streakeagle

It seems that neither the 3080 or 3090 are going to be as good as the hype would suggest for someone like me who wants the best performance I can get for a reasonable price for DCS World in VR. I was originally planning on a 3090 and decided the 3080 was a much better value. But as more realistic benchmarks have become available, if the 3070 or the Big Navi is roughly equal to the 2080 Ti, then I may buy one of those until something better comes along. I think I would be better off building a new PC and buying a used 2080 Ti then getting a 3090.

As I have already committed to the Reverb G2, I hope it works as well as I expect. The refusal of Facebook/Oculus to support PC VR as best as possible guarantees I won't buy another one of their headsets despite having overall good experiences with both the CV1 and Rift S.

I am currently using a Rift S. I had purchased an Oculus CV1 which I chose after trying both it and the Vive. Matt Wagner's review convinced me the Rift S would make VR much better with DCS World, and it did. But the Rift S took a few steps backwards from the CV1, most notably in the area of audio. The earphones on the CV1 are far superior in quality and volume to the Rift S. My Rift S has a defective mic as well. Never had a problem with the CV1's mic. The image quality on the Rift S is much better than the CV1 with a small cost: 40 fps instead of 45 fps in DCS World. With the CV1, the cockpits were just too blurry. I flew TrackIR about 50% of the time because the quality of the CV1 was just too low. With the Rift S, I fly VR 80% or more of the time. But Facebook/Oculus has failed to advance in the area of PC VR. I have an HP Reverb G2 on the way. If I build a new PC and get a top notch GPU to go with it, I expect the G2 to render the Rift S an obsolete dust collector in the same way the Rift S did to the CV1. For the time being, the Rift S is still getting the job done. But having to wear an audio headset over the Rift S annoys me more and more knowing that I should not have had to do that to get decent audio and a reliable mic.

3080 performance for DCS purposes may not be as high as one would expect from nVidia marketing. I was in favor of getting a 3090 just to have the VRAM, but its size, power consumption and cost-effectiveness compared to the 3080 has made me reconsider. What I want is a "3080 Ti" with more VRAM. But if Big Navi is in the ball park of a 3080 in terms of performance (i.e. closer to a 3080 than a 3070), is cheaper, uses less power, generates less heat, and has functional drivers, then I might get Big Navi. But that is an awful lot of hoops to jump through. Having watched Vega use more power, make more heat, have lower performance despite superior memory speed, and horrible drivers, AMD has to be strong across the board to pull me back. But if nVidia is intentionally keeping production volume low so they can claim low MSRP but then sell high due to scarcity or if the bitcoin miners wipe out the market again, then I will be waiting ever longer for my next gpu. I might go back and get a 1080 Ti or 2080 Ti on eBay as those prices have already collapsed. I recently bought my son a 1080 for $350, now I can get a 1080 Ti for that. Whether I end up trying out AMD again or not, I hope Big Navi is good enough to provide genuine competition to drive nVidia's prices down. The "low" MSRPs for 30xx series don't impress me because they are still high, it is only the insanely high prices of the 20xx series that make them look so low. The bitcoin miners really screwed up the gpu market for a very long time, and may do it again.

I arbitrarily like the Hornet more than the Falcon. I have never cared too much for the F-16. I love the F-4 Phantom over everything. When the F-4 was being replaced starting in the mid to late 70s, my interest/preference fell to the F-15 Eagle. The F/A-18 looks a little like a baby F-15. Yet, for some reason, I don't like the Super Hornet that much. I am glad DCS gave us the Legacy Hornet, first. I much prefer the F/A-18C to the F-16C and the F/A-18E.

I finally tried AAR in VR. It took me a morning session and afternoon session to get to the point where I could top off an F-14 without any issues. The F-16 is giving me a lot more problems. I can get connected fairly quickly. But I eventually suffer ever worse pilot induced oscillation in the vertical, which then starts affecting my speed until I lose all ability to hold formation. So far, the best I have managed is to load about 1,500 lbs before losing the connection. Prior to VR, I had succeeded with the A-10 and AV-8. But online or offline, I never really use AAR. I simply don't do the kind of flying that requires that.

