EtherealN

Something to remember: in a turbofan (like on the A-10), most of the thrust is actually not from the "jet" itself. A turbofan has two parts: 1) "The jet", this is where air enters the engine, gets compressed, meets jet fuel, is ignited, and the added energy both drives the fan and of course gives thrust as it is expelled. 2) "The fan", this also doubles as intake for the compressor of "the jet", but most of the air pulled in by the fan never enters the actual "jet engine", it just gets pushed back same way a propeller does. On the A-10 it's a "high bypass" turbofan engine - that is, most of the air pulled in never enters the engine proper. In the case of a "turboprop", you have the "jet engine" part, but instead of it being integrated with a fan and a shroud, you are using it to drive a conventional propeller. The Pucara actually has the same type of actual powerplant as does, say, the A-10C or the F-15 - and for that matter, the Ka-50. The difference is what exactly you do with it.

For those of you that are curious for another look at how the "nuts and bolts" of a computer works. Quite awesome. :)

The post by Matt linked in the OP is a bit old. I refer you to the updated EULA, specifically 3.4 (Section 3 being "Licence Conditions"): 3.4 Video production by you using DCS products is allowed for Youtube advertisement revenue generation. You can find this in the documents folder of your install (note: the install location on your drive, not the start menu), in license_en.txt. Surely an explicit mention of youtube advertisement revenue in the DCS World EULA _must_ be sufficient for them? :P (Though, knowing YouTube... who knows. I remember Scott Manley talking about how he had to fight with them to keep monetization on a video he made that was 100% original content (an asteroid detection animation he himself developed based on historical data, that some other people nabbed, redubbed, uploaded and then claimed was theirs...).)

Don't worry, I can charge you a competitive rate to assemble it for you. :D

Infrastructure has been expanded and relocated since then. You should see the tickets from people saying FC is too complicated from people that wanted a modern War Thunder. :D I've had multiple actual Vietnam Huey pilots in support writing tickets simply to give thanks for the most realistic simulation of that bird ever, putting them right back into their younger days of service. There is also the P-51D and Mi-8. Saying that there's no high-fidelity modules happening is therefore a bit weird, since the majority of modules released are precisely that - full study sims. :) The "problem", if such a thing exists, is that simulations in the style of Ka-50 and A-10C take a LOT of time to make. In the case of the F-18C, we're suddenly also dealing with A2A-radar at that level of fidelty, including ground mapping and all of that jazz. That's a lot of new stuff that has to happen. Now recall that the A-10C and Ka-50 both took a LONG time to make.

If I get my way, no worries, it'll be a dual deployment on Dx11 and Dx12... :D (and before anyone takes this seriously: IM JOKING!) :D

What he means is that he posted it in the DCS Wishlist section, but I moved it. ;) (It is, however, still in the Wishlist section as a "moved" link, for two days.)

No comment. :D

Or that. Things will however depend on what the requirements for Dx12 are. The key reason why people ship games with both Dx9 and Dx11 is that they want some of the features of Dx11 (in some cases simply the increased performance), but also want to ensure that people running older versions of Windows or simply older hardware are able to run the game. If Dx12 ends up having only the same hardware requirements that Dx11 has, then it might be more relevant to have Dx9 and Dx12, with 11 omitted. But with a timeframe of almost two years before we are to expect to see games using it, I suspect a lot of things can happen there. But do recall that key point: you don't only need support in OS. You need customer hardware to be compatible too. Hopefully Microsoft won't leverage Dx12 in another vain attempt to push a new OS, but well... :P

Yeah, it was revealed, not released. :D But yeah, nice to see that they're set to put up a fight against Mantle. But I'd be careful with listening to the hype. Also, regarding multi-CPU, note that this only applies to the Dx-related code; that is, audio, video and input. In the case of DCS, the problem in the current version of DCS World is that the simulation engine and rendering engine runs in the same thread. Switching to DX12's featureset would in that case simply not do anything. ...but that's all a bit academic, since there is that new rendering engine being worked on. We'd have to see how that works out in release code before it's really useful to speculate about the gains possible from moving to Dx12.

