Jump to content

sobek

Members
  • Posts

    12402
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by sobek

  1. It will be different shaders and textures. What more could you want?
  2. That is how that term is usually used. I've been a programmer for 7 years now and nobody in the industry uses the terms like you do. That is a misconception. Just because an application is mutlithreaded doesn't mean that it needs a minimum number of cores to run. The operating system will manage the scheduling of threads even if there's only one core. You can test this by assigning all threads of DCS to one core. Performance will be abysmal but it's unlikely it would crash. In case of the CPU, the requirement is for performance reasons. An application won't crash just because it doesn't have a second CPU core to run on (unless it is very poorly designed, which is not the case for DCS).
  3. It really depends a LOT on what you are doing. If you have a pure computation load that is evenly spread over several threads with little IO, you're probably right.
  4. How is that not a good example? Evidently sometimes this is as long as it takes.
  5. They prioritized other sensors (TGP) that are more important to AG warfare.
  6. That's exactly what multithreading means. Hyperthreading is something different entirely as other users have explained.
  7. The reason why you are seeing no FPS difference in DCS by using hyperthreading is that the core thread singlehandedly saturates one CPU and that is your FPS cap. All the other threads use so little CPU that you can probably fit them into another core. If you were on a single core CPU with hyperthreading, you would see a difference. If you have more than one physical core, hyperthreading does nothing for DCS because the load is spread too unevenly over its threads.
  8. The F-16 and Mi-24 were "cancelled" too at some point.
  9. The JF-17 uses the ground radar API right now.
  10. Once the generator comes online, you can start powering up the avionics and start alignment. Using the stored heading mode, you can get down to 10 in about 1.5 minutes, then switch to normal alignment and you get down to 6 in about 2.1 minutes total.
  11. And what keeps you from using SRS until EDs solution has achieved feature parity? What would you want ED to improve about SRS? Are you aware that some things are simply not possible for ED using an external plugin?
  12. Watching the video my impression is that the actuation rate is rather correct, it's just that the pause between switching from full pos to full neg is longer than IRL.
  13. For me it happens with the CCIP mode of the rockets.
  14. Ok, i managed to reproduce it in a relatively short track. As i start cycling the waypoints in A-G mode, you can see on the HSD that they disappear, one after another. Unfortunately the track file is 28Mb, too large for the forum. https://www.dropbox.com/s/rcun3gmsubdznav/Waypoints.trk?dl=1
  15. Not sure if this is a bug or user error, but i've played a few times through the stock F-16 mission "Combat Training Mission- Home on the Range". Every time while i'm in A-G master mode and try to cycle through the steerpoints, the steerpoints start to vanish. Ultimately i end up with only 2 of the original steerpoints on the HSD. Is this a known bug or possibly user error? If it's not known, i'll provide a track.
  16. The Hornet altitude hold mode has a roll stabilization feature. If your roll is < 5° (not sure about the number, could be 2.5° as well) then it will actively take the plane to 0° roll. If you roll it above the threshold, you can release the stick and it will hold that.
  17. Yes, it has a larger aperture and more processing power. IDK how they compare with regard to power, but that alone should give the Hornet better aquisition range.
  18. Yes, but it causes torsional bending as opposed to the transversal flutter of the Sidewinder, because it's bigger and hence its center of gravity is much further forward.
  19. Possibly, yes, but it definitely reduces the service life of the wing.
  20. Well the issue is less that the guidance is bang-bang, but that it doesn't guide on a ballistic path. Instead it guides on a straight collision course, which is a problem when the line of sight is less steep than the bombs best achievable glide angle (which, owing to its small wings, isn't stellar to begin with). It wastes a lot of energy if it is allowed to guide immediately. The Paveway III dealt with both of these issues (it has proportional guidance and it guides onto a much more optimal flight path).
  21. I don't think that the burner runs up to the stoichiometric ratio @ sealevel.
  22. The laser designator usually has a max range depending on attenuation, which depends on atmospheric conditions. Above that range, too little laser energy is reflected by the target for the bomb to pick up. Not sure if DCS models a max range for the laser designator though.
×
×
  • Create New...