Thinder

Thanks for your reply. I already have a separated SSD for the O.S (Windows 10 Pro), and another one for Games, both 240 GB, with space for a third one next to them on the side of the box, so far, I didn't have anything to complain about when it comes to speed. My third drive is an old HD at the bottom location in the box, and I have to transfer its content to a larger one, so I am not sure if I want to go through the trouble of a new install (the one I have now is fairly stable) just to take advantage of this new drive. Anyway, surprisingly it is on its way to be delivered to me right now (Sunday morning, the driver deserve a medal). What I can do is to use it for storage but also for Paging files, it will free the drive I use for this purpose and help clear the O.S drive as well...

I just ordered a Samsung 970 EVO Plus 500 GB PCIe NVMe M.2 (2280) Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) (MZ-V7S500), frankly I didn't know what an M.2 drive was until I started to explore my motherboard user book. The M.2 port was empty and I need more storage, so I thought I might just as well use it, Amazon was selling this 500GB Internal Solid State Drive for £95.00 and I had precisely the same amount of credit on my Amazon Gift Card. I'm still unsure on how I'm gonna use it but I have to transfer 240GP of data from an old HD to "something else", this will help, my options are; transferring OS to this new drive, transferring Games, including DCS to this new drive, use it as extra storage space. Here are the motherboard and the SSD data: B450 GAMING PLUS MAX NVMe support, up to 32 Gb/s using PCI-Express Gen3 x4, Supports STORE MI 970 EVO Plus NVMe M.2 SSD 500GB Capacity 500GB (1GB=1 Billion byte by IDEMA) PCIe Gen 3.0 x 4, NVMe 1.3 Up to 3,500 MB/s Average: 5.8 W * Maximum: 9 W (Burst mode) * Actual power consumption Power consumption (Idle) Max. 30 mW * Actual power

Fighter Pilot Breaks Down Every Button in an F-15 Cockpit

It could be this one... I think the lenses also play a role in the quality of the head set, reason why the G2 was delayed, to improve on what was already good but had little flaws. ......

Same here. In fact, my motherboard buses supports the next generation of CPU and GPU with the RAM to go with it. It would have been a very bad move if people had to upgrade their boards to take advantage of it, this way, AMD make sure they keep their customers happy. ......

MSI’s Entire 400-Series (X470 & B450) Motherboards Support AMD Ryzen 5000 “Zen 3” Desktop CPUs https://wccftech.com/msis-entire-400-series-x470-b450-motherboards-support-amd-ryzen-5000-zen-3-desktop-cpus/ ......

I voted "not going to bother" for those reasons: There is nothing new in the technology offered with this Nvidia 30 serie. TDP way too high, new gen of hardware shouldn't result in systematic increase in power requirements, AMD approach is more user oriented. Price tag, I'm not prepared to pay Nvidia R&D. ......

I think people should go for what they feel most comfortable with. In my case, I'm after clarity and image quality more than absolute performance and the widest PoV. When I first eared that the G2 release was delayed, I immediately thought that they were looking at further improvements, so to me, it is good news that HP have been working at the lenses. If I'm not mistaking, the G2 Omnicept Edition also features systems which can be used to develop optical qualities further by focusing on what the player looks at. Here we're looking at Eye Tracking and Pupillometry in this topic... https://www8.hp.com/us/en/vr/reverb-g2-vr-headset-omnicept-edition.html?jumpid=va_cdbrzpgewu ......

Tell me about it...

Thanks, Baldrick33! I had a formation and good experience as photographer previous to go to CGI and I can bring some light on the issue of FoV. I was taught that our field of view (males, females have a slightly wider one for some reasons*) was <> equal to that of a 50mm lens. Passed this, you're talking visual field of attention* where you detect an object on motion or contrast but not in focus. So there is a degree of manufacturers policies and technico-commercial interest behind the PoV issue, on one you can move your eyes through a wider FoV, on the other you might detect the target earlier thanks to a better lens clarity and sharpness. Note that those figures can variate from an individual to another, your own eyesight will play a role, but I believe that with most recent head sets, FoV is adequate. G2's field of view is 98/114 degrees. ......

