Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dave

  1. Nolan hates CGI apparently. The HE-111 was a flying RC scale model. I don't know about the Stukas but I read that where real aircraft were unavailable RC scale models were purpose built. The total complement of real aircraft available for filming were (from memory) 2 MkII's, a MkV (with cannon removed) and a Hispano Buchon. No Emils were available (or Freidrichs or Gustavs for that matter). The Spits were only made available for filming by generous benefactors. While I really love seeing the real thing flying, CGI must be the future of WW2 aerial cinematography as people who own surviving aircraft aren't about to allow them to be flown anywhere near the edges of their envelopes. I haven't seen Dunkirk yet - I hope it isn't as bad as you say.
  2. Love that this is almost here and I think the attention to detail is excellent. But .... that doesn't sound at all like a Merlin 46. That said I don't plan to spend much time on the ground watching them fly past so ...
  3. Looks like all multiplayer servers are off the air (master browser down?) as of 10:45UTC today. As seen from Australia at least.
  4. Very happy to read this has been addressed in the upcoming .012 release. It doesn't render the criticism moot, but valid and worth investigating. Good to see. I am looking forward to testing the result.
  5. I've had the same experience as FuriousMeow wrt my upgrade from SLI 2 x Titan Blacks (780Ti on roids) to a single 1080Ti. For me it has made a huge difference.
  6. And while I'm in the mood for quoting ... this would be the first sentence of the first post of this thread entitled "High speed roll rates of Russian aircraft (with wooden wings) too high?" where you introduced roll-rate as the topic of discussion ... And this would be where you condescendingly pulled me up for discussing the effect of inertia on roll rate ... I guess I owe you an apology for apologising for introducing talk of roll rate to this discussion.
  7. This would be where you made the only comment on this thread which attempts to discount someone else's assertion based upon its author's vocation. Below is the sum total of my "arguments" on this thread. It isn't clear what part of the "framing" of them you have an issue with. My remaining posts were direct responses to clarify your misunderstanding of my intent.
  8. Wow - you can just chill out a bit. I think you are reading more into my words than I wrote. And I certainly didn't mention my job as a dick size comparison. I just know from experience how large the discrepancies can be from the kind of analysis being done here and the actual results of an FEA and then again of the whole airframe in physical test. I don't need to "impress" you because frankly I don't give a shit how knowledgeable or experienced you might think I am. In fact, if you shelved your defensiveness for a moment you might notice that I was agreeing with you, apologising for going off topic, and trying to explain why I even brought up roll rate in the first place. Analyse was in quotes to indicate that I understood that you weren't actually claiming yours was a a detailed analysis - it wasn't a jibe. Why does everyone get so freakin touchy about everything and go off half cocked all the time as soon as you start discussing the FM. PS - for the avoidance of doubt, that last one was a rhetorical question. Can't be too careful here it seems. Incidentally, I didn't bother responding to JtD in the thread you linked because discussion by that point seemed futile and I didn't feel like wasting any more of my time.
  9. Yeah I gathered that. My bad for going OT - The point I was trying to make is that you can't infer much about torsional stiffness from the materials alone - the construction (as you later concluded) plays an important role. I introduced angular momentum in roll because it is the price the Russians paid for wooden construction sufficiently stiff to resist the torsional forces you were talking about - mass.
  10. Not a lecture ... just a tongue in cheek suggestion that you can "analyze" this all you like piecemeal and by supposition but until you consider the whole you don't get even close to reality. As it happens I write this kind of software for a living. I have personally requested this twice and both requests were responded to with an emphatic "no".
  11. So, while I was waiting for my graphics cards to be retrieved from the warehouse, I read a couple of benchmark reviews comparing 1080Ti with 2 x 1080Ti SLI. The findings presented were that in at least 50% of cases the SLI configuration gave LOWER framerates than the single GPU for DX11 titles. The situation was also pretty bad for DX12 except for those few cases where the game developers had specifically targeted NVidia SLI - in which case the SLI configuration provided between 60% and 90% performance gains over the single GPU. Given that positive gains were only realised with the devs specifically targeting SLI and the history of GPU support for BoX I decided to save $1100 and bought a single 1080Ti. If framerates are inadequate I will just have to find another game.
  12. Thanks for the info Zacharias. I might start with a single 1080Ti and see how that goes. The main reason I bough ta pair the last two times was that you only get a short timeframe in which to obtain two identical cards. At least this time I'll be buying the first at the start of a release cycle. Regarding SLI, I have noticed a marked improvement over single GPU over the course of 3 SLI rigs. In each case enabling SLI made the difference between stuttering and smooth rendering. So far only BoX has sucked for me wrt SLI. Previously I played the ARMA series where SLI drastically improved render speed. For the brief periods that I was able to use SLI with BoX on DX10 it made the game playable on ultra settings as opposed to sub-40 frame rates. One major reason I seem to need SLI is my screen resolution - 7680x1440. But I will try a single 1080Ti and see if it cuts it. Honestly, I'd love to get that other PCIe slot back for PhysX. I was hoping to never need SLI again with the advent of consumer VR but alas the resolutions and FOV for currently shipping hardware are still unacceptably low for me. At least my Titans won't be a total waste - they will go into one of my dev machines as CUDA devices. PS: I have a 2011v3 mobo with support for 4 way SLI at 8 lanes per card or 2 way SLI at 16 lanes per card. I spent $500 on it specifically for PCIe 3.0 SLI support.
