WynnTTr

So how is the TP? Does it model weapons realistically both in how they're launched and physics or is it more like a railgun missile type, fire and shoot? Do missiles have a proper firing sequence in cockpit? Do they behave properly once launched? Do guns have bullet drop, computer assists, etc.. Does it handle damage realistically, like it knows the difference between a sidewinder or AMRAAM? I'm genuine in my questions as I'm really tempted by VRS and what the TP seems to offer. With no DCS fast jet and the fugly terrain of BMS I'll take a new fast jet. I'm not interested in a mod that just makes FSX objects go boom. I'm interested in the simulation aspects of it.

Just came on to add rep for Aginor. Awesome to play in the WC universe as well. Awesome to see ships that I recognise from my youth - even if I can't remember the names. I found myself perking up in my seat thinking "I remember that one!".

The X52 Pro is a great HOTAS. I've still got mine in storage in case of my WH breaking down. Probably the best stick for the amount of money you're paying. Not to be confused with the standard x-52.

Wow multiple monitors off the one card?? Yes! Finally Nvidia get their act together.

Just like RL armored warfare? It's the same type of concept. Knock out the guy first.. I mean there's no tactics involved with that right? Just who has the heavier armored tank. Light recon vehicles would be useless etc..

I wouldn't have minded so much if they used any other name but Jane's. Now it's just an insult.

RoF is the better game by miles. Dynamic career mode (not campaign), runs better and is free complete with a few planes. CoD still has problems, a woefully shameful excuse of a campaign and won't run smoothly on anything but a beast of a machine. 1C are in the process of overhauling the code for it but don't hold your breath. They expect us to pay more money for a sequel they're working on. But in the long run it depends on what style of plane you prefer. Myself, I prefer WW2 era over WW1 and despite what I just said I still fire up CoD now and again, play until the flaws frustrate me too much. Haven't fired up RoF in a long time only because I personally hate flying WW1 aircraft.

So would you buy a complete game knowing that you'll only play 10% of that game or would you buy a complete game to play the full game? Game mode on a sim of this complexity is no sweetener to someone that's intimidated by what DCS has to offer.

This is true to an extent but you're forgetting the crowd that like flight sims but are too intimidated by hardcore sims such as DCS. They know about DCS from reviews which all state the learning curve being near vertical. From a noob's pov that'll intimidate me. So if they hear of something easier, they might think let's test the waters with this dumbed down version. Then once they master that they'll naturally pick up the difficulty level then onto the holy grail.

I got it - what the heck it's free. The FM, like stock FS, is still a joke. Not quite arcade quality but barely above it. Very, very easy to fly land and certainly not serious sim territory. I got bored with it after 15 minutes. And P-51 on external view only? Surely they jest.

We're a loooong way off from unmanned fighters. At least a century imo. There is simply too much things happening and evolving in combat to take a human out of the picture. Calls based on human judgments cannot be replicated by computers... yet. If they did, that'd be true AI. For instance - you're about to engage an enemy (air/ground/whatever) then notice a civilian bus/goat herd/fishing boat is not where it's supposed to be and your radar/intel didn't pick it up, what would you do? How about if a friendly aircraft is in distress or is being harassed by an enemy fighter. Will the computer assess that it's got smoke/oil coming out, losing power and about to get shot down and go help or will it just see that the friendly could probably RTB? Even with a remote aircraft you can only see so much with a screen. We all know that limitation. The only way a remote fighter would be viable is if they made a 360 projection screen that's got as good a resolution as real life. Imagine the cost for that + remote aircraft. Far easier to just stick the pilot in the aircraft.

Alright, alright, let's clear this up. I still don't quite follow. If the side monitors are only capable of outputting a certain amount then surely SoftTH cannot make it so that the side monitors are displaying a larger fullscreen desktop. For instance - My gaming profile is 5760x1080 5.3, that's 3 screens each with 1920x1080, 16:9. If I had my old 19" monitor which ran at 1680x1050 16:10 then Eyefinity will make it 5040x1050 4.8. Are you saying that SoftTH can maintain 5760x1080 resolution even with a monitors that cannot display 1920x1080? If so what do you see on screen then? Further, what if I had my 27" 1920x1200 screen, 1 24" 1920x1080, 1 19" 1600x900, can I set SoftTH to do a triple fullscreen res of 5760x1200? Aspect ratios - there's only one aspect ratio if you're going fullscreen and that depends on the res, 5760x1080 = 5.3. If you change it to 3584x1080 it becomes 3.3. How can you have different aspect ratios with fullscreen mode? I'll have a look at that youtube when I get home. Can't view it at work.

Three resolutions on one big screen? Like how I had my 19" 1680x1050 on the left hand, my middle screen of 1920x1200 main screen, and right hand with my first 24 at 1920x1080 acting as all one desktop? Because that's what I had in Eyefinity. That's my workspace profile. Start menu/quickbar on my central 27" that's at 1920x1200 and my side monitors running at their native res at 1920x1080 now. I can drag documents left and right and place them if needed. Hell I can even play a game on my main screen @1920x1200 while having my word docs open or watching youtube on the left and right screens - which I do when I procrastinate. Or do you mean one big fullscreen of 5760x1080 - which Eyefinity does as well. So far you haven't informed me of anything. You've blatantly ignored SoftTh's shortcomings in order to spruce it up. Like I said everything that SoftTH is supposed to do, Eyefinity/NYS does as well with less hassles. If I'm missing something inform me instead of being blase about it. I've countered every point you've shot at me, you've countered none of mine. THe ONLY advantage it has is that it's free and will work with your defunct gpu.

