Tamper

hiya hood - thanks m8; also thanks to the other fellows who tried helping above. hood, I'm glad you got it working, but that didn't work for me. The problems was (I learned, over time) that - for example - deleting the rudder axis on my joystick would delete *ALL* the assignments. No problem, thought I, just re-assign the ones you want, right? WRONG *lol* As I mentioned above, once I deleted the rudder, I couldn't re-assign anything, the box would say just "Incorrect Joystick" *ARRGH* (same for the rudder pedals, BTW) However, at some point, OBD has updated their online FAQ PDF, to include mention that if you've used FaceTrackNoIR and therefore have the 'virtual joystick' driver installed, it causes conflict. Even though I do have TrackIR, I had loaded my sons' PS3 EyeCam and FaceTrackNoIR as sort of an evaluation, to allow them to play flight sims with head tracking without having to buy(!) another TrackIR. Webcams are way cheaper, and my brother was also interested in OFF, but couldn't afford TrackIR. Anyway, I've had it installed, right alongside all my other stuff (TrackIR, pedals, stick, webcams, etc.) and it's never been a problem even in other flight sims. So I really would have no reason to suspect it. Over on 'the other site' I was following posts re: controller probs; lo-and-behold I saw where Pol had posted about the updated FAQ (even though it didn't say it had been updated, so it was really only by chance that I decided I would look one more time...having read the entire original document before installing, of course). It also includes an updated/expanded section on binding controllers which wasn't there prior (although in my case, I knew full well how it should work, it just wouldn't work due to the Vjoy issue). Anyways, all sorted, and FWIW no need to change the undelying CFS3 axes, so AFAIK nothing says you have to lose toe brakes in CFS3. I haven't checked yet, but the document seems to say this VJoy issue only matters while you're actually trying to bind the controls. I'd rather not lose FaceTrackNoIR because I believe it has promise for lots of people who cannot afford TrackIR. So, now that the WOFF controls are bound properly, I'm going to try putting Vjoy back at some point. I'm trying to keep this thread updated and writing in such detail so that it might help someone else - I'll bet money I'm not the only one who has (or will have) this issue. This is a very peculiar problem, and I'd hate to see someone give up on WOFF because they couldn't find a solution. Thanks again to you folks who tried to help :)

Lou, thanks - but I think I wasn't clear. That is the tool I did d/l and tried and honestly wasn't really impressed with. What you're describing is that I have to switch profiles depending on the game I play. What I meant is something more akin to the Nvidia control panel, wherein each "profile" is associated with an app - meaning that all one has to do is start the app, and the profile for that app recognizes the app has been started, and loads on it's own. I'm not interested in having to remember to do this, start that, etc...just to play the game (and, if we look at the Nvidia CP example I cited, it really shouldn't be necessary). Plus, having to load/switch profiles indicates there's something (else) that has to be loaded and/or running on my machine - which I don't care for. Windows by itself recognizes both controllers (pedals and joystick) and all the various axes without issue, so nothing else should be required for it to work - which, incidentally, is exactly what happens elsewhere; no 'profiles', kludges, or special apps required. Again, please don't mistake my frustration with this as ingratitude towards your efforts. Your willingness to help is altruistically appreciated. Beard, thank you as well...I'm going to try that, I'm not sure if you're talking about from within CFS3(?) EDIT: No joy...no pun intended. I thought I had tried this before, and I'm sure now that I had, it just doesn't work. Similar to WOFF, I can delete assignments easily, and selecting which controller/flight control surface 'group' of functions I understand well enough. Just that, when I try to assign anything to the rudders, nothing shows up when I move the axis (pedals) - it looks as if it will only accept a button, not an 'axis'-type control as with slider knobs, joysticks, rudder pedals (even though both my joystick and rudder pedals show up fine in thr list of devices). I hate this. EDIT2: It's actually not the 'control surface' group in CFS3, there's a special one called "Axis Controls", which then shows *only* the rudder axes: X, Y, and rudder (I think is how they are named). ANd I see how this could be deleted, so that's a start...but, 2 things here: 1. WOFF has no such Axis 'group', just 'control surfaces', which seems to make this idea moot, and 2. I do hope it's not true that I must have this assignment deleted in CFS3 to make it work in OFF. Yes, I understand WW1 a/c had no brakes - but those in CFS3 do! (And as much as everyone maligns CFS3 I do still like to fly that sometimes). Edit 2a: It works, in CFS3 - although obviously by sacrificing the toe brakes (not good). Unfortunately, it doesn't change WOFF.

Creaghorn, absolutely, which I understand quite well. I've no problem at all using a (properly-functioning) interface to assign axes, buttons, etc. Done it for years with all the various sims, no problem. For example, I had zoom set up on a joystick button for OFF, and TrackIR recenter (F12) on another button. So I'm familiar with the concept and execution. The problem is that the WOFF interface (and/or WOFF itself; I noticed CFS3 has the exact issues FWIW) doesn't recognize (for lack of a better word) my joystick and pedals properly. While the WOFF interface allows me to 'unbind' these assignments, it doesn't appear to save my changes for some reason. Moreover, the real problem is I can't follow the unbinding with actually programming the axes. The little window says "Incorrect joystick" no matter which I try to use. I had uninstalled OFF in anticipation of WOFF prior to getting my pedals not long ago. So, I 've never used them with OFF or CFS3. But it seems to me, now that I'm seeing this, these are problems endemic to CFS3 (and, by extension, OFF/WOFF).

