danilop

+1 TrackIR Z axis. This is what I use, too

Wow, I hope that someone from ED took a look at this - Black sea is like, half of the map in DCS. Imagine carrier landings in SU33 / F18 with ocean and weather simulation like this! Amazing stuff!

The force sensitivity setting is way to high on the default driver settings (force required is very low). Basically they've tried to make X65F appeal to casual gamer who don't want to fix joystick to the table. You have to fix it to the table somehow (I use ordinary woodworking clamps :) because I can't have it permanently attached to the desk) and lower the sensitivity considerably (start with default MAX setting and go from there). BTW, fixing the HOTAS to the table fix the throttle "issue" as well - stiffness. I'm on this settings ATM (rudder axis is not used, as I have dedicated pedals). I prefer equal sensitivity settings for X and Y axes. Small deadzone (5) is all that is needed in DCS controller axis setup: When you lower the sensitivity (increase force setting in the driver), everything else seems to get way better - there is hardly any centering issues and response is not twitchy - I never use axis sensitivity setting (Curvature) in the DCS. You just need to build some wrist / arm muscles and overcome mental block caused by non-moving stick. Later you can increase force even further, mimicking the real force setting in F16 stick which is IIRC, about 16-18 lbsf or 7-8 kgf. Give it a try! :joystick:

They said ED and partners. So we don't know who will be exactly responsible for SU27SM yet.

And with Titan improved drivers / new games optimized for unique GK110 architecture, gap will be widened ... BTW, fresh rumour of upcoming Titan "light" card: http://exophase.com/59000/rumor-nvidia-prepping-slimmed-down-gk110-with-5gb-vram-possible-gtx-780/ http://wccftech.com/nvidia-preparing-cut-geforce-gtx-titan-gk110-gpu-2496-cores-launch-expected-q3/ http://www.tweaktown.com/news/29175/rumortt-nvidia-working-on-second-gk110-based-consumer-gpu/index.html

Great! Now we have to wait and see what's the Titan capable off in DCS with multiple screens in 1440p / 1600p (say 7680x1600). It shouldn't go below 40 FPS on MAX according to 3 way 1080p test P.S. Congrats on your purchase. :thumbup:

Yeah, they've disabled features to keep K20 at the top, but still Titan destroys any other sanely priced card for scientific calculation purpose - there is no competition here. They even nicknamed it "Ph.D lust" :D: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6774/nvidias-geforce-gtx-titan-part-2-titans-performance-unveiled/3 As always, you enter law of diminishing returns when start to chase ultimate performance, so the major complaint from the consumer market (cost) is the valid one. Titan is definitely not for everyone - for boutique gaming mini-builds and "cheap" scientific computation on the desktop there is hardly any competition ATM. It's a positive step in the right direction and it will force AMD to come up with something even better for less money. Competition is a great thing ... :) P.S. I think there is a market for Titan level of performance, even at this high price point, so it would be wise for Nvidia to find a way to up / sustain the production of (crippled) GK110

1) Gamer who wants the best possible portable, high end rig based on mini ITX board (which doesn't allow for SLI/Crossfire) in small, silent case with limited cooling possibilities. 2) Gamer who wants the fastest single GPU available (note the want word, need is something which lot of folks who have the dough happily ignore :)). 3) PhD student or anyone else who need the best in scientific computation desktop power (yes, this is the card for that application) and cannot afford Tesla card which sells for 2.5x more.

I think that Nvidia is waiting for the AMD answer to cut the prices of the Titan down (Nvidia basically have single GPU market for themselves ATM so they really don't have to think about the price) or to introduce another design based on GK110. Titan is luxuriously made - magnesium enclosure, etc so there is plenty of space for price cut. It's obvious that Titan will beat or come extremely close to 690 as drivers improve and new games start to get optimized for GK110. Crysis 3 is good example (2:17 in the video).

:D Yeah, this is simply overview ... hey, we don't use differential equations and integral calculus in arguing ... yet :lol:

I don't now how Traffic Shaping, being mainly of interest to ISPs would relate to DCS. The problem is on the client / server side with DCS, not the infrastructure itself (it's not overloaded infrastructure / bandwidth limit, like in tipical ISP problem scenario). Problem, as far as I understood devs who post on this forum, is (was) in outdated netcode originated in legacy Lockon (Flanker?) titles, where we had much simpler modelling of everything - with DCS and now Combined Arms and FC3 we suddenly have huge increase of data needed for smooth multiplayer and the old netcode was simply not up to the task to handle this smoothly. They've started to write completely new netcode, but apparently had to hurry up 1.2.3 release, so it's still WIP - currently maximum of 16 players is the number which ED recommend for smooth and stable online play.

One application where Titan, being very modest in power requirements / cooling department, has no competition is boutique, high-end gaming rig built on mini ITX or micro ATX board in something like BitFenix Prodigy, Silver Stone FT03 or similar very portable miniature case. There is considerable interest in such a builds, and not everyone want / need big, noisey case with high airflow (gazillion fans) with insanely OCed graphics cards in triple or quad arrangement powered by 1.5kW monster PSU ... apparently.

Wow, so SU25T pit is already Work In Progress, then? If so ... Great!!

