DayGlow

What happens is that when you have more than 2 sticks of ram with a AMD64 it's onboard memory controller requires that T2 command setting be set, which is slower than T1. Your real world performance hit is around 1%-2% in framerates, so really you wouldn't notice it all that much.

I have a Hauspauge MCE500 dual tuner in my MCE box now. When I fist saw the AIW they were great and got me into the whole multi-media type box, but now I like the fexiblity of the seperate tuner cards. That plus the fact that I run a full time MCE box for my home theater needs and have a seperate gamebox. Things such as storage are more important that graphical speed. Right now I'm looking to the future and HDTV timeshifting and waiting for some solution on that front.

I had a AIW 9800pro and it gave me a taste for the media PC scene. Since then I've ditched ATI though. I am running a Windows MCE box w/ dual tuners now. ATI never supported MCE in it's drivers so the tuner on my AIW is useless. The fact that ATI has never bothered to include a decent schedualing program with their cards and don't support other programs that do, it didn't make sense to use them anymore.

seems the R520 is seeing the light of day and ATI has taken a different path than Nvidia. Instead of raw horsepower increase (24 pipes vs 26) ATI has tried to streamline the data stream and make it more efficient http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_radeon_x1800_xt_xl/ sucks they dropped the LOMAC test, but it seems that Nvidia and ATI are on the same level once again, with Nvida doing betterin OpenGL tests and ATI doing better in D3D, as usual. Good to see that ATI has made a fast product by making things more efficient. Competition is good and different trains of thought are good.

with LOMAN find the fast overcast mods. No real image quality drop and improve fps by about 10-15 in overcast situations. Probably the single fastest mod out there.

But the visual accuity within the sim is totally unrealistic and prevents the use of realistic tactics. The combination of zero depth perseption and limited FOV with limited resolution of a computer monitor doesn't make it 'hardcore' It's a limitation. It adds zero 'realism' to the fight. So really labels or no labels are both unrealistic.

all my labels are set to 5km with a green ^. Right now I'm trying to decide if 5km is right or 10km. blends into the ground if I don't look hard for them, but at the same time increases the visibility of dots to a point that is more realistic. Mig Alley had a nice 'glint' for far off objects that would do well in a modern sim. A great example of what visibility is from the latest action in the gulf. A British unit was upset because an A-10 didn't see the union jack on the back of a Warrior. Now I imagine it would be very hard to see in real life, but what chance would we have in LOMAC at all? Human visual accuity is so much more than we can ever get in a sim.

Really? Concidering that LOMAC nor todays hardware can even approach the rez or dot-pitch needed I find that hard to believe.

understand when dealing with Wolf you are talking to a 12 year old. He was banned from Ubi a long time ago for a good reason. PS you can clearly see 2 sticks of ram in his picture. If you are going to make stuff up, why not shoot big and talk about the Ferrari you drive?

or c) existing code was utalized to add a feature to the game. The byproduct was that the performance and function of the feature didn't quite match the real specs and is being fixed with the next patch. ie AIM-120 when actively tracking a target sends a warning to the RWR. Make it so the 120 can track a HOJ target, it still sends a warning to the RWR and was overlooked. The idea that a sim uses software to create exact models of systems and their performances shouldn't be expect. Such system modelling is done with huge supercomputers. Much of these games is smoke and mirrors to get the final result.

I imagine is that when they started the project they had a level of realism that they developed to. Now they are adding more depth to that realism by increasing the complexity of different systems and more accuratly modelling how they work. Down side to this is that you can't do it across the board for every system in systemadic steps. The end result is that we are getting a more complex system being built into the sim, even if others lag behind for the moment.

Could someone please point out the terrible support of this sim? So far I've seen a dev very active on their own forum posting about what they are doing and what they would like to do, as well as continuing to update about where they are in the patch process. I see a very supporting dev. What I think is that there is an unrealistic expectation on patch times. And it is seen across the board for all games. This isn't 5 years ago and as programs get more complex, so does the patching. I look back a few years to Unreal2. It took 3 months for them to create a patch for EAX support in the game. People felt they were lazy and weren't working on it. As it seems, every dev out there is lazy and doesn't work on their patches, or it is taking longer to create a patch. 1.1 is the start really for ED. They are no longer under the control of Ubi. I think they are doing a very good job of supporting their customers so far. And by the sounds of this patch coming out, they are really working hard to improve the sim. Time will tell, but even ED is saying that a new economic model is needed for sim development. For ED it appears that means new addon modules evey year and a half or so. 1.2 will be the last for LOMAC, but I imagine their new sim will be along those lines as well. People complain they are pay-for patches, well it seems Fighter Ops will be going the same route. LP has started down it as well (AF is a patched up F4 to finance their next project). The simple fact is that sim development takes a lot of money and time for it's development. ED has always been vary open and honest about where they are at and this has caused no end of flames because of it. I support them for that reason.

and this is a discussion board and by it's very nature either people will agree with you or not and express themselves on it as well. Don't want that then send an email to ED.

fly looking down lots?

part of the problem is probably wave size. I've noticed in IL2 that perfect water looks out of place in the rivers unless you use the really high detail (2 or 3) water. Only problem is that the high water slows down fps.

For now, but it is the future for cpus since pure clock speed seems to be topping out. Much like 3d accerators it will probably take a few years for things to mainstream and take off.

Well concidering I was getting better fps with my 9800pro than they were with their 7800 I'd say something wrong is with their benchmark. FiringSquad also uses LOMAC as a benchmark and they have a definate improvement with the 7800. At the same time there is no doubt that a fast cpu is important for performance.

strange, mine ran quite well since I got it and is amazingly fast now that I've upgraded my computer. I think it's combined of summer holidays and the fact there is no drama in the community a la F4 politics means that posting is only in spats.

to make up for limited rez of a monitor vs real life. My labels are setup so at 5km I get a symbol only, and only within 2km a target ID. For the life of me I cannot see a missile without labels. I know they are hard to see in real life as well, but would be a bit more visible than on a monitor. Basically I know it's 'gamey' to play with labels, but it gives me a fighting chance and I enjoy it.

Why do you have labels locked off then? It's killed the whole generator for me.

many thanks

any ideas how to do this? I'm trying out his mission generator, but it locks labels off. I rather fly with them on. To do it I need to unlock the missions. Frustrating that my choosen difficulty settings aren't global, but up to the mission maker. I should be able to decide how I want to fly.

I know the devs have stated that proxi fusing is modelled, but certain perameters have to be met for it to go off. This is for all missiles, so I have no idea what conditions have to be met for the proxi fusing to detonate.

Even if you aren't using LG weapons, most ground attack aircraft do carry a marked target seeker. I agree that the SU25 HSI is bit of a stretch though.

There is no set order of battle or time line for the sim. The overall atmosphere for versions of planes being modeled come from teh early 90's time frame. At the same time it isn't a hard and fast rule.