  13. Some people don't taxi because the consequences are not consistent with reality. Plenty of people are too lazy to navigate too but there are servers which enforce the need to navigate - at least two of them that I play on are consistently in the top 5 most popular multiplayer servers. I personally don't care for those that won't use it - they aren't the people I want to play with.
  14. I get what you're saying but 3 points maybe need to be made: 1) The Founders Edition isn't a "basic" card. It is the nVidia-made reference card with your vendor of choice's sticker on it. The components are typically better quality than the vendor's own cards; 2) I think you'll find that your 4 year warranty is void as soon as your clock the card beyond the factory overclock; and 3) The nVidia designed cooling solution found on the 1080Ti reference cards uses vapour chamber (phase change) cooling which is superior to using a few fans to push air over a solid heatsink.
  15. [quote name="Holtzauge" post If we factor these we can see that the aluminium wing is more than 5 times better at resisting torsional deflection than the wooden one. No, what you can see is that, for the same thickness, a sheet of aluminium has 5 times the torsional stiffness of a sheet of plywood. There is more to a wing than its skin. And there is more to roll rate than wing material. A better argument would be that being heavier for the same design load, the wooden wings would add more mass further from the CG which should increase inertia, reducing the rates of rotational acceleration and deceleration for the same wing section, area, plan, and aileron geometry. Lots of variables in there and it really affects acceleration (ie snappiness) more than angular velocity limits. I think the only way you're going to find out one way or another is to perform an FEA of forces (and therefore stresses and deformation) integrated over the entire airframe. The software will take you a while to write and you'll likely need to buy yourself some large scale compute cluster time - or maybe start learning CUDA and build a GPU-based home super computer.
  16. One thing wrt graphics cards and build quality. I switched from ASUS to EVGA a few years ago and have found the EVGA cards to be superior in my own limited experience. In this assessment I am referring to the EVGA cards running cooler and without ever having a single hardware-related stability issue. I have two of the EVGA Titan Black cards side-by-side with no heating issues. My previous ASUS cards suffered from capacitor failures. One point to note about the 1080Ti is that the Founders Edition, while not overclocked by the "manufacturers" is actually made by nVidia. As such the components and board layout are reported to be of the highest quality and with previous generations (known as Reference cards) they have been reliably and stably overclocked beyond the speeds of "gamer" factory-overclocks. I will be picking up a pair of 1080Ti founders Tuesday. I finally caved - I am just so sick of the 780 series crashes.
  17. @malexx74 - could you perhaps indicate at what airspeeds these various trim settings are needed for you. WRT to realism, I have quite a few hours in a 1000+HP low-wing turboprop and can tell you that I spent a large percentage of my attention on trimming - particularly yaw and pitch. Its been over 20 years, but from memory in the PC-9A as you apply power the nose slews off to the left and pitches up requiring a LOT of rudder input and immediate pitch trim adjustment so you aren't holding a LOT of stick forward. Then, just as soon as you've trimmed that out, the airspeed has built up and you're trimming back left again as the prop wash on the vertical tail has reduced relative to slipstream. My memory of the PC-9 was one of constant trim adjustment - with that much power spinning a prop it was a beast and took a fair bit of attention to trim. And thats only 1000HP. The 109 would produce another 30% more power in a smaller airframe without boosted controls. So I'd pause and do a bit of mental arithmetic on the control forces concerned before concluding that this is unrealistic. Sounds pretty realistic to me. I think the real issue here is that without FFB the handling of the 109 is far too easy and extremely unrealistic but as this is the extent of many sim-pilots' experience they develop a very distorted expectation of hyper-maneuverability and effortless control deflection. This does not explain any difference in absolute trim required between FFB and non-FFB. As I personally use the Warthog I can't compare for myself - but if there is a significant difference that is probably a bug. But is it a bug in the FFB version or the non-FFB version? It may just be the latter.
  18. Could the dev team possibly obtain a StarVR rig from StarBreeze? Until consumer VR resolution and FOV improve to those of the StarVR I'm not buying, but it would be good if development can get ahead of the curve.
  19. I too would appreciate people unaffected by this issue butting out. I spent AU$6000 on my graphics cards and screens ... for the sole purpose of playing this game. Since parting with that pile of cash I have had abysmal (or non-existent) SLI support, the complete dropping of 3-screen support and now this driver disaster. So many people whined and whined about DX10 not being good enough ... well for me DX11 has delivered a 60% drop in frame rate, constant freezes, crashes to desktop, spontaneous reboots and no visible improvements at all. All I expect for the huge amount of money I have paid to the two parties concerned (1CGS and nVidia) is that one or both of them take some ownership of these issues and demonstrate that they give a shit by providing a timeline for a fix. For me, rolling back to 368.81 has stopped the crashes but the game only uses one of my graphics cards resulting in rather poor frame rates. I'd just assign the other to PhysX but BoX doesn't appear to use it. I could go out and buy a 1080Ti now for about AU$1200 but as someone else already pointed out, the next update could similarly render that upgrade useless and my existing cards (which cost AU$1500 each 2 years ago) play any other gold title flawlessly at over 100FPS all while rendering to 3 2560x1440 screens. Why the hell should I throw away more money when I still haven't received what I already paid for.
  20. I'd like to know if FM changes affecting the P40 are even included in 2.009.
  21. Warbirds Over Wanaka is on right now. If I could there to talk to the P40 guys I would. Anyone nearby?
  • Create New...