Jump to content

Aluminum Donkey

Members
  • Posts

    1088
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Aluminum Donkey

  1. Actually, it's more like the other way around, any game will use your VRAM first and then use system RAM when you've used all of your VRAM. When you fly around the map in DCSW, textures are loaded into your VRAM, and if you run out it will swap textures back and forth between system RAM and VRAM as you fly around. That's what causes the micro-stutters. If you run out of both VRAM and system RAM, it will swap textures to the hard disk (or SSD) which causes mega stutters :) That's why DCSW is best with video cards that have huge amounts of video RAM. Yours is about right :)
  2. DavidRed, could you give me the rest of your system specs, such as CPU and clock speed, amount of system RAM etc? I've been thinking about getting hold of a GTX 1060 and you seem to really like yours, but I only have an older machine with a maximum of 8GB RAM, can't install any more. It's good and fast, but I wonder if a 1070 with 8GB VRAM would be better (I only run a single monitor at 1080p). Money is tight in my neck of the woods and I'd rather avoid the 1070 is the 1060 is fine :)
  3. It just looks to me that your system should be fine for DCS... What, if any, problems are you having? There have been benchmarks done for DCS and any CPU with a high enough core clock should do the job just fine. Framerates don't seem to be affected by CPU type, just the clock speed. Go into your BIOS settings, your max multiplier should be 8.5, and if you have 1066 MHz memory you should be able to run it a good chunk faster than 3.4 GHz (which, actually, is just about fast enough, but a bit more never hurt). I have a Q9650 with a max multiplier of 9 (also not an 'unlocked' CPU), but I only have 800 MHz memory, and I can get it up to just over 4.0 GHz without too much trouble (and mine is a 'bad' chip with a very high VID). Try setting your FSB Strap to Auto, set the RAM speed to 800 MHz when the CPU is running at default speed instead of 1066... then overclock until your CPU is running at 3.6 to 4.0 or thereabouts. You don't need a higher multiplier because your RAM is quite a bit faster than mine, you just need to set it's speed in BIOS appropriately before overclocking. I'm pretty sure your computer can run at 3.6 to 4.0 GHz without trying too hard. With the excellent video card you have, 8GB of system RAM should be enough, because you actually have 16GB of total RAM and DCS World's memory requirements are nearly all for graphics textures anyway. Any framerate issues you might have are being caused by your current 3.0 GHz CPU clock, not the speed (or amount) of memory your machine has.
  4. The downside is that more memory costs more, and huge amounts of it are money wasted because it isn't used. When they specify minimum RAM, do they include VRAM? Remember, the O.P. has a GTX 1070, which has 8GB of VRAM... so, 8GB of system RAM is probably fine (16 GB total). I find my 8GB system RAM to be enough for DCS 1.5, even with my wimpy old 2GB video card... but 2.0/Nevada stutters constantly and is unflyable. With an 8GB video card, that probably wouldn't happen. In any form of gaming, including DCS World, most of the RAM used is for graphics textures, and modern flight sims, because they have enormous, detailed ground maps, use huge amounts of VRAM. The system RAM is mostly there for texture swapping from the video card when you run out of VRAM (which is what causes micro-stuttering). With enough video RAM, you don't need as much system RAM. Some people with GTX 1070 or 1080 cards (8GB) can run DCS 2.0 on 8gb system RAM no problem.
  5. Barao, it doesn't look to me like you need a new computer at all. Since you have an 8GB video card, your 8GB system RAM is plenty. Fast RAM affects load times, but not framerates. Your bottleneck is probably your CPU clock speed; the Q9550 should easily overclock to 3.6 GHz, possibly to 4.0. I have a 'bad' Q9650 (very high VID) but at Intel's max recommended voltage (1.3625V) it runs at 3.6 GHz no problem. It will go over 4.0 if I push the voltage up to 1.45, but I don't have to, the CPU never bottlenecks DCS World on my machine, even at high framerates with high graphics settings (I have an old vid card, I'd love a 1070!!). Since you have a great video card with tons of video RAM, simply try bumping up your CPU clock to the highest it will go, it'll give you a lot better framerates because there's no way the system RAM is what's limiting you. You can buy an expensive new rig if you like, but DCS runs very well on old machines with great cards like the 1070... you just have to overclock the CPU enough. Core 2 Quads will do 3.6 GHz or more easily, and DCS World only uses two threads, so expensive i7 based machines while nice are not really necessary.
