EtherealN

On purpose. Imagine the fun of trying to secure license to using every hotel/casino's trademark... ;)

Sure, but is there also any proof that nVidia has been blocking it?

Unfortunately not, but as long as you're not specifically looking for the "shadow" function, have you checked out Xsplit? I've used that a good bit. Directly integrated to streaming solutions, and also supports saving video to disk, automatic youtube uploads and so on. It is however payware, and if the shadow function is what you specifically want it won't do it for you.

Sie können es als download kaufen: http://www.amazon.com/Ubisoft-40610Lock-On2-Lock-Download/dp/B004R1QCBY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1389413501&sr=8-1&keywords=lock+on+modern+air+combat

nVidia is a member of the VESA governing body, and the slowness of DP1.3 development and adoption is one of the reasons they've done this. The fact that eDP has it - and has had it for a while - but no-one from VESA to manufacturers cared to bother about desktop implementation can serve as a hint there. You could just as easily turn this argument against AMD: they didn't do anything to push this through VESA, but when nVidia takes it into their own hands AMD tries to take credit for already having the feature by obfuscating that what they're using is actually not something they did, and something they also failed to push through for desktop monitors. It's simple really: developers of the chips used in desktop monitors were slow as heck and just didn't do it. nVidia had the feature ready in their cards, but no customers could use it because of this fact. So they made it happen with their own chip. How is this evil?

Also note that your Windows Vista license may actually be valid for a 64-bit version too (you'd have to check the license you have specifically, but most are). That way you could get your OS updated without extra cost, and only have the RAM issue as far as real money goes. Otherwise, you would have to install an old version of DCS World, or get a new computer to run the current versions.

No. The key difference, as explained in that article actually, is that AMD's solution relies on eDP - which common desktop monitors do not use. As the article also states: "As it stands today, the only way to get variable refresh gaming technology on the PC is to use NVIDIA's G-Sync enabled monitors and GeForce graphics cards." G-Sync will probably become obsolete at some point in the future, but that's different. Monitors with G-Sync give you the capability today, rather than having to wait for DP1,3-enabled cards and monitors.

I realize you are new, but you might want to ask around about, for example, the Black Shark 2 release. Funny how you use the term "blindside"; I recall most people felt completely blindsided by that release. ;) Seriously, ED has stated several times that work is ongoing on the 18C. So that's what is happening. If you want to say something else, you'll be asked for sources to back you up. And to continue a bit with the example of DCS P-51D: Announced: 21st of January 2012. Released to pre-orders: 29th of April, 2012. Do you seriously think ED got from nothing to flyable public beta in 4 months? ;) And what is happening here? :) Though, if you prefer it, you can get some other things on the banner. Yes, I know reading the site in russian would probably not be helpful to you. My point however is that all the units on the banner are actually in the game. They are however not there to show you what is flyable, that happens below. It's just a decorative banner on a website, don't look into it too much. :)

Don't know for sure, but you can always take a backup of the existing one, and then try it. If it doesn't work, just revert the change.

Actually, what you said was not just that, but also that ED "havent even started on it yet." That would have been a claim that would have to be supported. There's a difference between "don't expect information" and "we haven't started". Telling you not to expect new information on it means don't expect new information on it. ;)

Ooops, you are right. You responded to a response to the guy that did make that statement, and I got confused. Please accept my apologies.

Actually, "fanboys" asked you to back up the claim that ED hasn't even started on the 18C. I know this to factually incorrect, but unfortunately I can't give details (NDA etc). For now, you can refer to previous statements by Matt that development has started. My point is that having a long time go from something being "admitted" to being in existance to being shown parts of it is, unless you are working for a contracted publisher on the project, completely standard. These things take time, and there is a LOT of stuff that needs to be done that doesn't necessarily show themselves in nice WIP screenshots and such. In actual fact, MOST of the work for something like the 18C is stuff that is under the hood*. And other parts are things you could perhaps see if you knew what to look for since some aspects might require updates to DCS World itself, meaning that you might actually see parts of the development already in action - you just don't know (and neither do I, to be clear, I don't even have to cite NDA there) that they were spawned as a requirement for the 18C. Example I could take would be Combined Arms. Looks like it's just a UI on top of what's already there, right? No, actually, in order to even be possible, the entire netcode had to be overhauled... Basic point: if you state as fact that ED hasn't even started on the 18C, yes, back that up. Not being shown does not mean nothing has happened. That's what I'm getting at. *I'll venture for this example: how do you want ED to show samples of work in engine simulation, hydraulics, electronics etcetera? Until it's all done, all you'd at best get to see is graphs of in-vitro runs of the models during their various stages of development before they even end up in an actual DCS module. And for a lot of reasons, including protecting against industrial espionage and guarding against the competition, that's just not fit for public dissemination.

Sticky thread in this same section: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1560143 :) But yeah, I updated the sticky's title to be more inclusive.

