britgliderpilot

I read up about this one day while bored - apparently the issue is that a 32-bit operating system can only address 4Gb of usable . . . um . . . stuff. However, that 4Gb has to include all the peripherals and so forth. So the top end of your RAM can't actually be used, since all the addresses are being put to use for hardware. But from the same blog that told me this, Vista pre-caches everything, and it's not always stuff you want pre-cached. Articles here - Memory limitation of 32-bit systems: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000811.html Vista RAM caching: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000688.html I guess the lesson is that very soon 64-bit will be useful - but as of right now, it's not quite mature.

I'm currently running a 7950GT, which by all accounts is comparable to the 7900GS - no complaints at all with that. A strong CPU will certainly help with Black Shark, and the Core 2 Duos seem to work very well indeed on BS . . . but I'd leave your credit card tucked away for the moment. If you really want to upgrade for Black Shark then leave it as late as possible - save more, and get more for your money. A general point for anyone considering an upgrade for BS - don't worry about it yet, and only treat such upgrades as high priority when ED announce a release date ;) As a practical point, even if ED were to announce tomorrow that Black Shark had gone gold - and as has been made clear, there's more work to do on the Mission Editor - there's no way it could make it into your hands for Christmas. Treat yourself or your family some other way this year :)

I'm not aware of any plans for publishing yet . . . but I wouldn't be too worried. ED are now self-publishing, which means they have a little bit more freedom. And they've previously produced the ring-bound Flaming Cliffs manual for order from their website. If it's in ED's best interests to offer a printed manual as an option (which it most certainly is with a sim of this complexity), and it's within their capability . . . well, it seems like a no-brainer. Doesn't mean we shouldn't keep asking for it, though. Sure the testers can provide some supporting arguments to ED on behalf of the community, too :)

Just two things? What about the skis? ;) Where's that variant from again?

I think the engine allows it, but you've got to consider the minimum level of damage here. The smallest projectile you're likely to get hit by is .50 BMG or 23mm HE. Even one of those can do a lot of damage, and they don't tend to arrive one at a time . . . ;) Perhaps if infantry make it in we'll see surgical system damage. But don't think you won't notice the superb damage model - yes, a single hit can do a lot of damage, but what gets damaged, the severity of the damage, and the results vary widely. It almost makes the Su25T look simple. For mission success I'd recommend avoiding damage entirely, for obvious reasons . . . for discovering all about it I'd suggest spending the first couple of weeks just learning, experimenting, and seeing how many ways you break your helicopter. Yes. Lots. Steep learning curve ;)

Reaching the outside of the envelope in the Ka50 generally results in a loud bang, followed by godawful vibrations and the helicopter beginning to tumble in several axes as a result of the weirdness of two counter-rotating rotor discs with bits missing. Depending on what altitude you're at, this then either rapidly evolves into a state of being spread all over the beautifully rendered landscape, or your aircraft doing a rather good impression of one of those Olympic divers before closing your eyes, pulling the yellow and black handles, and experiencing another loud bang and a short period of blessed peace and quiet before wondering how on earth you're going to explain the mess. And cursing/praising the length of the ramp start, ABRIS mission planning, low-level ingress, etcetera. You can avoid the edge of the envelope by not flying too fast, not pulling too many G, not doing anything TOO silly, and not ignoring all those flashing lights and alarms going off in the cockpit. In fact, you could run a competition after release to see who can bring about the greatest number of flashing lights and alarms in the cockpit . . . . the winner gets a string of Christmas tree lights to attach to their PC in the name of verysillymittitude :P Battle damage . . . well, so far it's only happened to me in large doses. My strategy is to run away as far as possible and try and flop the smoking, half-functional remains of the helicopter into somewhere halfway flat in such a manner that it doesn't explode on touchdown. And to do all that before it disintegrates. This is a lot more challenging than reaching for those tempting yellow and black handles, but in certain cases may result in a very satisfying and very marginal landing at a forward base and NOT having to walk home.

