Gunrunner

That's impressively low... I get slightly better results on a C2 4400 (2GHz), 3GB, 7600GS rig, albeit with no AA and a few crashes... Things I'd try to do, by steps, until I'll reach the point where I get enough FPS to my liking (and please give us your results step by step, so other people with the same "problem" might benefit and comment) : 1. Reduce AA to 2x 2. Reduce Shadows to High 3. Reduce Object Textures to High then depending on your priority 4/5. Reduce Terrain Textures to High 5/4. Reduce Ground Objects to High After that, if you still don't get what you want, try, depending on your priorities, item by item, to be one degree lower (High becoming Medium, 2x AA becoming none, Very Far becoming Far). You'd still may experience lag while in cockpit, in which case you may try playing with Cockpit Textures, Mirrors and Reflections until you get to a point you find playable.

No, no, no, you have to cover the GIUK gap ! jk

Ok, 1) which version of windows are you using ? XP, Vista, Vista 64 ? 2) which version does your WoE say it is ? IF you downloaded it from TW after the patch release, it's already patched, in all/most cases, the digital release are patched up to the latest standard. 3) HARD DATA, what are the FPS (CPU and GPU) that you get and consider as lag (is the CPU lagging behind, meaning you have other tasks that you should close, or is it only the GPU lagging) ? 4) what resolution are you using ? 5) what AA settings are you using (in your driver settings) ? 6) are you using stock installs, otherwise what changes have you made exactly (tree mods, weather mods or any change to ENVIRONMENTSYSTEM.ini, FLIGHTENGINE.ini and PARTICLESYSTEM.ini) ?

It was not stupid to ask the question, not accepting the answer though was irritating, just a little. Also these requirements are for "low/normal" settings, for the game pre-patch, years ago, now A LOT has changed in the game, the new baseline requirements are more (as taken from TW site for WoI) : System Requirements OS: Windows 2000/XP Processor: 1.0 GHz Memory: 1.0 GB RAM Hard Drive: 1.1 GB free space Video Card: 128 MB DirectX 9.0c

What did your expect ? You kept answering your own question, you ignored advices and truth, what were you hoping for ? A magic formula that would make your computer or the program do something they can't ? We gave you the best ways to get back performances while not lowering quality too much, you wouldn't hear it... One has matter to get a little irritated don't you think ? Now, if you need anything else, we'll still gladly help you, just try to accept that as powerful your computer might be (or you think it is), it has limitations, and some software, either because they are less optimised or because they are simply more resource hungry, will reach these limitations, you'll have to live with it and learn how to get the best out of it.

Look, you HAVE the bloody answer to your idiotic question... Bringing up that another, completely different game, with different priorities run perfectly is not going to change that with max settings, your rig obviously CAN'T run the game as smoothly as you want. You now have 4 options : 1) Blame your expectations, get a clue and do what people tell you to do to increase performances. 2) Blame the game. 3) Blame your rig. 4) Getting lost...

Because, obviously, your PC can't run the game perfectly with max specs... Ok, from what I remember from Fubar's experiment with performance profiling, the two hardest hitters are shadows and textures, so try setting these lower (or downsize textures) until you reach the kind of performance you feel satisfactory. You may also want to reduce your Anti-aliasing settings in your graphic driver settings, the highest settings take quite a toll while giving not that much added quality (also, you can disable AA while playing, and if you want to take a nice screenshot, pause the game, reactivate AA, take the screenshot, reduce AA and go back to playing). By using Alt + D in-game, it should at some point give you the FPS calculated by both CPU and GPU, allowing you to determine which part is actually the bottleneck in your particular case. Also, keep in mind, this is not a FPS, and since this is coded by, mostly, one man, optimisations are where his interest lies, and it seems that optimising graphic performances is not his favorite topic yet.

The hilarious bit is when the declared ex-boyfriend claims he had the girl's parents consent to sleep with her... Just imagine the conversation : "Do you mind if I have unprotected sex with your daughter ?" "Yeah, sure, go ahead, take a ticket, don't worry, if she ends up pregnant she'll alway find a sucker..." And then, when it appears there's fame and money to be made out of being the father... dozens of would-be father come out of the woodwork. What a sad, doomed civilisation...

To have less lag ? Kind of circular isn't it...

Wrench did the moving, Mono did the thanking :)

Thankfully, even for such cases, we always have the Pythons (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3LJYO3r1xw)... What I don't get is what's so culturally different in England to allow such a rampant and generalised problem with teen pregnancies, it's not as if they mostly were Roman Catholics ( ).

I just realised when the limited capacities of the Forger would nevertheless shine and make them a credible threat even against Carrier Groups. Used in conjunction with a massive missile attack from the Soviet Cruiser and/or Blackjacks, a dozen Forger with Kerrys or Karens coming fast and low, undetected by assets too busy with the massive missile strike; While the Group is designed to defeat such a strike, a new menace suddenly popping out of nowhere, unexpected, from a completely different vector might complicate things, either inducing enough latency in the defenses to increase the main strike chance at dealing serious damage, or by being mostly ignored to concentrate on the main threat, getting a chance to deal some significant damage. That's insane but might just work, and in such a case the limited range and limited sophistication of the missile wouldn't be such a handicap. Now I've got to reinstall Harpoon.

Actually, the nozzles do rotate down. The difference is that instead of having forward nozzle redirecting air from the reactor like the Harrier, the Forger has 2 small reactors behind the cockpit for additionnal thrust. And while these reactors and their exhausts are fixed (except according to some sources for the second one on the Yak-38M, but I didn't find photographic proof of that), they have different positions, for there are doors below them, closed in normal flight, open in vertical operations, and a slotted cover above, with 4 positions (down and closed, down and open, up and open, up and closed). From what I've gathered the down/closed is obviously the storage and normal flight position, the up/open is the position for VTOL operation; I haven't found the use, if any beyond transition, for the down/open position, and while I've read suggestions that the up/closed position was used as an airbrake, it makes absolutely not sense (mind you, as an airbrake the up/open would make more sense, as doubtful as it may be). To have the topic moved, just PM Dave or any of the moderator and ask kindly.