I am a long time member of the Waitnsee Tribe. I have been waiting for AMD to provide a credible high end gpu for quite some time now. Every cycle, they promise the same... then get trashed by whatever nVidia releases. It has been a long time since the Radeon 9700 Pro and its refined successor, the 9800 Pro killed nVidia's products while the AMD Athlon 64 smoked the Intel Pentium 4. In an effort to support the new Reverb G2 I have pre-ordered, I need to build a new PC. I am waiting for AMDs CPU and GPU releases before making a decision on whether I am going to try to build something very soon with whatever gives me the best price/performance or wait even longer for something better. Maybe a 3080 Ti? I hope Big Navi is very close to 3080 performance and is cheaper with much lower power consumption/heat generation. That would be a big win for AMD. If the new CPU with a PCIE 4 motherboard becomes the gaming king, that would be cool, too. But past history for many years has AMD always claiming they are finally back in the game at the cutting edge, only to be let down by reality. So, I am in Waitnsee mode hoping for the best, but expecting the ususal. If the miners destroy the gpu market again, I think it may be time for me to give up PC flight sims an revert to building models, flying RC, or maybe using the money I would have spent on a PC rig/gpu to start working on a real pilot license.

As more information becomes available on the real-world gaming benchmarks, the 3080 is more like a 20-25% gain over the 2080 Ti than a 40% gain, particularly in games using older DirectX APIs like DirectX 11. The 3090's size, power consumption (and more important, resulting heat generation), and cost effectiveness are making me less interested in buying it. So, I am starting to think I should wait for a 3080 refresh with more RAM and I definitely don't want to actually buy a gpu until I see benchmarks between the 3080/3090 versus AMDs new card. It also seems likely the demand is going to far exceed the supply, so the MSRP announcements are meaningless if the prices get inflated. I am waiting to see benchmarks of AMDs new cpus as well. Perhaps I will focus on building a new PC before committing to a new gpu since any decent gpu will be bottlenecked by my current rig. If AMDs new CPUs paired with PCIE 4 motherboards hit the right price/performance mark, that is where I am hoping to go. I need to see all the real-world pertinent data before I start pulling the trigger on a gpu or new PC. I would love it if I could catch some DCS users' reviews before spending any money, too.

Budget is a huge consideration. True 1:1 scale is more expensive no matter how you implement it. But cost effective solutions tend to lean toward a simplified, less accurate panel that is flat like the one displayed above. If you go with the flat panel, using the single monitor behind it to give you all the gauges and screens is clearly the way to go. If I am not going to go for a true 1:1, I might as well go for a more generic cockpit that works well for all aircraft rather than being so Hornet specific. In which case, the Cougar MFDs are plenty adequate and the Cubesim displays for it are an appealing option if I don't want to save money and time by trying to build my own screen setup from eBay parts. So many options. None of them are "cheap" but some are much cheaper than others. Then there is the value of the completed cockpit. How often will I use the dedicated Hornet cockpit? If I spend all the money to make it fully functional (i.e. functional MFD displays and gauges), will I end up flying mainly VR and never get a return on my investment? Since none of these things are "needed" and purely wants, it is hard to justify spending so much money. But I really love the idea of having a complete, functional cockpit and right now, the F/A-18C is the best option for me if I am going to build one. Keep in mind, that for me, an F/A-18 cockpit is 2nd string. The one I care about and have been working on for years using as many real parts as I can find and afford is an F-4 cockpit. But the F-4's cockpit is inherently limited to older aircraft with B-8 stick grips and only a few throttle controls. So I will have at least two cockpit setups.

