Jump to content

ZachariasX

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    3589
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1628 Excellent

About ZachariasX

  • Rank
    Founder

Recent Profile Visitors

1679 profile views
  1. From here: https://www.nieuport.ch/ (In German..) EDIT: Anyone up for patching together a rotary?
  2. I just don't see Comet Lake hitting the shelves in meaningful numbers before March. And if you are prepared to wait anoher half year, Zen3 is also around the corner by then as Doctor Seuss Su said so because "it is doing really well". Either you need it and you buy it for what it can do now, or you don't. There is no hope.
  3. IL2 doesn't fix load to a specific core. It uses all cores to different degrees, depending on the Windows thread scheduler. That one can distinguish in the very latest iterations of Win10 between AMD and Intel CPUs and schedules loads such that it *thinks* the CPU is used in the best possible way. The total amount of CPU load comes down to maybe 150% of one core (depending on scenario). This totals maybe 10 to 15% CPU load of a 10 core system which will define CPU power consumption that in turn translates in produced heat. Hence, IL2 runs a many core system very cool and you can run IL2 at hich clock with de facto insufficient cooling. (Loading missions produces easily about the 5 fold load on a many core CPUs than flying the mission.) Prime95 is the pure opposite. You require far better cooling for running that one.
  4. That is useless. All that matters for IL-2 is max. collective turbo on all cores. There, you get added headache with the 10900, as you - in principle - had to provide for cooling for 10 cores under 100% load, and not ten cores of ~10% load each. That is why they need a new socket, they need more pins for power draw and to hook up more cores. You can make systems that run IL-2 well at highest clocks, but as soon as you run Prime95, you'll have a meltdown. A propos meltdown: they say they have that fixed for Comet Lake. It has become a feature now that the newest one is less broken than the current one on sale. While in principle there should be no reason for not being able to make Comet Lake for LGA1151, this would just limit cores to 8. For gamers, this would still be a handy proposition. But there is someone who loves selling you a chipset along with that.
  5. It is doubtfull that waiting for the 10900K will give you anything above what you get with the 9900 chips, besides the hassle of having to deal with a new platform (LGA1200) required for Comet Lake. The only raison d'être of Comet Lake is to get something on paper that somehow keeps up with AMD's offerings without real world gains. It you needed what Comet Lake is better than previous generation, then you have to go AMD and get far better solutions. The RAM speeds mentioned are just the certified ones that match official JEDEC specs. Having a higher number there might give you more OC pontential, but maybe not as new platforms generally do worse in that than proven ones. The only thing that Comet Lake has for itself is maybe better OC potential. But for this you might need to wait another two months.
  6. We definitely need an aircraft that a porked FM: When ever someone complains in the forum about it's porked FM, then it's one for realism.
  7. It works that way: The bad guy we see is going. The bad guy we don‘t see is coming.
  8. The temperatures seem to be ok. Does it say in your BIOS that after synching cores the desired max. turbo boost is still at 5.4 GHz? Because now it looks like your cores got synched to what was the lowest boost selected for all core usage, and 4.6 GHz are just about the ballpark for your initial scores.
  9. They said that, indeed. But it is not known to me how much hard data they had on the Dr.I and that test gave them a lot. It is my speculation, nothing else, that makes me think the availability of the flight test I mentioned is why they didn‘t roll back the Dr.I to pre patch speeds but much rather adjust it to those values instead. As of now, it is also my understanding that the devs have nobody with deeper insights in WW1 aviation. This I take also as a good reason to shy away from changes. But should FC continue to mature, there is no reason that planes can‘t be revised when both hard data comes at hand and we can sanity check existing old sources. It is pointless passing around performance numbers of those aircraft, not knowing rpm or propeller type used. The least of all sources contain that kind of info. Chills aircraft tells us how fast it will go. The pre patch values is just a faster Dr.I, but it‘s still not a correct Dr.I. Just less wrong in one metric under certain assumptions. They should state engine and propeller used in the planes description. „Our“ Dr.I should then match that one, not an arbitrary faster one. The one we have is as slow as the one tested back then. Bummer. Chills is faster. But you can argue it is by all means a different aircraft than the one tested back then. As for me, I‘d love to see such revisions. The Dolphin should be a tad faster as well. It should be at least as fast as the SE5a. It has AFAIK the same engine/propeller and weights the same. But as for now, things are on a halt until Jason can convince people that matter to go ahead with FC2. I want that to happen.
  10. I think the devs are just burned by tweaking FM according to the likes of some forists. 🙄 (Ok, ok, I'm sorry. But I still like that patch *there*.) I can understand that. Also, what we have now corresponds to a flight test IIRC done in 1920 in the USA with several of those aircraft. What we have there has some reason behind it. If we were to make the Dr.I different, then I think it would be best done by adding engine variants, sold along with new aircrafts. You can make the Oberursel 110, the Rhone 120 and the 130 Clerget Dr.I's. "Prize engines". You can then take the exact figures that @Chill31 is getting from his plane. All you basically need are the propeller efficiencies and the rpm, and then you have rather exact figures. But the prop efficiency vs rpm vs airspieed vs altitude is something we should know first. In a Cessna, you find these even in the manual. If you have that for a given engine combination, you can predict the airspeed etc in a very, very exact manner, way more exact than any of the planes in BoX are doing as of now. Chills Dr.I is way more than just information on the Dr.I. It will tell us about any engine he's sticking on that aircraft. Engines that are used on the Camel, the Nieuports etc.. The fact that speed prediction with fixed pitch propellers is way more simple than with constant speed ones helps us here a lot.
  11. It is an external program that does what FSX cannot do and it has evolved considerably. It is remarkable to see that the stock flight sim now comes up with functionality that at least in part does what Accusim was tailored to do. In the end, it now seems to me that now it just comes down to how exact a dev is willing to record and flight test an aircraft rather than technological limitations. What is interesting now is what the top developpers can make of the functionality given. Just thinking of FS2020 expanded in a way FSX was expanded in capability and scope... This will be a whole new level. I'm just happy being hooked up with 1Gb fibre. I'll be using that it seems...
  12. Maybe you want to first get your system running in more conervatively clocked settings. If you synch all cores, you get much more strain on your system than before.
  13. If not, in my case then the game runs at the slowest specified Turbo speed that is reserved for all cores use. In your case probably 4.7 GHz.
  14. They're almost going Accusim. Incredible.
×
×
  • Create New...