Depends on how easy it is to transition a renderer for it. There are games that ship with multiple render paths. However, this greatly depends on design; if you first design your game engine with a specific feature-set in mind, it can be very complicated to move it. But if you design for both, you can for example ship with both Dx9 and Dx11 render paths.

I think "release" is a bit of an exhaggeration. It has been shown at a developer conference. :P "Microsoft didn't give a specific date for DirectX 12-powered software, but estimated a "holiday 2015" window for games to ship using the API."

Don't you mean reflect "light" (as in, visible light)? The key being that snow reflects light in the same wavelengths they came in at ("white"), being also the wavelengths that do not get trapped by atmospheric gases (doh, since they did come in). The big deal with grenhouse gases is that they capture the radiation emitted from the earth, rather than the radiation incoming from the sun or reflected from the sun (like Snow does). The deal with CO2 (and some others, like methane) is that light comes in from the sun straight through them, gets absorbed (not reflected) by materiel on the ground, then gets re-emitted in a different wavelength ("heat") which in turn gets absorbed by the CO2, causing the energy that came in to "stay" longer. That is, there's a very key difference between reflection and re-emission.

Regarding activations: it is the COMPUTER that is activated, not the INSTALL. You can, literally, reinstall an infinite amount of times without it costing an installation, if it is on the same computer. (Note: reinstalling OS does, for technical reasons, look the same as a "new computer".) You may get asked to put in your serial number(s), but usually they will in this case simply check the database for hardware hash and then tell you that you are already activated and thus put the relevant registry entries in without deducting an activation from your serial number.

Yeah, Thunderf00t did a fun teardown of that one. :) Not that one is really needed when on a site called "spirit science and metaphysics". :D

That sounds... dubious... Since I know what winter looks like at high latitude, and can inform you that the trees end up white during winter. :P (We have more evergreens up here, which catch the snow more efficiently.) However, a known effect is that some types of FOREST (as in, whole localized ecosystems) are carbon-neutral since the plants involved promote certain types of animal and microbial life that causes the carbon cycle to get more localized; the CO2 emitted by other life is used by the plant life promoted by the trees, which emits a net Oxygen that in turn is used by the other animal life. From memory, rainforest is an example of this; you cannot offset a net CO2 emission in Europe through preserving rainforest in the Amazon. Another possibility is the risk of monocultures; forests in northern and western europe are, for example, heavily cultivated - we have almost no untouched woodlands. So where there used to be a diversity of trees and associated diversity of other plant and animal life, we've got what could be called an artificial set of monocoltures (one type of tree, one type of fungus, etcetera etcetera) that might not give the same balances. All of that said, it's not like a net CO2 emission is in itself bad. Between natural emitters and natural absorbants, we actually have a pretty big margin where we can emit fossil CO2 without increasing CO2 concentration. The problem is just that we are now at a place where our emissions are way above that margin. :P

I saw the components, and they're familiar. :) 1) Not accepting anthropogenic climate change, except in a "localized" manner. 2) Talk about heat islands. That's pretty much par for what we hear a lot of from cranks. And besides, you know what one of my diatribes look like. They're a couple pages longer than that. ;) But you could always elaborate your position and thus give me more to comment on. I would be intrigued. :D

Yeah, but when my typical trip to a client is between 400 and 600km, spending 30 minutes halfway to "fill up" isn't helpful. And having to do it yet again afterwards isn't either. At the same time, the gas car gets 1000km on a tank that takes 2 minutes to fill... Like I said, if I was just commuting to an office downtown, that would be no issue for me. But as-is, no way. (Though, tbh, if I was just commuting to an office nearby, I'd probably get one of those cute moped-cars, or an electric similar.)

Yeah, and serious, active, scientists control for that in measurements. It is irrelevant to climate science. (This all stems from a crank canard about weather stations getting "swallowed" by the expansion of cities, but fails an important point: it is controlled for (scientists know to evaluate the location of data points) and key temp data is, since a good couple decades, made with location-independent equipment like this thing called "satellites". ;) ) Heat islands isn't "climate". It's "Heat Islands".

