Aapje

It might also create very good detents. I'm also thinking that it might require only very weak motors, since you always need to be able to override it anyway. Perhaps they can make something that is not that much more expensive than the VPC VMAX Prime and then I can see the rich people going for this instead. Especially the airliner people, but indeed not so much for DCS, I guess.

@rapid According to this post the FFB2 is 0.8 Nm by default (no resistor mod), so the first one is probably in that region as well:

You can just open up your case and measure. It is about 305 mm long.

@rapid It looks like it may be a FFB throttle. That would be a first.

See the end of this video:

If you care a lot about blacks, I would suggest a Pimax Crystal Light with local dimming, rather than the PSVR2. In a poll I saw, the vast majority of PSVR2 owners reported mura or near black chrominance overshoot, also with dark scenes. As far as I can tell, OLED in VR gets overhyped mostly by people who think that it is good because their experiences with monitors, but in VR there are significant downsides. There is a reason why regular OLED isn't very popular with headset makers anymore, including companies that tried to make it work, like Pimax and Meta. Of course, with VR, people differ a lot in how sensitive they are to various issues, or even differ physically in how their eyes work and such. So there are definitely people who like the up- and downsides that OLED brings, but I think that it's more likely that the Pimax works out for a random person.

The issue with that choice is that you are sacrificing upgradability and reusability for the future. When buying new, I'd sooner go for a 7600(X) on AM5 with DDR5-6000. Then in the future you can almost certainly do a major upgrade for fairly little, by upgrading to the last X3D processor for the AM5-platform once that comes down in price a lot. For example, those that bought into AM4 early, can now do a huge upgrade for only £210 by moving to the 5700X3D. Most likely there will be a similar option for AM5 in the future. Spending a little bit more to save hundreds in the future is not a bad idea. Also, games seem to be getting increasingly optimized for DDR5 and the price of DDR5 has become very reasonable, so why buy the slower DDR4 memory today, unless you get a nice 2nd-hand deal? Of course, it is hard to say what the best choice is, without knowing the local prices. I don't know what the new and second hand prices are in England/West Norfolk.

Indeed, so far the headset just doesn't look like a good option compared to a Q3 or Crystal Light.

Buildzoid has the ability to measure voltages, and he found excessive voltages even with the BIOS changes, so most likely any (heavy) usage of the system will cause further degradation until the microcode fix is released (assuming that fixes it). So the only thing that you can really do seems to be to keep your system off or at least, not put load on it. So go touch grass or watch Youtube, and don't play DCS. Of course, that is not at all a solution...

None of the chip-making companies ever make an all new design. It is always based on what came before, with changes. You are just arbitrarily deciding to call some designs 'all new' with no objective basis. The 12900KS boosts higher than the 13700K, but only the latter degrades. There is something different with the internal voltages of Raptor Lake. It's unclear whether it's just the chip being pushed too far (with the microcode), or whether the chip is (also) more sensitive due to a design change. Intel is not being particularly honest about what the issue is exactly. Rumor has it that the performance penalty should be relatively small. About a percent or so. But we'll have to see whether this rumor is true.

DLSS increases the load on the CPU and reduces the load on the GPU, so if moving to the 2080 Ti makes him CPU-limited, then he'd probably better keep it off.

There is only one real definition, where the chip is designed differently. Fact is that they made architecture changes, compared to Alder Lake (Golden Cove): https://chipsandcheese.com/2022/08/23/a-preview-of-raptor-lakes-improved-l2-caches/ Architecture changes require a new design. 11th gen was also a new architecture, but after a long stagnation in process nodes and thus available transistors, the design was different, but not really better. But it wasn't the same at all. I understand that from the perspective of a consumer, it seemed very similar, but it is simply factually inaccurate to claim that the design of 10th and 11th gen was the same. And Raptor Lake was also not much of an improvement over Alder Lake, but whether something is a new design is independent of the improvement (or regression) achieved. Why would it need both? Strange definition. And either you are really old or not old enough, because Intel started using a tick-tock model in 2007, where they would do a new architecture on the old process node and then use a new process node with the new arch. So they wouldn't do both for the same generation. So by your reasoning, they released a ton of chips that weren't a new design, because they either changed the design, or the process node.

@LucShep Sigh. It is a new chip design, you were incorrect. The entire reason why 13th and 14th gen are affected, but not 12th gen is because the design is different. Just accept it and move on.

I am amazed that it does, but I guess that you've found some settings that work for you somehow. In theory, the 2080 Ti is twice as fast as the 1070, but that is when tested with a much faster system. The issue is that the GPU needs to be fed by the CPU. So the slower the CPU, the more a fast GPU will be slowed down by the CPU. And especially in simming, the game already puts a big burden on the CPU, so the chance is very high that the 2080 Ti isn't going to do much for you. What I would do is to keep saving and to look out for a good 2nd hand deal. Perhaps a second hand AM4 system with a slower processor, that can get a huge boost with a 5700X3D upgrade.

All AM5 board support DDR5 only. And 6000 speed DDR5 should work with all of them.

No, this is incorrect. Raptor Lake is actually a new chip design. It's a bit complicated though, since the 13th gen processors are not all Raptor Lake. Everything from the 13600K to the 13900K is Raptor Lake, but everything below that is rebadged Alder Lake (so 12th gen). Then for the 14th gen, the entire line up is just rebadged and overclocked Raptor Lake. Note that they've been bragging in the past how quickly they designed Raptor Lake, but they probably regret that now.

