Skybird03

Thanks again for taking the time. I do not know the CPU business landscape, but I followed the controversy around Microsoft's porked Get Windows X (GWX) campaign and the loss of competence in their ability to maintain Windows functionally in a technical manner closely since over two years, it led me to turn all non-gaming computer activities to a second system with Linux, and run Windows 7 only as a game launcher, not having updated Win7 since two years. If Microsoft can run such foul, rotten business practices, then why not others like Intel as well. But, lets face it, quadcores are around since longer. Your argument was that because Intel hindered the release of multicores, developers saw no reason to develop for multicores. Still, quadcores are available since years - and still the overwhelming majority of developers, especially sim developers, do not make best use of them, if they even use more than one car at all. Intel'S policies cannot have anything to do with that, or not? Its more that developers shied away from the increased workload, or had no idea how to make use of the additional potential of 2 or 3 other cores. Finally, you said "x CPUs x2", to refer to Hyperthreading. I think that is a bit misleading. Its not as if by magic and miracle the number of cores get multiplied by two. That would be like claiming a CPU capable of multitasking, could multiply the workload it can get done in a given time. It doesn't. As I understand it, HT compares to a desk worker on a swivel chair, and sitting between two desktops. He works on one, until he interrupts work on that table because he needs to wait for a form coming in, or waits for a telephone call. Where a normal CPU now would just stop and wait, he turns around on this swivel chair and starts working on the other desktop, until either he gets called back to the first one, or sees his work on the second desktop interrupted by some needs he has to wait for, he then swings back to the first. As I understand it, the gains are not that he does twice as much work, but that he does not waste time anymore with needing to wait repeatedly within the workflow - instead, when he gets interrupted with the task at hand, he then simply does something different so that that task gets completed earlier as well. Isn't that the net gain of HT? This also explains why HT can even slow down work with software that is not optimized for HT. It is as if the guy on his swivel chair spends more time with turning back and forth, than it would have consumed in time if he would only have sit at desktop 1 and waited until the event he waited for actually has happened.

Thank you. ;) I take from it that currently SBP is more a single CPU software, and the use of HT still is some time away. Games as a general thing do not interest me that much anymore, my sim/game interests are more specific. It seems from there I may want to go with single CPU performance. The Oculus (cheaper than the Vive) is said to benefit from having HT switched off. So I am really not that sure about my needs for HT, at leats not at the cost of single CPU performance. But as you said, nothing about the future is certain. I only have a doubt on that HT will become relevant all that quickly, when considering how long it has taken for quadcores becoming a "standard" today - there are still many dualcores out there, and the number of games that indeed and for sure use more than just one or two cores, still is very limited. HT nevertheless got hyped already when I bought my current - now obsolete - CPU in 2010. Seven years later, HT still has not manifestated itself as a standard, it still is relatively rare. Even my beloved Assetto Corsa is not really optimised for HT. Some people report frame rate increases with HT, others say they loose frames if they do not switch it off. For older sims like FSX or Falcon 4 one could clearly say that they were quite CPU heavy, and that the CPU was more important than the GPU. DCS until today cannot make real use of HT, and uses 1, at best 2 cores only. ArmA3 also does not have any use for qudcore, not to mention HT. It even runs slower with HT left on, I read. Is it the same with SBP as it is today, is CPU power more relevant for its performance than GPU (what I assume)? Or is SBP more hammering to the GPU than to to the CPU? I recall that I once knew stuff like this ten years ago :), but that was not SBP version 3 and 4, and the recommended specs seem to have grown significantly since then.