Lou, as always your input is appreciated, of course. Tell me, this tool you mention, is it capable of associating programming per app? The pedals work fine elsewhere and I don't want to alter something globally to work with one game - it's only WOFF that's a problem. And, from the looks of it, I'm not the only one with this issue. (FWIW I don't use such tools as a rule, but I did d/l this and try it - it's not clear, but it doesn't appear to associate profiles with different apps). Olham, of course, I appreciate your thoughts as well. Wearing socks (which I have been, BTW) and other such things (wooden blocks??!! *lol*) while they are certainly clever and inventive...well, a. none of this should be necessary to make a peripheral work, and b. I am reminded it *does* actually work elsewhere without the need for such "kludges". Truly sorry, gents, to seem rude, but I am admittedly more than just a little put out by this... Regards,

Wow...not just me losing my mind... I also got Saitek rudder pedals just befor getting WOFF, and I also have the problems you describe - only, oddly enough, it's inverted: The left toe brake causes the right aileron to flip down, sending me in a left-down spiral; the right toe brake causes the elevator to flip down, causing me to nose-dive. I've creamed many a good pilot before I finally figured this out, and it's all I can do even knowing about it to control it. Needless to say this is sucking all my enjoyment out of WOFF... I hope there's some kind of fix somewhere. The obvious choice is to unbind/reassign in teh Workshop, but that doesn't seem to work...I get "Incorrect Joystick" when trying to assign after unbinding. Any input welcome!

Got the download OK; gotta install yet - VB, I use "Free Download Manager" but it said there was no 'resume' support. It might depend on other things, not sure. I think the price is maybe a little more than what some games go for...but for this, I have no reservations whatsoever that it's worth it. Besides - although she doesn't know yet - my wife is actually buying it for me, for Christmas *lmao* Can't wait to saddle up!

I'm glad the info helps :) Rambling Sid's post offers a chance to corroborate: And that's pretty much what you'd expect; Hardware Compare shows the 770's memory is 50% faster, the 770 has a 14% higher pixel rate, and the texel rate is a whopping *twice* that of the 570. (Although the power consumption appears to be roughly the same; again this information is based on specs - in this case, the TDP of each card, not actually what they run at - therefore it will vary for several reasons...the 'quieter' part might be due to a new fan, with new bearings, and/or better types of bearing/better fan design and/or better firmware fan control.) And, true to form, the Graphics Card Hierarchy puts the 770 exactly three levels above the 570, which is fairly consistent with what they recommend ("You can use this hierarchy to compare the pricing between two cards, to see which one is a better deal, and also to determine if an upgrade is worthwhile. I don’t recommend upgrading your graphics card unless the replacement card is at least three tiers higher. Otherwise, the upgrade is somewhat parallel, and you may not even notice any worthwhile difference in performance.") Another thought is something Lou mentioned above: The SLI route. Many of you are in what I would call a 'textbook' case for SLI. Often we read about someone buying two brand-new cards and running them in SLI, which you can certainly do, and you will see better performance, most often, over just one of the same card. But the argument in this case is that you'd do better - if buying new - to spend your money on a single card, at a higher level, than two brand-new cards. In part, this is because SLI typically yields about 50% performance increase, very generally speaking. So you don't really get double for twice the cost. You can figure out a single-card setup that offers the same 50% performance increase, and then look to see if you can find a better deal on one card than buying two new ones for SLI. (It will vary a lot, I can tell you.) That said, when you already have a decent card - I had a single 570, for example - and you want a performance boost but can't spring the several hundred dollars a new card might cost, this is where SLI can really offer a good deal. Personally I was lucky to get a great deal on two 570 cards (each with more memory than my single card had) thanks to a nice fellow here at CA, so for less than a new card, I got a fairly substantial boost in performance. Actually, had I just bought another single 570 like I already had, it would've been far, far less than a new card (maybe ~$150). Although it's true the memory is not doubled in SLI - it actually remains the same as it was with the single card - you do get the benefit of two processors and (theoretically) twice the bus width. So, if you're unable to afford a few hundred bucks for the kind of new card WOFF needs, you're really a good candidate for considering a dual-card arrangement. Of course, suggesting SLI often brings out the flamethrowers, but it's really each person's choice. It is typically less attractive if buying new (though not always), and I personally don't think it was really ever intended for that. I think the intent was buying a second, "like" card, as the prices come down due to release of newer technology cards. I've done it several times now, starting with two 9800GT's back when, and it does work as advertised; I found very little to dislike about it, in my own experience. One thing to consider is power, because two older cards will almost certainly use a lot more power than a single newer card. Perhaps Lou would favor us with a report of his own experiences with having gone the SLI route (hint, hint) Best, gents :)

