rfxcasey

Push the trim reset on the left mid panel near the APU switch and Flight Control Surface reset switch. It will retrim your plane to compensate for the imbalance.

I'm debating between the Syria map and the F-16. I currently own F/A-18, F-14, Super Carrier, Persian Gulf, FC3 and Blackshark. Played a lot of Falcon back in the day and even some BMS Falcon in more recent years so I'm fairly familiar with the Viper. The new Syria map does look amazing though, it's just that Falcons in Syria is like bread and butter. I really don't wanna cough up the money for both right now, I haven't even touched the Tomcat yet, I'm just debating on which to get. Hornets in Syria could work, I did however just get an Oculus Quest 2 and I'm thinking the bubble canopy would be amazing. One leaning I have, I feel the Syria map would probably seem like a more complete product though I'm not exactly sure what the current state of the falcon is. It would have been nice if DCS did a package deal like they did for Person Gulf and the Hornet but as I understand it is Syria kind of 3rd party? Could probably get away with just Caucuses and Persian Gulf, but the Syria map does look amazing.

"In 2d no problems because fps stays way above 60fps on 1440p with high settings." Well, it's technically not 2d but I know what you mean. I'm running an i7-10700K at 4.8Ghz with 32Gigs of DDR4 3200Mhz memory, fast Crucial M.2 P5 SSD and an RTX 2060 Super at 2560x1080, what I'd consider high settings and I don't get 60 FPS on deck in SC. I actually do in cockpit if I'm looking directly forward or at the gauges, but if I look over my shoulder, at the other planes launching or go to external view, I get in the mid 30s. My DCS so far, and I haven't played many heavy missions, caps out at my monitor refresh with 75FPS constantly, but not on the super carrier.

Well, I'm going to use your posted changes as a starting point, or maybe start just a little less aggressive, test for stability and then move it down to match you and re test. I tend to lean on the milder side of deviating from the norm, though I did OC my i5 3570K from 3.8Ghz to 4.4 out of the box with only the slightest V core bump and it's been rock stable since around 2012. Cool and stable while attaining best performance is how I like to run. My 3570K will be getting handed down, I hate to see it go, in reality it is still hanging in there. Heck, I'm temped to just build both rigs and do some testing but I don't know, I'll think about it. If I do, I'll do some comparisons and do a vid or write up. I'm still torn though, Passmark show scores the 3700x just above the 10700K, probably a little more efficient multicore handling, either one of these builds is going to get the job done. Nice thing about the 3700x is it's 65 watts.

Wow, interesting indeed, have you recorded any performance loss or does it actually help the CPU boost higher keeping the temps down. I haven't built a machine since my i5-3570k, every so many years I have to brush up on the new tech, I don't build them for a living anymore. Any info you can point me too on the methods used to determine the optimal power setting, is it just a matter of incremental changes and testing or is there a more scientific way? Can you give the specs on your machine, video setting and DCS performance? What resolution are you running?

Thanks for the input. One thing I forgot to mention, thermals. So far, from what I've seen, the 3700x seems to run cooler, though results might have lot to do with the motherboard VRM. I'm old skool. Been building PCs since probably '91 and while many concepts and lessons have remained the same overall, many things have changed. With the newer more 'intelligent' processors and even motherboards, controlling heat seems to be a bigger factor in maximizing performance then ever. Back in the day, you just set it and let it ride, especially when overclocking. I suppose you can still do that overriding the automation of the system but it's surely not the best way to go about it. I read that MSI had a problem with some of the VRMs on their previous motherboards so they completely overcompensated on the x570 Tomahawk, giving it a VRM that surpasses anything even in their highest gaming motherboard options. Thermal tests on the z570 Tomahawks VRM vs the Asus TUF mobo for instance so just how efficient the Tomahawk's module is. I don't plan on overclocking, but the cooler the better which will allow the CPU to do it's thing and boost as high as possible. I do not believe the VRM on the z490 Tomahawk is even close to being as good. https://youtu.be/O2KbpmMg44M

Building a new PC, I'm torn between an AMD 3700x build or a Intel 10700k build. With previous pricing, it was kind of a no brainer with the scales tipped in AMD's favor, but just today, I'm seeing 10700K on sale for 320 USD which is 10 dollars cheaper than the 3700x. All 5000 series AMD chips are out of stock everywhere so that's not really an option right now. AMD's socket AM4 has been out since 2016, though it's promised that the higher end chipsets, while supporting PCI_E 4.0, will support Zen 3 5000 series CPUs. Intel's higher end chips boast Gen 11 compatibility but not PCI_E 4.0. Early test and analysis say PCI_E 4.0 won't be a factor for the foreseeable future, however M2 SSDs will benefit from PCI_E 4.0 currently, the trick will be keeping them cool enough to not throttle down and kill performance. EDIT: It appears that, while not listed in specs, the Intel z490 chipsets may support PCI_E 4.0 with a BIOS update. Intel's 10700K seems to have a distinct advantage over the 3700x in many games and even some, but not all, productivity tests. DCS however, is not really a traditional 'game' and it's been my experience, that Intel CPUs, traditionally, show a rather strong performance advantage in their given market category. Don't really plan on flying MS Flight Simulator 2020 but some early benchmarks suggest a clear advantage for Intel. If the AMD 5900x or 5950x will be sub or around 400 USD in the next 4 years, going with a 3700x and z570 chipset motherboard now might make sense, to sell the 3700x on and shell out the extra cash for the 5000 series. It remains to be seen how Intel's 11th gen will stack up in both price and performance. I've got two builds on the way now, an AMD 3700x with z570 MSI Tomahawk WiFi and an Intel 10700k with z490 Tomahawk non Wifi on the way. Either build will receive a Noctua NH-U14S heat solution with a 140mm fan, which will be carried over to any future processor upgrades. The system will have 32GB of 3200Mhz RAM. Video card is an RTX 2060 Super, monitor is 2560x1080 plus possibly X2 1400x900 side monitors (yes a 2080 ti or 3080 would make more sense for triple display). 75Hz max with G-Sync, it's perfectly fine for me, I don't own a 120Hz or higher refresh monitor. I'm feeling the Intel will be stronger for DCS overall, but the 3700x may actually outperform in the overall picture when running TrackIR, HOTAS software, voice communication software, hosting and or recording or live streaming. Please reply with your thoughts.

