Tamper

OK, so dinner was running late...anyway... There have been a number of threads lately about the momentary 'lag', hangs, pauses, whatever you want to call them. And, I'm here to tell you, it doesn't (appear to) have diddly to do with frame rates. This is one reason I never understood all the internet chest-pounding about FPS. It really has little to do with 'smooth' graphics. Yes, if your frame rate is slow, you'll notice...but what about all those people with average FPS near 60 (or over) who still see the little lags? One thing, it's an average. In any given second, that frame rate can drop - for literally a "split-second", and what you see is the lag. Anyway, the FPS thing is a subject for another thread... There's also discussion about changing Windows task priorities, which might work, but just plain old isn't recommended - especially beyond a certain point. Back on the topic - or at least my own, personal opinion and response. I wanted to paste in something I posted in a similar thread a while back. Give a read. Others here have touched on it, and I think they're not just imagining things. The post (some parts admittedly not in context; see this thread: http://forum.combatace.com/topic/54266-poor-fps-wondering-why/page__p__397711&?do=findComment&comment=397711) It's been said "Every problem contains it's own solution". I think you've touched on what may be (in my opinion) at least a part of the problem. Again, this is strictly my opinion; others will likely say I'm wrong - but I do have first-hand experience to speak from. Like you, I have a system capable of running most of the reasonably-intensive games I play without much trouble. And I always wondered exactly what you are now. It's interesting to me that people will often post system specs; raging CPU, awesome video cards ...and then, somewhere down in the list most often...oh, yeah....a hard drive. If it's mentioned at all (some do; you didn't). Not to find fault, but to make the point: it's *the* oftmost overlooked piece of hardware in a system, which is interesting, because it's also by far and away usually *the* slowest. ... For reasons of my own, I purchased two SSD's and built a RAID0 array for my desktop about 6 months ago. Now, this isn't to say SSDs are the second coming; even now in their second generation, the technology has some drawbacks. But I can tell you, in terms of loading, it's night and day. If you run some tests, I think there's a reasonable explanation: One, the RAID array definitely is faster than a single drive in terms of data movement (loading). It doesn't double when using two drives, but it does make a difference. I'm a person who for years thought a lot of high-end gamers wasted their money on RAID, because it only really helps for loading - like when levels change. Most games, I think, do most of their loading 'up front' (not all, though). As you've pointed out, though - and I believe you're right - there seems to be a lot of loading that takes place in this sim. And your other comment that the 'vanilla' game seems to corroborate further - it's a well-known fact that OFF 'raises the scale' of the sliders; the general idea I think is that a 5 on CFS3 might equate roughly to a 2 on OFF. I think this is because of the (outstanding) texture work done by the OFF team, and is aimed at the performance of today's machines. Also, I think it's true that the HiTR expansion went even further with textures. The other difference - and, I believe, the biggest by far - is the random access time on SSD's. Most hard disks, even fast ones today, still go around 12ms +/- in terms of access time. SSD's are .1ms, actually near 100 times faster (because no spinning drive platters, and other moving parts etc.). All these things make a little difference each and can make a big difference combined. But, the big difference? Look at the "random access" time - .1ms compared to 15.4ms! I'm not saying you should just run right out and buy SSDs. What I would recommend, definitely, is to download a tool or a few and look at your hard disks performance. Without having to spend a dime, at least you may be able to pin down a bottleneck (or see that there's not one; equally important). You can get HDTach online, also there's another good tool called the ATTO benchmark (Google either). Benchmarks aren't the end-all, I know that...but especially in a case like yours, they're helpful: You're not looking for a performance measurement, per se, the important part is *comparative*. Say, one drive to another. Or any of the drives included in a small database that comes with HDtach. I've also noticed things like what was pointed out above (terrain and scenery have the biggest hits)...but these *are* the textures that are being loaded. So running those lower seems to help many people a lot. >>>>end of previous blather<<< Consider at a minimum a fast hard disk. RAID0 on two fast platter-based drives, if you can afford it; many recent motherboards support it. If you really have money *lol* consider a RAID array both striped and mirrored. Going further, RAID two SSD's (four if you want fault tolerance). A step beyond that, buy a *real* hardware RAID controller card. I finally settled on a RAID0 array with two "volumes", one with two 30G SSDs (where OFF lives) and the other two 500G platter-based SATA300 drives (where Windows boots from); all on a hardware-based RAID controller from 3Ware. My read and write speeds are now approaching the theoretical limits of the SATA300 bus (I will post a graphic later if you'd like). Why I did it this way is a long story about SSDs, RAID arrays, and boot drives, blah, blah... But even if you can't afford new hwardware, consder the tools mentioned to see what's going on. Also, consider a good cleaning of your system - or even a good purge/reload. If it's been more than 2 years, it's probably overdue. All the foregoing are strictly my opinion. Hope it helps. Best of luck.