Quick set of hints: Did you know that most game development projects aren't even admitted to being in existence for the first 2-3 years of their development? Did you think BST went from nothing at UH-1 release to flyable Mi-8 THAT fast? There was NOTHING made on the Mi-8 until it was announced? Do NOT expect statements or info for _at least_ the first half of a game project's development cycle. For most, what you'll get until it is almost done is "yeah, we're doing something". (One example that is ongoing: Blizzard has been working on a new MMORPG for some 5-6 years minimum. All we know is that yeah, they've been doing that. And even that simple fact is a relatively recent "admission". :P Many other devs will "admit" to working on "something" through having a "Game X" or similar in their list of projects.) However, when you state as fact that ED hasn't even "started"... You will be called on that. Because there you are advertising that you yourself have exclusive knowledge. ;)

Occasionally? That's one hell of a rare occurance. :P

Thankyou, I have asked for this to be looked into. Unfortunately it is currently christmas holidays in russia, but I'll try to get it handled if there is a problem.

Part of good troubleshooting is also to understand how the software works - including the OS. One of the major landmarks Microsoft finally crossed, starting with Vista and doing even better in 7, is to segregate applications from the OS itself. This is helped by architectures taken from the server OS world, where you really do not want an application to be able to bring down the system, no matter what. In the case of later versions of windows, it was done through moving certain things out of "Kernelspace" and into "Userland". For example drivers and the calls made from applications to said drivers. (This is why you no longer have to reboot your computer to update a graphics driver.) Be that as it may, however, if you were to have a crash file or be able to find the crash through windows event viewer, this would be very helpful in discerning the cause. A DxDiag output file could also be helpful, just to check drivers and suchlike without having to ask for each one.

Quite possibly my shortest post ever. :D

No.

When a hard reset is needed, this is most likely a driver or hardware error. Not having the same issue with other applications does unfortunately not fully eliminate this, since different applications will do things different ways, so it is fully possible for one application to trigger a fault than no others does. Do you have any crash logs? If not, you should be able to retrieve entries with the same information from windows Event Viewer.

To be more precise: it is a CAS aircraft; Close Air Support. Radars are not quite as useful there, especially since the optical Mavs do already offer fire-and-forget capability - and actually even better such capability as far as EMCON goes. Radar tech has progressed since then, and they can be more useful now than they were back then, but for CAS you would still be relying on a FAC (Forward Air Controller) towards ensuring that your weapons go where the ground troopers want them. Since the CAS scenario typically entail dropping munitions onto positions in very close proximity to your own ground forces, having a radar would not remove the need for said FAC direction; especially since you will often be engaging hostile infantry, not just tanks. Real-world A-10C engagement:

Didn't notice the fact that Su-27 and F-15 are getting AFM's, got new cockpits etcetera? :) Take a look through the current flyables, and the in-development stuff. And remember: if you want to argue that a lot of the in-development stuff is third parties... the Mi-8 and UH-1H were both developed by a third party. ;)

A couple points: Distributors are not Publishers. (Though some companies do both: EA is an example.) Also, depending on the contract, you can have full control over your own QA etc while still having both a Publisher and a Distributor. The "funky" stuff happens when it's the Publisher that paid for the development and thus assumed the financial risk. TFC does contract out to various publishers when it comes to getting the DVD copies into stores, simply because it's not big enough to maintain a network of contacts all over the world. Also, be careful with assuming too much with the age of downloadables; most of DICE's sales (for example) happen through normal stores. I could imagine that on the PC market the digital distribution model is a big player, but don't ignore the massive role of consoles in DICE's bottom line. There is also an issue regarding having marketing staff in a development company; unless your dev company is HUGE and put out games constantly (think Blizzard), you'll have a lot of time where said marketing staff doesn't have much to do. This means you can't pay them very well. This means the good marketers will get snatched up by those companies (usually publishers) that does have a use for them constantly. Another example would be animators; depending on the type of product you're making, you may or may not have use for animation staff throughout your dev cycle. But if you don't, and you want a few good movies, you either hook up through the publisher, or subcontract it. (Another case that happens is for ports; if you want consoles (or PC) as a nice little bonus, your own staff may not be best placed to do the port - so to avoid crappy ports you contract out to a specialized porting company.)

Agreed. I've been drooling for a new computer for a while, but sadly I still can't quite justify buying something new when what I have still has this annoying habit of just working. :( But the minute I start having real performance issues in any game I play, oh man I'll look forward to that "new computer smell". :D

Too long since I checked out the F-14 in anything resembling detail, but if my memory is correct the big difference between F-15E and (at least) F-14A is that the former can be fully operated from any seat if you want to, whereas the latter requires two people. Hopefully someone knows the F-14 and it's variants well enough to give a confirm/deny there. But basically, if that is the case, the F-14 module would either be multiplayer-only, or there would have to be a pretty huge job done on the AI, or there would have to be some pretty ugly shortcuts taken in design. That is a bit different compared to aircraft that have two crew, and each crew has a given speciality, but both can (if necessary or desirable), do the other guy's job.