Jump to content

some1

Members
  • Posts

    2879
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by some1

  1. This can be done on any motherboard using software created by overclockers (PBO2 tuner or Project Hydra). It's not official AMD software, so use at your own risk. But I can confirm it works for me, lowering the core temps and raising the boost clock under heavy loads at the same time. https://github.com/PrimeO7/How-to-undervolt-AMD-RYZEN-5800X3D-Guide-with-PBO2-Tuner/blob/main/README.md
  2. The new generation of CPUs will be released in Autumn. But if you cannot wait, then if MSFS is any indicator, 5800X3D beats 12900K by a wide margin. https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/amd-5800x3d-performance/510937 Keep in mind that other, more typical games do not always show such improvements.
  3. The next generation of AMD CPUs won't have 3D cache, at least not initially.
  4. Except its the other way round, 5800X3D is the slower one here. That's with my limited DCS testing, as I wasn't seeking GPU limited scenarios in DCS - on the contrary, I picked two places where GPU does not show 100% use. But there are other games I checked that showed literally no difference at the resolution I play (Asassin's Creed, Tomb Raider, Forza Horizon).
  5. Still missed a couple things. Like these shots I took on my PC and posted here before: 5900X: https://imgur.com/B5VQrip 5800X3D: https://imgur.com/vBnQQ3H See the FPS gain? Me neither. That does not change the fact that 5800X3D is probably the best processor for flightsims right now, and a worthy upgrade under certain conditions. But it won't help much if on your system the bottleneck is elsewhere.
  6. Yes, you've said that three times already, ignoring everything else posted in this thread since then, apparently. Not really, it's just a status that MSFS puts in one of the debug windows. Does not say "fully" anywhere, and doesn't have to be 100% accurate, it's just what the game sees as it measures the time spent calling GPU-related functions.
  7. Huh? I own 5800X3D myself and compared it to my own 5900X here. I've posted a screenshots from a mission where there's no difference between the two in FPS. And from another mission where the new CPU yields 30% gain. It really depends on the scenario used for testing.
  8. There's no scenario where 5900 would win in DCS, but there are scenarios where 5800x3d won't make a difference if you're limited by GPU. I posted a comparison a few messages above. With 3080, so with 3090 you'll be less GPU constrained that I am.
  9. It's not predictive. It simply increases the delay between your movement and the change on screen, so there is a small buffer which can smooth things out a bit. It's also nothing new. Increasing the prerendered frames buffer can reduce stutter if the frametimes are fluctuating, and increase system throughput in both 2D and 3D, at the price of increased latency. Also known as input lag. And normally it's something we try to minimize, especially for VR.
  10. You need to use OpenComposite from openxr branch. https://znix.xyz/OpenComposite/runtimeswitcher.php?branch=openxr The one from the Master branch will not work, DCS will start in 2D, other sims will crash. Anyway, I tried yesterday the latest OpenXR after updating CPU to Ryzen 5800X3D, but I still don't see much benefits on my system compared to SteamVR. Motion Reprojection artifacts are worse, VRAM usage is similar, image quality comparable, frametimes are actually a tad worse with OpenXR. I must be one of the few oddballs that got the SteamVR to work half-decent.
  11. Some ADFs are active only when the runway is in use. Depending on the wind direction in the mission.
  12. I also swapped my 5900X to 5800X3D today, paired with RTX3080 10GB and 64GB of 3600MHz RAM. I didn't do any complex benchmarks, but I loaded two missions which I identified previously as CPU limited places, and checked them before and after the swap, in both 2D and VR. First test was the 8th mission from A-10C Iron Flag campaign, sitting on the tarmac at Nellis AFB with dozens of aircraft and static objects around. In 2D, the new CPU gave a large increase in FPS, from 80 to 104 (30% gain). In VR it lowered the CPU frametime from around 33ms to roughly 27ms, (18% gain), but that's still not enough for a smooth experience. DCS being DCS. Second test was a simple practice mission in AH-64D, sitting on the ground with full overcast and FLIR overlay on the IHADSS. In 2D the new CPU made no difference, actually I lost 1-2 FPS. GPU remained underutilized at 90%, so the bottleneck is elsewhere. In VR the CPU frametime went down noticeably from ~15ms to ~11ms, and I gained a few FPS. But that again was not enough to give enough headroom for reprojection to kick in. I think in this scenario I'm mostly limited by GPU VRAM. Before/after shots with FPS VR here: https://imgur.com/a/iEgchC5
  13. some1