*lol* HumanDrone, not to worry, I'm betting we'll all be "targets" for quite a while. Actually, your situation is a perfect example of something I was discussing above: While your 570 might not be quite as capable as the 670 that is at the high-end recommendations of the WOFF page, it wouldn't make sense for you to spend ~$275 on a GTX670, because the upgrade from where you are already would be fairly "meh"...you might double texel rate (for texture filtering), and run slightly cooler w/less power - but you'd also lose a 25+% better pixel rate with your 580 (which has a lot to do with max frame rates). The 780, by comparison, while it would cost a good deal more, would give you a 50% increase in memory speed, 3.5x the texel rate, and a 10+% bump in the GPU core speed (before overclocking, that is). Those figures represent what is a decent performance "upgrade"...anything less, probably wouldn't feel worth the cost overall. Mostly because you already *have* a very capable card, there's not much reason for you to upgrade, unless you could afford to spend $500(+) on a 780. (Speaking entirely for myself, and my wallet, I cannot justify such a ridiculous amount of money on a video card, regardless of increase in performance *lol*).

Given the announcement about WOFF's release, I've seen and read a lot recently about system requirements, most notably the GPU (video card). I think there is some confusion, and I'm honestly concerned some of the talk is actually "scaring off" some people. Not scaring them away from WOFF, mind you, but scaring them into thinking their video card isn't good enough. That would be a shame because it might keep someone from buying WOFF (and supporting this wonderful sim), and/or cause them to go out and buy a new card when they might not need it. First, a disclaimer: I am definitely NOT trying to second-guess the OBD team and their judgment about what it takes to run their new product, so please - don't break out the flamethrowers! That being said, I think there is some confusion about the 'series' numbers of Nvidia cards, and how these numbers progress over time. The first thing to recognize is that marketing plays a role in the product names/numbers. I say this because, for example, a 500-series GTX card with a high tens and ones number - like a 580, is more powerful than a 600-series card with a lower tens and ones number (like a 640). Marketing influence might make one choice or another seem better, but it's not always technically accurate. The marketing people want you to constantly buy new cards, and you're less likely to do that if you understand what you have is practically as good as the next big thing. The "official" WOFF specs call for between a GTX640(***) at the low end and GTX670 or better at the 'recommended' end. However, this is not (or should not be taken) to say that anything less than a 600-series card won't work. Even some cards down into the 400-series can compete just fine with the 600 series, depending on the exact models, and the system it's used in. For example, the official WOFF page cites a GTX640*** as the "low-end", but what may not be clear is that several different Nvidia GT640 cards have been produced, and not all are the same (see here). One is actually a 're-branded' GT545 (note not even a GTX-class card; rather, the lesser GT class), meaning the "guts" are the same. Also, the memory bus width on the various models ranges from 64-bit up to 192-bit, and this can make a substantial difference in the performance of the card. Another example might be a GTX570, which - while it will admittedly use more power, will also smoke the shorts off the GTX650 which is mid-range according to the WOFF recommendations. A GTX465 can also outperform a GTX650, in some respects. I thought it was worth mentioning that you don't necessarily have to have a 600-series card to be at the level of performance the official recommendations list. There are some online tools that help with knowing the difference, one of which is in the link above that shows the internal specs of the various Nvidia GPUs since the earliest versions; another is Hardware Compare, which will allow you to put in two cards (even AMD/ATI, for that bunch) and see how they theoretically stack up, based on projections of performance factor measurements like memory bandwidth, fill rates, etc (the things that make cards work). Another good source of comparative info is the Graphics Card Hierarchy table, updated every so often by the staff at Tom's Hardware. This table and the data it's based upon show that, in spite of marketing and ever-increasing number schemes, the relative, overall performance of graphics cards might be closer than you think. One example: It puts the GTX580 in the same level as the GTX660 - but more importantly, indicates that an upgrade probably would leave you less than blown away, unless you can afford to go on up to a GTX780 (which helps to make an upgrade decision that is really worth the money). So, I recommend using available recources like these to see where your card (or one you're thinking about buying) lies in terms of performance. Even if you are at the low end now, there is info that will help you decide how to best apply the ever-tight dollar :) Two things to remember: One, a lot of the naming of these cards is marketing (and don't be surprised to see that certain cards are 're-branded' versions of earlier cards, because they do this). Two, within each 'hundred series' (400, 500, 600...) the higher end of that hundred is generally better than the lower end of the next hundred - 570 better than 650, for example. One key difference with each "hundred series" is they do seem to reduce power consumption, so this may be a more important factor in your final decision. Of course, all this is subject to a healthy dose of your mileage may vary. There are many factors that determine graphics performance, but hopefully this will make WOFF more accessible to many who thought their graphics might not be up to snuff. Regards. (***edit: The WOFF page cites a "GTX640", but it appears there is no such thing. I presume the page is referring to the GT640, as referenced in the link I provided)

