CyBerkut

No toe brakes on the Black Shark, but having them on there won't hurt anything if you just leave those inputs disabled in the axis settings. You'll be glad to have them later on for A-10, and/or other fixed wing aircraft. If your main purpose (if you buy pedals) is for DCS:BS, then you could always just use a set of USB pedals. The analog game port input for pedals on the Cougar is nice if you are playing a game/sim that only recognizes a single game controller... but that is pretty much older games. DCS:BS, like most newer sims/games will recognize multiple USB controllers.

Flyby, I've been watching your investigation into this (and chiming in a bit). Obviously there are a number of ways to prioritize things for arriving at a decision. I guess I would view it like this: With what is currently available, if you can afford it, an i7 based rig is going to get you further down the road (time-wise) before you find yourself saying, "Man, I wish I had that [fill in the blank] capability." Things like the DDR3 RAM and the Cores/threads aren't getting fully utilized yet, but that is where the hardware makers have turned to get more performance. The software creators that want to get more performance are going to have to write their apps to capitalize on that hardware. It just comes down to how long before they get there. I'm not saying that is the "best bang for the buck" for the present. You have to ask yourself, do I want to buy something that I can live with/expand/upgrade incrementally for a longer time... or spend less now, and plan on buying a replacement sooner... ? Ain't technology fun? ;)

DCS:BS has a FFB signal for the rudder. To check it for yourself, temporarily set a FFB Joystick's X or Y axis as the rudder control in DCS:BS, and then do some trimming. :joystick:

Speed, this posting mught give you some insight: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=741359&postcount=5

:megalol: @ Endo's physics lesson. So, is ED going to add a load sensor option into the next patch (or export routines) for the pit builders so that pilot weight can be factored into the flight model?

LOS = Line Of Sight In radio, the higher the frequency band (aka shorter the wavelength), the lesser the ability to propagate around objects. At high enough frequencies, you reach a point where you need to have a straight shot (LOS) between the antennas that are communicating. The higher you go in frequency, the less tolerant it gets of 'stuff' in the transmission path.

Oh, you dawg! I know I don't have to ask if you had fun. Pick up any spiffy ideas or tricks?

:thumbup: I'll second that. Nice! :thumbup:

Rumor has it that Leo Bodnar is back up and filling orders: http://www.leobodnar.com/ His site is up. As to how responsive he is at the moment, I couldn't say.

Hmmm... I can see it now. Wanted: SWF who enjoys Combat Flight Simulations. Other game genres a plus! Doesn't need to be "runway model" thin, but must be able to sit in homebuilt sim pit without breaking the ejector seat. Must have own computer. Please send picture of computer.

Well, as you essentially say, the internet isn't a good representation of the general population. After all, the people who have their cards work just fine are probably less likely to write about that trouble-free experience... it's not as interesting in most cases. I couldn't give you a good feel for how 'normal' it is to have video card failures. I know it's not something that I hear a lot about from my online buddies. I didn't see much of it back when I had an ISP business that was also doing computer repair... but then, most of those machines were not on the higher end of the performance spectrum. Considering the various things that can wrong with the technology, I don't think it is all that surprising to see failures... but it would be a 'big whoop' to me if it happened to *my* machine. :(

Since you don't intend for the stick twist to be an input, I would recommend disabling that in the DCS:BS options - axis inputs. There is no benefit to leaving it enabled, only the possible downside. :joystick:

Physically different, yes. Programming-wise, not so much. Being able to access multiple processors, whether they are multiple cores on one CPU die, or spread out on multiple CPU dies is going to be a function of CPUs, mobos, and an Operating System designed to support it. The i7 is not suited to running multiple i7's on a single multi-socketed mobo. Unlike the Xeon, the i7 is not designed to support it. IIRC, the Xeon has two QPI enabled, while the i7 only has one. Given a proper combo of hardware and OS, the application authors either write their apps to take adavantage of the available cores (however many CPU dies they exist within), or they don't. Currently, not many do, but the number will go up over time. How long it will take to reach gaiming remains to be seen. I think competitive pressures (and perhaps some developer's thirst for performance out of love for the game/sim) will bring it about in the not so distant future. I wouldn't be surprised to see it within the next 3 years, although that is just a SWAG.

I don't know much about that Steel Battalion controller... but your best bet may be to get one of Leo Bodnar's boards (or something similar) and wire the various switches and pots to that, to make it a USB device. Alternatively, if you can pick up a used HOTAS from someone, you could look at wiring the pots and switches to its board(s) instead. In that case, you don't care if the old HOTAS has failed switches or pots... you just want the circuit board(s) and cable(s).

