Thinder

Rank interleaving, that's why and dual channel matters little, it's the number of ranks per stick that makes all the difference. First of all 32 GB is far enough for most games, second this kit is Cl14/1 rank within the limitations of the Ryzen 5 controller but optimized for AMD processors with low latency, above that, the controllers can't handle both a frequency higher than 3200MHz and/or more than 1 rank per stick if you have more than two. See MSI support reply from an enquiery I made before chosing my RAM kit, I run a Ryzen 5 5600X, as they say at the bottom of the email, they don't offer warranty for the use of a RAM with higher frequency, at the end of the day, I got 6.02% increased performance from my CPU over my previous RAM kit (Crucial CL16 3200MHz 2 X 16GB). When it comes to optimal balance between latency and frequency, you can't do better for a Ryzen 5 than this, it also use B-Die, in short everything they mention as working for a 5600X.

Your i7 4790K and DDR3 RAM make your system too slow with a CPU bottleneck of nearly 10%, it's 9.24% at 1080P and slightly better at 4K with 2.32% but this means that your GPU is also in the weak side. The whole system is under requiered specs for 4K play anyway, a simple upgrade of GPU isn't going to be enough. First your CPU controller is limited in terms of RAM speed and number of ranks, if you can get a faster CPU, capable of handling DDR4 3200 MHz and make sure you bound your RAM to it with a maximum of (combined) 4 ranks it will get better and will be able to handle a faster GPU.

Google Translation: Fighter of the fifth generation Checkmate will be assembled in Komsomlsk up Alexandra Murashchenko Send email via web interface. The aircraft plant in Komsomolsk-on-Amur will assemble a new fifth-generation Checkmate single-engine fighter. This was announced during his visit to the city of Yunosti by Yuri Slyusar, General Director of the United Aircraft Corporation. Today, July 28, the plant was visited by the Prime Minister of the Russian Federation Mikhail Mishustin. The head of government examined the assembly shops for the production of military aircraft and talked with test pilots. KnAAZ takes part in the creation of the Checkmate light tactical aircraft, developed by the Sukhoi design bureau. In 2021, the plant assembled a full-size aircraft demonstrator of the technologies of this promising single-engine fighter. Work is in progress on the creation of the first sample for static testing.

It's a tad more complicated than that. Everyone seems to be assuming that the Russians are inept at using tools such as CATIA and FLUENT, just a hint, Dassault-Aviation built their Falcon 7X to specs on CAD and simulation only including full certification a few years ago. On the other hand if you look at F-35 politico-industrial history, you'll figure that multiple changes in specification and what appears to be mediocre design team management lead to multiple design changes, weight target being missed, structural redesign that lead to unforseen aerodynamic issues etc, not exactly the best use of CAD, simulation and industrial capabilities. There is nothing that can support the assumption that Sukoi have made the same mistakes and only looking at the mockup, one can say it has been developed using all the digital tools available in the market, which is the reason they give for its short development time. So before being critical of the design, I'd wait a couple of years and see if this aircraft meets its requiered specs. Sure thing, Russia still lags behind when it comes to metalurgy and engine design/efficiency but certainly not in aerodynamics and perhaps not even structural design, more to the point, TWR doesn't do everything for the performances of an aircraft, and this Sukoi seems to have been designed with high maneuverability in mind including high Cl/Cd L/D ratio and structural limits which are more than a factor in terms of turning performances, not the F-35 forte. In short they don't look at the same performances targets at all, I'd say F-35 will have the upper hand in the L.O and systems dept and the Sukoi in performances and maneuverability.

Great find!!! If I remember well, Northrop pionered the use of LEX with the F-5 series and YF-17... Here is Airbus conceipt for the FCAF.