  6. I always thought the American missiles used a low-smoke propellant formula, so you can't see the contrail very well (makes 'em harder to spot when they're coming in.) Russian missiles have always left smoke trails.
  7. I think we can all agree, after many people's many years of fiddling around, is that you're always, always, always better off buying one good video card than screwing around with two (or four!!) crappier ones and trying to get them to go in SLI. It isn't worth the aggravation, the time--or the money. Just get a decent one to begin with instead of farting around with SLI. My single, archaic GTX 760 2GB is actually pretty decent--and you can buy one used dirt cheap! A 980 is probably very good, a 980 Ti should be all you ever need. Single cards are so lightning fast these days, why bother messing around. If the smell of burning money reminds you of kerosene and huge turbofans at an airshow, get a single Titan X or one of those funky new 1080s, take it out of the box, take a huge sniff, install it and go. Screw SLI :)
  8. Thanks everyone, I just figured out that everything works well if I set it up in Foxy, not CCP. I guess CCP is a little buggy, it's fine for assigning response curves and/or deadbands, stuff like that, but it won't work well for assigning axes. Foxy to the rescue! I'm not using rudder pedals, I gotta build a decent set one day, they'll be hooked up by USB so I only need 7 axes in use on the Cougar. I prefer to set up the Microstick as a pair of DirectX axes so I can use it with any DCSW module that requires it, instead of only the ones that allow the use of the mouse. When using Foxy, I can set up anything the way I want and it always works properly. It's all set up and working great now :)
  9. It's interesting to fly it with the FBW off--the Su-27 actually requires very little trim change even as airspeed changes drastically, say, going from 400 to 1200 km/h. When flying normally with the FBW on, you're *always* messing with the pitch trim. I'm starting to wonder why they did that, because it certainly increases pilot workload. A much better way to do it would have been to eliminate the nose-up-with-increasing-speed part of the FBW software, and simply apply automatic nose-down input when approaching minimum speed. It would have made the Flanker much less work to fly. Great aircraft, but I don't understand the FBW pitch trim design philosophy, there are better and easier ways to keep the aircraft safe to fly without requiring the pilot to incessantly adjust the pitch trim. It's entirely possible that newer versions of the Flanker are done this way (it's easy enough to do, just delete the lines of code from the FBW software that produce the nose-up tendency as airspeed increases, while keeping the code that provides the pitch damping and AoA limit, so the max AoA won't be accidentally exceeded when flying at very low speeds.) I'm not Russian, so I can't understand how they think :)
  10. One thing to keep in mind is that the Flanker's FBW system, when engaged, applies it's own nose-up input as your airspeed increases. That's why you have to apply lots of nose-down trim as you accelerate after taking off. With the FBW system disengaged (S key) there's no down-trim required to fly level. So, before you hit S, you have to center the pitch trim first to prevent the usually-lethal 'tuck under' of the nose. The Flanker actually doesn't have very much of a tendency to require different amounts of pitch trim at different airspeeds, it's done artificially by the FBW system to re-create the control feel and trimming requirements of a conventional (pitch-stable) aircraft. I believe it was done that way because pilots are generally trained to have an intuitive sense of airspeed based on the aircraft's state of trim, and mimicking it with the FBW system makes the aircraft safer to fly--but the Flanker doesn't naturally have that because it's an unstable design. So, you have to remember to center the pitch trim before turning off the FBW system--just like in the real-life Flanker. Finally, when pulling the Cobra, apply some back stick as the nose drops to prevent the nose from tucking under, and it should 'settle in' nicely to nearly level flight with the stick centered again after the nose stops dropping. A couple tries is all it takes to get good at it. Although, I've never actually had any use for it when flying combat missions, because the Flanker pretty easily out-turns just about every other jet aircraft in the whole sim, either player-flyable or not :)
  11. Woohoo! Sorted it out in Foxy, just used the " - NO_BUTTON" modification and we're good to go! I used: USE MICROSTICK AS MOUSE (12,1,1) - NO_BUTTON ...and now I have a nice smooth radar cursor response and can map the microstick 'click' function (Button 19) in DCS World for target selection, and have plenty of memory left in the stick (about 91%)! Oh man that was too easy. Wish this info was easier to get, I had to dig around for ages to get this @#?!! to work :) Pretty funny since this dang stick has actually been available (albeit in limited supply) for roughly three decades now, and the programming syntax hasn't changed any since then... But when it works, it works so well. What a great stick to fly with--after several hours of re-machining and modifying the total-crap original stick gimbal to work well without any freeplay and near perfect centering. Awesome, nice grab for $200, now all I need is maybe a GTX 980 Ti for another $200 and I'm good to go :) Peace and happy warfare Ian