After 7 years on duty, my system's hardware starts to signal me that it wants to be put to pensioner mode. I plan to replace it in the forseeable future. this has benefits (more performance, VR an option - I do a lot of racing in Assetto corsa), and also drawbacks (Windows 10 and its technical support and privacy disaster). Obviously, playing the kind of stuff I like on Linux is not an option. I now wonder. Usually, in the past 20 years I always bought "one generation behind", which was proper economics, I got good performance but avoided the hilarious costs of newest, latest stuff. My current CPU is a proven i5 2500K, a CPU of almost legendary status. But I probably want to get a taste of VR and for that need obviously a beefy CPU and GPU. Also I take into account that this will be my last gaming PC I ever build, so it has to last, technically, and should hold some performance reserves. Another 7 years of longevity are my minimum expectation. That leaves me wondering about SBP. I plan to go with either a it 7700K, or a Ryzen 1600, something in this range. Currently I am in waiting mode for the new 8th generation intel CPU, namely the 8700K. First benchmarking from a couple of days ago shows a small increase in single core performance, and up to a 50% boost in multi threaded performance compared to the 7700K. Now I am wondering: what kind of software is SBP, what does it mostly base on: single core, multi threaded cores, or GPU anyway? Is it even already 64 Bit? I also wonder whether waiting for Coffee Lake really is worth it, because the socket still may be 1151, but needed are new chipsets Z370, which are only compromised Z270, but mainboards with the really needed and all new Z390 Anandtech recently listed as not being available before second half 2018, I think I will not wait this long. The intel have an advantage in single core performance, the Ryzens have an advantage in multi threaded performance. The 7700 is known to get very hot, and it sounds as if 8700 will not solve this issue. The medium future will probably belong to games benefitting from multi threading, but that must not include simulations of the type I prefer, from SBP over FSX to DCS , the latter two are absolutely not interested in HT. The Oculus as an example also does not benefit from HT, it is recommended to have HT switched off (it costs frames). So, from a strictly SBP point of view, what kind of CPU does SBP benefit from? Can it make use of HT, or is it just one core using anyway? Are their known pros and contras for intel or Ryzen CPUs with SBP? I suppose a GTX 1060Ti, 1070 or 1080Ti as GPU is sufficient.

But there have been plenty of other, smaller wars, conflicts, asymmetrical wars, low intensity wars, etc. The historically proven biggest and most lethal weapon of mass destruction is not the hydrogen bomb, but is the small caliber firearm: pistols and automatic assault rifles. "Quantity beat Quality. However Scientists were valued nonetheless." Until a certain treshhold, quality can compensate for disadvantageous numbers. But only until that treshhold, and not beyond. For example I never believed that the techncially superior air forces of NATO in the 80s would have been able to maintain air superiority in the sky and at the same time be useful in a ground pounding role as well (considering how many multi role aircraft there were that would have been deadlocked in a role of interceptor). Mike Spick, a British RAF pilot who in the late 80s and later became known for illustrative books and guides to military aircraft, wrote that in a 1-on-1 situation, Westenr fighters of course could maintain upper hand against old Mig-21s and -23s, but there were also more modern fighters emerging like the Su-27 and Mig-29, and Russian missiles can easily keep up with Western designs, today as well as already in the 80s. Iraq 03 was tried by Rumms-ins-Feld to be turned into a demonstration of how little troops are needed to pacify a whole country the size of Iraq. We know how that megalomaniac overestimation of oneself has ended. Hugh numbers have their very own charms. Last but not leats becasue you are more able to sustain losses without being threateningly affected. Some author many years ago was able to show that the loss of a single British fighrerplane in any of the Gulf wars already translated into a measurable and numerically expressable negative effect on the British economy and national wealth. Better exmaple is the Royal navy, a shadow of its former self these days. Losses in the falkland war were critcal, but could be digested somehow, ione could carry on after frigates and transporters got exocetted. Today, that navy admits, that would be impossible. There are simply not enough destroyers and frigates left in active service. Stanislav Lem once wrote in an ironic book about the near future - our present that would be - that in "the 21st century" the American air force would consist of only three aircraft. They are so expensive to build that they never fly and are considered unusable in any war, for the loss due to enemy fire or accident of just one of them would mean a too high loss to the state's wealth and finances. Recall the one single F-117 the Serbs were able to bring down? Remember how many F-22 originally were planned to buy, and how the number shrunk every every three or four years, until the joke of a number today? Then, there are the new British aircraft carriers and their originally wanted numbers of F-35 - and the number as it is now. LOL.

