KungFuCharlie Posted July 23, 2010 Posted July 23, 2010 From your experience you should know better than to prematurely optimize a system. :) (Just to be clear that is a very tounge in cheek comment). It's not a bug... it is an undocumented feature. :megalol: There are many available resources on a modern computer even when running Black Shark full out. It really depends on where the bottle neck is. In particular BS 1.0.2 is a 32bit dual threaded application which can access at most 2GB of ram. Assuming you have a quad core processor and 4GB of ram you have ALOT of ram and cpu to use with out ever impacting the simulation. You're warnings areas are good, if not a little dire in wording. Saying the best solution is to create new hardware using custom micro-controller is way overkill for many scenarios. There is plenty of room for even running some heavier weight systems like managed C#/WPF or Java on many systems. If all you are worried about is DCS: Black Shark then you are absolutely correct. Likewise, if you're going to build a whole new interface for future games and / or build a screaming fast PC for every new generation of games that come out then you're also correct. But it would really suck if you design your simpit interface with the idea that you've got plenty of computing power and next year your kicking yourself in the butt because your simpit lags out the latest game you're trying to run. I know that even that is a little over the top and "dire" as you put it. :music_whistling:But you should never design for today's technology because by the time you're done that technology will have advanced a few generations. If you're going to put all the time and money into a simpit, make sure it will last you a few years so you can enjoy flying it instead of ripping it apart to make upgrades so it will work with the new stuff. And if my dire nature happens to get someone to pick up a few engineering books, learn some cool stuff, make some even cooler stuff, and post pictures and HOW-TO's for the rest of the community to learn from... Hell yeah!! :joystick:
brydling Posted July 23, 2010 Posted July 23, 2010 By making that assumption you have already made a huge mistake. If programmers do things right then a lot of QA engineers would be standing in the welfare line instead of making bank each year. There would be no need for beta testers. I could go on but I am sure you get my point. And I know I am taking your comment to the extreme boundary of your point but that was, in effect, to make another point. Now take into account we are all addressing our comments towards a person who is new to all of this and you can pretty much say, for a fact, that the programmer (new programmer that is) isn't going to do it right. Not until at least revision 100 or so. But you said that writing LUA-code or an external program is a bad idea. When judging if a method is good or bad, you must assume that it is done right. Digital-to-Synchro converter for interfacing real aircraft instruments - Thread Check out my High Input Count Joystick Controller for cockpit builders, with support for 248 switches, 2 POV hats and 13 analog axes. Over 60 units sold. - B256A13 www.novelair.com - The world's most realistic flight simulators of the J35J Draken and the AJS37 Viggen.
KungFuCharlie Posted July 23, 2010 Posted July 23, 2010 But you said that writing LUA-code or an external program is a bad idea. When judging if a method is good or bad, you must assume that it is done right. I think we are confusing terminology now. My point is that you never trust that a programmer implemented something properly and you cannot always trust that the method someone chose to implement is the best one for the job. But none of those really matters in the context of this discussion anyway. I did not say or imply that writing LUA code or an external program was a bad idea. Well, if I did say that then I did not mean it in the context it was taken. There is a time and place for LUA and external programs. In fact, even with a fancy microcontroller system you still need to code something on the PC to interface with the device. Well, maybe... you might be able to use a generic HID driver but I think that will limit you drastically. Not sure, haven't hacked into the HID drivers in a long while. But then again we all have our own opinions on what is "right" and "wrong". And I am sure my opinion is biased on my education and experience which is why I believe a micro-controller based solution is definitely the way to go for a distributed simpit environment. Sure, the learning curve is a little more steep but in the end there are a lot more benefits.
Recommended Posts