Some interesting features... Lift enhencing: Strakes. LEX. At 48° the wing behave like a delta so we have vortex lift and enhenced vortex lift exactly the same way as F-22 and Rafale (48°/70° LEX) with the junction LEX/wing we have a 3 vortexes system on this aircraft. The LEX vortexes triggers the appearence of the wing vortex lift earlier in the AoA scale, meaning a high Cl/Cd coeficient; more lift at lower AoA, less drag for the same amount of G in a turn, faster acceleration from high G load to level flight (unloading), high level of control at high AoA better stall characteristics and often spin recovery etc. The monoblock V-tail is aligned to the wing/LEX junction so it should beneficiate from the vortexes from all 3 sources which is good for control at high AoA but causes aerodynamic bashing demanding a high structural intergity, the hinges are there to support the structural efforts demanded to the tail which must really be submited to a lot of aerodynamic efforts due to the presence of strong vortexes. For the record, F-18 had this issue and strakes were added on top of the fuselage to retard vortex breakdown, in the case of F-22, this solution (like is the case here) wasn't an option (VLO) so the fins front beams had to be changed for stronger ones made of a different material, the F-35, I can't bother, it lasted for ages, included material resonance, involved elevators and vertical surfaces and I don't even know if it has been fully sorted yet. Just in front of the inlet one can see a zone of compression starting just below the FLIR (change of angle comparable to the Mig-21 inlet cone), this have for effect to compress the boundary layer in front of the inlet slow down the airflow and increase pressure, most noticeable from critical Mach to supersonic as speed increases but the boundary layer is redirected inside the inlets. This aircraft should be very maneuverable and probably PSM capable, although I'm not into PSM as combat solutions, I think having the capability makes an aircraft more maneuverable overall simply because it has the right featurees for that...

Good. I'm done reading whatever in this forum. Take your time for studying the subject before reapearing.

Please spare me the fuse blowing bit. I flew enough and had great teachers. You still can't comprehend the basics of high AoA aerodynamics, why would I notice the fact that you can't figure that you're wrong? P.S they prepare testing for the first prototype, so as I thaught it is a lot more than a mockup... Here we go again... 1) Not all of it in the case of the Checkmate, 2) Not the hinges. 3) if this was the case, there would be no need for strakes and LEX to improve lateral stability and they took a great care of doing just that. Now I wouldn't ask you the A from ABC on the subject, so I strongly recommand that instead of lecturing me in english you try to get FACTS right... Sure thing: Strake, LEX, use of enhenced vortex lift, one more set of vortex on this Sukhoi Checkmate than on F-35, and just a little reminder, Russian aircrafts have been doing PSM for a long time now... # Here if you ask nicely... LOL! You'll find the free student versions of CATIA and Fluent, this way you'll be able to get a crash course in flow simulation. https://www.3ds.com/partners/products/100000000001407_PDT00000000362_FLUENT_for_CATIA_V5/

Lots of assumption, ever heared of compression? For your info this splitter plate could be more efficient that that of Typhoon which requiered the scoop and also is the cause of the Mach limitation of the aircraft due to high frequency vibrations, ASK MOD for their report. So am I, only I don't throw this as a guaranty of aerodynamic features working or not. I understoud you first time and I reiterate, you're plain wrong. What does airflow does in the rear part of an airframe at high AoA? Completely ignore the effects of the sets of vortexes created by the strake and LEX, the fact the hinges at high AoA they would be in the weakest part of airflow and of course if you take this into account then your explaination falls flat... The Russian stupid as they are, designedf a monoblock surface because they didn't need more structural strength and the effect of vortexes in their area is not causing the same sort of bashing than in the case of the F-18. Looks like you skipped more than a chapter in the HARV program, but also F-22, F-35, all affected by the same issue. >>> What part of VLO can't use vertical strake don't you comprehend? Meaning vortex and airflow will be above your beloved hinged and what problem did you envisage witrh this tail configurastion again? Take your pills mate...

Not the "things" you mentioned, for those topics, you are plain wrong, I don't think it's the Russian who need to learn a few things and I believe that they can teach more than a few western nations a few tricks about aerodynamics, and in some case, even Lockheed Martin, so you also figured that they haven't managed to do flow simulation by now? I can see and describe the features they used and how they developed them to get the high AoA control efficiency they were looking for, those features are known and well documented, we know how they work and on which aircraft they work or not, I'm just wondering how you manage to miss that. So according to you the "scoop" inlet is an issue here but not with Eurofighter Typhoon? What was Herbst idea behind the original TFK 90 design and the choice of ventral inlets? Use of TVC and hyper maneuverability, which he went on to experiment with DRYDEN on the X-31 program, with exactly the same configuration, both Max 70° AoA during testing, but not according to you since it's Russian and you say so... Man, those topic dates from well before the 90s, try to keep up... I asked you how did you figure your assumptions, now, did you bother having a look at a program like NASA F-18 HARV? How will the hinge you mention disturb the airflow and cause an issue at high AoA when the region which is affected by vortexes in the best case is the top 2 tiers of the surfaces? What was the reason for the addition of two vertical strakes on the fuselage of F-18? Vortex breakdown which caused aerodynamic bashing of the fins, not a viable solution on a VLO design, so a lot more of this aircraft design solutions make sens when you realize they probably know more about DRYDEN work than you do. At high AoA those hinges are gonna be in an area of low pressure because most of the aiflow will have departed above them, plus, considering the aerodynamic forces in play, a monoblock solutions can provide more structural strength than a classic fin rudder configuration. Simple. Feel free to elaborate as I have done, but in my comments there are no assumptions, only knowledge of basic aerodynamics solutions experimented by very serious people, from DRYDEN to NASA to Edward AFB on the topic of high AoA and post-stall maneuverability, in particular use of vortexes and pressures, somewhat a bit more complexe than assuming that a few things scream problem without any technical substance to the argument. My tip; read what I wrote and try to visualise what the airflow and wortexes are doing, if this is not obvious to you, then visit DRYDEN archives on the subject and there are tons of them. And I forgot, no computer can compensate for a mediocre aerodynamic design.