First, I wanted to mention about the Dell thing - both for the PSUs and the fans....Dell tried some slick shtuff, for sure - but none of it really worked out. See, Dell's awful big, but not as big as the whole industry. They have no more a chance of changing long-established standards than the man in the moon. Things like fan sizes...I mean, Dell doesn't *make* the fans, they buy them from a vendor. Now, does anyone really believe Dell has the wherewithal to pay a vendor to make a specific size of fan, that only Dell will buy? (HINT: It would cost them an arm and a leg to do this...which is pretty much what they found out after trying the funny business with their power supplies a few years back). Basically, any advantage they gained from trying to make things proprietary just wound up costing them more on the production side and didn't necessarily earn them a fortune in sales of replacement parts, like apparently they thought it would. The power supply thing...well, yes, you *can* exchange Dell PSU's with other PC's and vice-versa. You just have to understand the 'pin-outs' of both units. Again, no motherboard manufacturer is going to make a board just for Dell that uses some stupid non-standard voltage. Moving the pins around is enough to keep novices out, so that Dell can sell proprietary power supplies. But it won't even slow down someone how knows what they're looking at. And they quit doing it years ago, right about the time they figured out the whole idea was dumb to begin with. My $.02 - and yes, I've worked on about 100 Dells personally, and we use them where I work. Now (sorry to hijack) I'll get back to the original post...shortly...dinner time

Hi Morris...I didn't want to hijack konder's thread with the RAID discussion, even though I started it *lol*. I had actually hoped kondor would've revisited the thread to comment further; I guess we'll see. The features you discussed sound good, I don't know if non-Intel SSD's will support it (doubtful), and I don't run the supported OS's, either (XPSP3 here). Using the SSD "housekeeping" utilities doesn't lend itself well to RAID arrays, I learned. Which is probably why Intel made the TRIM work on RAID arrays as you pointed out. But, I recently learned of a way to optimize SSD RAID volumes (without having to destroy the volume). You first defrag only the free space (where normally, SSD's should NOT be defragged), then you write all "FF's" to the free space - basically resets all the NAND cells, and (supposedly) restores performance lost over time in SSDs. Seems to make sense, but I've not tried it yet. I just this morning bought a "real" (hardware) RAID controller, so sometime in the next few weeks I'll be installing it, checking performance, etc (hope to get a substantial boost) and also changing my setup so it's a little more 'friendly' to doing maintenance on the SSD's. Back to konder :)

Von Paulus - Hi...I'm not sure it's the problem, either. But this is why I suggested a couple of (free) utilities that at least can measure his drives' performance. For me, all of the micro-stuttering, white/blue triangles, etc...*all* disappeared when I changed my setup to RAID SSDs (and nothing else changed). Either way, I don't figure it'll hurt to do some testing Morris, I bought two 30G OCZ Vertex drives. I believe these are 'second generation' SSD drives; I do know that many early SSDs, including some Intel units, had horrible problems with performance, especially as they were used. That's where the firmware you're referring to originates; they load "wear-leveling" algorithms and other optimizations on the drives now to help with some of the problems discovered in the first generation of these devices. There were also some first-generation problems with certain controllers, as well. These 'consumer' SSD's are not the same as the still more expensive types (MLC vs. SLC technology)...so there is still a lot of ground to cover in solid state drives, for sure. As I said, SSDs are not the 'second coming' and have some issues of their own - for one, all the 'housekeeping' you can do to keep them performing well doesn't lend itself very well to RAID arrays. And I think they will still slow down over time if not kept up with. I'm probably going to change my setup so that I can more easily maintain the two SSDs without having to basically start over every time. However, at least in this particular discussion, the thing that seems to matter most is random access. And, I also think the sequential read and burst speeds would improve substantially if I were using a true 'hardware' RAID controller instead of the on-board controller on my MB (eVGA 780iFTW). But real hardware RAID controllers are $300+ for four SATA300 drives. I guess we'll all have to watch the thread and see what develops! Best to all!