Well, not exactly, That was true, long ago when there were only basically one or two types of projectors. The industry grew a bit though, and now it's not uncommon to find a class of projectors unique to 'home entertainment' aplications. Along with that came much brighter displays, which don't really require a completely blacked-out room. There are definitely units that look better and worse in less than total darkness, for sure. It is completely true that black on a projector screen is pretty much no blacker than the darkness of the room itself, but there are also similar considerations to 'black levels' of almost any screen technology - complete blackness doesn't work well no matter, because "black" represents the absence of light, where both projectors and other screen types work by either projecting or reflecting some kind of light. Your finest TV screen still isn't totally black, either. I have theater room with a 100' screen and a HD DLP projector; it's impressive as far as the sheer size to game on, but the two real issues are pixel size/spacing (as discussed above, only probably more pronounced - called "screen door" in the projector world, BTW) and the fact that it's flat, as opposed to curving around as your FOV does in reality.

ATM, I am using (3) 19" 1280x1024 4:3 monitors, which gives a total screen area of 4080x1024 (horizontally, that's 1280 x3 +240 for 'bezel correction' to account for the space occupied by the monitor frames). This is the only orientation supported by Nvidia's "Surround" display scheme, which their driver supports without too much fuss. *BUT* (and it's a big but, at that...) they don't support different sizes or orientations of monitors; also, you cannot mix digital (DVI) and analog (VGA) display types. What this means is that PLP ('portrait-landscape-potrait'; the most obvious choice using 3 of today's widescreen monitors) is not supported (**DAMMIT**). AMD may support it, I don't know. And I tried using SoftTH for a while, but never could get the display to do what it should; always either losing part of a screen, or having desktop showing even while in a 'fullscreen' app (like a game). I finally gave up and did the Nvidia Surround thing, which works OK, but still has a few small issues, and I was lucky to have the 3 old-style (non-widescreen) monitors, so you don't wind up with a screen so wide (three 'landscape' widescreens) it distorts the image badly. VB, I think this is roughly where you are with your setup, but you may have other ideas/options I haven't thought of. Me, personally, I am seriously considering going back to my single 27" 1080p Viewsonic. I really only decided to try this multiple monitor thing because fortune dropped three 19" 4:3 monitors in my lap, but the behavior when I'm not flying is often annoying in a few ways. (Added for VB: I think the reason they won't do what you're talking about is simple - cost. They don't want to have to support it, because - if there's one thing I've learned - you run into all sorts of odd behavior concerns when you're not running that one game that seems to make it all worthwhile. Like for instance, in spite of the very public begging for it, why not support PLP??) Like Olham, I'm not motivated by sales or any such thing, just my own observations and experiences with various monitor setups. The three-wide setup I use right now is definitely awesome for flightsim immersion, and I definitely agree that a bigger display can add a lot to the experience. *edit: I should add that, not long ago I saw a 29", 21:9 2560x1080 single-display "ultra-widescreen" monitor I thought was clever...all the benefit of widescreen gaming, but a single screen so no 'funny' business with windows, etc,...maybe(?)

I think it's a great idea, but I also think it's responsible and fair to include a healthy dose of "Your Mileage May Vary". Actual monitors cost more, size per size, because they are designed to be viewed from up close - the range normally occurring in a typical desktop PC setup. "Big screen" TVs, OTOH, are designed to be viewed typically from much further away. As Olham correctly states, the pixels will generally be bigger on TVs, since the number of pixels is the same as for a smaller monitor (I use a 27" that's 1920x1080). If you look at larger monitors, the pixel count increases with the size, beyond what most HD TVs currently offer. Only now are TVs starting to go to higher-then-full-HD resolution, and even then the highest definition content you can get is still 1080, so most TVs are still 1080 to keep the price down. Monitors, because they are designed to be viewed much closer, have higher pixel counts per size and less spacing between pixels. It's also not just the size of the pixels, it's the space between them as well. Over the Black Friday shopping weekend, my wife and I were looking at big (really big...80") TVs, and even from a good 20 feet away, she said the cheaper brand's picture looked grainy/pixelated, compared to the same size and resolution Sharp and Samsung TVs. In part, this is because of pixel size and spacing. Will it matter to you? It varies. I tried it and didn't care for it (with a FULL HD, 1920x1080 TV, as well as HD resolution or 1280x720). Some people seem to like it bettter, and some notice the difference. There is a definite difference in screen quality, too. TBH what most often drives this choice is the fact that bigger TVs are much cheaper than larger monitors - not because it's a better display. To each his own, of course. I'd say if you decide to do it, try one you already own first, or make sure you can return one if you buy it for this purpose expressly. My own advice is I never buy displays of any sort without being able to see it, first hand. Of course, thanks to Olham for mentioning a good idea to those who may not have thought of it :)

