Hah so the discussion was still going ? oh well let me point out the flaws in your understanding of physics or the basic of flying:
To control your airspeed first is pitch then power, that means the pitch control has instantaneous control over airspeed, power come in slower. You can try this in...
Let me guess, you are flying turbo prop aircraft ain't ya, turbo jets flying charateristics are a little different. Every flight we descend with idle power, +1 degree pitch and maintain M.85/ 325kt IAS, simply pitching down to -5 degree will get us to Mmo/Vmo in a couple of seconds.
Shockwave not only cause flow separation but also increase the air pressure above wings, causing a nose down moment (Mach Tuck), even at idle power the airspeed would still increase causing further pitch down moment. Once the aircraft has lost sufficient altitude (a lot) so that shockwave is not...
Problem is it's not the flow separation that cause the high speed stall, it is the shockwave caused by supersonic airflow above wings. For low-speed stall we pitch down to reduce the angle of attack (angle between the aircraft pitch and the flight path) and increase airspeed to regain lift but...
Well any commercial aircraft will experience high speed stall way before reaching Mach 1 though, that means the aircraft lose all lift and falling like a rock, you will be dropping at 125mph towards ground, so yeah don't ask commercial pilots to fly at Mach 1 :). Concorde however fly at Mach 2...
Nah we usually don't control the aircraft manually once it is airborne, though manual control is also the same as the flight computers will take in pilots input and give command to flight control surfaces in accordance with the speed of the aircraft. Tail winds is only problematic when we are...
well B787-9 pilot here, B787-9 maximum Mach number is .9, same as B747-8. The new generation B777X is gonna be M .95. The maximum mach number depends on the wing design, as you know the air above the wing is accelerated to lower the pressure above the wing creating lift; however once the air...
As an 2080 TI owner who rave for an eye watering game with DXR for a while I think I would just pass this idiocy. If they care enough about gamers like CDPR I would gladly buy the same game from 2 stores which I did for Witcher 3 (Steam and GOG).
Lol if anything RTX is maturing faster than DX12, although BF5 is a bad showcase game for RTX though (even DX12 implementation is shit), had it been Cyberpunk 2077 people would have been a lot more tolerable with the 60fps at 1080p.
Since Radeon VII has 25% more perf/w than Vega 64 (say in one of the slide) while RTX 2080 is 90% more efficient than Vega 64 (source: Techpowerup's reviews), that means RTX 2080 is 65% more efficient, multiply that by 2080's TDP and we have a 350W TDP for Radeon VII (if anything the 3 fans 2.5...
Performance jump from 1080ti to 2080ti maybe 40% for now but should increase further in the future because guess what, now that Turing has async compute hardware and something similar to AMD rapid packed math (explain the massive jump in FC5), more developers will integrate those tech onto...
Looks like MSI and Gigabyte is already on board the GPP programs, as there were no GamingX or Aorus branding of Vega 56 or 64 video cards atm, only Asus has the ROG vega 56 and 64. No hard feelings here since those gaming brands are overpriced AF anyways. Looking at Steam hardware survey with...
with Nvidia dominating the market since 2016, independent developers had little reason to code their game to DX12 anyways since DX 11 runs better on Nvidia hardware
Just fyi there are increased input delays when vsync on and the framerates are above max refresh rate of the monitors for both gsync and freesync, that's why most people would cap framerates below max refresh rate.