Aside from the much higher price of the 3090 for a marginal gain in performance over the 3080, my concern is the size and heat. I really like the case I have right now and I am not sure I can squeeze a 3090 in it, which would leave it in the box collecting dust until I could build a new PC. The new PC is inevitable since I have waited so long since the last build, but real world issues may prevent me from building one any time soon. My current motherboard/cpu combination will be a bottleneck holding back even a 3080. So, maybe I should hold off on getting a 3090 until I am sure I can use it. In the mean time, I could get a 3070 or 3080, then give it to my son if I later decide to get the 3090. For now, I would like to see how what happens after AMD releases big Navi. But I am afraid there is going to be a run on cards that will both raise the price and render them unavailable.

I am very interested in how this progresses. I already have pair of Cougar MFDs, but I would rather 1:1 scale replicas of the Hornet. Having them as a package is a lot nicer for than having to start with a 3d printed frame, install and wire buttons then try to match a monitor. I also like Stang's plans/kits for using full scale panel, but simplified to be flat with 27" monitor to drive the entire panel. I am in no hurry. So, I can't wait to see what pops up before I have the time/money/space to commit to a Hornet pit.

I use a Corsair HS60 Pro Surround headset with my Rift S. It fits fairly well over the Rift S. The mic works very well and when my son damaged his by bending it back and forth too much, I was able to get an equal or better aftermarket replacement mic for a fairly low price on Amazon. I chose this particular headset because when I went to get one, it happened to be on sale. I got two for less than the price of one. While the USB sound adapter works as well or better than a motherboard audio chipset, I am using my motherboard sound: one less thing chewing up USB bandwidth. The Realtek HD audio on my motherboard works just as well with the headset using an adapter to split the connector into conventional mic and headset jacks, including the option to simulate 7.1 sound through the 2-channel headset if you are into that sort of thing. If you decide the HS60 is a good option for you, but you can't find it at a low price and want to save some money, I think the HS50 is pretty much exactly the same headset without the USB audio adapter. I needed a headset because my Rift S mic drops out whenever it is being used by an app, such as Vaicom Pro or SRS. The only way to reset it after it drops out is to unplug the USB connector and plug it back in, though it also resets whenever there are firmware updates to the headset. If I reset it, but don't use it for anything, it might stay working for weeks. But as soon as I use it, there is a risk that it will stop working at any moment. Sometimes, it will make it through an entire DCS World play session, but drops out as soon as you exit the game. Other times, it will drop out within a few minutes of starting a mission. One time, after a firmware update, it worked well for weeks, then the next firmware update knocked it out again. Oculus support was worthless for this problem. They acted like they had never heard of it before, suggested basic fixes like unplugging the cable, assumed it was an end-user issue, and never provided a permanent solution. Beyond solving the mic issue, the audio on the Rift S is horrible. You have to use high volume settings to hear it well, which causes some distortion. If you just cup your hands over your ears, the Rift S audio is much louder and sounds ok with the volume level set lower. But for a huge price in bulk, weight, and comfort, the headset provides far superior audio. Despite the increased weight and extra cables (I keep a TrackIR Pro Clip mounted on the headset), I won't use the Rift S without the headset even when I don't need the mic. I have the original Rift CV1, too. If the Rift S had kept the audio setup of the CV1, I would never have bought a headset. Hopefully, I like the HP Reverb G2 audio and mic so I can abandon having to wear an additional headset in VR, as it should be.

See the first post. The views are defined in a file in your user folder. You can always revert back to defaults by deleting the file, which should generate a default replacement, though if you really get into trouble, you could always "repair" DCS. I use the manual edits to get my head lined up the VR pilot's head when possible and otherwise judge by my head position relative to the headrest. It is harder for me to judge head position with a flat panel and TrackIR, but it can be done. The default positions for most modules seem to prefer being closer to the panel and looking down a bit so you can see a lot of the panel instead of looking straight ahead and seeing mostly canopy glass/gunsight. This is a compromise to make up for the limited vertical field of view of flat panels that are much wider than they are tall. VR changes the game. I want my eyes where the virtual pilot's eyes are. I have always preferred this, but with VR it makes a lot more sense, especially if you enable the virtual pilot body. What is interesting is that DCS is not alone. Most other flight sims built the default view positions to give you a good view of the front instrument panel rather than a realistic view straight ahead.