You can only delay a release date if a release date has been determined . . . . which it hasn't. SimWare doesn't have any special information - any release date they provide should be taken as complete fiction unless and until a release date is announced here by ED. That Press Release came out in October - while I don't know if further development of the A-10C sim is likely to take effort away from Black Shark, I haven't noticed much slowdown. Sounds like they want to model a couple more systems on the A-10C, whereas the vast majority of the systems on the Ka50 are already complete. I wouldn't worry too much.

We're approaching the problem from different directions ;) I've currently got a 7950GT - according to that, in some games an 8800 can give me 50-75% FPS boost. However, in FSX I'd get an extra 0.6 FPS! I'd like to know what processor they're running those tests on, though. I've got an E6400 up from 2.13GHz to 2.5GHz on completely stock cooling - faster than the E6600 but with less L2 cache. It still struggles with FSX in crowded environments, but I suspect that might be a video card problem. Guess the only way to find out is to take the plunge!

That much? My usual store is offering an E6750 for Ј113.50 - that's what, $230 or so? You do know Core 2 Duo is the same socket as P4 and there's a high probability of not needing a new motherboard? And they overclock like a dream . . . It's up to you dude - but if you can get a good deal and slot it straight into your system, I think it'd be a good buy :) edit - observe benchmarks here: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e6420_7.html#sect0 Your current processor sounds like a 925 - P4 Dual Core at 3.0GHz - compare it with the new Core 2 Duos . . . . On the basis of that testimonial, though, I just might start looking at an 8800 . . .

Yup. An Apple laptop that's higher in performance than my gaming PC . . . . *sob* . . . I console myself with the knowledge that in order to do that, he had to pay considerably more than twice the price . . . but that machine is a gadget freak's dream.

I can't say categorically that that machine won't run Black Shark, but from experience so far I'd say it wouldn't be much fun. TrackIR, Hotas, pedals, and Touchbuddy are great, but IMO wouldn't enhance your experience as much as a PC that will run Black Shark well. I'd start saving for an upgrade nearer release time, and give it an X52. The HOTAS is more important than any of the other accessories - a hatswitch will do, a twist-stick will do, a rudder rocker will do . . . none of them are perfect, but unless you have a HOTAS you'll wish you had three hands. For reference, I think Jim's PC running the beta at the RC Sims show was a Core 2 Duo at about 2.5GHz, 2Gb RAM, and a 7900 of some variety. So if you're aiming for a new PC for Black Shark, go for that level of spec, or as much higher as you can afford!

I'd recommend an upgrade for best results. My last rig was an an A64 3700+, 1Gb RAM, and an X800XL . . . and I wanted more performance even in Flaming Cliffs. Black Shark's a bit more intense, and that rig was a step up from yours. If you do decide to upgrade for BS, though, leave it a little longer. There's still some time left before release, and the longer you leave it the better the deal you'll get :) Falcon is a poor comparison for performance, but at least a good one for pushing buttons!

What makes me say it? First hand experience ;) As to why that's the case . . . . well I'll give you one of two options ;) 1. A flight sim thinks about an awful lot more stuff. The calculations behind the scenes, not the shiny 3D rendering up-front, are what attracts the hardcore flightsimmer. 2. It's been specifically coded to use as much CPU power as possible, and to keep ramping up the CPU power required forever. This is because there's a global conspiracy between the flight sim makers and the CPU makers, into which come such other considerations as Black Helicopters (actually true), Tinfoil Helmets (only if their owners can't afford genuine fighter pilot articles from eBay), HyperLobby (it's evil and a virus, you know), and Starforce. Which is just the work of the devil, and will eat your children, run off with your wife, cause your dog to hate you, and incite a catastrophic nuclear meltdown in the reactor you didn't even know your computer had. But then you wouldn't, because that's part of the conspiracy too.

