ruprecht

Thanks, I'll look into that. Ah, I was wondering if your infinite volume theory was actual empirical knowledge of the engine or something theoretical. It seems like the latter. My issue with what you've said here is that you make the assumption that the FOV is a triangle with the distance from the apex to the (straight) base equal to the view distance. If you rather visualise it as a wedge of a circle, not a triangle, with the radius equal to the view distance, I believe that's a more accurate representation. As the FOV approaches 180 deg, the render view is simply approaching half a circle, and you can go beyond 180 without having your "greater than infinity" problem. If there's any empirical data that suggests that approaching or exceeding 180 FOV on a single screen crumps framerate (as you'd expect, as computers don't deal with infinity very well) I'd be happy to be told I'm wrong, but my own experience with a TH2G and 200 FOV would disagree. I'm sure that three-view rather than a wide single view gives better and undistorted perspective, but you've still got the problem of looking at a monitor in your 11 o'clock which is displaying from 9 to 11. Unless you actually mount the screen at 10 oclock (which would need very big screens) it looks wierd. That's why I went from 3-view to super wide 1 view. With a TrackIR, the super wide 1-view gives you a good sense of peripheral vision, and simply turning your head corrects any perspective issues for things you want to focus on. $0.02

And... woot. I got one. Working on the software now. SDK only provides a C/C++ .lib and header, no .dll, so is a bit tricksy to use from C# .Net. Pretty sweet bit of kit though.

http://www.thermalright.com/new_a_page/product_page/cpu/u120ex/product_cpu_cooler_u120ex.htm Best air cooler on the market, bar none.

Didn't realise that about the infinite volume? I have fov set to 200 - is that going to be causing me these "infinite volume" issues? Which file did you change, and how, to adjust the head position back? TBH that seems a little weak to be running at that resolution and detail level. I'm surprised you get the FPS you do. I found I actually got better performance from a single 9800GTX+ head with a TH2G than I did with the same 9800GTX+ and an 8800GTX, on 3 separate heads. Something to do with the PCIe pipelines I think. I dropped my resolution from the native 3x1680x1050 to 3x1280x768. Makes a nice difference to FPS. If that helps. Also, overclock your CPU if it's running stock - with that CPU you should be able to get 3.6GHz+ easy on air. Note my thread here where I went through similar trial and error: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=37491

Started saving for it. That's my new HOTAS if it's everything it seems.

Clever of Saitek - now folks will think twice about getting the Logitech stick with the promise of a better Saitek around the corner. I know I'm not buying anything until the Saitek is out and reviewed!

Has anybody figured out how to get the current Indicated Airspeed, or Groundspeed, from the new Lua? The IAS device (MainPanel 51) gives indicated airspeed, but it's in the range 0.0-1.0 which I assume is then translated to angular rotation of the gauge pointer. If it's available in M/S or knots that would be much better. Cheers

Bog standard Press'n'Peel blue. I used to get rubbish results too, but I switched from using the iron to clamping it in the oven for 30 minutes. Much, much tidier, and that's using .03in traces (and the writing is obviously much smaller than that too). Described it here: http://pitblog.radsy.com/archives/00000242.htm

Yup - it's a lot more intimidating than it is difficult once you've done it a couple of times. The actual toner transfer and etching is more art than science and needs a bit of trial and error. "Electronics" stores are more likely to be staffed with disinterested part time college students now, who wouldn't know a resistor from a microcontroller. Dick Smiths in Oz has gone a bit that way, but we're lucky that Jaycar still seems to make sure a few actual enthusiasts are on staff.

1. ensure you have AA or AA-HOA selected, laser on 2. use HMS on a wide angle Shkval and appropriate cage size to get your coarse picture. hold uncage as you position the HMS reticle over the target, then release and quickly designate 3. slew for fine correction and lock 4. Pedals to keep nose on target 5. Vikhr over 800m or HE gun below 800m

I don't speak for all pitbuilders, but for me it's not about making you more effective in a dogfight. It's a reward all in itself and in some respects completely separate from the sim. For me it's all about that little evil giggle when you build something unique and it works. It's similar to tabletop wargamers - having a beautifully painted army doesn't make you a better tactician, but that's not the point.

Confirmed working well, I can get the slip ball data now from the MainPanel arg 108. The old LoGetSlipBallPosition method doesn't work (if it ever did, I'm not sure).

You mean this? :music_whistling:

http://www.servolink.com/

Just completed the PhidgetLED64 lamp driver board for my targeting mode control panel and master caution lamp.

And Australia/new Zealand?

Can you post some screenshots showing that things that are rendered on your centre screen are not rendered on your side screens when you do nothing but turn your head? What do you mean by "not rendered very well"? I suspect what you are seeing is an LOD issue, where units are replaced by low-poly "blocks" under certain conditions, and it's possible that very wide aspects are not properly considered by the engine when determining what is outside the FOV for LOD rendering?

Formski, no it's not possible in my experience. You're stuck with your 1280x176 dead space.

Mission designers can enforce all sorts of realism options to ensure a level playing field Poko. There's no reason why an infallible laser option couldn't be enforced off for multiplayer if it came to that. Why not include it? Not everyone plays PvP.

Looks like we've got some updating to do.

glurglhglurglh that's me drooling on my laptop.

Then I shall consider myself thoroughly appreciated :D Re the Ka-50 and A10C, you're probably right. I guess I missed the discussion. Re carrier ops, I dunno, has it been discussed at length?

Thanks for setting me straight GG, with your usual tact and diplomacy! I guess then that given the limited number of nations that operate carriers, we are unlikely to see anything on the carrier ops front any time soon.

Oh and can we please have Australia added to the list of coalitions? As much as I love my Canadian cousins, it just ain't the same!

This is partly what I was wondering about. I think (and obviously ED know their business better than me) that there's less commercial/military benefit to the specific aircraft types as there is to the aircraft roles. So rather than focusing on a Ka-50 sim, they focused on a combat helo sim and chose the most appropriate aircraft for that role. For the next module, they decided on fixed-wing CAS first, and the A10C second as the most sensible choice within that role. So the question becomes: what next? As a scenario, high fidelity carrier ops is an untouched market (though possibly for good reason!). Is that more appealing than multirole land-based fixed wing, where the market is already flooded? Or more so than another combat helo, the Apache? I don't know, but I hope so (as much as I'd love to try the Apache, I'd take carrier ops first in a heartbeat). If high fidelity carrier ops is decided as a scenario, do you go attack, fighter or multirole? Multirole would seem to be the obvious choice for flexibility, which leans to SU-33 or F/A-18 as the "people's choice". But I'd still love to see an Intruder, Tomcat or even a Skyhawk :)