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. How is UT2's performance impact? I've been using Traffic360 in 2.2, and it will run with no problems, but the performance is horrible (70% fps loss at heavy airports). It's my understanding that this is because the models are killing performance, and that no traffic addon has models that will not kill P3D performance. Can anybody comment on this?
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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?
  6. 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.
  7. I'm happy that you've found a way to choose what planes you like to fly. Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
  8. PMDG has indeed set the bar for realism very high, though if we expect their level of realism in all products, we will be in woefully short supply of aircraft to fly. There are only select few developers who can match that level of realism. I seriously doubt that the missing link in Carenado reaching the PMDG level of fidelity is simply that they haven't chosen to do so. (I even further doubt that the users on these forums could provide them with the answers on how to do it) PMDG has amazing resources, such as their partnership with Boeing, and their developers are undeniably very talented. I am sure that PMDG also makes a significant investment into every project they take on. Some of these things may be beyond other developers. Carenado provides a decent level of immersion, which is what I'm after in a sim. The gorgeous textures they provide are key to that, and the aircraft feels like it flies quite well; it's fun to fly. Does it fly exactly like a King Air? Doubtfully. But I've never flown one, and it is unlikely I ever will, so if the aircraft is realistic enough that it helps me to suspend my disbelief, I'm happy. There are quite a few other things in life I'm ignoring to believe I'm really in the cockpit, so I think I can spare Carenado a 50RPM discrepancy in engine performance. I'm willing to spend $40 on that (though I will say that's about the upper end for this level of fidelity, I had to think about it a lot harder than I would $30). Would I spend the same $70 that I did on the NGX? No. But I still find the level of criticism that is leveled at any developer other than the select few (A2A, PMDG, etc.) disturbing. Lord knows most of us would be unhappy if we were suddenly held to the standard of the best in the business in our careers. We all strive to be better, and in this pursuit Carenado has established themselves a respectable place as one of the better devs. I would caution all developers who frequent our little corner of the internet to remember Pareto's Principle.
  9. 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).
  10. I'm by no means an expert, but that looks like good stuff to me
  11. 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.
  12. I went from 42.2 to 47.2 moving from 1600 CAS 11 to 2600 CAS 10, so about 12%.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  • Create New...