I don't think tracking will be an issue with the G2 while playing DCS, the only issue it has at this level is with controllers, it is not developed as far as the Oculus 2 for their use, but is better suited for flight simulation. If you manage your desk lighting well enough, with level and contrast it will track just fine. ......

AMD have been assessing this sort of issues and try to limit the amount of cores used to 4, the problem is not only DCS, but the way processors works during the game as well. Using Ryzen Master, some of the cores will shut down when not in use and resources allocated to the remaining active cores, their clock will be boosted as well. A Ryzen 7 3700X is in theory faster than a Ryzen 5 3600X but I get better results when benched with an RTX 3080 with the 3600X. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4525129&postcount=181 The next generation Ryzen have a different architecture for this reason as well. ......

Well, I got myself a CV1 for my first VR experience and although I am quiet happy of having done that, especially because I had it at 50% of its price new in a completely unused state, I'll get myself a G2 for X-Mass. I worked a lot at my PC cooling and can run both CPU and GPU at full boost at reasonable temperatures playing DCS in VR, image quality improved a lot. But there is the matter of the pixels or "grid" that you can see just as you would when you stick your nose on a high-resolution screen, only in this case, it is much more obvious since the lenses are focused on it. If the experience is still pleasant, I'm limited when it comes to what I can read inside the cockpit and higher resolutions would be welcome anyway. Personally, I don't mind lower frame rates for as long as image quality is there, so I'm not after 90 FPS, 32/45 will do if it stays smooth and constant. I'll see what I can get from my system with the G2 when I got it. Me, at the moment I do... ......

That's why I mention RAM speed and the Ryzen 3700x to be too slow for the RTX 3080. First all the data has to go through the RAM and I believe that DDR4 3600 would be a much better suited speed for an AMD CPU, especially playing DCS in VR at higher settings. Second, the Ryzen 3700x is not that hot when it comes to gaming, in fact, its overall performances are matched by the Ryzen 5 3600X. The 3600X might not match the RTX 3080, with a bottleneck percentage of 6.26% at 2160P/4K when used with a RTX 2020Ti. I did find a bottleneck calculator which has 3080 data and if this is correct it is one reason for the performances issues. https://www.cpuagent.com/build-compare/intel-core-i9-10900k-vs-amd-ryzen-7-3700x/gaming-summary/nvidia-geforce-rtx-3080-vs-nvidia-geforce-rtx-3080?res=3-vs-3&quality=high-vs-high&ram=32-vs-16 In both cases, the DDR4 3600 is always faster, so you might have two issues slowing down this combo; first the RAM frequency, then CPU/GPU bottleneck but in the case of the GPU, only at 1080P. We need to validate all of this before we come to conclusion but I really think it shows where the problem could be. For the RAM I would advise this kit: https://uk.crucial.com/memory/ddr4/bl2k16g36c16u4b https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0FG-ZtdgP0https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0FG-ZtdgP0 I went for the 3200 kit because I was in a rush to replace my previous RAM but the 3600 seems to be better suited to an AMD CPU, in particular my Ryzen 5 3600X, it is also perhaps the most performant in its category, my first step for upgrade stage 2 after I got my hands on the HP Reverb G2. ......

It's the bound between the two that matters, if you have more than 10% bottleneck at high resolution, it hurts the performances a lot. I'm looking for 4K and I expect my actual setting to be marginal at this resolution. The Ryzen 5 3600X and 1080Ti are a good match, above that you might need a stronger processor or GPU, here are my results. Average bottleneck percentage: 1080P 4.52% 1440P 6.65% 2160P/4K 8.34% I don't know how the RTX 3080 compare because it is not yet listed for computing bottleneck so I stick to a possibility, something worth investigating. The Ryzen 7 3700x doesn't look like it is much stronger than the Ryzen 5 3600X, which is why I suggested it might not be strong enough for a RTX 3080. https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-7-3700X-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-3600X/4043vs4041 His RAM is definitively slow. In any case, it is wise to have a look at the bottleneck calculator before committing to a purchase, personally I always bound CPU and GPU to avoid going over 10%. ......

