Buzzles

That's my stance as well. Pre-development, if I'd had the choice I would have picked a D over the A+B, but the A+B was chosen by HB and a -D doesn't offer enough over them in comparison to a different airplane alltogether.

Neither of us said we were looking at 2x 250GB's. Speed is a slight concern, but a 250GB M2 still batters a normal 500GB SATA SSD for I/O anyway, and at least for me, any SSD's will be a boost over my current HDD only rig.

Mobo I opted for is the MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC (who comes up with these names?), after a good write up by a couple of sites and the fact it has a decent slot layout. Considering the sheer read/write speeds of the M2 slots over the normal SATA drives, I'm definitely getting one and I'd urge you to do the same. M2 250GB Samsung 970 Evo is <£100, or I might go older and plump for a 500 GB 960 Evo for ~£170. Probably more space than I ever should need for a system drive, but the boost in endurance is a comfort for hardly any performance difference.

You're going to need more disk space. 500 GB won't be enough if you're planning on using just the one SSD, especially as you should never fill it up and really ought to leave ~10-15% free (performance degrades if you fill SSDs up). DCS is ~100GB with a 3/4's of the modules and Cauc+NTTR+Normandy installed, as each map is approx 30GB. I think it current hits 150 with everything installed. Obviously double the amount if you install the beta branch too. Win 10 will want a huge chunk, and while I've no idea how big Xplane is, but I doubt it's small either. As I'm in the same process of building a new system (2700x and mobo delivered a few days ago), I'm probably going to go for a ~250gb M2/NVe solely for the system drive, a second SSD (likely 500GB) for software that needs performance, and a 2/3TB HDD for everything else, to give you an idea to go off.

I was just about to post about this. Forum software appears to be doubling up newlines.

^^ This. Either ED go the route of releasing a dedicated server executable in the standard way (has all maps/units etc...), which is the traditional way to do it and results in the people running the server being responsible for the cost of hosting + keeping it running. OR ED do what EA did with Bad Company 2, and charge a sub to rent a dedicated server. ED don't need to publically release the dedicated exe to do this, but it does mean they need to partner with hosting companies and spend a bunch of time and cash making that infrastructure possible. Personally, I prefer the former, as it gives server admins much more control.

I did wonder if you'd respond solely on that point and you did. You're dismissing my whole statement based on a single point in it. My actual point that from reading these forums and other places that it's clear many more people want different aircraft over FC versions of existing modules isn't something that's nullified by my own personal dislike of FC3.

I don't own nor plan to buy FC3 or 4, but even I can see this is a serious misstep. While the debate for what people want in terms of FC-level or full will always rage, there's no debate that people want new aircraft. As much as I dislike the product line, FC4 is an ideal opportunity to add to DCS some aircraft that won't/can't be available at the full PFM/ASM level for the people who want more FC level aircraft.

Q&A with either Chizh or c0ff would be nice.

Nineline (or one of the mods) said it's being removed in the next patch though.

They're in axis bindings if they've been setup. Not many aircraft have much setup outside of the stick, throttle and the sight brightness + ranging and target size.

I too am disappointed that UGRA Media haven't released any changes to Normandy, especially considering their absolute silence and total lack of representation anywhere. I'd very much like to use it more, but it's clearly unfinished and updates have not been coming. SpeedTrees appear to be a must just for performance. Devil's advocate though: Normandy was mostly given away to the original WWII backers, which is something people forget. Perhaps they need to make Syria first to raise some more money?

Personally, I like the fact a cat appears to be the first thing to cross the bridge: https://www.indy100.com/article/vladimir-putin-cat-mostik-russia-ukraine-crimea-bridge-8357711

As a fellow VM running dev, I do have to ask if you actually use the many VM's under decent load all the time. If you do, fair enough, you'll need the cores (ps: rumours are new Thread Rippers are coming end of the Summer). If not, the new top Ryzen+ might be a better shout than the Thread Ripper. As for DCS, officially it's still 2 cores (1 sound, 1 everything else) so speed > cores is still in play, although it does seem to be making use of more these days.

If ED were to go to the effort of remaking it so it's no longer part of main DCS, they'd actually be better off making the ME work in a web browser and having it be an online tool (SaaS).

In SP: Yes. In MP: No Source:

Oof, the two seater version looks horrible. Could have picked a single seater for the picture!

You tease! :)

There is no easy FM. Do you mean game mode? Which is for systems. Or the special option for "Simplified Engine Management"? Which simply removes the effects of overspeeding and the g-limit handling problems.

There's already some that have been implemented. The Spit belches flames if you over prime it.

Why don't you ask them directly? They've all got contact info.

Who needs Aim-7's anyway? The F/A-18 is just a fancy bomb truck :)

Lol, a gripe thread on Hoggit has appeared as well:

Yeaahh, no. We've been told it's AI only. I wouldn't speculate on it any more than that. Also ED have a long standing project to update old models to a new standard, and there's a lot of AI models they need to do, this is probably just the next one on the list.

Have you tried clearing your shader and fxo cache folders?