GregSM

Hi All, I have just got a new notebook which I'm struggling a little to optimize for OFF. Specs are as follows: Clevo/Sager NP8690 Core i7-620M, 2.66-3.33GHz 6GB DDR3, 1333MHz ATI Radeon HD 5870, 1024MB DDR5 Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit Catalyst 10.7 Generally OFF runs very well, but there's this exception: when the sky is fully overcast, and only when looking upwards such that the sky fills the display (no or little terrain/airframe rendering), framerates drop dramatically, into the high-teens. To no avail, I've tried resolving this via game settings as well as Catalyst Control Centre settings. For instance, the cloud detail slider has little impact. In dense cloud, a setting of one produces nearly the same framerates as a setting of five. Reducing screen resolution produces mildly positive gains, but I'd rather not lower the resolution due to fuzziness when running outside of native resolution. Again, this trouble only occurs during heavy overcast, and only when the overcast sky fills the display. Failing a proper solution, would it be possible to simply remove the dense overcast texture, or to replace it with a lighter version? Any help will be warmly received. Cheers, Greg

BirdDog, Yeah, for me it's a considerable improvement. And I'm glad to hear you're benefiting as well. Cheers, Greg

The latest Catalyst drivers, 10.11, solve this old trouble. Now, I maintain frames in the mid-high forties in dense overcast, with little or no stuttering. (The FSX guys are delighted too as this has been a long standing problem for them.) So if you're using older versions still, give these later drivers a trial! Cheers, Greg

Everything looks great to me, the new terrain especially so. Looking very much forward to P4! Thank you to all involved for the effort. Cheers, Greg S

Great info, thanks BirdDog. Cheers, Greg S

Here's a tip for anyone with an Ati card and this particular trouble: try setting the anti-aliasing mode to “Adaptive Multi-sample”. Normally, this lowers frame-rates somewhat in relation to the standard “Multi-sample” mode, but with my OFF installation it killed most of the stuttering. So evidently this trouble is related to AA after all. Cheers, Greg

I'm still struggling with this! And it's definitely not a matter of AA or anisotropic filtering. As I've mentioned, reducing resolution eliminates the frame-rate plunge induced by heavy overcast. But, despite high frame-rates, stuttering remains when looking at the clouds. Oddly, this stuttering can in turn be eliminated by turning on “info cycle” (“z” key). I wish there were some other way as all that red text is a distraction. Cheers, Greg

Hi BirdDog, I'm glad this has helped you! As for me, I spoke a little too soon – disabling in cockpit fog causes texture corruption at the horizons, such that sections of the horizon appear to be discoloured or washed-out. Do you see this problem too? Cheers, Greg

After much – much! - experimentation, I've discovered that this problem is solved completely by disabling “Virtual Cockpit Fog” in overrides. (And I can't notice any graphic degradation.) I hope this is useful to someone. Cheers, Greg

It isn't aa or aniso. Rather, I suspect it's an ATI driver or hardware thing. But thanks for the suggestions gents. Lowering resolution will need do for now. Cheers, Greg

Hi Herr Prop-Wasche, Thanks so much again for this. Useful indeed. Cheers, Greg

Hi, Damn – had a good career going but can't continue due to “error at position 3822, line 1 of ViewUI.XML”. CFS III.exe crashes while the mission is loading. I know I can correct this by resetting CFS III files to default, but......And I've tried resetting views to no avail. Any advice will be appreciated. Cheers, Greg

Hi Herr Prop-Wasche, Thank you. Such a program would be a useful utility. I'll be looking forward to it. Cheers, Greg

Thanks so much, guys! Overwriting the corrupted file with one from another folder did the trick. Oddly, perhaps, on my computer the various file sizes are all slightly different, and there are no duplicates marked “backup”. I've made my own backup of the working file. Now to be extra cautious not to kill the guy too promptly upon his miraculous return to duty......

Thank you, Fortiesboy! But I gather that some cockpits work perfectly with 6 DF, others a little less that perfectly, and others still, not so well. But perhaps I should look into it further. Cheers, Greg

Perhaps I've been lucky, and granted my experience is just six months, but I've yet to encounter a single glitch with Track IR, hardware or software. Would that the balance of the typical computing environment...... frikin' joysticks, for example. And, for sure, there's “no going back”. I can accept no longer even IL2 - a sim I once loved – and its rudimentary two degrees of freedom. As in OFF, actually moving one's head freely about to look at the surroundings is, I imagine, rather akin to acquiring running water. (Well, okay......) Cheers, Greg

“People don't realize how revolutionary TrackIR is until they try it for themselves. Then they'll be left wondering, how on earth they've played flight sims without it in the first place......” Over the past several years, I've read this many times. Each time, I was a little sceptical. “Nothing wrong with a good ole hat switch”, etc. Then, about six months ago, bewitched with OFF but bedevilled with the clunky (CFS III, I know) view system, I ordered Track IR 5. After just a few hours I realized why so many say what Hasse Wind says above. To my mind now, Track IR is as essential to flight simming as a decent CPU or video card. Cheers, Greg