    One (1) Developer

    I have the impression that the biggest gripe the OP has, is that night lighting has been broken since January. 4 months later, the "flagship" DCS module is still unusable at night. Yeah yeah, things take time, some are considered low priority, but that's a game breaking bug.
  14. It's still broken in the latest beta. It's a very useful menu for all the campaigns, sadly the bug makes it unnecessarily difficult to use.
  15. On the purchase page you should have tracking numbers for all packages. First thing you should simply check on tracking where is the rest of the order. Quite possible some of them simply got stuck in the customs.
  16. It simply shows a more realistic usage scenario than playing at 1080p. There are places in the simulator where the new CPU helps considerably, there are others where there's not much difference. Even with a 3080 the game hits GPU limit before the CPU can reach its full potential. And that's compared to an older CPU generation. Compared to 5800 non-X3D, the difference will be smaller. When considering an upgrade, best to check if your GPU has some headroom, or is it already loaded near the maximum at the settings you normally use.
  17. On the other hand, such benchmarks in 1080p tend show the best case scenario with high FPS no GPU limit. When playing at higher resolutions the gains are usually not that high, as many times GPU is the limiting factor. Here are several test snapshots from MSFS forum when tested at 4k resolution https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/amd-5800x3d-performance/510937/98 And a good analysis in VR.
  18. Yep, it looks like now by default, with Petro setting magdec, the instruments are showing true headings instead of magnetic. Which aligns well with the moving map also showing true headings on the flightplan. So to navigate using DISS system we should now enter true headings into the computer. Which is the opposite from Mi-8, which uses magnetic headings for display and for doppler navigation.
  19. Sure, it works just like any other USB joystick. It's not a very good yoke, but at this price, there's not much competition.
  20. 2 modes, really. In the Mi-8, the third position of the switch besides "MK" and "ГПК" is "AM" which is astro compass, and it's not functional in the aircraft. In the Mi-24, the third position is "3K", which means "SET HEADING", or maybe "SELECTED HEADING". Either way, I think this is the position used to adjust the gyros manually to a new heading, something that in the Mi-8 (and L-39 Albatros) is done from ГПК mode using a separate switch labelled "3K". I don't see such switch in the Mi-24 Greben panel or anywhere else, and this "3K" mode does nothing. But some way to adjust the gyros in ГПК mode has to be possible.... eventually. Now it's obviously WIP. Nope, I highly doubt that. These aren't the non-descriptive codes, but rather the shortcuts for a navigation device type, kind of like "ADF", or "ILS". MK is "magnetic compass" (магнитный компас). ГПК is "гирополукомпас' , which literally translates to "gyro-half-compass", but in English aviation nomenclature would be a Directional Gyro. Swapping these functions like you suggest would be hella confusing for Russian speakers. The DCS Mi-8 manual describes these positions just like I did. MK is "slaved", ГПК is "free" (sometimes called "DG"). I was wrong to say that it doesn't work in DCS Mi-8, it actually works fine in the sim, just slower than I expected. It's interesting to see the operational difference between Russian and Western systems. In most Western aircraft, the heading gyros are primarily used in "SLAVED" mode and the magnetic correction system would be disabled only at very high latitudes or in case of malfunction. While in the Russian aircraft from that era, it seems to be more common to fly without it for most of the time.
  21. Unfortunately the use of the system hasn't been properly explained anywhere, including ED manuals. And it doesn't work correctly in Mi-8 either, so I'm not sure if ED will even do it right this time. I'm certainly no expert and I don't know how exactly it was used in Mi-24. But I've played a bit with Tupolev Tu-154 addon for MSFS which simulates a similar doppler navigation system. The heading gyros (Greben system in Mi-24) can operate in two modes. "MK" which uses information from magnetic sensor to orient the gyros to magnetic north, and "ГПК", when the gyro is disconnected from magnetic sensor and maintains the orientation in space. It's similar to "Free/Slaved" gyro switch in western aircraft, inluding DCS UH-1. The system in Mi-24 also allows you to input current latitude. This is important in ГПК mode, because it lets the system to cancel precession errors due to earth rotation in space, which are known and constant for a given latitutde. It leaves us only with small errors due to gyro system imprecision. In MK/slaved mode the gyro is constantly adjusted to magnetic north, so precision/precession errors are cancelled anyway. So why not simply leave it in MK and use magnetic heading? There are several reasons. One is that magnetic sensor does not like changes in acceleration, just like your whiskey compass and can give erratic corrections. Other is that magnetic navigation is not reliable in some parts of the world, including northern latitudes, places with large iron ore deposits below the surface, etc. Planning for a nuclear war that would cause a lot of magnetic interference may also have something to do with it. Last but not least, with proper data DISS system allows to fly a "great circle" path, which is the shortest path between two waypoints. For example in the Tu-154, the pilots would orient their gyros to magnetic north during startup, enter the magnetic declination at the startup location, which would in turn set the main navigation gyros to true north, but still keep some of the RMI instruments showing magnetic headings, to ease the terminal navigation around the airport. After that they will turn off the magnetic correction, and rely only on gyro stored headings. Enroute, using the DISS system and pre-computed route angles they would be able to fly a great-circle route between waypoints, without the need of expensive INS, and long before GPS became operational. If you want to read more about it, check the chapters about "НВУ Navigation" https://docplayer.net/89266328-Project-tupolev-tupolev-tu-154m-english-manual.html In the Mi-24, another purpose of KM-2 panel may be that if you set the gyros to magnetic heading but the moving map is oriented to true north, then without correction the angles and your position won't match. But that's just my guess. I noticed some weird issues in DCS when I tried to navigate in the Mi-24 on longer flights.
  22. It affects everything to some extent. The IPD setting in DCS does not really change the scale of the world, but your perception of it, by moving your virtual eyes further apart.
  23. Neither was MiG-21bis the adversary. These aircraft entered service 5 years later in USSR, 12 years later in Vietnam Air Force.
×
×
  • Create New...