War is comparable to, maybe is a cultivated "art form". It has formed its own manners, arts, rules, ways of behaviour, rules and laws, dress codes, do's and dont's. Man cultivates it. Much like a hunter cultivates a certain way of hunting and forming a life form or a social event around it, think of hunting in England, or Germany. War doe snot only rise from rational, causal needs, it also arises from desire of some. Many live by rules of military codices and manners even at peace, voluntarily follow it most of their lifetime, hold it in high esteem. If this way it is part of human nature, what I think it is, you would see innovation and change in its tools and ways to think about it comparable to how hunters buy more rifles than they practically need, for they like to collect them, and buy newly invented stuff and rifles, although the prey stayed the same and has not adapted to the old rifles at all. The old saying says "War is the father of all things". Maybe this is how that saying is meant: its part of our nature. We go to war for causal causes and rational considerations, as well as irrational ones that cannot be proven valid (relgious motives for example). Some even turn so fanatical that they do not mind voluntarily martyrizing themselves in war. The war is the cause they follow and focus their life on. As a culture, war and military has tremendnous influence on all other human art forms: prose, painting, composing... Its part of the human nature.

Just weeks ago I finished van Crevelds' "Pussycats. Why the rest keeps beating the West, and what can be done about it." He focusses on five main chapters: helicopter-parenting the young, civilizing the soldier, feminization of society and discrimination of male characteristics, overconstruction of inflationally boosted amounts PTSD diagnosis, an finally the infantilisation of society and politicis and the accentuation of rights over duties. Very frecommended reading in this context. And politically most incorrect. He had to publish this book in his own bookshop, he found no publisher willing to expose himself to that Flak that is to be expected in answer to it. Already earlier, some of these things got touched upon by him in "The culture of war", and John Keegan also added - early - to this discussion with "The history of warfare". Keegan and Creveld were friends, but had different views on the origins of war. For Keegan, war is - like the mainstream argument says - a continuation of politics by other means, there is a rational causal cause for it. For Creveld, war is an inherent characteristic of human nature, a feature that characterizes man as being actually human. He therefore doubts that war will ever go, even if all rational and causal reasons for it get successfully eliminated. The erosion of Western fighting spirit in the name of claimed civilizational superiority also gets dealt with by David Engels: "Le Déclin : La crise de l'Union européenne et la chute de la république romaine, analogies historiques." (in German as "Auf dem Weg ins Imperium"). He is able to show that a comparison between the present and the Roman example is valid, and shows stunning similarities. I used to compare the EU and the degeneration of our order of values in the name if infantilised single interests and morbid self-destruction to the fall of Rome after it already had split and could no longer keep away the "barbarians", but the far more precise comparison is to the era of the Marian army reforms and the turn of Rome from a republic into an imperial order, under August. - There are vital lessons to learn from us, and many of them connect to the theme of the West being psychologically unable to fight or even just defend itself. Especially here in Germany this trend is excessive. Thats why I do not blindly believe in the argument of technological superiority that Captain Colossus raised. You can be technologically superior, and still loose to a band of lightly armed farmers and shepards. The factor behind this gets taught at the NATO college in Brussels under the label "War demographics", and the name to mention here is Gunnar Heinson. He established the socalled "war index" (and youth bulge theory) that compares the number of male 15-19 year olds to the society'S male 55-59 year olds, and shows the correlation between the aggressiveness and expansive behaviour of this culture/society. A war index of 1 means there are as many male youngling as there are male elder. A number smaller than 1 means there are more old than young males. Germany for example has a war index of 0.27, which means there are four times as many old ones than young ones. The probability that Germany engages in a war of aggression, is almost nil. However, lets see the hotspots of the world today, he recently mentioned Afghanistan. When the Americans started to intervene there, Afghanistan had a war index of I think 4. 4 or 4.6, there were more than four times as many young ones as there were old ones. During the conflict of the past decade, this index temporarily rose to over 6. Later it dropped again to some 4.7 or 4.8 I recall by memory. This is why despite the growing effort by America to win in Afghanistan, the enemy became stronger and stronger and got back in numbers. While winning field battles, the wars in Iraq 91, Iraq 03 and Afghanistan were strategic defeats, and very major defeats, turned into by politics and clueless acting. Heinsohn says that wars against a country with a war index over 3, are extremely difficult to win, over 4 you realyl should think three and four times before starting a war, and beyond 5 it is a hopeless cause almost. The US until today cannot get done with a loose gang of medieval barbarians with light weapons and improvised equipment. The Bundeswehr at the same time, as Creveld laconically reminded the reader, delayed the delivery of it s new IFV Puma again due to concerns that some exhaust gas could reach the cabin and have an effect on the forwater of pregnant female soldiers. Eh, what...??? I think if such concerns worry an army, then it really has some serious problems with its self-understanding, and I cannot image how any enemy should take such an army serious or be afraid if it, thinking twice before striking at it. Personally I am more concerned about he possible shark problem in the Berlin Wannsee.