Depends on the model... https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/evga-gtx-1080-ti-sc2-w-icx-cooler.b4349 It is possible that the Ryzen 3700X is too weak for your GPU which could result in a bottleneck at higher resolution (4K), more to the point, your RAM is running too slow. ......

Sweet spot for Ryzen 5 3600X is DDR4 3600/CAS latency - 16, I chose the 3200 to replace my old RAM in emergency but I might correct this when I got the funds after the HP Reverb G2. After reseaches I looks like this kit is the most performant. https://uk.crucial.com/memory/ddr4/bl2k16g36c16u4b ......

Just got mine, love it. https://www.hyperxgaming.com/unitedkingdom/en/keyboards/alloy-fps-pro-mechanical-gaming-keyboard

I agree with most of this apart for one or two details which are important with Windows 10... I'll complement your post with tips based on personal experience. First AVOID windows 10 Home edition, it is slower, have the worst memory management of all W10 O.S and provide little in ways to correct this (with registry editor for example). I'd recommend Windows 10 Professional. Second, using DCS or any demanding game on the same disk than Windows is not a good idea. You need to create paging files, preferably twice the size of your RAM and on a different disk, so you'd be better off splitting your storage capacity over two smaller disk, reserve one for Windows, install DCS on the other one where you can set your paging file as well. For the rest it's pretty much a matter of taste, Intel or AMD or NVIDIA for the GPUs, you can chose the best bound for your combo CPU/GPU before committing your finances to them using this tool. Here is one of the configuration I tested. https://pc-builds.com/calculator/Ryzen_7_2700X/GeForce_GTX_1080_Ti/0Qe0XF8A/32/100/ Keep the percentage of bottleneck below 10%, especially at the resolution you intend to use it the most, if it's V.R, it's 4K. Cooling is also very important for performances. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4511015#post4511015 ......

Something else: I think I might be the one at the origin of the Martin Friemer debate, since I was into with Flight International from news to archives and still am today, here is the story... Martin Friemer was mentioned saying 15% and 8% instability in an interview to Flight International in 1999, the quote on lift associated to him is false. It was done within a particular CONTEXT. Actuators in the case of the 1999 F.I article as well as the FCS, mentioned in the 2000 BAe document as not been able to cope, otherwise said, design goals not meet yet. The two previous articles doesn't tell the whole story, there are a number of elements and details which are missing to come to conclusions and data were still inaccurate but the flight envelop of the Typhoon, its qualities and limitations can be compared to what the BAe article says about the solutions they were looking for to meet required performances. So basically they spent 18 month sorting the FCS before the first flight then from Marsh 1994 to July 2002 worked at fine tuning the FCS for carefree handling. What I know from our joutes at Eurofighter forum: Some Eurofighter insiders at the time indicated that those actuators had been upgraded even before the first flight, which I know to be true since they were tested on DA airframes, to meet customer required performances, obviouslty FCS had to be adjusted. As the 2000 document show, improvement in the flight envelop goes through increased level of instability, the goal was 16% not 15% not 8% which was the actuators mechanical limit, that's nearly 8 years before the first fully instrumented aircraft flew equiped with the new actuators "for the first time on a production aircraft". This (below) will be the second overhaull of the actuators from Liebherr since the first production aircrafts, all DA airframes are development aircrafts, DA1 completed carefree handling program in 2002. https://www.monch.com/mpg/news/air/7014-liebherr-to-overhaul-italian-eurofighter-flight-controls.html ......