How do you figure? "Scoope" inlet have less issues at high AoA than other configurations, at least in normal flight (non-inverted). Then, did you notice the strakes and sharp LEX? Those would provide enough vortexes to keep the boundary layer close to the surface of the fuselage with probably less chances of vortex breakdown than is the case for F-35 since they managed to delete the LEX from the design to gain structural weight. This sort of aerodynamic strakes configuration have been used in aircrafts such as IAI Kfir (before the canard), Mirage 2000, Eurofighter Typhoon, then LEX with F-18 and F-22 strakes with the addition of 70° swept LEX, they all have the same effect and retards the break down of vortexes and separation of the boundary layer from the fuselage at high AoA. Note that in the case of those aircrafts, strakes are specificaly designed to enhence lateral stability, so they really have to reach those control surfaces to work. The T-tail configuration is nowhere near to be designed to take advantage of those vortexes, the horizontal surface is not positioned for the purpose, not even that the of F-16 which is AoA limited for this precise reason. Of course we might see a lot of changes in this design but so far I can't see much wrong with it, quite the opposite, it's a smart design with the strakes integrated close to the fuselage and LEX slightly forward, which helps with spreading their vortexes outward, better for roll control, you can guess that the strake vortexes "separate" the LEX vortexes from the zone of lower pressure behind the canopy which would prevent them spreading woutward and energize the ailerons...# Just a guess, but that's how pressure zones works ine the case of F-35 (vortexes being "sucked" inward) and F-22 (vortex breakdown before the ailerons which caused DRYDEN to suggest their redesign from YF-22 to avoid structural damage due to aerodynamic bashing). Another wild guess is that the designers of this aircraft have encountered similar limitations with the effectiveness of the LEX and the vortexes they produced, just looking at the truncated wing tip trailing edge.

Well, if you study the history of the F-35 from design stage, it's hard to beat as a design Cluster FCUK. Seriously, when an L.M guy ask why a vortex is attracted to a zone of lower pressure (from the strake inlet to the dorsal fin) instead of spreading outward in a leaked slide, you wonder if they haven't financed the further education of some newbies they recruited in their design team hoping they could do better. Just in passing, the topic of airflow expension and compression is covered in the beginer's aerodynamics course for 16 years old who want to get a grant, so you can expect some well paid technician and aerodynamicist to be more aware, a couple of years down the road and you have the transonic and supersonic topics covered... They also used CATIA from conceiptual design stage, can someone please explain to me how they couldn't get flow simulation to work with it... https://www.3ds.com/partners/products/100000000001407_PDT00000000362_FLUENT_for_CATIA_V5/

The real reason is that most systems and weapons related to the 5F and Mk2 etc are still classified and will most probably remain so for some time, when you think that the Pakistanese DoD managed to get images of the firing envelop of an old model AIM-9 and their Mirage III off the internet, it's easy to see why. There is absolutely no structural differences between the C and the other 2000 single seaters, appart for extra hard points and systems they are identical, so developers would have the choice in giving us a "fake" 2000-5F or not at all, as Jojo pointed out rightly, access to Data is the issue, considering how close to real life the 2000C is, a fake 2000-5F would be disapointing. BTW, when it comes to accuracy, when you read some F-16 jockey complaining about the flight envelop of the 2000C (draging more than in real life according to some pilots btw), and yet happy to pull whatever number of G they like in transonic and assymetric configuration (-1 AIM-120 on one side) you're allowed to laugh. A good thing developers neglected to simulate the characteristics of the Viper in this region of its flight envelop and configuration, we would see some funny loss of Control, and Yaw Departure, but eh, this is only a game isn't it?

