blkspade

While I completely agree that the 3090 is more than will likely be needed any time soon for gaming loads, I'm put off of the 3080 only having 10GB with regard to VR. DCS in VR on a Rift S does seem to reach into the 10GB region on my 1080ti, with the PD increased. MSFS2020 at the highest settings at 4k can use 12GB of VRAM . So a 16GB GPU is really what I would want.

In that regard, it would've made more sense for the 2080ti to be $800 as opposed to $1200+. There was only a $50 jump from the 980ti to the 1080ti, but the 980ti was $50 less than the 780ti. So it's not unreasonable to expect a performance jump for the same price between generations. Nvidia needed to make up for over producing Pascal, along with new consoles looming and having no competition. In no way should anyone really consider it sensible to pay 88% more for 35% more performance. Especially considering how quickly these thing become superseded.

The reason for the disparity is that applications can request a given amount of memory prior to actually populating it. So DCS is preallocating all of the remainder of to have more immediate access to space it may need. Task manager is only showing how much DCS is actually using at any given time.

That would be a loaded metric. If most haven't just bought the full FC3 package, the rest are biased against the FC3 F-15 for not being full fidelity.

Rarely after the original introduction, in my experience on our server and a couple others. They bring up the tomcat to chuck phoenixes, then might do A2G when the entire opposition has disconnected (because Air Superiority), or they just do carrier traps.

Yet they are making a new A-10C, for a total of 3 A-10s. We went from slow bomb truck, to faster bomb trucks, to a rehashed slow bomb truck. I've been playing this Sim since LoMAC, but didn't get in to MP until FC2, after a really long absence from the SIM. The SP experience has been way too sub-par to really be their bread and butter. Between lack of content, no dynamic campaign, and poor AI (ground and AI), they really do need to be focusing on MP. Everything about a Combat flight sim thrives on MP. It's not air-greyhound, where actual people wouldn't be incredibly different from drone traffic. I only buy modules in the context of how I can enjoy it with others. I only cared about the hornet as a Western SEAD platform, and the boat. Its nice to have a fully modeled radar, but it doesn't do Eagle things. You can't extend and reset in the Hornet, and can be killed from a 15-20nm rear aspect shot. The Viper makes up for that with better performance, but way less fuel and weapons. Strike Eagles are great, but they still get sent up with Charlie Eagles, because bomb truck. I'm otherwise on the fence when it comes to Razbam. MP needs real fighters for CAP, with all the bells and whistles. An air superiority platform for a company that focuses more on SP, would only serve to highlight deficiencies in the AIR AI suppose.

They say that but, who is this according to though? Literally everything ED has released has been designed to move mud in some capacity. PGMs end up making it far less challenging without going out of your way to do unnatural things. The ground unit AI is and always has been stupid, and only kill you when you behave worse. The F-15 is to CAP what the A-10 is to CAS. There are plenty of people that prefer Air to Air, which leans more in the multiplayer direction since humans are dynamic and can learn and adapt. So those people aren't worth the effort of a full fidelity Air superiority platform? Nor can they have fully functioning radios and avionics and become as integrated in the warzone as the multirole aircraft. Anyone that has been doing A-A in DCS long enough can quite easily pick out the shortcomings of the multirole fighters in the AS role.

I'm currently on the the Ryzen 9 3900X with 32GB of DDR4-3600 with the Rift S, but started on with a CV1 & R7 2700 that eventually became my kids' Rig. I've had the 1080ti for 3 years now and I eventually bought the 5700XT to replace the R9 Fury for better VR performance in their PC. I occasionally steal it for other reasons, but I haven't specifically tested the combination of the CV1 and the 5700XT in DCS, but some research indicated there is a difference in the video processing offloaded to the GPU between the CV1 and the Rift S. The inside-out tracking is probably more intensive. It might be a non-issue with the CV1, but the S is far less smooth in DCS on the 5700XT.

While the 5700XT is a fairly decent GPU for the money, it's not especially great in handling DCS in VR. It's fine at many other VR specific titles, but I can't get anywhere near the same pixel density as my 1080ti in DCS. This could be a matter of the lower available VRAM, which why I opted for the the 1080ti in the first place. I have a Rift CV1 (Kids) and S. I bought the 5700XT for my kids' computer, and there are things I like about it that gives me hope for their next gen. If it outperforms the 2080ti, has more than 8GB of VRAM, and is reasonably priced, I'm in.

Do you know for sure that Jester misidentified the contacts, or is it possible that there were friendlies engaging them ahead you, that you didn't see? Once ARH missile go active, they can target anything occupying the space it's intended target is expected at. So a friendly killing your intended target at close range just before intercept can frequently result in fratricide.

This is one of those long running bugs. Since the doesn't register tires as a part of being damaged, I'll usually just open the canopy while doing more than 50kts. It'll fly off and that'll do for a repair request.

I've gone from the CV1 to the Rift S, and there are a couple immediate drawbacks to the inside out design. The most significant is it requires the room to be remain lit. If you're playing in a shared bedroom for example at night, the tracking tends to fail. In the case of the Rift S it can pull you out the game and ask you to recalibrate, and will do it every time you take the headset off and put it back on. Though you can bypass the face sensor to keep the headset on even while removed. Beyond that I find myself having to recenter it in DCS more frequently. The overall experience is better with external sensors, but I don't know if the Index is quite worth the cost to me personally. The only improvement in the S over the CV1 is the resolution, but everything thing else feels like a downgrade. Also occasionally the mic turns to garbage.