For what it's worth: You mention your system up top, but you don't really say what kind of motherboard, nor whether it's using on-board sound. I ask, basically because of drivers - which could be causing all your havoc. As many have said, it runs on W7 (and you knew this already) - so it's not an inherent problems with that. But, while many people understand that video cards have drivers that can be updated, many have on-board sound and never think to mention their motherboard, or the fact that it has drivers which can also be updated. And, as far as Windows goes, if you have the machine set up to do updates automatically, Microsoft will often try to slip in driver updates for hardware. (I *never* let Windows update hardware drivers, and *always* have it notify me before doing *any* updates, so I can look them over first. That way, if there are problems, I am at least aware and have some place to start.) One other thing, again where drivers and updates are concerned: Do not make the mistake of assuming that the latest updates are the "best" way to go. Generally this might be true, but it's also generally true that most hardware manufacturers will now tell you if you don't have problems, you should consider *NOT* updating drivers. In my own personal experience, there's been more than once I've seen updated drivers cause something to stop working that was previously OK. Factually, Microsoft's IE7 "update" install caused my OFF P3 install to stop working once upon a time - never did figure out how or why, but it didn't matter: I simply 'rolled back', and it was fine. Maybe you should consider your sound drivers, and maybe consider that, where drivers are concerned, latest is not necessarily greatest - try prior versions and see if it does the trick. (Hopefully you can find prior versions; myself, I always save the prior 1-2 version of driver downloads until I'm sure newer ones work OK). HTH

By definition, being accurate ('truth') doesn't exclude one from being a pedant. In fact, excessive attention to detail is the primary characteristic that defines pedant. But that's the thing: In this case, we're discussing detail, and it's a subject where no one can hope to be entirely accurate - we simply don't have the means to accurately collect empirical data on this matter. So (again, by definition) this isn't pedantic, because the information being offered isn't excessive. It's a helpful part of discourse on the subject. At least in my opinion. Back on the OP's point, I think it's about context. The question posed directly was "Did the Halberstadt D.II shed its wings?" and the question is furthered by the video posted. What (I think) that actually makes the question is more like "Did the Halberstadt D.II shed its wings? (Because this video from RoF seems to impy it did)" I believe the direct answer is "No, the Halberstadt was no worse - all things being relative - than its contemporaries, and there appears to be some evidence to suggest this wasn't a problem with the Halberstadt". To the (albeit unstated, indirect) point made by the video, I believe what Olham said way up top is the most accurate: The wing-shedding is overdone in RoF and sometimes ridiculous, IMHO. I also believe he's right about trying to discuss this topic (or any other) where RoF misses the mark with it's producer or it's proponents. I recall a discussion early on, over at 'the other web site' where someone had posted a video of a Dr1 continuing to fly after both wings had peeled off, down to near the roots/inner struts...there was actually a group of these proponents, trying to explain how it could be possible, etc. Mind you, the discussion, IIRC included some of the aforementioned "The RoF DM includes (more math on more precise variables, etc) and therefore it must be possible" Not too long after this was posted, of course, along came one of the staff (I think) with a post saying they had found the bug in the DM and fixed it. Imagine that. There was another, similar discussion about (again, IIRC) a H-P 0/400 flying with one side's wings practically gone, while the other side was still intact...or some such. Again, group of proponents suggesting how it must be correct, since the DM allows it... I don't think it's a stretch to say the DM in RoF isn't necessarily better than any other, and continues to this day to 'get it wrong' on occasion, irrespective of how much/how 'good' the math was that got 'em there. Which is what I've said, and why I say it that way, to this day.

It's always been my impression the Halberstadt was significant but not because of numbers (apparently there were only a few hundred made). I recall realizing this when I learned how few there were. From an evolutionary perspective, it always seemed to fit right in for me between the Eindecker and the Albatros. The significance would (possibly) have been that it was the (first?) German biplane; following the Eindecker and far more manueverable by comparison, having ailerons instead of wing-warping. As far as I've always known it was well regarded as being reasonably capable and handling well (all things being relative, mind you). Among the few flaws were lack of fixed elevator and rudder surfaces (although these weren't thought of as 'flaws' until later, I think). I found a reference that seems to apply: "Although it must have shared the typical "Morane" elevator sensitivity and the controls cannot have been well harmonised, it was very maneuvrable in skilled hands and could be dived safely at high speed." Munson, Kenneth. Fighters, Attack and Training Aircraft 1914-1919 War. London: Blandford Press, 1968. If I were to pursue an early war career in a sim, I'd much sooner find myself facing Noops in one of these than an Eindecker.

It probably bears mentioning that, unlike many models that were known for shedding wings, the Halberstadt was also not a "V-strut" sesquiplane. The DM in RoF is/has been touted by it's producers forever as being somehow better or more accurate than others, but as I've said any number of time in any number of places, it's nothing so much more special in my observation than many others. Their logic is that there's so much more math being done at a much greater level, that it's a better DM...my perspective is, it doesn't matter how hard you worked to get there, if you wind up at about the same place every else does. The journey isn't the point, the destination is. And if you wind up in the wrong place altogether...well...

Amen. +1,000,000,000,000...(what's that number that's a 1 with 100 zeros...?)