Yes. Like I said I scale down without any problems across three different monitor types, brands, resolutions. My current setup, as I said, was a Dell 27" ISP monitor with two Acer 24's TN type panels at the side. No problems whatsoever. All these problems of scaling down is a red herring. IF and that's a big IF with modern monitors you have scaling down problems then that would be native to the monitor itself and to do with hardware rather than a softTH/Eyefinity/NVS problem. If ever there was a problem with scales and aspect ratios that Eyefinity has then SoftTH has it too. Unless you're trying to tell me that SoftTH can suddenly make a 19" 1680x1050 screen suddenly do 5760x1080 in a three screen setup when added to two other 1920x1080 monitors. I didn't think so. And Eyefinity can support as many monitors as you wanted to - but there's one caveat that applies to both - where are you going to plug all these monitors into? Eyefinity can support as many as there are DPs. So SoftTH can support wireless monitors?

Again, misinformation. The only loss in quality I had was playing at a lower resolution. You cannot compare the sharpness of 5760x1080 to 4950x1050 The loss in quality is not one that is noticeable at all with modern monitors. My 19in is about 3 years old and I noticed no quality loss, blurriness whatever when playing with that with Eyefinity. I guess it would make a difference if you're playing with a flat screen that was just released back in the day flat screens were just being released. I can understand you trying to plug something but be truthful about it. You're also not mentioning that SoftTH doesn't have the same level of compatibility as Eyefinity/NVSurround in that games have to be able to support it i.e, what works with Eyefinity/NVS may not work with SoftTH, that you have to fiddle with it, no DX10/11, uses CPU resources. BUT what SoftTH is - it's free and will give you 3 monitor fullscreen if you have mis-matching gpus.

I don't think I've come across a flat screen monitor that can't scale down in resolutions and is stuck with just the one native resolution.

This is so not true. My main screen is a Dell 27" with a max res of 1920x1200 but my side monitors are Acer 24's 1920x1080. Before that I had this 27", one Acer 24", and one Asus 19" (which runs at 1650x1080). All three were setup in Eyefinity fullscreen mode. Eyefinity scales down to the lowest possible big rez able to be handled. In my case it's 5760x1080 - the bigger monitor scales down. It's not like it's stuck with the 1200 vertical res. I've also tested lower Eyefinity res like 2400x600, 4950x1050 etc and have no problems running any game like that. And how about supporting current games that duses DX10, 11? BF3 for instance with SoftTH? FUll screen mode as well to take advantage of CF - BF3 is glorious, so is RoF, hell any updated game where CF is supported. The issue isn't Eyefinity, it's CF.

Yes. With Nvidia you need to SLI to be able to run 3 monitors. With AMD you only need one card and an active display port adaptor - significantly cheaper than another vid card. As I stated earlier, for DCS, I'd stick with one card to avoid microstutter as the DCS engine doesn't benefit at all from CF/SLI. You'll get better performance running one card. This might change with the new engine but I personally wouldn't depend on that when talking about 100's of $$.

At the end of that thread I posted there's an official answer from ED regarding CF performance (or lack thereof): http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1395308&postcount=24

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=81177 for starters. You can click on the links in one of the replies there. I get better performance with CF off and running on a single gpu. The game will still run with CF on but it runs smoother with no microstutters and with more fps with CF off. The game will still run it's just not optimised for CF. I'll most probably be getting a 7970 as well. Sick of CF microstutter problems in games so I'll be getting a single card. If Nvidia release their next gen card that's able to handle 3 monitors off the one card I'll be going with them. But the only option for that is AMD.

For DCS do not get he 6990. Why? Cos it's a CF setup welded onto one board. DCS does not scale well with CF and you'll probably end up with worse performance in CF v single gpu. IIRC the 6990 in single gpu config is basically a 6870(?) in any event it's most definitely not up to 6970 speeds. But the most important thing for triple screen setups is the VRAM. You want at least 2gb no matter which brand you go with. With your budget the best, easiest and less problematic option is for a single 6970 2gb card or get a 6950 reference board and oc it up to 6970 specs.

That's not proof of hacking. Metro is a horrendous map, sniper's paradise. Especially when your team gets pushed back to US spawn. Long, extremely narrow straights makes a sniper happy. The guy probably would have been revived alot too - not much for other classes to do except go support/medic if they're not sniping. Add to that if you're playing 64 players then that's not hard to achieve if you're a really good sniper and on the winning team. Hell I've gotten 40+to 4 just by camping at the bottom of the escalators as US cos people keep on trying to shoot down and the medics were doing their job.

You're never private on the internet now. Google, Amazon, Ebay, Facebook, Steam, Uplay, any type of third party software, hell at its most basic - the cookie. Everything is tracked and collected. It's nothing new so don't be so surprised that one publisher is doing it now, it's probably more the case that it's come into the public light. Everything else just slips by. You've seen one wolf come out of the trees but ignore the whole pack hiding.

Your point would be valid if there's a real P-51 to go up in but these are games where we have a choice on how to play. Firing the guns in a combat scenario is a big factor and can't be ignored. Ofc I'd love to attempt to fly for real, even a big airliner, but that doesn't mean I want to play at flying one in my gaming time. There's just too many layers of separation between rl and the monitor. :music_whistling: Also have A2A redone the flight code in FSX for their birds? If not then they're still stuck with the FSX flight limitations.

Yes but is it a proper Hind? I knwo that BI didn't have official licenses from the heli manufacturers so ToH's heli's weren't quite right. They looked generally similar to some helis but obviously not so much as to get themselves sued. And how's the FM nowadays?