LawnDart

30-40% on X, Y and Z.

Really too bad that DCS/FC doesn't take full advantage of multi-threaded ops and all cores. It's also heavily CPU bottlenecked, so a kickass GPU doesn't automatically equal superior framerates compared to a mid-range card. None the less, the average framerate sits pretty high with a good gaming rig, even if it still dips into the 40s with maxed out settings over cities and with lots of models to render. This seems to hold true in DCS/FC for most systems regardless of exact hardware as long as it's mid-range to high-end...

So, there you have it.

Something that gets said a lot in flight school: "Centerline... centerline!" :joystick:

Be sure to post your MBF (Max Boost Freq), not the CPU clock offset or mem clock offset... reason why is my card, the EVGA GTX 670 FTW may run with a +50 clock offset that gives me a bump from its default boost clock of 1084 MHz to 1134 MHz, add the Kepler boost (by card design - mine is 104 MHz extra before it starts to thermal throttle, which happens above 69C)... the MBF is 1238 MHz (default boost + offset + kepler boost). This is what my clock is actually running at (as long as the temp stays below 70C for the Kepler boost not to ratchet down). For someone else using a diff version of the GTX 670, their boost clock default could be 915 MHz for instance, add +100 clock offset and the card's Kepler boost (varies, but often 104 MHz it seems)... this would give that card owner a MBF of 1119 MHz. Hence, my +50 clock offset = 1238 MHz while someone whose GTX 670 has a boost clock lower than mine (915 MHz in the example I gave) and using +100 clock offset = 1119 MHz. This is why the MBF is the ONLY number that really counts in the end as every card is different (i.e. reference cards, superclocked versions, FTW editions etc. etc.). In the end, the headroom for overclocking is probably a little higher for the base/reference models than it is for a factory overclocked card, which means the "slower" stock cards will probably run with a higher + clock offset, but rarely faster than the cards that are factory overclocked even if their + clock offset is lower. Hopefully that all made sense. Just keep your temp under 70C while under full load (running Heaven DX11 benchmark maxed out) and you'll get the max out of your GTX 670. The guide will help you find your most optimal + clock offset and + mem offset. Set a fan curve that maintains temps below 70C once you've found your + offsets. The last part is looking at the power % in GPU-Z (highest noted) and then dragging your power slider up to a value higher than that noted so it doesn't throttle down your OC because of exceeding the TDP (power) you've set. Just remember to post MBF when comparing clock speeds! :thumbup:

Not yet, using 301.42 ATM.

FWIW, I got my EVGA GTX 670 FTW ocerclocked to 1238 MHz (Max Boost Freq), 3691 MHz memory clock (7382 MHz effective clock) and it's power stays below 112% the entire time under full load. (I have my power target set to 114% so it doesn't throttle from exceeding the TDP). Max temps in any benchmark and the highest I've seen (in BF3) have been 67 C using a fan curve that gives me 80% fan speed at 69 C (to keep it under the first step of Kepler thermal throttling that starts occuring at 70 C). Just did a quick test in BF3 after running numerous Heaven DX11 benchmarks flawlessly... no less than ~65-70 fps with maxed out utlra settings and 16xQ CSAA, 16x AF, 8x SS in NVIDIA CP. I'm using a single display at 1920x1080... This card absolutely kicks ass!!!

Great to hear! I'll be spending some time this week tweaking mine. What version of EVGA's GTX 670 do you have, and if you don't mind what max boost freq did you manage (and under what boost clock offset did this OC run without thermal throttling taking place)? Just looking for a comparison... I have a GTX 670 FTW.

Thank you for taking the time to quell some concerns. Re: 1 - Is there a plan for 3rd party projects that end up with "lesser than DCS" -quality, but still more or less on par with FC a/c for approval as well? Just curious... Re: 3 - Looking forward to reading about this branding distinction eventually. This is the kind of info I think many of us feel we want/need.

It builds character... someone said! :lol: Nah, it's more of a well timed input forward on the stick than a jab I suppose, but practice makes perfect! Good technique suggestion. We always fly our demos with nose down trim, even in the negative G-range we're still pulling back on the stick, so I can certainly appreciate this. I used to do the same IRL in small props depending on what the situation called for, sometimes it was nose up trim skimming the ocean at low level in case I needed to avoid CFIT or an obstacle, I'd simply relax and the nose would pitch up. I think trimming a little nose down for a wheel landing in the P-51 is a great suggestion! As the ol' saying goes: "Don't ever let the plane arrive somewhere your brain didn't already arrive 5 minutes ago.":pilotfly:

Awesome overclocking guide for anyone with a GTX 670 (or 680) Kepler: http://www.overclock.net/t/1265110/the-gtx-670-overclocking-master-guide#

Hopefully there will be SDKs and tools to help these 3rd party devs see their DCS projects come to fruition and reach their potential. There certainly is a lot of untapped talent out there! BTW, thanks for taking the time to answer questions and concerns Nate!