Acceptable losses in war? Those minimum levels you cannot avoid in order to secure your objectives, while - and this is sometimes overlooked - maintaining the capacity and reserves to carry on afterwards, as long as needed. Ignoring the homefront and public opinion thing. van Creveld would argue that the West today not only is unable to defend itself against a determined aggressor, but it is even unwilling to stage a fight in self-defence. " According to a survey conducted by international research center Gallup that asked ‘Would you fight for your country?’ the citizens of Europe already have their white flags ready to wave in the event of a war. In the great Germany, only 18 percent of people say ‘I would fight for Germany.’ Twenty-nine percent of French, 27 percent of English, 21 percent of Spanish and 20 percent of Italians said they would fight for their country. " Its bad when a people has no means to defend itself, but it is hopeless if people even wonder why they should need to want to defend themselves, and their freedom.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/05/uk-military-intelligence-issues-warning-over-russian-super-tank/ It seems one is leaving the phase of just looking down on this Russian play-thing. However, also this: But if the West lives on tick and on grounds of a forged, paper "money" system, why shouldn't the Russians use the same trick? Its not as if you need to pay material assets with real value these days. Wahsington prnts money, when it needs some. Europe increases credit volumes, if it wants more. Everybody spends. Nobody thinks of the consequences. The party must rage on. Cleaning the kitchen - what, we have a kitchen...? BTW, the Kremlin since years buy physical gold as if there were no tomorrow. Which in a way is right, seen from a fiscal-political point of view. What I mean, is this: "money" is not the arugment to claim that Russia could not get the tanks it wants. Just consider the debt levels of Western states, and realise that all Western nations practically are bancrupt. It cannot be? It is. Its just that one day the kettle will blow up and fly around our ears.

Cannot comment on driving the real Aventador, but it is one of my preferred cars in AC, and I just come in here to support the claims on how unbelievably good the driving experience in Assetto Corsa is. The simulation may be a bit rough around the edges: the presentation is not optimal, the race events are lacking life, the AI currently has some issues again and some sounds are bad while most are okay and some are good. But at the core of it sits the drivign experience and the pohysics, the handling, the way it feels, and how it calles the physics of reality into simulated life, and here is where Assetto Corsa is not one amongst others, but the current king on the hill. The porojection of power by the nAvenbtador can only be described as "raw". Elegant, handable, yes, dont get me wrong. But its raw, brutal force when you kick the pedal. Unbelievable. You feel it even in this sim. You kick the pedal and your mind delays thinking by one second or so. Thats how long it takes until your thoughts catch up again with where your car is. And thehn the braking. Like Bunjee-jumping and the rubber at almost maximum stretch and your face just a meter away from the ground - what you then think, you may think here. With said 1 second delay. :D The physics guru of Kunos driving the real Aventador, and comparing it with the sim's version (he holds some racing license in reality, thats why they often allow him to drive the real things). The similiarty is stunning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1m4pwjfHV8 "No espresso for a month for me, I'm done." :D For best race presentation and atmosphere and the benchmark sounds in the genre, go Raceroom Racing. Its he most underestimated racing sim on market currently, with superb track pool available. The business model is not everybody's liking, however. Still, taken for itself this also is a superb package.

I am not certain, but isnt that a DLC for the main game Red Storm only, updating it from the standalone version from years ago to the hexfield version standard of OFRS? I have Red Storm from Steam - and it has a full and extensive manual. Several ones, to be precise.

Pilots say the Bo-105 is not the easiest, but a very capable helicopter to fly. A by now famous video on it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lakMTYTUKM The pilot was instructor with the BW, and some time later got himself killed in one of his stunt flights. If you fly too long with that almost non-existent, extremely narrow margin for error, your luck sooner or later is eaten up.

