fun to write). The Space Shuttle uses 5 APA-101S computers (5 for redundancy) at about 1.2 MIPs with a couple of megs of Ferrite Core memory (defense against radiation). The entire control for the shuttle is <1 MB of program. The updated, state of the art (heh) glass cockpit shuttle got an upgrade to a... wait for it… Intel 386. The DFCS and FCS of an F-16 CPU runs at about .5 to 1 MIP comparable to a Motorola 68000 processor. Today’s processors like the ones sitting on your desk push 55,000 to 175,000 MIPs never mind the gigaflops for the required math. Math just isn’t the issue in modeling these systems on modern CPUs. Which means we’re left with world physics such as gravity, wind, pressure, motion... flight model.. but that is just more of the same math calculations-- something that processors since the incarnation of the math coprocessor (now integrated into any modern cpu) have dealt with like a sledgehammer on an anthill. Then there’s the graphics. The developer of X-Plane (as well as one of the leads of Aces) put it best and to paraphrase, it mostly comes down to the graphics engine. Graphics, graphics, and graphics. Until sim engines are developed to make better use of today's multicore systems, we’ll have to deal with throwing clock cycles and heat at it (read, gigahertz)—that and moving towards modern graphics APIs such as DirectX11 and OpenGL 4.3. Quite frankly it’ll be much easier to implement support of newer graphics APIs rather than to make revolutionary strides in polycore. Incidentally, this is what Lockheed Martin and Laminar Research are doing with their sims while they make iterative improvements on multicore support. Multicore is doable (Playstation 3), it’s just that it’s damn hard. BF3 runs as well as it does because DICE has a very good dev team that spent a lot of time, intellectual capital, and fiscal expense in developing their Frostbite engine. They know their way around DirectX and the popular gfx architectures that run them. You can read some of their dev blogs that mention the obstacles they had to overcome as they developed what they have now. I’ll close with this question. How fast do you think Falcon, FSX, and DCS products would run if it didn't have to render the outside world-- just its panels, flight models, and systems?

How are y'all looking at the side consoles with Wag's profile? I tried moving my head by leaning back and then down to the right (other profiles work that way)- no joy on that. Then I tried the more obvious (read, natural) method of looking down and leaning in to the right but that makes my view go bonkers and it looks in the opposite direction (up in the sky to my left)

I care about how things sound so was generally disappointed with the oddball equalization settings of "gaming" headsets that tend to favor certain frequencies that degrade or at least color the quality of the audio. So asked my brother (who, at the time was an audio engineer for Telarc) and put me on a path to what I recommend to you now. I must say, however, that I have not used one of the latest gaming headsets since I went to the audio companies for my audio needs and never looked back. Gaming headsets (from companies like Razer) may be good now-- I don't know. Without further ado, I own both of these: http://www.amazon.com/Sennheiser-PC-350-Collapsible-Microphone/dp/B0012XFDWO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1346957321&sr=8-1&keywords=sennheiser+pc http://www.amazon.com/Sennheiser-PC-360-Headset-Gaming/dp/B003DA4D2U/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1346957321&sr=8-4&keywords=sennheiser+pc Those two Sennheiser are what we use for multiplayer gaming where voice is required. The 350 is a closed headset so it's engineered to block out noise outside of what you're hearing. The 360 is an open design which I figured out that I prefer which is why I now own both. They are light but not as light as the below AKGs. You can wear them for a number of hours (hardcore raiding in World of Warcraft is a testament to that back in the day). They both have independent volume and mute controls for convenience. The microphone on both of them is FANTASTIC and has been used by many podcasters before they invested in a professional equipment. I recommend the PC360 over the PC350. You can wear the 360 longer, so it's worth the $50 extra. Where a microphone isn't required, I'd go with the AKG242HD - I also own the AKG240 and 272. http://www.amazon.com/AKG-242-HD-High-Definition-Headphones/dp/B0028N78J8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1346957369&sr=8-1&keywords=akg+k242 http://www.amazon.com/AKG-272-HD-High-Definition-Headphones/dp/B0028N78KC/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1346957369&sr=8-2&keywords=akg+k242 What I love about the AKGs is that they are deceptively light- I mean really light. They are can headsets (over-ear) and they are really light. You can wear them all day comfortably. Have I mentioned how light they are? The sound quality- well now, the sound quality will knock your socks off. A couple of years ago it was the best you could get for that price range where they competed favorably with headsets more than three times their price. In addition to simming, you'll love to use them just to play HQ MP3/M4A or plug into your ipod and will be surprised to hear instruments and nuance you never heard before on songs/pieces you already know. I can't recommend them enough. If they ever broke, I'd buy them again. I've dropped all three and run over their wires with my chair over the years and they still work great.Of the three I prefer the 242HD because they sound better than the 240s and are open design vs. the 272 which is similar sound quality but closed design. Closed design are best for noisy environments so I suppose if you have noisy children, the 272 may be better. YMMV Hope that helps.

Noob question on this: Is this tweak solely based on the setting I have in "Terrain" (ex. Terrain = HIGH) or is this based on the master settings of LOW/MED/HIGH (high being the one I have to choose). I suppose what I'm asking is whether I just set my terrain to HIGH to access these LUA settings and I can then modify the other settings individually that also affect my fps (such as Visibility distance, etc.) Thanks

Yup, same here.

Seemed to be on the right track for me with this fix, however, as soon as I got to step 5, altering LAN back to Internet, I changed it to Internet and it crashed. vOv

That explains it. He called it, "TIR5" profile. Thanks a lot, Bignewy.

Kylania, I've done a forum search with search terms of user: Wags containing: TrackIR and Track (2 different searches) and didn't spot a post by wags concerning TrackIR & his profile. Any chance you could point me in the right direction, mate? Thanks, Chan

Not as dangerous as you might think. The disabling of driver signing is temporary. It's only required for the amount of time it takes for you to install the unsigned drivers. After a reboot, it defaults to turning itself back on. No harm, no foul. Indeed many beta drivers are released unsigned in the name of efficiency and that's fine by me. EDIT: *Willy beat me to it* What Willy said... ;)