Google says the Xeon 5140 is based on a Core 2 Duo with 4Mb L2 cache. And you've got two of them. That's a fairly good recipe :P Sounds like a server machine, though . . . do those get PCI-E slots? Squeeze a 768Mb 8800 Ultra in there, then we're talking ;)

I generally find mirrors in sims not that useful. They've got a relatively low FoV thanks to their size and the amount of screen they take up, they're usually low res, and since you can't move your head around you're stuck with looking at once place. However, with a 6DOF cockpit you can look in different places behind you, with TrackIR you can do so quickly and easily, and with a powerful machine and a high-res screen they might just show a smoke trail in time for you to see it. 6DOF has reminded me to check out this video - turns out it's not a secret after all, so I can confirm they're there. Religious adherence to the NDA unnecessary ;) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HO8zu5QOc4 I don't use them myself - I don't have TrackIR, they suck up FPS (as you'd expect), and my rig/monitor doesn't make them terribly useful for me. But if all the above isn't true for you, or you just want them . . . they're there.

The real aircraft has a rear-view mirror - two, in fact. On top of the cockpit , one either side, as seen here: Lomac and FC both had optional mirrors - there's no reason for Black Shark not to :)

Oh yes. For reference, the British Army's view on the Lynx: http://www.arrse.com/wiki/Lynx

These colonials and their daft pronunciations :P I was always taught to pronounce beta with an "ee" sound. And yes, I admit it, I missed that. I need more coffee.

Mmmn. I think he added an H to the word "term". If you didn't get it, he's implying beta testers don't hold any responsibility. Hey, he's entitled to his opinion.

A P4 3.0 is OK - but a Core 2 Duo is much better. Everything else should be fine, but a beefy processor is really recommended here. TrackIR 4 with the 6DOF cockpit should be fantastic ;)

. . . it's possible I'm out of date here . . My understanding is that it's the case for the X1600 Macbook Pro. But they've changed the graphics chip recently . . . let me check. edit - the Mac forums seem to have tested this and are reporting that while clock speeds are low in 2D applications, when you launch a game they go up to the standard levels. . . . . which is exactly what you'd do if it was underclocked anyway, so it's all good! I still wouldn't buy a Mac as a gaming machine yet, but they'll do at a pinch. Which is plenty good enough for most :)

In order: The B-32 is the lightest rocket, but the highest capacity pod. Really soft targets. The B-8 is the next one up - slightly more power but at less capacity. Soft targets, perhaps BMPs and stuff if you're lucky. The B-8CM is the smoke-marker version of the B-8. Shouldn't technically have much effect against even soft units. The B-13 is a heavier rocket, originally designed for use against hardened aircraft shelters but useful against any harder target. Pretty powerful, very versatile, five rounds per pod. The S-24 and S-25 are both super-heavy rockets. Not sure what separates them . . . the S-25L has limited laser guidance for some precision-guided capability, but they're both hard-hitting, accurate weapons for use against heavy fortifications and so forth. Both are only one to a pylon.

Shh - don't say that out loud, someone might hear you! ;) My brother's got a 17" Macbook Pro for similar reasons, and I have to say it's magnificent. You do pay a fairly hefty premium for the privilege of the design, the badge, and OSX . . . but that's down to individual taste and wallet size. And with Vista and unimaginative PC design the way they are the moment, Apple's starting to make a rather good argument. Beware that the Macbooks DO have underclocked graphics cards - you can clock them back up again once you've got WinXP on, but apparently the reason they're usually underclocked is a potential cooling issue at full speed. Just so's you know.

Not tried the EH-101 missions yet, but a free flight is interesting. Very powerful, but not very agile . . . the power compares reasonably well to my experiences thus far with the unladen Ka50. Seems to keep on flying at some fairly bizarre angles, though. For something a bit more responsive in FSX (and therefore closer to the Ka50), try Hovercontrol's Bell 412. Much snappier - and if you're on the ball that WILL pull out from the dive off the cliff :)

You might want to make that 3.4GHz. If Black Shark could run on 3.4MHz, I'd really be impressed . . . My personal record was the Lomac demo on a P-II 350. That took patience!