*heh* Submerged...God love ya. And I'm crazy, right...? I guess that'll about cover the heat problems, huh? I suspected this was about the texture/loading-stuttering-max speed issue. I am very glad to see this; right on the edge of my seat here, and I can't wait to see the outcome! As my sig shows, I use a Revo drive, precisely because it addresses the real bottlenecks Erik cited above (the interface, even SATA 6Gbps), by putting a fast RAID array on the PCIe interface. It was around $350, only 120G, but that's enough to load Windows and a game or two if you wanted...you're right, though, they are pricey for the space. And they can be a pain to make the bootable system drive, due to limited OROM space, which seems to have been overcome with newer BIOS, but I don't boot to it, so I'm not sure. I know before I went to the UEFI BIOS, I was unable to 'see' both my REVOdrive and the hardware LSI/3ware RAID controller I had. I never thought it was too crazy, once you consider what some people spend on video cards, which won't do anything for the stuttering itself - I was simply after the fastest way (short of a RAMdisk *ahem*) to get data from storage, which nothing else (CPU, video card, etc) will do, regardless of cost. *lol* This RAM disk discussion, and a motherboard that supports 64G, certainly has me thinking...(damn you, Al) :P (FWIW I am right there with you...why'd you think I go by 'tamper'??)

Please take this as an altruistic offer of help - i know it's "easier said than done', but these things can easily pay for themselves in time you'll save not fighting with problems, but also spare you the aggravation, which you cannot put a price tag on, I'm sure :) If the dust is bad enough (hard to say without seeing) find some way to put a filter on it; you can get filter type material for very little money and cut something yourself in no time, or even using plain old cloth will probably help. I oversee tech support for literally hundreds of PCs outdoors in unfriendly environments, so I know there are ways to deal with it. The easiest way to try first is some type of filtering (again, depending on how big of a problem it is - if it's not real severe, the answer is often just to open it up and clean it; takes 15 minutes every couple months.) As for the power problems (and this is more a MUST than just a good idea): Get a UPS, or what is commonly called a "battery backup". Inexpensive ones can go for as little as $50, and that is a small price to pay for protecting the PC from those power glitches 7x24. You'r right, it definitely is hard on a PC, and TBH I'd never dream of running one in such an environment without some kind of power protection. Like the filters above, it's 'cheap insurance'. Once you do get everything back together - or even if you build another PC, or whatever, I cannot more strongly recommend the Windows Imaging utility I discussed above. You can get everything installed on your PC as you need it, and for as little as the cost of DVDs, have a complete system backup to restore at any time, in very little time. Again, I am sorry it's not much help now, but do keep this in mind. All that being said, I'm afraid only you can decide whether you want to try to fix what you have, or get a new unit. I can understand if there are programs installed on the machine that you don't have source installation media for, but as long as the drive can work as a 'data drive' you should be able to get anything you created off it. Unfortunately, there's not much anyone can do if the machine refuses to boot, and you have programs installed but don't have installation disks for them. It may help to know that there are some fairly capable, legitimately free alternatives (like OpenOffice for the Microsoft Office, for example) - maybe if you could tell us more about your exact scenario, we could offer more suggestions about that. If you want to save yourself the cost of new hardware by keeping what you have, and don't mind reloading everything from scratch, that may be the best choice. That, combined with the few 'preventive measures' I discussed above, will hopefully spare you the trouble in the future. Of course, others here have recommended some 'recovery' type tools; I don't use any of these so I can't offer anything in that area. If you really cannot afford to start a clean install, a recovery type tool seems the only choice. I truly hope this is of some help.