Clear as mud. :) ED should be proud to have the kind of passionate enthusiasts they have buying their sims. I can only speak for myself, but I'm feeling just as excited reading about all these new projects as I'm growing more skeptical. Much of that comes from the DCS title being thrown around by so many new developers to this sim, and it's pretty clear what most of this community wants; heck, one only has to look at the IRIS poll. This is why doubt creeps in when we find out that a developer whose never worked in FC/DCS until now is making a DCS level aircraft under contract from ED. The initial cadre of 3rd party devs will undoubtedly be scrutinized pretty hard, even by the end users of their add-ons (assuming they earn ED's approval first of course).

...but for a 3-year development cycle they potentially could be diluting the title only for it to fall short in the end. :doh: Just saying...

Absolutely agree! (And by no means am I against CoreTex's project(s) in saying that).

I tend to agree with this (but it's obviously ED's call to do whatever they want with their trademark).

That's what I'm talking about! So, how come these (relatively unknown) 3rd party devs are allowed to post images using DCS logos and title their WIP projects as DCS or add 'DCS Series' as a watermark on their render shots? That's sending expectations sky-rocketing and in some cases skepticism, too. If it truly is a legal issue, having an unapproved product (that's in development) using DCS in the main title seems almost more misleading. (Just playing devil's advocate here).

None at all. They could even call it 'DCS: F-14 by IRIS" as long as it is made clear what level of fidelity the consumer is buying IN BOLD letters on the front page. 'DCS: F-14 by IRIS' vs. 'IRIS: F-14 for DCS' is semantics to me. In either case I'd like to know what level a/c I'm purchasing. Expectations are everything! If I think I'm buying a FC level Tomcat I'm ok with that... I do think, however, that the DCS abbreviation by no fault of its own carries more expectations because every title so far has been some of the best sims ever made... and now we have DCS World, which sort of changes that thought process. Bottom line: If I'm buying what I think is "DCS level" as we've come to call it, I'd be disappointed if it didn't meet those standards. If I'm buying what we refer to here as "FC level" to run in DCS World I'm perfectly fine with making that purchase, too, if it's my cup of tea.

I understand DCS is simply the battlefield grounds or world used for all these add-ons, so on one token it makes sense to keep the DCS name(s) uniform for all releases, ED and 3rd party. At the same time we've grown accustomed to DCS being synonymous with nothing but ED's finest. If there was a clearer level of fidelity system (or levels) published I wouldn't have a problem with any release using the 'DCS: [a/c name]' title, but without clear expectations of what we're spending our hard earned money on as consumers and not knowing the developer(s) (no track record to go on, or established precedent... yet), I'd rather see your example; 'NateSims: Harrier for DCS' on the cover art.

Looking forward to FC3, a lot! I feel I know what to expect though. As for a FC3 level Harrier, I'd enjoy it either way, but if it was touted as 'DCS: AV-8B', by name association I'd be expecting more than, say... anything with FC3 level fidelity.

I am happy that there is an approval process! We wouldn't want the FSX 3rd party jungle to grow its weeds across the fence into DCS World. ;)

I largely agree with your previous post that a lot of opportunity lies ahead, and what you're saying here (quote)... but what about the other 3rd party announcements aside from IRIS' F-15E, many of which have already posted screenshots with 'DCS Series' or called their products 'DCS: [a/c name]'. Where is the line drawn between such a product being a DCS branded product and using the term "DCS: [a/c name]" and/or posting WIP renders with 'DCS Series' stamped on the image? I think this is what's causing frustration for us... Not the fact that there may be add-ons with lower fidelity than A-10C... And some on par with FC's aircraft and what not. Seems there's a fair bit of "self-branding" at the moment, and if indeed ED are the ones who in the end will decide whether a product is granted to use DCS in its title this practice is somewhat misleading until such a grant is given.

What?

...have more money to spend!!! :D

That may well be, but there are currently 5 different flap settings to cycle through.