remi

The next gen card is just a few weeks away, might as well wait before wasting money on 2 year-old tech.

Still would want more lanes off the CPU though. Going through DMI is an unnecessary bottleneck.

Go with the next gen Nvidia card.

Once Vulkan API gets Incorporated, you can expect greater performance with multiple cores. I think the whole focus on higher clockspeeds over core count has really held back gaming and other application performance over the last several years. Once core count benefits the masses, you'll see AMD processors dominating gaming performance benchmarks. Maybe get a Threadripper 2 with 16 cores. Also, you get more PCIe lanes with Threadripper, so you'll have capability for more GPUs at 16x speeds. With Vulkan, additional GPUs will have performance gains realized.

I bet the performance difference is huge and that he can sell a few more 1080s to people who can't wait, and then lay the next card down heavy. The 1180 is inevitable, but it's probably a business decision to squeeze the current process a little more. Didn't Nvidia recently say that Moore's law doesn't apply to GPUs and that performance is increasing at far higher rates than predicted?

Part 3:

I think there's some hard-coded scripting for the takeoff sequence until the plane's interactions with the deck is modeled to high enough fidelity for it to be an organic process. Maybe the afterburner wasn't put into the script? This would make sense for why you have different flight characteristics off a runway versus carrier. I think this is also why there is some strange flight mechanics while on the deck during a bolter.

Can you post your settings which allow you to see the ball when you enter the groove? Or do you only see the ball when you're already on the deck?

You won't be able to land on the carrier with the Hornet if you're in VR since you can't see the meatball because of the low resolution. Doesn't mean you can't TRY to land without the meatball, it's just not realistic at all to go without relying on the meatball.

I think the key is "upscaling" a lower resolution to a high resolution display. This way, the GPU isn't being taxed excessively, but the resulting image is very sharp because of the higher pixel density of the higher resolution screens. I haven't seen an upscaler yet, but this is the most logical step to get increased performance AND increased graphical details.

Nosegear sticks to ground surfaces resulting in inability to aerobrake, as well as resulting in unexpected pitch-down behavior on carrier bolter prior to coming off edge of deck.

I agree, it's definitely a bug, unless this is pre-programmed FCS behavior that isn't documented anywhere else that we know about. I'd look into whether anti-skid/carrier bypass programming has anything to do with this.

What happens if you try to increase your throttle to mil? How long does it take for the nose gear to stay attached to the runway? At what speed are you able to rotate and take-off again? I'm trying to pin down if there is a hard-coded behavior of the landing gear on touching down that causes the nosewheel to become attached to ground surfaces.

Notice how these hornets don't have their "nosewheel" stuck to the runway surface while aero-braking:

This is exactly what I'm looking for as a real-world example, thanks!

Hey guys, Would anyone be able to test the following: 1) Perform a normal carrier landing on a carrier deck without the hook deployed. As you "bolter", when you pull back on the stick, does the nosegear behave like it's attached to the carrier deck surface? 2) Perform a normal carrier landing on a regular runway without the hook deployed but all other carrier settings intact (hook bypass to carrier, anti-skid off), does the nosegear behave like it's attached to the runway surface? I've noticed strange behavior on the carrier deck surface while landing, and I would like someone to verify this issue. Thanks!

Is anyone even able to see the meatball using VR? The pixel density is extremely low in any current headset today.

Why is this labeled "NO BUG" when clearly there's a problem with excessive stickiness of the nosewheels to the flight deck?

Also, based on what I've seen in the bolter videos, it's likely that the FCS is defaulting to a carrier launch profile which prevents proper control of pitching down after a bolter while climbing after leaving the deck.

No, you can plainly see that when you touch the deck with the nosegear and rear landing gear that the Hornet "sticks" to the deck, and when you bolter, the nosewheel is "sticking" to the deck as if it's attached to the carrier deck via a launch-bar. ED/BST updated the carrier deck interactions after those initial YouTube videos to fix the jumpiness. BTW, the FCS automatically deflects the rear flight control surfaces to maintain upwards pitch of the nose on launch from the carrier, so it's not from pilots "yanking" on the stick. And what you're describing as a "flight model" is actually more of a wheel-surface interaction modeling.

I wonder if ED/BST had a "fix" for the excessive jumpiness of the hornet on takeoff with the catapult, and this "fix" is inadvertently leading to "sticky" nosewheels on landing when there should be more "jumpiness" at that point.

No, it's the same person, just different time periods.

Here's another where she talks about the history of her doing different recordings for Boeing:

Can you point out any documentation or photos which show speedbrake extension in a Lot 20 Hornet expressed as a percentage of "extended" vs "retracted" to indicate to the pilot the amount of airbrake that is currently open?

:doh: