Fubar512

Upgrade to a C2D if possible, with at least 3 GHz of speed, and 4 mb (or better) of L2 cache. Also, 1 GB of RAM isn't really enough. I recently ran WoE in windowed mode and tracked its memory utilization with task manager. Much to my surprise, WoE used 1.12 GBs of RAM, all by itself!

Flying through the murk..... Joined up with my wingmen..... Glanced off to starboard, and......HOLY MOLY!

Make sure that you're using anisotropic filtering (AF), and that it's not set to "application control" in your video card's control panel. I usually force 8x AF.

Yes, to a degree. WoI has a more sophisticated flight engine (along with a more intelligent AI). Older aircraft that were designed around the earlier flight engine (SFP1, WoV,WoE), may exhibit strange and even undesirable handling characteristics in WoI. A neat thing about Third Wire, is that they provide patch updates that bring their older titles up to parity with their latest releases. So, in short, just about every existing flight model will have to be re-written.

You're lucky that Tipari hasn't been around around in a while He'd probably blame it all on the Latvian mafia For those of you just tuning in, here's a couple of gems by Tipari: http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?s=&am...ost&p=78838 http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?s=&am...ost&p=78779

Just a thought, Brain: Give the Omega drivers a try.

Not quite LOMAC quality (yet), but it's still in its development stage: http://forum.combatace.com/uploads/1217890...9_43_256349.wmv

Brain, ATI cards have issues in two areas in this series, shadows, and horizon distance. Try adjusting those two options and see if there's any improvement.

Actually, it does.

If the G-level were to be attained at the same IAS, say, 400 knots, then a 6 G turn at 90 degrees angle of bank would be tighter than a 3 G turn at the same angle-of-bank, but not by a 100% margin.

Once upon a time, aircraft had a 1.3-1.5 X stress margin. For example, Randy Cunningham pushed his F-4 so hard during a dogfight, that he broke a flap hinge. He later admitted to hitting 11.5 instaneous Gs during a hard pull, on an aircraft that was "officially" stressed for 7.5 G (sustained). I suspect that if one were to try that sort of stunt today (pushing max sustained G +.5, if the FBW system were to allow it), your bird would fold up like a cheap camera.

The game determines which unit to use based on service dates and available FIXED SAM types. For example, if you have the SA-3 missile installed in your weapondata.ini, and the appropriate SAM launchers (SA-3QL, SA-3DL, SA-3BQL, etc.) are located within your ground objects folder, then the game engine will randomly use those and place them wherever there's a call out for a fixed-SAM battery using the service date as a control. You also need to define the SAM type-specific radars, and network them to your launchers, so you won't encounter mixed batteries (SA-2s and 3s using the wrong radar, etc.) There's a bug in the series that prevents Mobile SAMs from showing up, unless you redefine their groundobject role to "Mobile_AAA". Then they''ll be placed randomly, wherever there's a call out for AAA on the map.

I've heard that glass-covered parking lots are all the rage...

Are you by chance running the Enbseries virtual shaders, as well?

Frame rates in this series can be all over the map, due to the plethora of models and mods. At 1600x1200x32 bpp, the lowest I've seen at the default clock speed is 35 FPS, viewing an as yet unreleased Hi-Poly ship model with the horizon distance set on far, against a back-drop of 3D water and clouds. Highs range between 76 and possibly 99 FPS (cannot tell, the frame counter is moving way too fast ). And this is with just a $100 9600GT in the PCI-E slot The reason I went with the 8400 is based on experience OC'ing. The 8400 was only $6 more than the next lowest Wolfdale with a 6mb L2 cache, and it's lower multiplier (9X) should result in a more reasonable OC speed when set on a 400 mhz bus, then either the 8500, or the upcoming 8600. I've benchmarked the CPU, and discovered that there's little to gained in any of the sims/games I play, when I've gone to 3.6 Ghz. 3.0-3.3 seems to be this CPUs "sweet spot". BTW, that 3.6 Ghz was at default core voltage. I will stay away from Radeons in this series until I'm satisfied that they've completely overcome the "shadow bug".

I've just assembled a new system, based on an Intel E8400. After extensive testing, I've determined that this series is more CPU than GPU limited. I achieve about the same FPS as Spinners, using a mid-range GFX card, a GeForce 9600GT, with all the graphics options set to high. If I down clock the system (to 1800 MHz), I get approximately 25% less FPS. If I overclock to 3600 MHz, my FPS goes up. If I set the horizon distance to "normal", as opposed to "high", my average FPS goes up by 15%.

Well, why don't you try it and let us know?

As the name implies, it effects how shadows are rendered by Radeon cards. In extreme cases, shadows radiate out from the model, like spikes. In mild cases (such as on my X800XL), they appear to be disassociated from the model, depending on the view angle. Perform a search on 'Radeon Shadows' here, and at Third Wire's site, and you'll see what I mean.