If you're in the UK, you can buy a 3600X new or second hand (2 years guaranty) from CEX and then upgrade to a 5600X when you can afford it, you still can sell your 3600X and later 5600X to CEX, which is what I always do, just make sure they are in a good state so that they pass their tests. CEX AMD Ryzen 5 3600X (6C/12T @ 3.8Ghz) AM4 £180.00 The main thing being the RAM, if you go this path anyway your PC will last you a few years and still provide you with good performances until the time you decide to upgrade to the next Gen, but you won't have to pay the premium for the new generation of AMD processors, not to mention the motherboard. At the end of the day it's your choice and I believe that with a little research you can find the best solution at the lowest price. I started upgrading my PC in May 2020 with a Radeon RX 5500 XT MECH 8G OC which I exchanged (+ cash) to CEX for an EVGA GEFORCE 1080 Ti, after purchasing the B450, the 3600X and the Crucial RAM, then later again, the 5600X and the G.Skill RAM in January 2021. Now I think that my two best purchase were the B450 and the G.Skill RAM. You can see my specs are very different today but it took me month, resale and exchange to get there, and yet my PC is only mid-range, with good performances thanks to optimization, good bounding and room for improvement, in particular the GPU, the 5600X can handle a much stronger card than the 1080Ti and still not create a bottleneck. https://pc-builds.com/calculator/Ryzen_5_5600X/GeForce_RTX_3080/10f1748A/32/100/ So you could do the same over a year, but one thing for sure, you will notice the difference between the 3600X and 5600X, the 3600X is still a Ryzen 5 and it will also beneficiate from a good Cl 14/1 rank 3200MHz RAM because of a similar controller limitations to the 5600X but not offer as much gain because of a slightly less advanced architecture. With this method of purchase and resale, you can lower the cost of an upgrade dramatically, I am not sure if the 3600X will satisfy you entirely as early as you start pushing the settings in DCS because at the end of the day, it still is way slower, but considering the cost, it is a good stop gap.

The brand doesn't really matter for as long as it is Cl14 and one rank, 3200MHz. I think more than one manufacturer (like Corsair) are making those, and they also use B-Die chips which doesn't really offer more performances but a much more stable chips material and tighter frequencies control for those wanting to O.C their RAM kit. 16gb of 3200 ram and a board for £310 doesn't look like a very good deal to me, Newegg sales their 32GB kit for $334.99, £243.68, for £313.67 you have the MSI motherboard on top. https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-32gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820232488?Item=N82E16820232488 https://www.cclonline.com/product/293003/B450-GAMING-PLUS-MAX/Motherboards/MSI-B450-GAMING-PLUS-MAX-AMD-Socket-AM4-B450-Chipset-ATX-Motherboard/MBD2684/?gclid=Cj0KCQjw9O6HBhCrARIsADx5qCR9gU6mhcNy8HnAQ6wADCpJxyJIi-i07tKtxH7d-qJa3R0sOd7dSxwaAjvCEALw_wcB The problem people have is that the importance of lower latency RAM is far too much underestimated, it's when systems are suffering from CPUs throttling back or high frame time that they face it and in DCS it is not so uncommon because the CPUs are pushed to their limits more often than none and RAM not always properly bounded to the CPU. Advantages: Lower Latency. NO throttling back under load. Use of rank interleaving. Consistency of performances only limited by thermal load and CPU-to-GPU bound. Just to give you an idea here are the results of the tests I conducted with the same settings with just a change of RAM from the Crucial CL16/2 ranks 3200MHz: (Crucial RAM first. G.GKILL second) 3D Mark Pro Fire Strike Ultra 4K gaming with DirectX 11 3840 x 2160 (16:9) (4K) MSAA x 2 MSI Afterburner ON. AMD Ryzen Master ON; Game mode. >>>>>> Graphics score: 6 496 vs 6 583. +1.33% Physics score: 23 894 vs 25 339. + 6.04% Combined score: 3 605 vs 3 654. + 1.35%. >>>>>> If you keep in mind that your CPU is commanding its bandwidth to all buses and that even your GPU-to CPU bus would be affected if it throttle back, then add to this the higher latency of a Cl16 RAM kit, you can imagine what it can be when you try to play DCS in a complexe scenario. I ran other tests with the same settings with CPU-Z and all my cores ran at 4598.93 MHz without O.C, which is impossible to achieve without a proper RAM-CPU bound due to the controller limitations, I'm quiete positive that this performance translates to DCS without any problem since there are NO bottlenecks there to force the CPU to throttle back under load. I forgot, the 5600X is 11% faster on ONE core than the Intel I7-9700K both non O.C.