I have FC3, and wouldn't buy all 3, but would definitely buy the C over the E. There is already a wide selection of FF modules that cover AG tasks and the only thing that makes it challenging (IMO) is SAM coverage. The E doesn't use HARMs, and fighting humans is actually a dynamic experience.

You say that like we don't have the 2 A-10s, as in the A from FC3 and the C as a full fidelity. Just like one is fundamentally different from the other in multiple respects. The C is not the E, and FC3 is well FC3.. Just not loading bombs on the E doesn't make it a C. The A-10A and A-10C can share a flight model, where as the difference between the Eagles (engines, conformals ,weight) call for something different.

Its a statement that assumes equal skill, as far as this sim is concerned. Driving each simulated jet to its maximum in a BVR engagement put the viper well ahead. The viper pilot needs to make some mistakes to end up playing the hornets game, the jets capabilities lends it more room to correct course so to speak. The is no magic or skill involved in turning cold from an incoming threat, but if I pull a split S doing mach 1.6 in front of an unseen bandit at 4nm at it takes is the will to keep running to not get killed. Happened when I was in a Eagle, but I knew the guy firing on my 6 didn't have the speed to actually catch an kill me. If I had been in anything slower, no amount of skill would have saved me.

If its a question of the hornet vs the viper head to head, the quantity of missiles is irrelevant. You can fire them all at the viper and hit nothing but air. There is merit to the quantity against a number of lesser threats. The viper has the speed and climb rate advantage meaning they can evade incoming threats better, extend, and recommit. A properly setup shot on a hornet is either a kill or force cold. If the viper wants the hornet dead , it can be run down. I've killed hornets in PVP with long range rear aspect shots because they don't have the speed to pull away.

The F-15C is vastly more modern than the F-14B (plus you really want 2 people), and superior than the hornet at counter air. It's a bit more of a push against the F-16C, save for the increased staying power of the Eagle.

They go hand in hand though. Part of the simulation (and perhaps a major draw) of a Fighter Jet is simulating its real world applications. People who enjoy glorified bus simulation fly civil sims, but its an accurate representation of its use case. I can only enjoy so many takeoff/landing (aircraft carrier notwithstanding) cycles with emptiness in between for but so long. Can't feel the speed, can't feel the Gs, but you can feel the having accomplished defense of an asset or the victory over a (probably) thinking opponent. Even when RL pilots aren't blowing stuff up, they are training for the real thing. Without the battle elements your'e kinda just treating the bus like a Lamborghini .

We're functionally already doing this.

I don't get it, everyone wants DCS level modules for "realism", yet are quick to discount the possibility of a C and E coexisting. Strike Eagles fly with Charlies providing their cover in CAP or Escort roles. Plenty of people don't care for moving mud, some don't care for Air to Air. So the existence of one has no bearing on the other, the C has the most performance for its intended role. The FC3 F-15C already has a PFM, an updated cockpit which has all the animations already done (even though we can't interact), and some background systems/functions supposedly modeled. It's practically only missing MFD pages, avionics/radar modes (which crossover with the F-16/F-18 ), and clickable functions. That makes it a pretty likely candidate IMO.

The vr hand controllers don't function like gamepad/joysticks in Windows. They're only addressable at all through the vr API, which might not even allow what you're asking for. Realistically they'd be impractical to use along side an actual hotas, and likely lack the accuracy and sensitivity as a hotas replacement. Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

While we could safely file this under never gonna happen, it makes more sense as separate requests. For obvious reasons as FC3 we'd never get JHMCS, however the 9X alone makes some sense. More eagles actually got the 9X itself well ahead of any getting the JHMCS, as the missile is still an improvement without it. I'm pretty sure the initial testing was even done on the platform. In a sim which features the KA-50, which was never operationally employed, it doesn't seem like a far fetched request to get a missile. They gave the the F-15 older missiles that were added with new modules (AIM-7F/H, AIM9-P/P5), so the precedent for it is basically there.

That is unfortunately a byproduct of the frame rate and motion compensation. Probably no way to fix it until native frame rate can be achieved in DCS. Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Yep. I've already read that one. The next theoretical doubling of cores mentioned in it, is expected with the node shrink to 5nm. That is also expected to be when AMD's shifts to a new socket (AM5), DDR5 and PCIe 5.0. All of which is targeted for 2021.

AMD's own leaked roadmap still reads 64 core max for Zen 3 Epyc Milan. That alone suggests the CCD design isn't being bumped up. Further extrapolation from would suggest that to increase cores on Ryzen they would need a 3rd CCD. TSMC says there is a density increase of 20% with 7nm+. The math really doesn't add up given the current die size minus 20%, and the size of the GloFlo 12nm IO die. Zen 4 (Ryzen 5000) will be 5nm where AMD has suggested will be a doubling of cores, on their roadmap. I wasn't saying those other things weren't going to happen, just that the core increase likely won't be coming to Zen 3 based Ryzen 4000. The IPC will be higher, and there will likely be a clock increase. What I was saying in regards to those things in my previous post was long term limits, getting down to 3nm-1nm. The byproduct of hitting those limits, means increased core density is probably going to be the only way performance will progress. Along with software being able to scale with threads. Common ways IPC goes up, is in shrinking the distance between components/features and being able to keep an adequate amount data in cache. Its my own speculation that there may be challenges in shrinking the IO features, which might have something to do with Intel's monolithic 10nm designs and why they will eventually move to chiplets as well. The issue in DCS is that it's hard to get meaningful benefits from multithreading in the DX11 API. I'm hopeful that the situation will get better with Vulkan.