Well, this is certainly an interesting topic for discussion. Al - whose opinion I have always had considerable respect for - has posted a question that goes a step beyond the arguments about SSDs and hard disks, or even (for that matter) beyond SSDs vs. caching scheme. First things first, let me say that I hope to get adequate time to participate; this is truly an interesting subject but these things usually take so much time...and it's usually not worth it. Leading a horse to water, and all that. I'd also like to say that, if you're not the type to digest the "walls of text" that often accompany complex subjects, perhaps you're better off staying on the porch. Worthwhile academic discussions require effort; in forums like this, that means writing and reading at a minimum. That being said, I have learned over time that you (Al) have an affinity for RAM disks. A good idea, of course, speedy as the day is long - no arguing that RAM is faster than SSDs (and I never have, to haul out a grossly misunderstood topic if there ever was one). But, let's look at reality: 1. Until recently, most motherboards couldn't handle more than maybe 8G. So, we're really only getting to the point that a RAMdrive is seriously worth considering. Erik, Al knows plenty about SSDs, but he wants the ultimate in performance, thus the RAM drive. The first scenario, I think, was included in this basically to show a baseline - and, as he explained, for those who may have a secondary data drive - the idea being to get the textures off the drive OFF is installed on. Not a bad idea, but there is more to cause stuttering in OFF any game than just terrain. If it were possible, I'd look at trying to load the aircraft skins. I've thought more than once that things got 'framey' just as other A/C(s) entered view. Anyway, I honestly think that until you get out past 8G, you're not using RAM effectively if it's used for anything other than Windows, and until recently, motherboards didn't support that much...so, in fairness and accuracy, the idea of a decent-sized RAM drive is only recently becoming a viable concept (not counting specialty solutions here). Even then, TBH, it's still going to be sparse compared to what you can buy in an SSD, dollar-for-dollar (see below). 2. A while back (years) I recall having a similar discussion - indeed, where I think I first realized how fond our good friend Al is of RAM drives. I pointed out another concern at that time: Power. And therefore, heat. Perhaps not a show-stopping issue - and it's bottom of the list when we're in pursuit of the fastest performance we can build. But, it bears repeating: Unlike conventional hard disks and SSDs, RAM requires constant power to "refresh" its contents. And, since mankind's current implementation of technology involves electronics that are still fairly lossy, there's a lot of heat generated with all that power. Although I haven't done the math, It likely pales against the type of video cards a lot of us have...but still, all that heat must be dealt with (requiring more power still to dispatch it). Packed densely on a motherboard the size of today's, and you can run into some real power management issues... 3. FRAPS? Interesting choice, because (to me) this whole test is being constructed around the premise of allowing the 'big' textures the fastest access we can - IOW, to me, it *seems* that this is about trying to eliminate stuttering that seems to accompany texture loading. (Is that even close, Al?) *IF* that's the case, then I'd suggest that FRAPS - or any other tool recording AVERAGE frame rates - is taken with a grain of salt. Without going into the whole detailed explanation, I'll say that it is undoubtedly the even distribution of frames, not frames-per-second, that will make the difference in the visual perception of "smoothness". When people perceive the 'stutters', it can occur smack in the middle of an otherwise impressive 60+ FPS (average); pausing only for that literal split-second during which the actual "frame rate" dropped very low, but you'd never see it looking at an average FPS. I'm not even sure that FRAPS (and other tools) can accurately gauge when the 'stutter' occurs. In fact, the longer you run an average, the more it will obscure these dips and stutters - so I've truly never understood what all the "I get xxx FPS" yelping is about. I truly do understand that FRAPS is perhaps the only choice, lacking much else by way of frame counting apps...but I prefer to call a spade a spade. This frame rate thing is the single most misunderstood concept in the entire world of PC gaming, in my eyes. People go on and on about FPS, when it's easy to prove that no one can tell the difference in two frame rates depending on the circumstances. IMHO, there should be some way to quantify stuttering, because I suspect that's what most everyone confuses with low/bad frame rates - but I don't think there is such a way. Al? 4. Cost. This idea that RAM is cheaper? Whew...RAM these days goes about $9 a gig. SSDs go around $0.90 a gig. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that - while no one's arguing that an SSD is as fast as memory - SSDs are without question the fastest storage per unit cost, period. Even with recent increases in the amount of RAM a PC can have, there's not going to be enough RAM to load everything in it, forcing some sort of loading/management scheme (next point). 5, Upkeep/setup/maintenance. While it's conceivable to run a RAM drive for 'major' games by selectively bootstrapping things into a RAM drive (and I think that's what our good friend Al is up to), and it would undoubtedly be fast (yes, even faster than an SSD, of course...), it's going to get tedious if it were to involve more than one game/program. Many people, I think, might not be able to manage the intricacies of setting all that up (even though it's clearly something Al knows a lot about)...and, in some cases, I'd venture it won't even work - that is, to install a game in a typical fashion and then run it from a RAM drive. You can't install it on the RAM drive outright, because it's volatile, so it'll need to be 'loaded' into memory (RAMdrive), hence running on a different drive letter than where it's installed, which might cause havoc with some installs...and, since there's only so much memory available for the RAM drive, you'd need a 'runtime' loader for each/every game you wanted to run there... I'll tell you, interestingly enough, I've been faulted a number of times here for my approach to performance...I've been accused of 'throwing money' (which could not be further from the truth) but what I've spent per unit of storage is one-tenth what RAM would cost. I've also been accused of over-complicating things with the arrangements I've used (multi-drive systems, RAID, etc.) but managing all this in a RAM drive would surely take some a lot to keep up with (comparatively, I mean). Al, am I totally off base here ...? WIll you get the performance I think you're after? I bet you will; I'd bet further that you wouldn't be trying if you didn't already know you could :D BTW, what a topic!! My complements.