You mean dual graphic cards, right ? It is unlikely that TW games have a specific path in nVidia's drivers, so you might have to choose one that's actually compatible with the games.

AFAIR yes, you get replacement, how much and when depends on the campaign settings (and your own difficulty settings for the campaing). You may also question your tactics... The AI being suicidal shouldn't force you to be the same... As you can't use the sun in FE, your best chances against bombers is using dead angles or less covered ones... Coming frontally might work, from the front sides has a nice chance of success and eases the maneuver after your firing pass, exposing you as little as possible to the rear arc of fire.... You could still attack from behind though, but not from above, being lower than your target enhances your survivability as most gunners have limited depression on their guns, just be aware that bombers cover each other and that while your prey may not fire at you, others in his formation may, so concentrate on those on the outer part of their formation and straddlers... Better pilots who played more recently will probably give you far better advices latter on :)

Changing the TargetType to one with a collision box ? IIRC you can't collide with CITY_BUILDINGs even though the entries suggest otherwise. PS : Fubar's faster and more useful :-)

Gepard, it was a useful asset, for it was all the AV-MF had... Now let's be realistic about it... It was under-powered, limiting range, performance in some weather and at some altitudes, and even worse, payload; Even in the best conditions, it lacked any kind of payload useful beyond anti-shipping with Kerrys, air defense and reconnaissance with short range IR missiles and amphibious assault support with rockets. For air defense duties, it lacked range, endurance, maneuverability. For close air support of amphibious assaults, it lacked range, endurance, payload. Finally, for anti-shipping duties, it lacked the range, missile and avionics to be of any use against anything more than a lightly defended convoy as the short range of the Kerry and the need for the launching aircraft to guide the damn thing made it a suicide mission. Yet, the AV-MF had no other asset able to operate from their aviation cruisers even coming close to the Yak-38. So yes, to the AV-MF, it was useful, but in all honesty, it never managed to really do his assigned jobs very well and couldn't stand the comparison with similar fleet assets of NATO. To compare them to the Skyhawks is not even in their favour as even the Skyhawks offered more range, more payload, and a better ability to deliver it under fire (and probably a better capacity to withstand battle damage). To compare them (with Kerrys) to the Super Etendard/Exocet tandem is even worse, the Exocet having at least 5 times the range of the Kerry and not needing guidance from the launching aircraft. At best they were an annoyance to NATO task forces and a threat to convoy, nothing more... Damn, I love this plane, but it doesn't mean we must be delusionnal about it. PS : Yes, I know the Yak-38M was a far better airplane, but it only made it finally usable, and still inferior to comparable assets... The use of better missiles, didn't really increase the usefulness as in anti-shipping missions it still required the launcher to pop-up far too long and too close to the fleet for comfort, and the only one with real range where SEAD versions using a flight profile unsuitable to attack ships anyway...

If I can locate it I had a not too inaccurate 3-view plan of the Yak-38 I used when I tried to work on it, can't promise anything though, it's somewhere in a stored hard drive.

Ahem, not to play the carebear, but turning that into "us experienced modders" against "them amateurs" was not the purpose of the thread and nothing good would come out of it. Comparing the FMs and explaining why the changes are bad, though time consuming, is a little better and may help the "cooks" to avoid the same mistake later on (of course it would have been better if they started by asking those who know better first).

A generic system would not be too hard to implement for the player, it's the AI side of the thing for which I have doubts...

The Yak-41/141 projects were shelved in 94, had they reached production they wouldn't have entered service before the late 90's. The Yak-38 on the other hand, entered service in 75/76, they even briefly served in Afghanistan, and were completely retired in the mid-90's.

Not the same thing at all, and not the same time period if the Yak-41/141/141M was produced.

Su-24, I think Veltro2k is working on one, Marcello had one too in progress, they'll be released when ready, meaning when the creators are satisfied enough with their work. Yak-38, that beautiful if almost useless bird :) to my knowledge noone's working on it anymore.

It would be simple if there only was the F-4 to simulate... But if you do it for the F-4, you'd have to do it for the A-6, and if you do it for them, why not for the F-104, F-105, F-16 etc... Each of them with systems both close in essence and different in capabilities and behavior... And you'd also have to rewrite the AI* so that it knows what flight pattern to adopt to take advantage of the onboard system (and adapt depending their actual loadout). The actual compromise is to use the lowest common denominator, thus effectively offering only no fire-control or late 80's style fire-control as they are the easier to implement, as the AI always know how to deal with it (well, with LGB it doesn't do quite well, and you'd suppose it's not that hard to implement). Until there's enough interest in the community and enough money to be made to cover the development costs (or TK's grand scheme involves small expansions increasing the simulation of a particular plane rather than a theater) I doubt you'll get what you're looking for soon, just as we all have a list of things we'd like to see implemented, for equally good reasons... So... while in essence I understand your frustration and agree it would be infinitely better that way, I have to strongly disagree on the perceived simplicity of the task. * I believe the AI is the main reason behind a LOT of design choices and compromises in TK's sim, I think he envisions his AI as as generic as possible, having as little code as possible for specific planes and situation, and that it does limit his options unless he had the luxury to spend most of his time working on the AI code and testing it.

Well, it would help Jarhead1 put in context a comment by Icarus999 that apparently struck a nerve.