Greetings kondor It's been said "Every problem contains it's own solution". I think you've touched on what may be (in my opinion) at least a part of the problem. Again, this is strictly my opinion; others will likely say I'm wrong - but I do have first-hand experience to speak from. Like you, I have a system capable of running most of the reasonably-intensive games I play without much trouble. And I always wondered exactly what you are now. It's interesting to me that people will often post system specs; raging CPU, awesome video cards (that's a hell of a laptop, by the way!)....and then, somewhere down in the list most often...oh, yeah....a hard drive. If it's mentioned at all (some do; you didn't). Not to find fault, but to make the point: it's *the* oftmost overlooked piece of hardware in a system, which is interesting, because it's also by far and away usually *the* slowest. Especially in a case like yours - all that awesome hardware, but what about that drive? And comparing it to your desktop may have yielded the biggest clue of all. Sure, the system itself is much more powerful - which woud have an obvious impact...but I wonder if the biggest difference (component-to-component) isn't the hard disks. You said yourself "feels like textures are being loaded". That's (most likley) the slowest component - especially in a system like yours - trying to do all this loading. For reasons of my own, I purchased two SSD's and built a RAID0 array for my desktop about 6 months ago. Now, this isn't to say SSDs are the second coming; even now in their second generation, the technology has some drawbacks. But I can tell you, in terms of loading, it's night and day. If you run some tests, I think there's a reasonable explanation: One, the RAID array definitely is faster than a single drive in terms of data movement (loading). It doesn't double when using two drives, but it does make a difference. I'm a person who for years thought a lot of high-end gamers wasted their money on RAID, because it only really helps for loading - like when levels change. Most games, I think, do most of their loading 'up front' (not all, though). As you've pointed out, though - and I believe you're right - there seems to be a lot of loading that takes place in this sim. And your other comment that the 'vanilla' game seems to corroborate further - it's a well-known fact that OFF 'raises the scale' of the sliders; the general idea I think is that a 5 on CFS3 might equate roughly to a 2 on OFF. I think this is because of the (outstanding) texture work done by the OFF team, and is aimed at the performance of today's machines. Also, I think it's true that the HiTR expansion went even further with textures. The other difference - and, I believe, the biggest by far - is the random access time on SSD's. Most hard disks, even fast ones today, still go around 12ms +/- in terms of access time. SSD's are .1ms, actually near 100 times faster (because no spinning drive platters, and other moving parts etc.). Below is a screen cap from some of my own testing; red is the SSD RAID 0 array and blue is a regular, single SATA150 drive. Some laptops still use ATA(EIDE) drives, and they're even slower...sometimes a sindle speed of 5400RPM instead of 7200, ATA-100 instead of -133, etc. All these things make a little difference each and can make a big difference combined. But, the big difference? Look at the "random access" time - .1ms compared to 15.4ms! Now, there probably isn't a practical way to put a RAID array in a laptop *lol*. And, I'm not asying you should just run right out and buy SSDs. What I would recommend, definitely, is to download a tool or a few and look at your hard disks performance. Without having to spend a dime, at least you may be able to pin down a bottleneck (or see that there's not one; equally important). You can get HDTach at the address in the graphic below, also there's another good tool called the ATTO benchmark. Benchmarks aren't the end-all, I know that...but especially in a case like yours, they're helpful: You're not looking for a performance measurement, per se, the important part is *comparative*. Say, your desktop to the laptop. Or any of the drives included in a small database that comes with HDtach. I've also noticed things like what was pointed out above (terrain and scenery have the biggest hits)...but these *are* the textures that are being loaded. So running those lower seems to help many people a lot. Also, even though you have a nice laptop, the CPU is conservative (in strict terms of clock speed), and it runs at a 800MHz FSB. OFF is known to favor single-core, faster-the-better CPUs and I don't think it benefits at all from mutli-core. This also enters into loading times, though not by far as much as drive speeds. I hope this helps. Good luck to you. (Edit - I probably don't get the best RAID performance, either..."on-board" RAID controllers really don't measure up to true "hardware" controllers...but they can be expensive. It would help improve the RAID array's performance in terms of the sequential read and burst speeds, I'm certain)