I've had two pairs of CH pedals, one early gameport version and the other of the later USB type. Both still function perfectly, after many years and much, much use. Now, reluctantly, I'm using the pedals which come with the G940. Comparatively, they're rubbish, spiking having set in after just two or three months. Cheap pots, no doubt. CH stuff implies an extra coin or three. But I would advise that it's worth considering: CH products typically continue functioning after 10 years or more. Still, even bad pedals are better than no pedals. Cheers, Greg

Congrats to the Americans! They played a great game and could very easily have won. Congrats to the Canadians and Finns too, of course. Actually, congrats to all involved. It was a stellar tournament that should further the game itself. To me, it's to pity that there isn't more of the same, NHL games being a bit pedestrian in comparison. Cheers, Greg

Ha! I think you're correct! My father and my grandfather before him exercised their darker instincts in places like Vimy Ridge and Dieppe. For my generation, it may be just a hockey rink, but...... (Seriously, despite the stereotype, or appearance of acceptance, I think most Canadians are a little embarrassed by the violence to which Canadian hockey tends to aspire - it's a runaway train of sorts.) Anyway, good luck to the Canadian guys as well to our American friends. It won't be seriously unfriendly on either side.

From a Canadian's perspective, the American team should be really happy with itself regardless of Sunday's outcome. They've played well beyond what the roster would suggest was possible. (After all, it's in transition - Chelios, Tkachuk, Weight, et al, being gone.) And, statistics aside, it isn't just Miller. But Canada is Canada. This includes the historical pressure, home ice or not, but also the fact that there is always a Crosby or two, supported by a cast of Nash's, Iginla's, Weber's, Heatley's etc., etc., etc. Moreover, while merely favoured teams like the Russians or Finns usually show up to play, Canada does it every time. So, my American friends and neighbours: you might win and you might lose, but, respectfully, it will be nothing like playing Norway..... for either of us. Cheers, Greg S

I hear you, Slartibartfast! My best so far has been thirty-some hours, mostly in an Eindecker. Not easy! But aircraft performance, or role, isn't nearly as important to me as tactics and self-discipline, adhering to a set of very conservative tactical principles. After some hours, an insidious, irresistible complacency displaces my better judgement. It's as dangerous as anything else. This thirty-some hour guy, for instance, died due to collision with a friendly. Quite deliberately, I set after a lone, fatally crippled enemy plane that was about to fall to the several friendlies with which I could clearly see it was already engaged. Boom! Avoidable but inevitable. Cheers, Greg

“I think it would be really cool if you can stop and save a mission in flight. Then reenter the mission and finish the flight later on. No warping, No 3 hours in front of the PC. I know it’s is probably to hard to do but it’s would be cool.” I think this is a really great idea. Incidental to the convenience, it would provide insurance against computer crashes. Hopefully it's doable. Cheers, Greg

Burning Beard - I'm really thankful to you for posting that tip! I often struggle to maintain course manually with time acceleration enabled. Somehow (hmm......), it hadn't occurred to me to first engage auto-pilot. Cheers, Greg

Hi All, Here are my impressions of the Logitech G940, mostly with respect to shortfalls in force-feedback: 1. Excessive delay in the application of control surface force. That is, any degree of aileron or elevator deflection is accomplished without any force resistance whatsoever. Forces engage only after a second or so of the deflection being complete. The faster the deflection, the greater the distraction. Thump. Moreover, when deflections are rapidly and repeatedly reversed, it's possible for the forces to become seemingly confused, or incoherent, pulling suddenly this way or that, presumably in frantic effort to transmit the backlog of input data. Thump, thump-thump...... thump (huh?). Elevator force is the same. 2. Excessive force-feedback dead-zone. In and of itself, this isn't especially troublesome (at least to me), but together with the lag and the suddenness in the onset of force, the stick cannot be slightly deflected around the centre without forces, again, snapping suddenly and sometimes incoherently in and out. So, again, thump, thump-thump...... thump. This I find certainly troublesome. 3. Airspeed sufficient to negate aileron effectiveness cancels rather than maximizes force; when you would expect the stick to become locked due to extreme airspeed, it instead goes suddenly limp. 4. Want of discernible force accumulation or dampening. Due largely, I suspect, to the lag in transmission of control surface forces, the force effects neither build nor diminish with any subtly. Rather, they are effectively either fully on or fully off. (And this is precisely true of the stick-shake force applied when nearing stall speeds.) 5. Under certain conditions, the stick appears to be too limited in simultaneously transmitting discrete forces. For instance, with spring centering engaged (there being no actual spring, the force motors are hereby additionally tasked), the gun-shake force is cancelled when the stick is deflected fully to any of the four corners. As such, I find the G940's force-feedback effects to be generally incoherent and distracting, and I've concluded that disabling them altogether is the lone viable option. Despite this, the build quality of each of the three units appear initially to be excellent, about equal to CH stuff. The stick's X and Y axes are very, very accurate. The buttons, hats, switches and rotaries of both the stick and throttle are all well-positioned, respond positively and generally feel like quality. The rudders, too, respond positively and are very accurate, as well as smooth. The profiling software is intuitive and feature rich. Ultimately, I prefer the G940 above the equivalent Saitek and CH offerings I've used in the past. But the force feedback is a considerable disappointment which I can't imagine being reversed by driver updates alone, particularly in context with an older engine like CFS III. I hope this is useful to someone. Cheers, Greg S