The only major negative point of the Titan so far is steep price - for 750 ($,€) it would be a killer card. Let's hope that AMD is working on the direct answer to NVIDIA Titan - competition is good, it brings the prices down.

Looks good if you're Asus / Corsair fan. :) Nothing that I would add / take away except that I would stick with Win7 for now (just a personal preference - like to wait a couple of years or so for hardware / software companies to catch up with new OS) For SSD go with Samsung 840 pro 256MB (two of them in Raid 0 if you could strech the budget;)).

This

Do you remember 16vs16 AIvsAI mission I wrote about where in 1.2.2 F15c/AIM120C always win with laughably huge difference against Reds (like 90%:10%, even more)? Guess what? It still win in 1.2.3 (as it should due to more advanced avionics), however odds are between 60-70% which is much more, how to say ... "realistic"? It could be that BVR AI got better, it could be downgrading of AMRAAMS or upgrading Red's missiles; I'm not judging - however R77s have PK greater than 0.003 now :D and actually hits something ...

Every piece of silicon is different. When you start to understand what's going on when overcklocking, you realise that AUTO setting in 99% of cases is no-go. Have a look at this overclocking primer (it's meant for Gigabyte x77 motherboards, but the principles are universal if you work with any other modern mobo), and you'll understand why AUTO is a bad thing in overclocking. http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/gigabyte_z77_overclocking_guide/1 I know that you don't want to hear this, but there are no shortcuts. If you are a beginner (and we all were at some point) take your time, read articles and watch videos as much as you can and most importantly - use common sense. It's not that complicated as it looks.

There are fundamental differences between your average FPS game which basically needs eye candy and fast paced action to sell and hard-core simulator like DCSW where you spend majority of the time developing accurate mathematical models of the real world objects and complex military systems. Hey, they even have several PhDs on board! Don't forget that they deal with real military on the regular basis ;) Average DCSW customer is laughing at the arcade "simulations" (although they can be fun from time to time :)) - just look at the long, hot debates on this forum regarding radar and missiles performance for example! So the quality of the mathematical models is the top priority. Graphics is in the second plan. However, ED very early realised importance of the eye candy for sales and DCS is the best looking hard core flying simulator ever. IMHO, they have perfect balance here - more than enough eye candy for believable environment (yes there is obvious room for improvement) and non-arguably the best math models around! There is simply not enough budget / market / sales to warrant top eye candy and detailed graphics effects programming. They've concentrated their available resources toward math modelling, and I think rightfully so!

Wow, that should boost performance considerably! :thumbup: So basically we will have three-threaded application? Sound, Graphics, Simulation?

To answer your question: http://bit.ly/YWrgNN Here you go! :) I5-3570K is usually recommended for high(ish) end gaming ATM; it's more than enough for any game now and especially for DCS which is poorly optimized for multi core / thread computing. If you do something serious beside gaming (and you stated that it's only for flying) like photoshop, 3D rendering, CAD or AV editing, than go for i7, otherwise it's overkill. One exotic gaming application where you sort of "need" I7 sandy bridge (E) power, would be three or four way SLI (crossfire) system where you want 2011 (x79) motherboard for it's memory / PCIe bandwidth to avoid micro stutters. For DCS, beeing non multi core / thread app, CPU clock is everything as stated in the second post. I would go with great overcklocker motherboard, top cooling solution (NH-D14 minimum, water preferred) and i5-3570K.

+1 It seems that people are not aware of the complexity of the mathematical model when you want to simulate advanced aerodynamics, rocket and jet engines to AFM standard. Radar? Sensors? You don't do it with physX or any other consumer technology meant for simulating environment in FPS games, but with serious scientific math libraries running on the cutting edge processors. So, as already mentioned, the only reasonable and sane way to increase "physics" performance within DCS is to fully optimize code for multi core / multi threaded processors. That's urgent. Icing on the cake, although very unlikely, would be support for serious scientific computing ability on the new Nvidia and AMD processors which bring unprecedented parallel processing power to consumer computers.

Well, you could load huge chunk of code on the graphics card itself and basically forget about it there. No need to bounce code around. Just "pick up" the results from time to time or when need arise. There are 6GB of memory on Titan for example and increasing memory on Graphics cards is ongoing trend ... However, complexity of parallel processing is real and effort needed to code it correctly is not trivial.

If you have money invested in TM Warthog or any other expensive HOTAS, get the pedals. I have Saitek Combat variant and they do come handy in A10C: 1. Taxing & Braking (obvious, however toe brakes on Saitek pedals are having problems in DCS(DCS is to blame). Nothing major, but you need to setup them correctly) 2. Crosswind landing - anything more than 4-5m/s of the crosswind and you can't land comfortably and safely without rudder pedals. 3. Strafing with gun - great for taking out horizontally stretched formation of vehicles in one pass. 4. Coordinated turns - you don't want to look like rookie when posting tracks, do you? :D

:thumbup: DirectCompute, OpenCL or Nvidia CUDA C/C++ toolkit or whatever ... Technology for accessing underlying GPU power is not that important - what's important is that developers finally exploit parallel computing available on modern GPU's. CPU intensive games like our beloved DCSW, would benefit the most.