Hasler

I don’t know if Walmart ships to Canada but trackir is in stock for 139usd. Also you won’t really ever get a price drop on CPUs. You can go back to 4770ks and they are still at MSRP where they are for in stock. You never get a benefit for buying previous gen intel.

Also of note your 6700 is very slow. 3.4ghz is not nearly fast enough to feed your GPU and do the physics calculations for the game. You really need to be at 4.8-5ghz on a skylake processor.

What exactly are you referring to. I have been using gsync and track IR for years with smooth game play in all games (il2, DCS, warthunder, BMS, ARMA). What is supposed to be deficient?

How are we going to recreate the Final Countdown without a zero

So depending on if it's the A or the B and which trap restriction you are using is going to effect this. The navy had two trap weights that it used for the F14 during its service 51,800lbs and 54,000lbs. So the F14B should be 50,596 lbs so depending on the era it either has 1200 or 3400lbs of fuel. The F14A will only come in at 48,916 so you get 2900lbs under the origional trap and 5100lbs under the relaxed weight So the only place it gets sketchy is the B with the origional trap weight. Though the wires can obviously handle the weight.

Depends on how much you want to pay. MFG crosswinds are quality but about double the price. Slaw device Vipers are wired to order and extremely expensive but are possibly the best rudders in the market. There are the new thrustmaster pedals that I don't know much about. Finally there are the CH products pedals. I personally went for the MFG crosswinds when my saitek pedals broke.

Didn't the Roosevelt get the same refit in 04. She operated F-14, admittedly the D, until they were retired. I don't see the big deal. I mean no lot 20 hornet ever flew off of the Stennis. Tomcats were in service, so in our ficticious war scenarios, CVW-7 and CVW-17's F-14Bs deployed with Stennis instead of the Kennedy or Washington.

Your half right. The RIO can shoot fox 1 and 3, but so can the pilot. The pilot has ultimate responsibility for the Aircraft. Who actually shoots is up to the crew.

You are comparing the wrong games to this sim. Arma has a game world that can be flown over in minutes. 200 sq mi for Altis vs 90,000 sq mi for DCS maps. The same holds true for gta 5, which looked cartoony to me but I digress. Those games do not ask the computer to do as many things either. Arma is an infantry sim that had other things added. You will never have the fidelity of physics, damage, sensor, and weapon modeling that you do in DCS. All of that takes up resources and will hit your frames in a way shallow pretty games don't. Even your 1 dedicated flight sim prepare is only a flight sim. It does not have the added combat systems layer modeled onto it. Face it your 1050ti is low end. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is out of its depth when playing overly complex games. A large Steel beasts scenario would bring your system to it knees. The same goes for the Witcher 3 at max, battlefield 1 at max, etc will put a lot of sub 60 pain on your card, and those don't even tax your overall system as much. I am not saying that this game is perfect, it's not, but your hardware setup is a compromise between cost and and visual fidelity.

A bit rusty. I have not done carrier OPS in a few years, and my rudder pedals are broke right now so that added a small extra layer of difficulty.

Unless your CO orders you. Capt. Crazy Bob (R.L. Leuschner) made his squadrons regularly do 6-0-2 1000nm missions. He was a huge fan of putting his crew through excercises as close to all out war as he could make them. By 6-0-2 I'm talking the standard convention of listing 54/7/9

Don't forget about Crazy Bob's CVW-11 in the 80s. He made his F-14s do regular 6-0-2 missions. Though from what I can tell he was the only one that ever forced that in training. Remember anything is allowed with command override.

Only because you broke a major rule of engagement.

I don't know why this is a debate. Simply search carrier OP's and snow. The thing is US equipment was designed to stop the Russian hoard from crossing the Fulda Gap. North Atlantic cruises were the norm as was guarding the GIUK gap and supporting Norway from the Russian Fleet. Some One in this thread also is under the mistaken impression the Apache was designed to fight in Iraq. It was made to kill Russian Armor in Germany. Most US equipment was not a fan of the desert.

So he did. Apparently this issue was broached 12 years ago in the Aces high forum. My bad for not catching it. I did find the NACA Report on the changes to the F4U's Lift coef. It shows a sharp leading edge installation that caused the Coef to go from 2.30 to 1.88 max lift. I am not sure that particular solution was ever actually installed. Its on pdf pg 16. On pg 20 the report talks about the lift coef going all the way down to 1.26 in service condition even after sealing. So if someone can figure out what the actual results of this report are it would be nice. [ame]http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1945/naca-report-829.pdf[/ame]