  12. I already did man, I tried disabling the Rudder axis and the two Toe Brake axes, leaving me with only the basic Cougar's seven axes in use. No matter how you slice it, the Cougar hardware can only interpret the microstick as a Mouse unless you assign it's axes to lower numbers--which wipes out the Range and Antenna knobs. You can use Foxy or TARGET to assign keystrokes to it, but the native Cougar circuit board (in the stick base itself) doesn't seem to be able to interpret it as two Direct X (Windows accessible) axes when you're already using five others. I already have one of Leo Bodnar's BU086a USB interface gadgets kicking around; I wish I could find a pinout diagram for the Cougar throttle's 15-pin connector, then I'd just make myself an adapter for the throttle and plug it into a separate USB port. That way I could configure it any way I want because it would work separately from the main flight stick. Peace Ian
  13. Kuky, I have 7 axes in use, two for the microstick, but the microstick axes never show up as Windows-recognizable (Direct X) axes in DCS World. They only show up as mouse axes, so I'm stuck using the microstick as a mouse, in which case I can't use Button 19 (click down on the microstick) to select targets. The microstick only shows up as conventional axes if I select them in CCP as axes 4 and 5--but then I can't use the Antenna or Range knobs. Any ideas? I'm thinking about using my BU086a controller to build a USB box that I can plug the throttle directly into, instead of plugging it into the Cougar flight stick. Peace Ian
  14. Greetings everyone, I just got hold of a well-used TM Cougar HOTAS and spent hours re-working the stick gimbal so I could have a nice stick with zero freeplay and nice smooth axis control. I re-machined the wearing surfaces and installed new pivot pins, took the weaker roll axis spring and installed it in the pitch axis, and made a new softer roll axis spring. I even cleaned the original pots and find they're excellent. So far, so good--a great stick to fly with now, all slop-free and rock solid! All the pots are smooth, all of the buttons work well and the centering is excellent. Problem is, I cant seem to get the throttle Microstick to work the way I want. In Cougar Control Panel, the Microstick is detected and calibrates properly, but I can only use it as a Mouse. I cannot get CCP to recognize it as a pair of normal joystick axes unless I switch the Microstick X and Y to lower-numbered axes (like 4 and 5) in CCP Axis Setup, and if I do that, now the Microstick shows up properly as two normal axes detected in Windows--however, the Antenna and Range knobs no longer show up! It seems that the Cougar will only work with five axes. If I use the microstick as a normal joystick by designating it as Axes 4 and 5, then I can't use the Range and Antenna knobs. If I enable the Range and Antenna knobs as axes 4 and 5, the microstick only works as a mouse with Emulation turned on, and I can't use the pushbutton function of the microstick (Button 19), it only works as a mouse left-click. I want to use the microstick to slew the radar cursor, and the microstick pushbutton (button 19) to lock targets. I can't assign Button 19 in DCS World with the microstick in Mouse mode. So, how do I deal with this? Is it possible to program the Cougar to report more than five axes, so the Microstick is another two axes and its 'click' feature can be used in DCS World? I'm not a Foxy programmer (or any programmer!!) so I'd really appreciate the help! Peace and happy warfare, Ian
  15. Learn to understand it, and you'll love it more :) These engines have a supercharger, a device that compresses the outside environment's air to above normal atmospheric pressure, so more air fits into each cylinder, so more fuel can be burned, increasing horsepower. These graphs show: -Engine power produced for a given air intake ('boost') pressure, and how this power output decreases as altitude increases (because the atmospheric air pressure decreases as you go higher, and the supercharger eventually loses its ability to compensate for that at higher altitudes.) -Specific fuel consumption, which is the amount of fuel burned per hour, per horsepower produced. The higher the HP output, the dis-proportionally worse the 'gas mileage', but the better the acceleration, climb, & top speed. The airplane's range is shortened at higher power levels. These 'ancient' WW2 piston engines (from all countries involved) were *incredibly* well understood and very highly developed for their time. People that tinker with cars today that have turbos, superchargers, 4-valve heads, etc. etc. and think they have something "high tech" are playing with 70 year old technology ;) In the 1930s and 40s, the P-51 was today's F-18, the Bf-109 was an F-16, and the Fw-190D-9 was an F-22 :)
  16. Wazzup Possum I don't have an FC3 key for you, but if you keep the MiG-21 and just get the FC3 module you'll be much happier, 'cause with only 45 mins. or an hour a day you haven't the time to really get into the 21, although it honestly isn't that hard. It's from the 50s, so it's actually pretty straightforward compared to today's aircraft. The A-10C will burn months before you're half decent with it!! Now, pretty much all of the FC3 planes are like the Su-25T, they're pretty quick to jump into and get flying, plus the Flanker and F-15 have excellent flight models and are a hoot to start flying around in even if you don't fly any combat missions yet. Thing is, after a while, you'll want to step up your game and try the 21--and since you already have it, you're good to go :) If you can afford the kind of machinery you need to run DCSW decently on, the cost of FC3 is nuttin', may as well just get it. I always advise that people get FC3 and never bother with individual modules. FC3 is just too good of a 'grab' to deal with the individual modules. But when the time comes for that 21... she'll be right there :) Peace and happy warfare