Keep in mind that productivity is a major focus of his system, so it should work well for that too.

Probably.

The 13th and 14th Intel CPUs have degradation issues. I would instead get a 12700k or go for an AMD solution. AMD is now the most popular, although with your use case you have a bit of a hard choice. The 7800X3D is the top tier gaming CPU, but is a bit lacking in cores for photo editing/post-processing. The 7950X3D is top tier for both, although quite expensive. A good compromise can be the 7900X3D, which sacrifices a bit of gaming performance, but has 12 cores instead of 8 for the 7800X3D. I would personally go for the 7900X3D. Note that you will need an AM5 motherboard for it. Also, you shouldn't get the 5200 memory (note that this is not Mhz, but transfers per second. Since it is Double Data Rate memory, it sends data twice as fast as the speed in Mhz). Instead, get DDR5 6000 memory.

Companies have a strategy of giving you something a bit better if you spend more, but if you keep doing that, you spend way more. So I can see drawing a line somewhere.

Yes, it looks like a competent design based on the internals and the very early reviews are good. Haven't seen any longer term reviews and it is obviously too early to know about long term reliability. It seems a little overpriced compared to the competition, but for you that shouldn't be an issue since you can reuse stuff. I'd personally be a bit wary about spending so much for a non-FFB base right now. Perhaps the Moza or the Winwing FFB bases can be made to work with a desktop-mounting solution and then that seems way nicer than any mechanical base. And even if you are not up for that, you may see a flood of mechanical bases on the 2nd hand market for fairly low prices in the future. But on the other hand, you can always justify waiting and then you never get anything nicer.

It wasn't so much lack of demand for FFB gear specifically, but lack of demand for flight sim gear in general. The entire hardware market stagnated, which allowed new brands like Virpil, VKB and Winwing to compete, despite very little marketing and fairly small R&D departments. Established brands stopped caring for the most part and at best just kept selling the same old tech. MSFS 2020 revived the flight sim market, especially with the good fortune of it coming out during Covid-times, where it allowed people stuck indoors to travel anyway, albeit virtually.

Stuttering is not a black and white issue. And perception is not objective. An objective way to measure it, is 1% lows, or even better a frametime graph, that shows how long the frames take to produce. For example: This graph shows very bad stuttering, as you can see huge spikes. Some frames take 3 or 4 times the average time, and those frames cause the old frame to be shown for a very long time, which is a stutter. This is a much better graph: But even in this graph, you can see that there are little spikes. These spikes are so small that no one would notice them, most likely, but they are still there. Anyway, the goal is not to get rid of stutter, by getting to a graph without spikes, but getting the spikes low enough that you won't notice anymore. And what you notice depends on the individual. And of course, it's not just about the spikes anyway, because the easiest way to reduce the spikes is to lower the graphics settings. So the actual goal is to have the highest perceived graphical quality (which is subjective) with an acceptable level of stutter (which is subjective) and an acceptable average framerate (which is subjective). Because of that all subjectivity, it is very hard to give really good advice. Some people are very happy with a result that others considers unplayable. But there are common factors and things we can suggest. The first thing I notice is that running on 4k with these specs is extremely ambitious. Although a higher resolution does put less load on the CPU and more on the GPU, and this system has a better GPU than CPU, it's still highly questionable whether even the video card can keep up. The 4060 Ti is a strong 1080p card, a mediocre 1440p card and a poor 4k card. If it is the 8 GB version, then it is especially ill suited for 4k. But the platform is very old and I would suggest considering an upgrade, but I don't know what the financial possibilities are. You can always trying experimenting with the settings. In that case, I would strongly suggest also testing what happens if you lower the resolution.

There is something that currently limits the market and that is a lack of official support for FFB in MSFS and non-optimal support in certain DCS modules and perhaps other games as well. So from that perspective it makes sense to first release higher-end products, as the buyers of those product tend to be more willing to tinker and buy add-on tools. Then the game/module developers can use those higher-end products for development, and the manufacturers of the higher-end FFB devices can simplify and improve their hardware and software, before attempting to go for the smaller-margins, larger volume market. As for the demand being there, it seems to me that the players with a rig are only a fairly tiny fraction of players. So there should be quite a bit of demand for a desktop version, assuming that the demand of FFB is there in the first place. Of course, to truly create big demand for FFB, we need quite a bit of marketing. Not just some old geezers who remember the olden days, or weird forum-dwellers who know everything (or think they do). But most people don't just magically become aware of, or excited about FFB. But as we've seen with simracing, FFB can become the way to sim.

Could be, I never made any claims about anything coming to market. But with the Moza base getting sold for $550, it is very easy to imagine someone making something 10% cheaper. That is a difference that can easily be covered with a smarter design, a saving on materials, using smaller motors, or such. And if the FFB market turns out to be much smaller than anticipated, Moza might even drop theirs to $499 to get rid of them. Like I said before, that is trivially possibly by making a copy of the MSFFB2, which sold for less than that, in 2024 dollars. It's simply ridiculous to assume that we could not make something similarly cheap, with improved technology. But perhaps you believe that this generation of FFB will be a flop and companies will deinvest, rather than continue on this path.