Since you've made it clear this is a "which ONE" request, I'm going to offer an opinion. And, keep in mind that when you ask "Which one is best", all you're going to get is just that: opinions. What is "best" means different things to different people. In my opinion, OFF is better than RoF, at least at present. And not by a little. RoF is still far too finicky, requires way more of a computer to run well, and is still having problems associated with each 'update' released to add new features and content. The releases still haven't addressed some of the most glaring problems with RoF (look around, you'll see), and even the most heralded change - not requiring constant online connetion - was only changed partially. It was only after a really huge deal was made about them "getting rid of the online requirement" did the Producers finally come out and say "Well, sort of..." Make no mistake, the online connection requirement has not been eliminated - not entirely. RoF is a very pretty gal, to be sure. Beautiful planes, nice articulation of pilots and some features (I love the gun hammers!) Really "puts you there", if you know what I mean. But after that first date or so, she lacks enough substance for me to be content with for long. Good looks are one thing, but the novelty wears off after awhile. And the more I'e found out about the real product, the more I'm convinced it doesn't live up to the hype. So far. And yes, I do own both OFF P3/HiTR and RoF. And yes, believe it or not, I still hold out hope that RoF will become the "next generation" WWI combat flight sim it was always supposed to be. But, for me - still way too close to a beta to be considered the next greatest thing. Lots of potential with RoF, but I don't give points for potential. And if you're looking to buy something any time soon, I can't imagine you'd be pleased with it based strictly on potential, either. I have FE Gold, but I haven't really spent enough time with it to offer a real informed opinion. I will say it looked pretty good to me, and I could see where it would win out depending on what you're most interested in (me, personally, I'm not interested in a lot of modding if I have to do it...too lazy *lol*). But I gather there's a lot of community modding going on, if you don't mind spending the time to set all that up. Another thing I like about OFF is it pretty much runs, out of the box, without a ton of mods or configuration. OFF runs on reasonably conservative hardware and has been pretty much stable for quite some time now. And it continues to get better with each update/add-on. Even when there are problems - very rare - the Devs are all over it, and it's resolved in practically no time. It includes a remarkable array of flyables at no extra charge, and an insanely large collection of historical skins, as well as a ton of detail regarding historical data (squads, locations, even historical weather that's very much a part of the experience). Due to the efforts of the OBD team, this stuff is all done about as accurately as conflicting 90-year old records will allow - and is constantly improved upon by the team and the community. And, you can play OFF as much as you want, in any mode you want, regardless of whether you ever have an Internet connection at all, period. Ever. And I doubt seriously the Devs will ever change this. I would NOT say OFF is perfect - because for me, there are almost no 'perfect' games...but, given the whole, it's as damn close to perfect as I could ask. Also, since you already own CFS3, a part of the cost doesn't apply to you. But you can find deals on any of these products, I'm guessing. I hope this helps. This is entirely my opinion; I would definitely encourage you to look around online - no shortage of opinions, good and bad, about each.

A recent poll was conducted concerning user's satisfaction level ("level of excitement") with RoF. So as not to offend sensitivities or breach any copyright rules, I've reproduced the current state of the poll in a spreadsheet, and in text below. I won't post a link, either, so as to make doubly sure I shouldn't be breaking any rules (not at all my intent here to break rules). The poll results: What is your excitement level? Rating Poll description Votes % 100% Still very excited ! 12 12.8% 80% Still pretty good. 27 28.7% 60% Needs new stuff. 22 23.4% 40% Getting bored 11 11.7% 20% I play others games now. 22 23.4% Note that nearly 60% (58.5%) of those who responded actually rate the sim at 60% or less. And 25% have apparently given up entirely. God, I do love hard data. It puts an end to all the individualized opinions in this case, and shows how the community feels overall. Where the majority is. A point I've tried to make long since: There are some fanatical fans of RoF (like anything else, of course). But those who find it lacking are obviously in the majority. Bottom line, even if only by a smallish margin: Folks aren't thrilled with RoF, at least in this poll. Granted, if it were my poll, I might not have titled the poll as it is, or used the same distribution of ratings...but it wasn't my poll (which means, basically, "It is what it is" and "I didn't influence the poll structure"). And, in fairness, the poll isn't closed as yet. Also, you could say that people who aren't entitled to vote have - for instance, there's no stated requirement that a respondant actually *own* the sim (even on the honor system). But you could also say there's 'sway' among those who are loyal....in the actual comments posted by voters, some admitted to bumping their vote up because they're confident it will improve. Personally, I don't give points for potential. Two things are interesting about this poll: One, it was conducted in about as generous an environment to RoF as you'll find. Again, I'm not saying where or posting any links, but in fact, I think it safe to say that where it is posted probably leans heavily in favor of RoF, if anything. Another is that I've watched the poll ever since it started - and since about 60 votes, the distribution of votes hasn't changed. Basically, the last 40% of the responders only serve to make the sample size larger, thereby further confirming the results. By all means, I encourage any/all comments here! Please keep it on topic and civil, though, so the thread doesn't get whacked - thanks. Regards,

Yup, I agree on all counts. I know I was amazed at the progression of OFF, and I've followed it since the beginning. And no one hates more that PC gaming has suffered than I do. I guess I've learned something - just now - from your perspective: PC games "ain't what they used to be"...I should've thought more about it. And although it does suck, well, maybe I should just be grateful they're still being developed *at all*. And I don't really care for the DRM, although I do work in technology - with developers - and I can see the point. (It stinks, having to actually acknowledge both sides of a point *lol*). Either way, I 'bought into' RoF, so at least maybe it'll be all it can be before long. I've actually read some about what's been done with FE, but regretfully haven't made time to catch up. I'm pretty content right now flying OFF and bitching about RoF