You haven't provided us with ANY expert "disputing" my claim, you interpret their comments as such even coming up with incomplete info about Martin Freimer that we digged out and used years ago. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4522203&postcount=68 And already posted to make false point: Martin Freimer talking about the long moment arm like a close-coupled canard? Just shows how little you guys know about both. I don't have to show you anything, I have great pleasure at debunking your false interpretations of documents which specify that their own data aren't accurate in the first place. Your post are completely contradictory, one hand you point out to the opposite of what are Typhoon known qualities and can't figure what took them nearly ten years to sort out the FCS, you're talking development aircrafts with data which doesn't cover all topics accurately and incomplete info. Why would I bother getting in touch with all those who explained in great length that your sources are inaccurate? It's been done ten time over. I know why it took them so long to sort the FCS out and Typhoon flight envelop demonstrate those points: Higher level of instability equals higher supersonic performances with lower induced drag resulting in high acceleration rate, but lower pitch control authority at low speed. That's why as Tarnished was saying, the aircraft is limited in AoA at those speed, not G limited, where is the famous increased pitch authority quoted for your 8% gone??? I can't expect you to figure this out, the more clues you have, the less you understand. Dated from 1999 date of first edition. ......

I'm well aware of the quotes attributed to Martin Friemer, well in the line of the 1998 document btw, the qualities of the close-coupled canard were quoted for the Typhoon as one of his comments. Laughable, considering their data were a mess and they had no tool to figure them out, for your info, that's precisely what the French community did find out and used to throw at Typhoon fans when they were pointing out a higher level of instability than Rafale, you were still sharpening your pea shooting skill at the time I suppose. 1) Every point I made on the level of instability and acceleration qualities are confirmed by a Typhoon display pilot, if they hadn't sorted them out it wouldn't be the case. 2) About your reality denial: One have to ask how you can conclude that Eurofighter could spend 18 month working on the FCS carefree handling with two pre-serie aircraft locked on a hangar and flight test the FCS carefree handling from Marsh 1994 to July 2002 for a level of instability roughly equal to that of a Rafale or Mirage 2000 all of this while not trying to improve on what is Typhoon forte. Bravo! You obviously aren't familiar with the old Eurofighter Typhoon website, Pprune and the comments of the Eurofigter insiders on the subject but this takes some doing. 3) You're prone to chose bits that suits your views but miss the most important: That's 16% goal, to avoid excessive induced drag penalties. That's the confirmation of the goal for optimization. That's the reason for: 18 month ground testing before first flight, two extra pre-serie airframe added to the opening of the flight envelop for carefree handling and another 7 years and 8 month to complete the task, mote to the point, increased performance in turn rates and supersonic were also part of the optimization goals. You're seriously lacking when it comes to understanding how the industry works, I'm very critical of MBB a little less of BAe, but I wouldn't take the mickey to the point of suggesting that it took them nearly ten years to sort out a FCS for 8% of instability and not trying to get the induced drag down. 8 % of the mean aerodynamic chord is not Typhoon final level of instability, MBB aren't that good but BAe are perfectly capable of sorting out FCS for this sort of instability. It's that simple. Obviously not for everyone. The 8% quoted are mentioned in the frame of high AoA recovery: Clearly, since they were unable to go pass 70° AoA during testing, there have been some serious alteration with their 1998 findings. That's the frame in which they quote 8 % of the mean aerodynamic chord, among with the size of the canard (foreplane area, compared to TFK-90 original design), but obviously they also mention in the 2000 BAe document the absence of accuracy of the data of the time. Another point I made earlier... .......

I'm more looking at mid range CPU and GPU from AMD to make sure I'm safe playing in VR in the future... So wait and see but it looks like the next generation AMD is going to be strong for gaming...

https://www.pprune.org/1990755-post107.html Can't beat the real thing...

Excuse ME. This is not a "claim" that's your tricks with false flight envelops for the Mirage 2000 when you want RAZBAM to nerf it, I leave those methods to you and your pal. Whatever, she he, is not the point here, you're proven consistently wrong and lacking in the most basic understanding of the subject. FCS ground and flight testing went through from Oct 1992 to July 23, 2002 (116 month 23 days if we start from 31rst Oct 1992) with no less than 4 different airframe involved and that's ONLY for the carefree handling part. The long moment arm characteristics on the topic of heavy load caused them more issues from the time they started to develop Air-to-ground capabilities with heavy load. Here is a snap shot of Jane's world aircraft, just to direct you to where you should be, studying your subject before writing. So according to your "logical" mind, they're not looking to get the minimum drag of the airframe don't they? You should stop polluting this topic if all you have are personal attacks... ......