I am a very active Assetto Corsa user and Raceroom user myself, and believe me - if you have not felt Assetto Corsa's physics and FFB shining with a FFB wheel, then you have not seen anything important yet. Using a G27 myself. You cannot really appreciate a good driving simuator when using just keyboard or gamepad. It simply is not possible. You can learn to be reasonably fast, yes - but still, it is a completely different world. Do yourself a favour - get a wheel, FFB, 900°, and some reaosnmablke pedals. Clutch pedal and manual shifter is recommended, but no must. Must not necessarily be the hilariously expensive Fanatec stuff.

I have never been a fan of the airbus A400M, but today the project got another blow. The german Luftwaffe decided that it was time to admit that reality cannot wait anylonger for Airbus getting its acts together, and that the A400M never will be able to do all it was planned to do anyway. The Luftwaffe thus decided to start buying C130J Hercules transports by Lockheed Martin. For the moment, these are only planned to be brought intoa new to-be-build German French military unit and will see the German trnapsorts being stationed in France. I could easily imagine that more Hercules buying will follow. Its a proven design, it does what it should do, the J-model is coming with latest electronics cockpit and loading systems despite beign 20 years old since the J verison was released, and it is in service with several other nations air forces/armies as well. I wonder however what this will mean for the Puma, and in how far the Hercules can replace the planned A400M Dreamplane that was in parts specifically designed to transport right the Puma, and the Puma was designed with getting transported in Airbus Dreamplanes. I also wonder about the costs. If the Hercules is cheaper, and the Airbus project continues to burn money like fire consumes oxygen, it could mean that sooner or later somebody thinks it would be a good idea to kick the whole A400M disaster over board completely. IMO that is many years overdue. The Dreamplane will always be a problematic, foul compromise at best. And for that, hopelessly overpriced. BTW, I like Hercules planes. They are a good design, and in the 80s, during the second half of my my school time, we lived in West Berlin, 2-3 km west of Tempelhof runway and right in the final approach line, so that Galaxys and Hercules often flew right and exactly over our appartment house. The screeching noise of C-5s is a real pain in the ear, it can really hurt, but a Hercules' low humming, flying low over your head, is unmistakable, friendlier, and familiar to me. It was terryfying however to see how real low they passed our position on some days. You thought their undercarriage would take parts of the roof with them. On other days, they stayed higher. I did a lot of sim-flying myself, and know some stuff on it. But I never found an explanation for why your altitude during final approach on fair weather days would vary so tremendously. Even more since it was densely populated areas you cross over when landing at Tempelhof. You would want to stay as high as possible then.

Its not as if Russian-made tanks were or are entirely toothless - but if you think a scenario favours one side by technical quality of its equipment, the other side then needs to find tactical ways to counter that. Also, during the cold war, the Sovjet doctrin expected very high own losses. The way to counter Western technological advantages was by using superior numbers. And again: its not as if those Sovjet tanks were toothless. Probably better protected than many maybe think - but you did not wish to get hit by a T-72 cannon if sitting in a Western tank of that era the T-72 was designed to defeat, namely the Leo-1. Else, as had been said before, you can edit scenarios and exchnage this for that platform, for both sides. You can even mix Russian-made and Western equipment in one team, or both teams.

Splash, that are some awesome shots. I took the freedom to set them up in a thread at subsim/tanksim.com's forum, credited to you, since the earlier attempt to post a link to your post got corrupted and it seems to no longer work this way. Hope you do not mind, but if you object, let me know and I delete them again. http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=2426419#post2426419

Since today, full program and 1 year-licenses are available via www.okaysoft.de, but license upgrades are "preordered". I wonder what preordering should be for a digitally delivered stuff - a license code in this case? Okay, so i bought it nevertheless, and still must wait. I use a Windows 7 of update status from autumn last year (I do all on Linux and run a W7 partition only and exclusively as sim- and game-launcher, isolated as much as possible from online activities and connecting to MS servers especially, due to their crappy W10 promotion stunts. So my Windows does not get updated anymore, intentionally, and doe snot get used for anything different than serving as a game launching platform, if possible offline. I hope I do not run into problems with some outdated Microsoft code and dll's. No, I do not like W10, nor do I plan to ever do business again with MS.