If I may...the installer (MadMatt's) references the hardcore DM, but this seems to pre-date the last patch (maybe?). Is it required? I noted that none of the OFF install would be changed, but it seems the hardcore DM would cause some changes, no? Kindly forgive me if I should not ask questions here. I've been interested in trying some MP, and I hope this is a good way to find out more. Thanks

No worries, Bandy. It's apparent this remains a charged issue on 'the boards'...and I personally don't think we should avoid discussion just because something's controversial. I do own both OFF and RoF (as well as FE), and I see each for it's strengths and weaknesses. I would have to say that, all things considered, I am less pleased with RoF overall than the others - and I think the same thing could be said about many who have tried the various sims. The general outlook seems to be that RoF has potential - lots, I think...but I can't see myself giving points for that. I 'vote' on what I see now, and comment accordingly. To be honest, I am looking forward to see what RoF will become...but boy, am I impatient *lol* It would be interesting to see this same poll in 6 months; in a year. I am curious as to what RoF will be then. (I just wish it were that, already). Yes, the poll was informal/unscientific. Of course, I freely acknowledge the limitations of a poll like this. I think it still tells something, particularly that it was posted where it was (a site full of fans of RoF) and that over the last 40% of votes or so the distribution didn't change. I'm sorry if the anecdotal first hand accounts trouble you. You're not by far the only one who seems to feel that way. It's actually fascinating to me. People have opinions, and not everyone agrees I believe it's actually good for folks to be able to express their views - what would be the point of discussion boards otherwise? And, if I may, I think it's good for the 'community' - all WWI flightsim projects can benefit, because it's the market speaking its mind if you will (and yes, there will always be conflict because not everyone wants the same thing). More important to me that folks have a voice than whatever any one voice says. I hope you enjoyed your weekend as well, maybe got in a little stick time. Regretfully, I didn't, but I did get in a few rounds of CoH with the kids and some of thier friends (I have built quite a few computers here at home for "Visitor MP Smackdown Sleepovers" *lol*). -Best

Bandy, thanks for sharing an interesting perspective. Have a great weekend!

Bandy, As the post following yours indicates, the poll was on SimHQ. That being said, if I may use your line, "Don't mistake my comments as being uncivil", but: In the first paragraph you actually conveyed some level of intellect, and even attempted an explanation for the poll results (As it happens I don't agree with your hypothesis, that you say it's "very common for that group to not vote" notwithstanding). However, you immediately and unfortunately belied that impression of intellect, by indicating in the second paragraph that you're either unwilling or unable to read: My choice to forego posting a link was fully explained in my original post: "So as not to offend sensitivities or breach any copyright rules, I've reproduced the current state of the poll in a spreadsheet, and in text below. I won't post a link, either, so as to make doubly sure I shouldn't be breaking any rules (not at all my intent here to break rules)." You then followed this by several disappointing remarks concerning wasting people's time and forum space. I assure you, this is not the intent. Everything I posted was well-founded, with the specific goal of initiating an academic discussion, and was genuinely altruistic. It's honestly as if you were more concerned with some attempt to instigate or ridicule, than with actual civil discussion on topic. Benefit of doubt; let's say that's just not the sort of person you are, fair enough? To borrow your example about an unvetted news story, I didn't choose to offer a fabricated news story just to see who would buy it without research. But, whenever I want to confirm something, I generally take that responsibilty upon myself. In this case, it would be incredibly easy to type (for example) "RoF poll excitement" into Google, and guess what? This thread and the poll itself are the first two hits. I had legitimate reasons for my choice to not include that in my post - and that doesn't mean the post itself is fallacious. Let the reader decide. Also, a good number of those who (at least say they) voted indicate clearly where their vote was...so it's not quite as accomodating to the 'hidden majority' in your hypothesis. Granted there are obviously some who voted and didn't comment...but there could be a hundred reasons for that, none of which we know. With respect to your hypothesis, here's mine: Probably best to take it as it is: an informal poll, hardly what you'd call 'scientific', but revealing nonetheless. I think it speaks for itself (and quite loudly, at that). Now, if you please, I'd really like to see what people have to say about this - where that input is not inflammatory or in effort to ridicule. Please accept my thanks for your cooperation in advance. Kind regards.