  17. 113 pages of discussion for a module that's not even released yet! That's how you know it's gonna kick ass. Betcha the MiG-29 PFM will be even better :) (Honestly, I'd rather have that first)
  18. Greetings, This minor problem is as described in the thread title. AI guys flying the Bison take off normally but fly around at high speeds with their under-wing landing lights on. Even in broad daylight :) Love the module, keep up the fine work!
  19. I meant running DCS 2.0 with all the graphics detail turned up. It requires lots of video RAM. If you turn everything down or off, it'll run on older cards, but you won't be seeing or appreciating all of the hard work that ED has put into it over the years. Nevada is absolutely stunning, it's recreated in painstaking detail and was obviously a lot of effort to produce, even though it's actually quite old. But, it takes a mighty hulk of a graphics card to run it at full detail because of the huge amount of VRAM required. DCS World is much, much older than many people think, it was released to the public as the initial version in 2008 but it has actually been around much longer than that. I first saw DCS as a little kid in the mid 1980s, yes it really has been around that long. Even in those days, it was very well developed and required a mighty beast of a machine to run it on. Nowadays it'll run at full detail on a decent consumer grade gaming PC, back then it took a hefty developer rig that cost as much as a decent used car. It always needed a huge amount of video RAM to run smoothly at full detail and constant micro-stutters were the name of the game :)
  20. Howzitgoin' man! What you just described is basically how most of us got into DCS World. Welcome to the habit-forming hobby of combat flight simulation! :) FrazerNZL's advice was just about perfect--start with DCS 1.5 because it's a stable release, and it's also a more realistic 'theatre of war' (combat area). DCS 2.0 is only Nevada and it's a USA military training area, not much going on, but it has really nice scenery. The free Su-25T is a great place to start, it'll get you flying, learning about the different weapons, and attacking ground targets. Get FC3 next because it has fighter jets in it and you'll be able to dogfight, which as far as I'm concerned, is the 'meat' of a good combat flight sim. FC3 aircraft also have simplified systems models like the free Su-25T, which means you won't have to spend 6 months of your life memorizing a zillion keys and trying to figure out what a rat's nest of buttons, switches and dials are for. FC3 has the F-15 and Su-27 Flanker in it, both have detailed flight models and are a blast to fly. After FC3, I really recommend getting hold of at least one of the WW2 propeller driven fighters. They have very detailed systems models, but because they're older machines they don't have a zillion buttons and switches to sort out. They require more finesse to fly and are good fun without too much hassle, depending on how you look at it. When you're ready to punish yourself, get the A-10C or Ka-50 module (or both). They are full-fidelity simulations with pretty much every cockpit control modelled in extreme detail. The array of switches, dials and other cockpit controls will blow your mind. They take a long time to learn and are both very satisfying and very frustrating to learn. I've flown both for years, and suck at both. :) Again, welcome to the community and hope you have fun! Just curious, what computer gear are you using? (CPU, RAM, video card etc.) Peace and happy warfare Ian
  21. The real-life Flanker is indeed prone to loss of control at excessive negative angles of attack, especially when flying at low airspeeds. I heard about it as a kid in the early or middle 80s although I don't remember where, but it left a lasting impression on me. Why would the Russians deliberately allow the use of a flight control system that makes it possible to easily lose control of the aircraft? The answer is that military pilots are very highly trained and are well aware of the limitation, much as all pilots have to be aware of positive AoA limits, minimum speeds, Vne etc. The airplane doesn't have a more complex control system that prevents the pilot from exceeding negative AoA--the aircraft designers simply assumed that he knows better and wouldn't do it anyway because he's trained not to. Same goes for the autopilot oscillations below certain speeds--the real-life Flanker does that, too. The Russian fighter has simplified computer-assisted controls unlike today's newest generation fighters with 'carefree' handling characteristics. It's still a very capable aircraft, though, and the PFM makes it great to fly! It finally feels like flying a large, heavy, but powerful and agile airplane instead of just playing a video game :) Peace and happy warfare Ian
  22. It's always a good idea to use the very latest video card drivers, but when you find a 'good' one you like, hang onto it. Just rename the file to keep the version number and mark it good. That way if a newer one causes any problems you can go back to the earlier good one.
