EtherealN

I'm not going to trawl through a bunch of hard-to-get journal papers to solve your problem for you. I have a job to do. :P But since you were so sure of your observations in the simulator being of an error, perhaps you could do them? They would, after all, prove your point. Or, if you dig through those journal entries and give me the formulas, I could do it - but at that point you might as well do it yourself since you'll be sitting on the formulas anyhow. (But if you don't have the math skills to do it, sure, I can try if I get the time.)

No, it's not, but the point is that it might have been approximated through a transition zone where some projectiles will ricochet even if angle is higher than the "ingame" smooth surface. I don't know for absolute certain if this is the case in DCS, but it is what I would do if I designed the feature. That's a moving goalpost. You asked for example, you got it. You can't then require that ALL videos should show it. ;) The thing that has happened here is that you have made the statement that "this is wrong" and then, instead of you showing WHY and HOW it is wrong, you are expecting everyone else to either disprove your statement or be able to show YOU how it is right. This is an inverted burden of proof. Another option would be to just get someone to do the physics. I've not seen enough of the equations myself to do it, and am not a physicist so I don't know really how to effectively look for the formulas that might be relevant.

The water surface at see is not a smooth plane. Waves mean that even though the flight path of the projectile may be >30 degrees compared to the average of the water, it might actually strike the water at less - and indeed a substantial fraction of the rounds MUST do this. The inverse is true as well for rounds with a <30 degree angle. At ~18 seconds in, there is a shot of a ship being strafed. If you play it slow you can see the rounds that fly past the ship giving both ricochets AND "strikes". If you like, can you tell me at which angle you feel richochets should happen, and supply the physics behind this conclusion? Perhaps show a direct example of what you feel is incorrect (either video or a track)?

Biba, may I suggest that you give some examples for your position, both regarding reality and the game itself? You have, in this thread, been given replies by several individuals with extensive military background that hold first-hand experience of this. Knowing how to operate a camera is not the same thing as knowing physics or operating weapons.

...and as long as you use some overprovisioning (my Samsung drive allowed manual configuration of OP), you're pretty much safe. It was an issue on the very first generation of SSDs, but nowadays most recommendations I have seen from tests even states that yes - you can keep the swap file and even should do so. In the early days people were really paranoid about the swap and such things. Wow, I had missed this article, thanks for the link!

a) I am actually not 100% certain. This depends on how Windows would identify itself on the clone. I would deactivate just to be sure. b) Yes, deactivation would be necessary if you wish to re-use the current activation.

For various reasons, the universe itself would conspire against making either of those a reality. I hope... :music_whistling:

Indeed, developing hardware-specific is most likely not an option. (In fact, developers that do that often get kickbacks from the hardware manufacturer in question, as part of that manufacturer's marketing. And not like nVidia is going to care about giving ED money - they've only recently started paying a minimal amount of attention regarding SLI profiles.) Also, physX and so on isn't valuable, and from what I undestand most of the things that are happening in the CPU would actually not benefit from running on the GPU anyhow - GPU's are very powerful, but they are slow, which means that any operations that have data dependencies from other operations won't run effectively on it; they "live" on being able to operate on many small, independent, jobs simultaneously; for example a bunch of pixels. (You typically doesn't have to know anything about any other pixel to decide what coler a given pixel should be, with some minor exceptions.) This is why you see these things heavily used for graphical effects and some types of scientific applications (like Folding@Home), but not for doing simulation. Better is to be able to separate more routines to more threads, to better utilize the resources that do already exist on the CPU but can't be used at present. This is something that is being worked on, but it is no small task to break out threads from a monolithic codebase.

No like he has anything he needs it for anyhow - but you do. :P

I think he meant something like selling an updated 25T pit (akin to the new 25A pit) as "DLC" or whatever. Assuming a sane price point, I would consider it actually.

Yes, but also no. You already have them. They are integrated in FC3. Additional content that comes with them (like the AFM) is also deployed to FC3. So no, you won't "get them" for free. You already have them. Just under a different name. ;) So just ignore the new ones if you have FC3. They are there for people that do not have FC3 and/or are unable to procure LockOn and/or only want one of the aircraft.

Checked your spam folder?

Correct.