Nice screenies...man, I love that Dr1. She's gorgeous! And I'd love to fly her, especially in RoF. But *sigh* no more new planes for me, pending something getting done with the other issues. Anyway, not to hijack, USAFMTL...please do go on. I'm greatly looking forward to hearing what you think as you get beyond the (genuinely captivating) graphics. Performance, game play, UI, continuity, immersion, ease/flexibilty of configuration, FM, DM, SP, MP, effects, scenery...all the stuff that it really takes to make a truly great flight sim. RoF was represented as all that, pre-release. I'm always interested in seeing how it fares in reality, in anything even close to objective analysis. Regards.

Hey Siggi, I've been thinking about your situation; you run a similar machine to mine (e8400-3.8G/4G Corsair Dominator 1066 at ~932 (IIRC)/GTX260/216). But I noticed something you actually don't list in your specs. For a few different reasons - not the least of which was the absolutely deplorable load times of TOWWOFS ("The Other WWOne Flight Sim") - a while back I decided to change my mass media storage subsystem (that's what normal people ordinarily call a "hard drive" lol). It happened that a local retailer was having a sale on SSD's - so I bought 2 30G OCZ Vertex SSDs and built a 60G RAID 0 array. [Now, before everyone gets all excited and tells me about how I wasted my money and they're going to get slower over time, and/or that games don't benefit much from RAID, yada-yada..trust me, I know exactly what I'm doing. This was more an experiment than anything else] Anyway... I was, of course, impressed with the overall performance increase (compared to my prior single-drive, run-o'-the-mill, Maxtor SATA II drive). But, it still is in essence *not* a 'true' RAID setup (on-board RAID; uses 'soft' controller), and the SSD's are fast but not without some limits. But the one thing I seemed to have gotten out of the deal is that any stuttering I may have had, plus the rare-but-still-there triangles you mentioned...well, it was all gone. In fact, I've come to wonder that as much as a reasonably fast CPU (which we both have), video card (which we both have) and memory (again, we both have) *ALL* do matter...the oft-overlooked component is the mass media storage subsystem (there's that term again). Realistically, it doesn't matter how fast the CPU is, or the graphics card, or the memory...the one thing that has to 'feed' all these components with textures, and pronto, is the hard drive. And - as I'm sure you know - hard drives are by far the absolute slowest devices in computers, and have been for a long time (remember "RAM drives?"). To make a long story boring I wondered what kind of mass media storage subsystem you have. Now, I did note you said you "had triangle-free performance" before, but that might be explained by a lot of things that could all come back to your hard disk. I wondered if you'd considered this and/or what you thought about the idea? Also, may I presume you a. keep the drive defragmented, b. keep plenty of free space on it, and c. know how your paging file/'virtual memory' is setup? (These all change over time, depending, and can do so without the user knowing anything about it). For instance, my paging file is currently set for 'system managed' and is about 7GB. It has always been my understanding that what Windows does if it's set for 'system managed' is 1.5 times physical memory or 50% free space, whichever is less - it is dynamic, of course. Anyway - any thoughts?

Gentlemen, Having followed OFF since P1, and now utterly happy with P3&HITR, and also following other developments in the WW1 flight sim arena, I wondered if you'd share your thoughts on a few questions: What you've been able to do with OFF, considering where you started (CFS3) is nothing short of remarkable, by almost any account. I find it fascinating that OFF currently (more than) holds it's own against the biggest comparable product - which was a 'ground-up', stand alone development. This isn't really a new question, but how much more can really be done while still 'shackled' to CFS3? Of course, we've all heard talk of P4 - and, believe me, I've no doubt you can wow the crowd once again...but, man, there must be a limit somewhere, no? Is the difference strictly limited to having a new 'engine'? I somehow think there might be more to it than that, but I don't know much about it. What would be involved in this 'engine'? Time, money? (sort of obvious, money *lol*) What I'm getting at is what level of support (by the community) would be required to put the tool in your hands? There is an incredible confidence in you guys, and I'd bet many people would pay a reasonable sum just to see what you could do when *not* tied down to CFS3. Do you really foresee a point where you can wrestle no more out of CFS3, and would of necessity have to find a different approach? Would you be able to re-use any of your previous efforts? (Like the *ton* of effort, and resulting volume of info, that gives OFF it's uniquely historical elements). I know much of what I ask is speculative, and not at all easy to answer. Some of it might be sensitive in terms of what you can divulge publicly. But, you guys are generally far, far better with communicating to this community than what I see elsewhere...and there are so many people who enjoy what you've done. One can't help but wonder what might be possible - and how you see the possibilities. I appreciate anything that any of you care to share. Best regards.