  23. Yes it's an alpha, but keep in mind that Vegas is extremely detailed scenery and flying over it (especially at high speeds) requires constant swapping of textures into and out of video memory. That's what's causing the stutters. Even today's modest video cards are incredibly fast--my inexpensive GTX 760 gives decent framerates over Vegas and excellent ones over the rest of the map, even with all graphics details maxed out. Problem is, it only has 2GB of video memory. Even some really expensive 900 series cards only have 4GB. While modern consumer graphics cards are unbelievably fast, they just don't have enough video RAM for a flight sim with ultra-detailed ground scenery. It's not just a question of throwing money at the problem by buying expensive hardware. Consumer video cards are designed for gaming, and most games don't involve quickly moving around in an enormous, highly detailed environment. You standard-issue Fallout, CoD, GTA etc. type games simply don't involve rapid enough movement around a very large map with right-to-the-horizon draw distances. DCSW2: very high map detail, high speed movement within the map, and *enormous* draw distances. This means that a lot more video memory is required than most other games and most consumer video cards don't have enough. The GPU itself is plenty fast enough though, driven by the market for 'twitchy' FPS games. Commonly available consumer cards can have over 2000 stream processors and run at over 1 GHz, but 4GB of video RAM is chosen for most popular gaming genres and highly-detailed flight simulation ain't one of them. The 2GB card I have is certainly nowhere near enough, but the actual GPU is just fast enough. The folks at ED will surely work on optimizing the code to deal with video memory issues and reduce stuttering, but keep in mind that they built DCSW2 around *killer* developer rigs and not consumer-grade gaming PCs. They probably have 12GB video cards if not more. Read:$$$! That's what I mean :) Peace and happy warfare Ian
  24. Interesting discussion going on here :) Actually, what I meant is that in the real 109K-4, pushing the throttle lever all the way forward raised manifold pressure to 1.8 ata. It still did it, even if the MW50 system was turned off. This would result in 'considerably shortened' engine life when running on B4 fuel because it would cause detonation. The only fuel modelled in the sim is B4, so the MW50 switch must be in the on position before applying full throttle and running 1.8 ata boost. You're right about C3 fuel, it would allow very high manifold pressures (and correspondingly high power levels) without MW50, but my best guess is that MW50 injection was much cheaper and more plentiful, and hence more practical, than filling every 109 up with C3 gasoline. Someone should write a bit of code to allow us to try flying our virtual 109K-4 at 2.3 ata boost :) Peace and happy warfare Ian
  25. I have a 2GB GTX 760, and find that while baseline framerates are decent, I'm always running into constant stuttering when flying over Vegas. It doesn't make any difference what graphics settings I use, although I have set ground land textures to Low. I can fly anywhere in the desert with very high framerates and no stuttering, but over Vegas, the sim hiccups every two or three seconds. Changing view distance doesn't make any difference, so I leave it on Extreme 'cause it looks best. It's a massive, complex chunk of ground scenery, and 2GB of video ram just does not cut it. Still looks spectacular though! Also, old CPUs now easily run the sim, thanks to the new graphics engine. My old Core 2 happily runs just about anything even at stock speed (3.0 GHz), and that includes big WW2 furballs with 40 planes in the air. I just needs a really hefty video card to fly over Lost Wages :) The only exception is the Ka-50, which requires very high core clock speeds to run decent framerates. I'd suspect the module itself uses some CPU rendering, which loads up the CPU heavily.
×
×
  • Create New...