So are you saying I shouldn't be downloading the Open Beta version from the DCS website right now cause it's trying to download 60GB and it's taking forever?

I'm sure there will be some optimizations and tweaks. It may get better if they ever get Vulcan implemented but something tells me it's more of a CPU issue. Thing is, you say 'locked' at 30? That sounds more like a v-sync issue. Try turning off v-sync in the game menu and on your video card control panel software to see if it makes any difference. Some v-sync settings will lock you in at 30 if they get too far below 60 or whatever if memory serves. If you've got a newer Nvidia card go into the control panel and try fast or adaptive v-sync if the sync turns out the be the problem and you just have to have some manner on. OR, just ignore me if you've already tried all this.:pilotfly:

Great, how do you do that?

Ugh, what a pain, not seeing the module I guess I have to update. How do you update past 2.5.5.4? Updaters is telling me my game is up to date, think I need to beta update, what do I do?

I'm flying on a 2560x1080 ultra wide monitor with an aspect ratio of 21:9. DCS has the ratio set to 2.33333 which I believe is correct. When panning around in external view everything appears to be normal, the problem in when I'm in the cockpit view, the edges of the screen are stretched. If I'm flying next to a B-17 and looking straight ahead with the B-17 just visible on the side of my screen the plane looks very stretched. Is this just a matter of zoom level, is there a FOV setting for the cockpit view I can adjust?

Has anyone put together a skin pack for the non flyable planes in DCS? Planes like th c17 and the like would really benefit from some better skins if not new higher polygon models. Understandable that higher poly models might be a bit too much to ask for but skins should be relatively easy. To be honest, I'm surprised no one from DCS has updated them yet, even if in their spare time or over a weekend, should be a since for a pro that does skins all the time.

So you have to win the tournament to win a prize, or winners picked at random?

I'm going to buy a new SSD for DCS but need help deciding how large. What I currently own (not all installed presently) DCS World 2.5 Flaming Cliffs 3 A10 C Blackshark 2 F/A-18 Hornet Caucusus map Persian Gulf map Super Carrier I'm also considering possibly getting either the F-16 Falcon or F-14 Tomcat in the future, one or the other, probably not both. Wondering if a 480-500 would be enough or should I get a 1TB? I know obviously the bigger the better asking even if just for a reference. So if I do buy another 1TB in addition to the one I've already got all my other stuff on, how much space would all that DCS take up?

I have a tendency to believe that the Russians, Chinese, Iranians and Koreans already know pretty much everything about the Hornet and Falcon with regard to capabilities, certainly much more the DCS probably does, and does anyone really believe these 'rival' nations would use a commercially available flight sim to gather their intelligence? They've either gotten that info long ago through agents for hacking. I'm sure once one has it, they sell it to the others. Although, the 911 terrorist supposedly used Microsoft Flight Simulator to learn enough about commercial airliners to turn them into weapons.

Yeah, Tornado and Apache Longbow.

It'd be nice to someday see the Tornado and Apache Longbow make it to DCS but I'm not holding my breath.

The AH 64 Apache is a must in my opinion to offset the Blackshark. Else, at least the AH-1 Cobra. Since you already have the Huey the Cobra would be a no brainer.

I would like to see clickable cockpits for FC3 aircraft and more advanced radar/weapon models in the cockpit. If not possible it would be nice to at least, when DCS series variations of FC3 aircraft are available, if ever, get a really generous discount on fighter modules for those who bought FC3 for the long waiting we've had to endure. If we had an f18/harrier/f15 with DCS fidelity that would be simply fantastic. Other than that, improved flight models please.

They do after the A-Team gets their hands on them.;)

If you're blind to the facts then I can't fault you. But if you just can't handle the facts, then I guess I can't fault you for burying your head in the sand like an ostrich though that is the kind of thinking that causes the problems in the first place, no offence.

I love, flying, driving, riding, looking and working on machines, but when you start calling it a "She" well, that just starts getting weird and creepy. I'm sure your wife or girlfriend would love being compared to or competing with a machine for your attention and if she says otherwise she is lying (which women NEVER do) to make you happy.

You know nothing about my outlook, and you don't want me here because I challenge your thinking.

For sure dude. The world is moving in such a good direction right now, pardon me if I don't follow it off a cliff.