If you have a gunship vs gunship fight prior to the service entry date for the AH-64, there are only two helicopters that will show up: the AH-1 and Mi-24. It doesn't matter that the design philosophies were different. On the front lines, it is these two helos that will face each other head to head. No different than the F-4 and MiG-21, which couldn't be any more different other than having both been designed to be Mach 2 interceptors. Yet, despite differences in their size and roles, they actually had very close performance numbers with any advantages being marginal and dependent on altitude, speed, and the specific variants. Again, much like the AH-1 and Mi-24 which both evolved quite a bit over time. I love all four: F-4, MiG-21, AH-1, and Mi-24. But I am partial to the home team since I grew up with two of them flying over my head. But to be fair, the AH-1 was a cheap interim solution to the failure to produce proper attack helo. But it was so cost effective and so easy to upgrade over time that variants are still on the front line today. Even after the AH-64 was available, the single engine Army AH-1s continued to be numerous and very capable. If you want a fair comparison based on size and roles, an optionally armed UH-60 variant is much more comparable in size and performance to the Mi-24. In fact, when F-15s mistakenly shot down UH-60s, they thought they had visually identified Mi-24s before firing.

The limitations of PC simulation and the hardware make it much harder than reality. People with better hardware won't need as much practice because they won't need the touch of a brain surgeon or the reflexes of a pro race car driver to move their joystick just the right fraction. When you watch in-cockpit videos of real pilots taking off, landing, formation flying, etc. you can see them making frequent corrections that are fairly large movements. If I made those movements in DCS World, my aircraft would oscillate quite a bit. With a stick extension and/or good axis curve maps, the skill level required lowers quite a bit. I flew for years with Saitek sticks: X-36 USB, X-45, X-52 Pro. I also flew with the Warthog for awhile. Now I primarily fly with the VKB Gunfighter but also have the Winwing stick. The hardware makes a difference: No noise spikes, no "sticktion", longer throw ranges, and I don't ever use custom curves, just flat linear response with no deadbands. The in-game stick goes exactly where I want it to. I can move the VKB and Winwing sticks exactly one step with little difficulty, which is like breathing on the stick. Don't tell me hardware doesn't make a difference. You can see it on these forums. There are some people who could never quite refuel successfully, but after getting better hardware, found that it was a lot easier. Everyone focuses on the stick, but the throttle is equally important, which shows up in carrier landings as well as refueling. But no matter how good the hardware is, the task is still somewhat more difficult in a PC sim than reality, so practice is still a great idea. VR changes things. I can fly helicopters, land on carriers, and maintain situational awareness in violent rolling dogfights with multiple aircraft far better in VR than with TrackIR. I haven't done any refueling offline or online since I got VR, but I am almost certain that the improved sense of position and relative movement that I get in VR will make refueling a little easier, too. So, again, the hardware is a significant factor. It is just a matter of how much hardware matters versus practice, which will vary with the natural aptitude of individuals. Just as in real life, some people will be good no matter what they do and some will struggle no matter what they do while the rest of us have to work at it to get the job done.

I have only tried one mission that was having problems so far. The patch seems to fix the navigation computer, but not the TACAN. I still hear no TACAN and see "off" when TACAN is selected as the the source for navigation. Whereas someone flying an F-5E in the same mission can use the same TACAN channel without any issues.

Fantastic pit! Will be much better when the Mi24 is actually available to use it as intended.

That doesn't seem to help. It changes the behavior, but in VR, the mouse can still wander outside the VR mirror and in the worst cases, bring another app to the front making it impossible to recover without minimizing or dragging the offending app away from the DCS window, then clicking the DCS mirror to restore focus.