*lmao* If I could play devil's advocate a moment, here...let me say that I must *really* suck at this game, because I find it plenty challenging. Although I don't play as much as some of you probably do - and therefore might not notice the issues you have (say, the bit about AI not disengaging)...I do still find it challenging to stay alive... But, as I said, I just pretty much write that off as "I suck" *lol* Point for me is: Please remember this is a game, and some people want to play just for enjoyment. If you make it substantially harder - even if it's more realistic - then some people might be turned off by it. It's plenty hard enough for some of us Anyway, I do appreciate everyone's inputs...this is exactly the sort of dialogue I had hoped to achieve on the subject. Do carry on!

Thanks...I'll tell you, I haven't played OFF (or anything else) much at all in the past few months, because I had a project I was trying to finish (I built a home theater in my basement). But I do still check in here, and today I saw your post. Having re-installed NHancer I needed to test, of course . I flew a couple QC's (twin-gun Tripe v. Albs). I must say again what a fascinating sim this is. Never ceases to engage - even though I haven't played in quite some time...right from the moment I start, I am immersed all over again. Truly remarkable. The settings you posted seem to run OK, even though I think a couple of my sliders are a bit higher; I'm using a GTX260/216. All in all, good balance, beautiful graphics, frame rate goo (if I recall, capped at 32, via MaxFPS config) and no discernable stuttering. Thanks again for the info. As an aside, here's a before-and-after look at my basement...I can't wait to get the PC for this room running...should be great playing OFF on a 100" screen !

Hi Lou, Thanks for sharing this bit of info. I've used NHancer before with decent results; perhaps the only problem being *too many* options to set (and the ton of trial-and-error that goes with). 'Course, one *could* just leave things at default - especially where "if you don't know what it does, don't mess with it" applies *lol* But that wouldn't be in the true idiom of a graphics junky, would it? Having re-loaded my machine not long ago - which is very similar to yours - I hadn't gotten around to putting NHancer back on yet, but find I'm able to get things running smoothly without it. And, since I think it's possible to cause problems with some settings particularly, I've left it be. But, having someone else's successful experience to bolster confidence in things like this has helped improve many a system, and solve many a problem. I wonder if you might share your nHancer settings here - as well as any thoughts you have on what *not* to use (if you had any problems with yours before settling on current). Thanks

Hello uncleal...yes, I've considered FreeTrack, still a possibility. I do appreciate your suggestion - and tried it right away. Unfortunately, that doesn't work: Since I am already *in* the VC view, it does...well, nothing :) (Of course, if I change my view to another using F4 first, then click my newly-assigned button, it absolutely does go to VC, forward/over the guns). I was hoping to find a 'snap' to that position, while already in VC view. I'm not sure it exists, to be honest. I do appreciate your reply, though, just the same.

Not to hijack - it's sort of a related question: I don't have TIR yet (still poor *lol*) but I do OK with the 'hat' switch. The only trouble is I can't find a way to 'snap' back to forward cockpit view, which would be handy. Perhaps not as realistic, but handy...anyone got any ideas? Am I overlooking something simple? I did try mapping a JS button to the Scroll Lock key, so that turning panning off and back on snaps to forward view...but you have to hit the button twice :( Any advice? Thanks!