You lucky dogs... I stopped supporting VISA and quit my credit card, so need to wait until v4 is up at www.okaysoft.de

I understand that. Thanks for taking the time nevertheless! I'm in no urgent hurry to get a new gfx board and monitor, I just see that the cockpit experience in Assetto Corsa would benefit from a wider perspective (the mirrors, and looking at apex in corners...), thats all. My system is stable and reliable since many years and gets everything done I throw at it. Plus I want to stick with my "locked up" Windows 7 (no longer updated due to Microsoft's fantastic GWX bullying campaign which indeed made me upgrading my operation system: I now do all and everything under Linux Mint , and just launch some games under Windows); I have no plan to move to Windows 10 any time soon. If ever. If I would: then just as a game launching platform, nothing else. - The new times of "digitalness" are here. Something tells me they are not as good and well-meaning as expected. If you ever consider to push SBP to higher DirX, please leave people the choice: do not go for Win10-only DirX12, but stick with DirX11. I am far from being alone with my anger and scepticism about Microsoft.

I am left scratching my head a bit. I considered to get an extreme wide monitor for my Assetto Corsa needs, a 29" thing. For that, I considered to upgrade my graphics card from a 660GTX to one of these new 1060 that are com ing out this month. Something in that range. My rig is a proven and reliable i5 2500K with 8GB RAM and W7. Now what would SBP benefit more from, an updated CPU or GPU? I mean is the sim more CPU-dependent due to the physics and LOS calculations, or more GPU-dependent? I assume it is the first...!? I probably would not gain much in SBP by a newer GPU, maybe even lose in frames due to the wider screen and more pixels?

I still use my old proven combo that I use in flightsims since 15 years: a CH Fighterstick and ProThrottle. The spring is a bit too soft, but thats it in minor negatives, everything else is outstandingly positive, imo. The charm of this HOTAS used in SBP lies in that both devices have plenty of buttons that can be keymapped via the best software interface in business for these kinds of jobs, the CH Manager. Intuitive, super-flexible, allows also complex programming per buttons, and all that in three layers. I like to have the usual functions all on this HOTAS in SBP, and to have over 70 programmable buttons allows that easily. Fighting, gunning, moving, formation management - I do it all with my pranks on throttle and stick, keyboard is almost never needed. Doing an ergonomic template for SBP takes some work, however, invest some time - but see it paying off. I have posted one in the download section somewhere, it allows swtiching of layers and so enable you to easily switch between movement and formation management, and combat, also switching between gunning/aiming via stick, or to have controls set so that you use Throttle and mouse (good for travel and panning around). If SBP is your only sim that you play, you can go with simpler sticks or highly specialised kits (your choice and your wallet), but if you also use it for other stuff, I would always prefer a better quality HOTAS setup. The Throttle I also use in other sims like driving sims, just to be able to access keyboard controls without needing to look. 15 years or so, and still no wear or tear on my CH gear. Not the cheapest, but worth the price.

http://tanknutdave.com/the-german-a-argentinean-tam-tank/ A heavily reinforced Marder-1 chassis with a modified Leopard-1 turret with a 105 cannon.

If you google for search terms of comparing IFVs and costs, you will find many sites and discussions where usually the common IFV models in use get compared. The prices for every model vary from source to source but usually within one site or source the Puma is listed with 30-40% higher costs per unit than any other. I also still am not convinced of the turret and armament, especially the secondary. The Puma has taken heavy flak from beginning on for its high costs. That the program suffered so many setbacks, namely with the turret and armament, did not help to justify these exhausting spendings. The Marder was maybe the best of its kind when it was released, certainly claimed to be the best protected in its class. Still, AFAIK the Germans failed in getting it sold to anyone else. Beside the weight, it too was too expensive in its time.

What A400M...? :bigsmile:

Considering the record price tag the Puma usually is associated with, the Germans probably could have saved themselves from the trip to Down Under. Too little Bang for too big Coin. Have never been a fan of the Puma myself. Also, technical "superiority" compensates for numerical inferiority only to a certain degree - and not beyond. I do not know how big or small the Australian Army's troop level is - but I know its a damn big place they need to negotiate even if just counting the coastal areas. I never expected much international demand for the Puma - if any. It simply is too expensive. Finally, the CV-90 series is a design they have experience with now. The Puma is unproven. And - again, too expensive.

Have paying options been altered, changed, widened? Asking this since I have not checked for that since years, but recently gave up my Visacard, since it costed me a yearly fee and I had no use for it. Paypal would be great, or bank/giro transfer.