1. I am currently running a GTX 1080, not even a Ti. 2. I have pre-ordered a reverb G2. 3. I keep getting plenty of overtime. So, a 3090 is on the table. I am also long overdue for a new PC, but I may have to wait another year for that due to other circumstances. But overtime may fix that, too.

Until VR became practical, TrackIR was the huge step toward immersion compared to using a mouse or POV hat. I have used TrackIR for at least three versions: TrackIR 3, 4, and 5. While you can save a ton of money doing it yourself, the TrackIR software has years of refinement and is native to almost every game/simulation that could benefit from it. I prefer the "Pro Clip" active LED to the passive hat mounted reflector. It eliminates some tracking issues. But TrackIR is overpriced for what you get and the "Pro Clip" is extremely flimsy. The alternatives are much cheaper, but may not work as well. If you can find a used TrackIR 4 or 5 and use a third party or home-made equivalent to the "Pro Clip", you can have the best camera/sensor and save a lot of money. I love the TIR 5. So when I thought my pro clip was failing, I bought a new one, even though I already had VR. I don't always fly VR because I also enjoy 4K graphics on a 49-inch screen. Of course, the real problem turned out to be my USB hub which wasn't powering up the LEDs correctly. Now, casting immersion aside, I flew for years using an 8 position POV hat with snap views and a shift key for looking up per the standard view system for Aces High. If you are very proficient with that setup, you will do better at keeping situational awareness and having a stable view. If you set this up correctly to suit your needs, there is no need for TrackIR. But I loved the immersion of the view moving with my head and having the POV hat free to be a trim switch or whatever control I needed it to be. It is similar to the way I currently have to tolerate inferior graphics quality, resolution, and frame rates to enjoy the immersion of VR. I can fly without VR, but I won't fly without having either VR or TrackIR.

This doesn't happen to me very often in single player. But is much more frequent in multiplayer. I find it hard to fly without hearing my engine. Similar to how I am now used to my vibrating seat pad. Without the seat pad or the sound, I can't "feel" my throttle setting. But as annoying as it is, it doesn't cripple performance. So, it could be worse. But I wish they could find and fix this longstanding bug.

Over the short term (if several years can be considered "short"), these are perfect for me. At some point I would like a dedicated replica cockpit and the Hornet seems like the best candidate for me. But until then, these semi-replica panels are perfect for a Hornet themed generic cockpit able to support multiple aircraft. I hope the price is nice, but as long as it ridiculously high, I will probably being getting these as soon as they are available.

I don't run SimApp, so whether this affects my performance or not, I don't need an extra export script running beyond my simshaker and SRS. So this was a useful post for me.

I have never seen the in-game resolution setting affect my VR fps. If it works for you, great! But I don't see any difference at all. What does matter for me is desktop resolution. It doesn't affect performance, but it affects my mouse wandering off the game and getting "window out of focus" with no in-game controls functioning until I can get my mouse back on the window. At my normal 4K desktop, the "mirror" display is relatively small with plenty of room to drift down to the task bar or any other windows that happen to be open. With a lower resolution, like 1920 x 1080, the mirror image is much larger relative to the desktop which gives the mouse less places to wander, particularly in the vertical. But I am not dropping my desktop resolution, so I just try to be careful to avoid mouse wandering. But it has killed me plenty of times during takeoffs, landings, and low altitude dogfights and is most embarrassing in multiplayer.

If the latest patch was supposed to improve the fps drop caused by radar pointing at terrain in any way, it did not do so for me. I had updated my drivers to the latest for a recent flight sim release and immediately saw the MiG-21 radar fps drop. I have now reverted back to 442.19 (from Feb 2020) to restore MiG-21 performance. I wish they could figure out the problem and fix it, because the newest driver works really well for just about everything else and is absolutely required for the newest flight sim release.