Multiple choice: a. Some software (few games, atm, admittedly) can utilize multiple cores / multiple threads. Presumably, they would do they same, at least in most of those case, with multiple processors in multiple sockets. b. Me recoding? No. However, the clear overiding trend in PC hardware is multiple core / multiple threading. With that being the case, what are the software producers going to do? If they wish to offer competitive products, they are going to have to get on the parallel processing development bandwagon. (Either that, or write incredibly tight code in Assembler that can run like a scalded dog on one core... and that ain't going to happen in the gaming world since the development cycle has to be short enough to compete). - Keep in mind, in my case, my upcoming desktop purchase is not going to be solely for DCS:BS as it currently stands. I play other games/ genres and I also think that with ED obviously being in this for the long haul, that we will eventually see DCS more capably exploiting the hardware. There are inefficiencies in the use of multiple GPUs, just as there are in the use of multiple CPUs. I understand that when I buy something with two processors, it is not going to be twice as effective as only one of the same processors. I'm OK with that. If it is enough of an improvement to appeal to me, I want it and can afford it, then I'll do what I can with it. Those of you with eagle eyes will keep holding the manufacturer's feet to the flames, and they will keep striving to improve to earn your future dollars (or perhaps just to shut you up, but I'm guessing it's the $$$ ;) ). As someone who remembers what he spent on building his first PC back in 1983, and who remains mindful of what we managed to get men to the moon with... I'm pretty friggin' happy with what I'm able to get my hands on these days. As for SLI, I may not use it... but I also want to keep my options open. Currently, I'm thinking of going with an nVidia GTX295, but not so much for the SLI as for the three outputs. The 2 DVI and the HDMI (with an adapter) can feed three monitors without using a Matrox TH2Go. I'll probably try the SLI with a single monitor first to see how I like it, but I think I keep hearing two more monitors calling my name... I'm definitely looking hardest at some sort of i7. I've seen more pricing info, etc. on the Xeon stuff since that earlier post... Short of hitting the lottery, I can't see myself spending that much on my rig anytime soon. Especially with it (Xeons and dual CPU mobo) not being really designed for gaming. ATM, going up a notch higher than the 920, with water cooling on the CPU (probably Asetek) is looking pretty good. With DCS:BS in its current state, it appears that clock rate (more than cores) is the main key to the best performance in that program. Between the future, and other things I do, I still want plenty of cores / threads, though. So, if I can afford it when the purchase time comes, a fast, OC'd, water cooled i7 looks like the ticket. Of course, by the time I'm ready to buy, we may have a 6 core / 12 thread offering out there to look at... :)

Triggerhappy posted on a possible source for Suncom Hotas some time ago... http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=474700&postcount=306

I fully expect that running DCS:BS in a virtual machine would be a performance hit. But if it would run at all, it would then be interesting to see what could be done with a cluster of linux machines running it in a VM. I don't know if the cluster could be made to share the load of executing the code, etc. If so, there's a lot of older hardware sitting around that could be networked together... ;) If nothing else, it might work for hosting a dedicated server (I'm assuming the graphics can be turned way down on a server...)

It would be interesting to see (hear) if someone made it run in a virtual machine ( VMWare / Xen / ... ). If it would work, I'd love to know what kind of performance hit it would be, as compared to running it straight under Windows.

They have a nice little overview of the Intel lineup: http://en.expreview.com/2009/08/11/a-simple-way-to-distinguish-intels-core-i3-i5-and-i7.html Ayup, i7-13xx is looking like the way to go. (of course, if I hit the lottery...) ;)

Nice! Good article on Xeon W5590 at the moment.

I think that article indicated that a 6 core i7 was anticipated in the 1st half of 2010. That seems reasonable. Got a good link on the upcoming nVidia card(s) and projected release dates?

In actuality, I found the file on my system, then did a forum search for that file name. Lo and behold, there you were! So, I gave you that link for your entertainment. :)

The OneTouch looks better. Sturdier, and clean. :thumbup:

Good decision, I would say.

Good link! Thx for passing that along. Now I see why you were that interested in the Lynnfield (i5) chip. ATM, I'm still leaning toward the i7, as it appears to better support some things that I'm interested in (ie. SLI) and an upgrade path to 6 cores/12 threads on the 2010 horizon. If I could convince myself that it would work out right, I'd entertain the option of building on a dual socket mobo with a Xeon processor or two. I haven't looked at how astronomical the pricing on that would be yet... I probably wouldn't do it, unless I came across some good articles on how someone else did it for gaming machines... getting too far off the beaten path can be painful.