Flyby - if you would, please, could you answer a few questions? Sorry, I'm just not sure I completely understand the issue and I didn't want to misunderstand. - Do you have a 'good' hard disk, or are you concerned about the viability of the drive itself? - Do you have a Windows installation disk, or a 'recovery disk', like Al asks about above? - Are you OK with doing a complete re-install of Windows, if it were possible? - Do you have a legit Windows license/Product ID? (Typically, this means you'll have a sticker on the case showing a Microsoft PID number). - Can you copy any needed files off the hard drive to a safe place temporarily? (Never mind that they're 'newer versions', for now) If you could answer these, it might be possible - depending on the answers - that your situation is fairly straightforward to remedy. Thanks,

Well, one thing that affects this is that there is far more to being able to boot from a drive than it just being able to read as 'data drive'. Windows 7 can boot a machine from scratch (otherwise, installing Windows from the DVD would never work *lol*). But, if there's an errant driver somewhere trying to load, that driver - unique to your system - probably isn't on the Windows DVD, therefore Windows can't repair it by using the Windows disk. One thing you didn't mention - have you tried booting in Safe Mode to see how far the boot gets before freezing? Press F8 during the boot, and you'll get a text menu with Safe Mode as the first option. Although it might not be exact, you can look for a clue while Safe Mode is booting, since it should show you each line being loaded/processed during the OS boot. Also accessible using the "F8" boot is booting to the "Last Known Good" configuration. This might work as well. Finally, although it sounds as if it might not be much help (sorry!): There's a lot about W7 I don't like, but one thing I absolutely *love* is the built-in ability to make a "System Image". This free "disk cloning" tool works every time I've used it, and it allows you to store a recovery image of your system onto a DVD or external USB drive. Microsoft finally did something right!! (although it generally will only work if you have a fairly straightfoward, 1 or 2-drive system). It may not help now, but I hope it might help you later on. Good luck.

(On the original topic) :) What a welcome bit of news this is!! Particularly with the developments in the 'other sim' of late (not the least of which, releasing it on that gawdawful POS Steam, and the 'other title' commanding development resources)...I am waiting, with bated breath, the release of WOFF. It is interesting to see, amid the evolution of any products, which are whored out to the common dollar, and which continue to be products based primarily on a genuine concern for the customer's best interest. I hope to God that OBD never decides to make such dreadful moves. The screenshots and information shared so far are wonderful. As before, OBD continues to do amazing work with this product.

Those are fascinating "panoramagraphs" :) I also checked out several others, including the SR-71 and the Apollo CM. I don't think it was just you, HumanDrone - I noticed that (it seemed) the camera position was nearer the seat than where your head would rest, hence the panel & gauges above weren't visible as I imagined they should've been. It's kind of confirmed by looking at the dummy they have seated in there - his head is resting on the 'couch' pillow, but turning your view directly left from it's start lines you up with his hips. Still some great visuals, though - and a great way to 'feed te need' for aviatica whilst we wait for WOFF :) Oh, and although it's really just a guess, I'm thining that tube is the fuel tank filler neck. I say this because it appears to be a funnel outside the cockpit (the funnel part makes sense, and you surely wouldn't put it inside). It looks like the fuel tank there under the cockpit, and the associated piping and hoses for distribution of fuel. To me it looks like the brass knob on top of the tank is a valve for (a guess) sealing the tank/filler neck, and as you said the plumbing all appears to converge in a 'manifold' looking device, which I would guess is an intake manifold. It actually looks as if you can see where it 'splits off' into different feeds, I assume for the two opposing sides of the V8 engine.

BTW, the Microsoft link I posted, with comments from the creators of SuperFetch, doesn't say anything about write problems being why it's turned off on SSDs. It says, (as I already posted, word-for-word, elsewhere), that SuperFetch is disabled by default because it (and the other caching tricks) were created for hard disk technology. That's all they said, nothing at all about write issues. More importantly, even though I feel sure you haven't read it, that reference also cites that (from their perspective) Microsoft does say SSDs are a good choice for paging files. Factually, any writes from a caching algorithm pale completely to insignificance when compared to the amount of writes in a paging file... ...so I can only imagine Microsoft believes that this write problem you keep referring to isn't so much of a problem after all. (Here's the link again, just in case: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/e7/archive/2009/05/05/support-and-q-a-for-solid-state-drives-and.aspx?Redirected=true) And here's what it says: Should the pagefile be placed on SSDs? Yes. Most pagefile operations are small random reads or larger sequential writes, both of which are types of operations that SSDs handle well. In looking at telemetry data from thousands of traces and focusing on pagefile reads and writes, we find that Pagefile.sys reads outnumber pagefile.sys writes by about 40 to 1, Pagefile.sys read sizes are typically quite small, with 67% less than or equal to 4 KB, and 88% less than 16 KB. Pagefile.sys writes are relatively large, with 62% greater than or equal to 128 KB and 45% being exactly 1 MB in size. In fact, given typical pagefile reference patterns and the favorable performance characteristics SSDs have on those patterns, there are few files better than the pagefile to place on an SSD. Well, I'll be darned. Let's read that one line again, shall we? "Most pagefile operations are small random reads or larger sequential writes, both of which are types of operations that SSDs handle well." Gosh. Maybe we need to get these folks at Microsoft to contact you, because they're clearly confused about this whole SSD-write thingy. I cannot imagine they'd say that, unless they just weren't really too concerned with all this write horror you keep talking about. But - again - I say let the reader decide; all the info is there. Trust the folks who created the OS and the SuperFetch algorithm...or some guy on an Internet forum...up to you :)