Unless the review and test you read SPECIFICALLY tested DCS World, don't use it as a reference. Most computer games are extremely GPU-centric. Not so with DCS World, which is a serious simulation product that needs to do a lot of maths that GPU's aren't well suited for, meaning that they'll happen in CPU. Quite possibly, you bottlenecked outside GPU in several situations even before your graphics card upgrade. At that point, literally ANY graphics card upgrade (say, quad-SLI 780's) will give very very little benefit. Remember: "framerate" is NOT something that happens in the GPU. The GPU needs to be told what to do - which is something the CPU does. And the simulation itself also runs in "frames", so if your computer can only do X simulation frames per second due to other issues, no amount of upgrades on the graphics card will give you a boost, because the graphics card will only get told what to do that same X amount of times per second.

Not the first time. :)

Easy solution: let's never say anything about what's in the pipeline. Up for that? :)

I still cry myself to sleep over that one. :(

This is most likely caused by a corrupt cookie. You can either manually delete the cookie for digitalcombatsimulator.com, delete all cookies in IE10, or temporarily use a different browser. (The different browser - Firefox, Chrome, Opera etc - will get a new and non-corrupt cookie.) Apologies for the inconvenience.

Please try this: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=94531 It is not the exact same problem, but the same fix usually works.

That key should work. I have seen a few reports so you do not appear to be alone with this problem - it is being investigated.

Ah, rgr, yeah - I should have been more precise in my statement. You are entirely correct. I'll also add that if you have a lot of data you for some reason cannot backup externally (bandwidth, confidentiality etc), the VelociRaptors can be a good choice simply due to lower failure rates. (At least they used to have lower failure rates, was a few yars since I checked.)

Sure, but the purpose on the machine in question wasn't HD video editing, it was DCS gameplay. :) And the point about older Velociraptors still stand; compared to their contemporaries in the HDD market, they're better for that kind of thing. Not necessarily so if you are considering the purchase of an old Velociraptor - in that case you might be better off with a current standard HDD. There is also some additional shenanigans you can do there; you can get a 4TB HDD at usually a lower price than a Velociraptor 1TB. You don't get the seek times, which can be an issue there - but part of the recipy for the VR's good seek times is that it uses a smaller platter, thus shorter "travel distance" for the heads. You can "simulate" this on a bigger drive through simply partitioning only the first TB or so, staying on the outside of the platter (higher sustain) and thus securing lesser travel distances. For real hardcore use, not a good option (especially since VR's usually get enterprise-level warranties and QA), but for gaming? In the case of gaming, just get that SSD, IMO. Write Access times aren't that much better anyhow, actually: http://techreport.com/review/24840/seagate-desktop-hdd-15-4tb-hard-drive-reviewed/5 Can also see: http://techreport.com/review/24840/seagate-desktop-hdd-15-4tb-hard-drive-reviewed/7 They're better at it, sure, but better enough to merit it on a game rig? Depends on how much money you want to spend, I guess - list pricing per gig is between three and six times higher than a "standard" drive... (Though of course, if you do a partitioning trick, that difference is smaller.)

Here's a good option: http://techreport.com/review/24979/tr-summer-2013-system-guide/4 Cheaper, will perform WAY better in DCS, and you'll have new components with intact warranty. Depending on how the prices convert to your location (depends a lot on your local VAT, for example), I would perhaps even suggest something similar to this: http://techreport.com/review/24979/tr-summer-2013-system-guide/6 Most sepcifically because it also includes an OCable CPU. And of course, since those are part listings (their prices link newegg in the US, but all of those parts are available in your location as well, but I haven't doublechecked the exact prices in your country), you can mix and match a little bit. Raptors are, IMO, fairly pointless nowadays. SSD prices are low enough that you can put the speed-sensitive stuff on those, and after that there's no reason to go expensive of HDD's that are pure storage. Indeed, depending on the age of those raptors, even something cheap like a high-density WD Green could perform better; HDD speed depends arguably more on platter density than platter RPM, and the higher density of new drives will easily win over an older Raptor's higher RPM. (Though there might still be a bit of shenanigans happening with Random I/O seek times, depending.)

Can you tell me the full error message from the activation window? Also, do you have any other modue installed? You can doublecheck what is being asked for in the top left of the activation window, like so: And yes, the module installer you downloaded is A-10C. Effectively you have downloaded it twice. The installer is bigger because it contains several language versions.

I'll look into it.