Allow me to contribute: Unlike some of the others who posted here, I *do* own RoF, and OFFP3/HITR. I've literally followed both since their respective beginnings, and where OFF seems to be right on track, all you really get from RoF is a pretty face and a lot of promises about what it *will* be (some day). Now, RoF may yet deliver on those promises; that remains to be seen. I will say that the Devs (NeoQB) have tried to be more responsive in communication with the community. However, I still find that RoF is closer to a "beta" than an actual game (and I'm not by far the only one to express that opinion). It lacks sorely in key areas of campaign, single player and even the multiplayer it claims is at it's heart. And, in my own opinion, of the two most promising features - flight model and damage model - only one really lives up to the claims. Or comes close, anyway: The DM just isn't all that much more realistic than other sims, even though it's supposedly a dramatic step ahead of everything else. There are numerous discussions about how certain parts of aircraft don't respond to damage at all - one example is a rather long debate concerning the fact that a machine can 'drill in' (crash nose first into the ground) and the fuselage will remain intact. I can't swear the fuselage is *immune* to damage, but it certainly seems to be from what I've seen. At least it seems to survive what should've been substantial damage. The FM is truly advanced and engaging, but even that still doesn't meet the hype that was generated before it came out: There was a video illustrating how each molecule of air surrounding the planes would be affected (and in turn, affect) the aircraft's flight disposition, and more notably that of objects around the aircraft - blades of grass on the ground, for example, behind a spinning prop. Many have now questioned all this dynamic modeling, because there are examples of where it just isn't there. And remember, this is one of the two biggest features of this 'revolutionary' sim. So, I don't find at all that RoF lives up to what it claimed to be. You *can* actually try OFF, just not P3...and I'm here to tell you - if you like what you can try, you'll absolutely **love** P3. I was skeptical, after having tried P1&2 of OFF...but what you read about Developer support is the absolute truth. These guys (OBD and team) have addressed most every issue I had with the earlier/free P1 and P2. And, they continue to impress by supporting this product, in most cases without even having to be asked (***VERY*** unlike RoF). I believe it's still OK with OBD for us to 'share' P2, and I'll gladly send a copy (assuming you're in the US). Just remember that (in my opinion) there are substantial improvements between P2 and P3. Still, P2 will give you a good sense of the depth of this sim, it's quality and level of immersion. A word about the support of the products: I find - strictly in my experience - that OBD is very responsive to their customers in terms of updates, patches, and support of OFF. Now, I'm not allowed to speak freely here concerning my opinion of RoF's developers and publisher...but I can say that it's a total understatement to say that it doesn't even come close to OBD and OFF. (If you wish, write me and I'll share my experiences in private with you; out of respect for OBD and their hosts at CA, I can't speak freely in public). In summary, consider this: I recently purchased the HITR add-on to OFF, and will continue to support these gentlemen and their efforts. RoF, by comparison, was never even re-installed after a recent hard disk reload I did when I purchased two SSD's and built a RAID array. I mentioned the RAID array because it goes toward your question concerning load times...RoF *is* horrible, and I never found OFF anywhere near as bad. I'm sure the SSD RAID array would help, but you should'nt have to resort to that length and expense to get reasonable load times from a game. RoF may well be what it was promoted as - one day. And I'd welcome that day...but it's far away right now, in my opinion, and I don't see the level of progress that would make me confident that it will get there any time soon. Too bad - but we'll see. I wish you the very best of luck and happy flying, no matter what you decide.

Creaghorn- I am using your modified ini file at present (no real assessment as yet, just trying it out)...but I did have a question: I used WinDiff to see what is different in your file vs. the 'original' ini file I got with the ENBseries download. Is the ini list you posted something you modified yourself, or did you acquire it from another source? I'm hoping you've done it yourself, because if so it would imply a lot of understanding I don't have :) I say this, based on your adding quite a few lines (opposed to changing some of the values for lines already present, which is all I could manage *lol*). I wondered as to your reasoning for adding the lines you did. Also, I noticed a line (#20 in an editor) "AdditionalConfigFile=enbseries2.ini". I assume this allows the ini file to 'call' yet another ini with further/additional settings/values. But, I don't recall seeing you mention this second file, or a list of the second file's contents. Is my assumption incorrect, or have you maybe overlooked the second file? Thanks

No one - and I do mean no one (not even Bill Gates himself) can answer that first question *lol* Just too much about memory usage in PC's...but, seriously, I'll have a whack at it: When computers use memory, the actual amount used varies depending on what's being done at that time. This may or may not have anything directly with what you can *see* that the PC is doing. Once you end a program, the memory used is supposed to be released back to the OS. Sometimes, this doesn't happen, and often it's less than what was taken up by the program originally. So-called 'memory leaks' mean (loosely) that a program is using memory greater than what it's supposed to use, and doesn't ever give back to the system; the system (or an app) is said to 'leak' memory because it will eventually fail from running short (even though it should have enough). Personally - and please don't take this the wrong way, just my opinion - but I think ever since the days of DOS 5, 'memory managers' are a complete waste of money. You cannot rely on what they tell you (in terms of 'free' memory), and the fact that they tell you it's free doesn't necessarily mean it is - or that it's actually available to other programs. Also, using anything to 'manage' memory is just more overhead that comes out of your total system resources. IMHO you're better off letting Windows do what it wants with memory. I know this doesn't answer your question in the purely mathematical sense, but I hope it sheds some light on why nailing down memory usage/availability in Windows is difficult to accurately do. And, as was mentioned already, I'd seriously recommend at least 2G; 4 if the machine will accomodate it. Finally, I use the "ENB series" (if it's the same one I use, and I believe it is)...although I use it for the effects - bloom and so on - not expecting any performance boost, for sure (or ever seeing any, for that matter). If your situation with memory is what drives you to ask, then I can just about assure you it's not going to help with that, HTH

You're right, Olham...and I will learn for myself. My "request" was actually intended as a joke. You see, the German pilot I mentioned above (named Franz Urs Charles Koenig-Unterfaust) - had WM put his initials on the wing - would've been flying around all Over Flanders Fields... ...with a great big F*CK-U on the wing

Kind of you indeed So, I have German pilot named Franz Urs Charles Koenig-Unterfaust...can ya hook me up with his initials on the wing??? I'll spare ya the logo