Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Neutral

About ramrunner800

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines
  1. That is incorrect. The operator visually points the weapon at the target, however the actual targeting and guidance are done by an IR seeker head. Stealth aircraft have their intakes and exhausts designed to limit their IR signature (actually eliminating it is impossible). This will prevent, or at least greatly increase the difficulty, of obtaining a lock. If lock is obtained, it will be difficult to maintain until impact. I agree that this isn't really the place to discuss politics, though as war is simply politics by other means, the discussion of military reasoning is inherently at least somewhat political. I guess the 4 Star's at the Pentagon have no idea what they're doing, they should have called you.
  2. This is pointless you change the facts when they don't suit your argument. It can't strafe effectively at FL250, where it has to stay in order to avoid MANPADS (a note, the S does not indicate plural, it stands for System). How do you figure? That's one of the most ludicrous things I've ever heard. I'm sure that at the end of the age of the knight's in shining armor someone made the case that nothing was better at defending against sword attack than a suit of armor, and that the army was crazy to go to war without it. I'm under no illusions that every war we fight will be WWIII, in fact, I suspect we will not see it in our lifetime. I think part of how you ensure that is by preparing for WWIII, because the appearance of weakness encourages people to test you (I think Putin knows our military is geared to small war right now, and not currently trained or equipped challenge him in the Ukraine). I agree with you that the A-10 is a wonderful aircraft, that does it's particular job like no other, and if no hard choices needed to be made, it should be kept. But the reality is that hard choices do have to be made. Purchasing assets that prepare us for the worst is something that has to be done decades in advance, and the A-10's can be brought back much more quickly if we ever need them (personally I hope that being less prepared for military adventure in the third world will make it less likely). Please don't think I'm some hippie liberal peacenik though, nothing could be further from the truth.
  3. Ok, then what can it do better than a B-1/B-2/B-52. The real point here is that the A-10 will not be able to fulfill it's key mission. It's unique characteristic is that it gets in the weeds and does it well. You have conceded that on a modern battlefield it will be incapable of doing the one thing that makes it a valuable asset, because of the MANPADS threat. If you're looking for a high altitude bomb truck that can deliver large amounts of precision munitions quickly, there are lots of options. Also, your idea that CAS only occurs once air superiority has been established is fantasy. That may be how it goes against technologically inferior enemies like the Taliban, but against a sophisticated enemy, the skies may remain contested during the ground campaign. Troops in contact are not going to want to wait until the skies have been cleared before they get support.
  4. I feel like you just pretty much made the point for retiring it. From 25000', what can an A-10 do that an F-35 can't? Other than arrive on scene more slowly?
  5. Against modern IR guided MANPADS, which neither SEAD or Air Superiority can mitigate, the A-10 will not be able to provide any CAS; it will be a smoking hole in the ground. It's a wonderful piece of aviation history, and today makes a good counterinsurgency aircraft. It can only be effective, however, against a technologically inferior enemy. Aircraft like the F-35 are designed to have reduced IR signatures, which will serve to mitigate (at least partially) the MANPADS threat. I will be sad to see the A-10 go, but I hope that we won't find ourselves in any more conflicts where we need it.
  6. I'm running 4.6 @1.295, w/ 10-12-12. I'm really just surprised because you increased 500mhz and increased CL from 8 to 9, and got a 10% gain. When I increased 1000mhz, and dropped CL from 11 to 10, I got the same gain (in terms of % increase using the same clock). I think I'm gonna underclock the RAM, and tighten the timings to see what happens with various settings. I'm curious to find out if there's a hard frequency beyond which gains stop, or if perhaps the benifits scale with CPU clock, or perhaps some other explanation. At the moment it appears that for FSX 2600mhz CL10 ram (which costs $200USD for 8GB) performs just as well as 2133mhz CL9 (which costs $70 USD).
  7. I'm by no means an expert, but that looks like good stuff to me
  8. Having tinkered with FSX so long I'm ecstatic to see anything squeeze an extra 5 fps out of it, but I'm curious why TechMaxGuyC saw the same performance increase going from 1600 CAS8 to 2133 CAS9 as I did going from 1600 CAS11 to 2600 CAS10. I wonder what the limiting factor there is? Especially as 2600MHz RAM costs double what 2400MHz RAM does.
  9. I went from 42.2 to 47.2 moving from 1600 CAS 11 to 2600 CAS 10, so about 12%.
  10. Today I got a GTX 680 and some G Skill Trident 2600Mhz RAM installed with my 3570K, and ran FSMark11. The CPU was OC'd to 4.6 GHz on 1.295V, and I ran the RAM at two different clock speeds. At 1600Mhz I got an average of 42.2 FPS, and at 2600Mhz, I got 47.7 FPS. This completely blows away my 2600k w/ a GTX 590, which only scored about 28-30 FPS (the 590 was terrible for FSX). I'm excited to see if I can tweak the OC any higher.
  11. I tested two configurations, essentially the same, but with different sets of RAM timings. Here's the link to the first test, and here's the link to the second (I tried to embed them but the editor threw a fit). I was really impressed to see that by increasing from 1600MHz to 2600MHz I saw a 5 FPS performance boost. I'm liking the IB/Fast Ram/PCIe 3.0 combination.
  12. I'm getting psyched by these IB/Fast RAM/PCIe 3.0 results. I will be receiving my GTX 680 and 2600MHz RAM this morning, and will commence with a clean install and testing immediately. Unfortunately the room I'm currently in has a very high ambient temp (85f or so), so my OC will be limited to 4.5GHz, but hopefully it will still be decent.
  13. Have you checked to be sure that even after you plugged in the 560, the video doesn't work if you leave it plugged into the motherboard? Did you install the 560 drivers before you plugged the card in?
  14. What video source were you plugged into when it wouldn't post? Is it possible you were plugged into the 560 while the active source was the MOBO, or vice versa? Perhaps you ought to pull the GPU, and try to boot again. I also had a similar problem in my build, where my system wouldn't post (if I remember correctly, I got the same LED by the RAM as well). It turned out that I wasn't actually getting my RAM modules all the way inserted (I think Asus' RAM mounting system is stupid, with Gigabyte it's not possible to not insert the RAM all the way). Once I made sure it was in correctly, everything suddenly started to work again. It's also probably a good idea to try to reset your CMOS again, by using the jumper on the MOBO (the manual will tell you where it is). In the manual there are instructions about how you can move the piece of rubber to a different set of pins to do this, or you can just use a piece of metal to complete the circuit between the two pins. This is probably more reliable than pulling the CMOS battery, because there could be some residual charge in the board that keeps the CMOS from resetting. As TechguyMaxC said, it is highly unlikely that you have broken your equipment. When you build computers, this kind of thing happens. RMA'ing all the equipment isn't the answer; it's possible, if not likely, that you will experience a similar problem with your replacement parts. Patience and proper troubleshooting should clear this up.
  15. I ran Asus AI, Core Temp, Real Temp, and Aida64. Asus consistently gave readings that were 20-30 degree's lower than any of the other programs. The other three programs all agreed with each other. Asus says to use AI suite, or Aida64 if you must have 3rd party monitoring, but it seems any 3rd party monitoring will do, and using the Asus AI Suite is a recipe to burn up your chip. I think that AI Suite is probably measuring where the chip has contact with the motherboard, not the internal temperature of each core.
  • Create New...