For me, the big deal is recharging. It needs to be way faster than it is today for an electric to be practical for me. Hybrids could "solve" that, but they just don't convince me as far as efficiency goes, dragging an "extra" power plant along. If I had the money to buy a Tesla just for joyrides... now that would be different. :P

Localized climate change? Wha? :P Anyway, Ragnar said what I wanted to have said, so... :)

Trees emit Oxygen. :P Or do you mean when burning them down?

However, who actually SCRAPS their old car when they buy a new one? Usually, they end up re-sold to a new owner and continues to be used. Also, very few people actually have the money to replace a perfectly functional car with something else just because it's new. They replace when they have to, and if possible sell the old one. And when replacing, it's nice to replace it with something that is "good" for the environment. But that said, yeah, those hybrids are awful. I'd much rather take an electric myself, but unfortuantely the batteries aren't quite there yet for me, since I often go 400km+ and sometimes 600km+ to get to a client. But if I was a regular joe with just an office commute, I'd totally go for something nicely electric. (Our grid being 50% nuclear and 50% hydro, roughly - there's some gas and coal on peak hours etc - that's a pretty nice carbon footprint of almost zero to drive it. :P ) Electric cars do however get completely farcical in countries that still rely heavily on fossil fuels for their grid. It's like, instead of burning gasoline in the car, you'll instead burn coal and oil someplace completely different and deal with efficiency losses across miles and miles of wire to get the energy into the car. And then you'll feel all cool and green because you drive electric. :D

As observed by previous posters, the problem is highlighted. That graphics card is not made for games, it's made to (barely) run a windows desktop and (barely) display Netflix and Youtube content. You're looking at roughly a tenth of the permformance of even a mid-range gaming card. In fact, it is just a renamed GT520, a three years old card that was "bad" (for gaming) even on the day of release. It does give about double the raw compute power than has the integrated graphics cirquit in the I7-2600, but unfortunately that is like saying an automobile is twice as fast as a tractor. It might be better, but you're still not going to the racing cirquit with it. You will have to get a new graphics card to play games that are recent. (It should serve as a warning bell that you get only acceptable performance in the original Black Shark, considering that BS1 was released in 2008.) To give solid advice on that front, it would be helpful to know these components of your computer: - Motherboard - Power Supply Unit (PSU) - Computer chassis. (The critical info is how much room exists around the PCI-Express ports; if it's a really small chassis, some cards might simply not fit inside, and we want to be sure you don't end up buying a card and then not being able to fit it inside the computer.) As a general guide to nVidia graphics card naming, btw, you want to analyze the digits. Nowadays there's three, in your case "610". The first digit is basically "generation", but this is often just marketing lingo. A 6th gen GPU might just be the same chip as a 5th gen. And two cards that both have 6th gen designation might be running completely different silicon. The second digit is the important thing; it places it in the market segments; higher number indicates more performance. And 1 is the lowest number used. (Although they did release some 605's to OEMs, which are rebranded 510's.) The third digit is there to allow some special gizmoes sometimes, sometimes to indicate it's a dual-card (has two GPU's on it), sometimes that it's a minor revision that fits between two of the normal performance slots. Most of the time, like here, you'll see things bump down in the second department. I am using a GTX560Ti (the Ti is another hard-to explain designator they use, it's better than the 560, but was actually released before the 560; no-one understands the logic of hardware marketers). In 6th-gen lingo, that would probably be somewhere around equivalent to a 650. In 7th gen, probably somewhere around equivalent to a 740. However, do note that this is just a rough guide, things can change radically depending on when they change chip technologies and so on, and often the lower half of the segment will be running old chips and the upper half will run something completely different that might make such comparisons go wide off the mark. But if you don't have the energy to dig into the gritty details of how the chips work, that should be a useful approximation. My instinct is that a 760 or something similar to that would probably be about right for you. It should run the simulator better than my card does (and I run it with almost everything maxed, though not quite everything), and won't cost very much either.

Cyrillic is easy. Russian words are easy. It is the conjugations and grammar stuff that will mess you up like almost no other language on the planet. :p