some1

AI being able to sustain 2g more than a user controller aircraft without loosing airspeed is not "performing to perfection", it's straight up broken. It's already been reported multiple times. https://forum.dcs.world/topic/326798-ai-turn-performance-impossible-for-a-human-aircraft/

You might have been thinking abiut C101, which is more mature than mb339 and I think is the best trainer in DCS. The MB339 still has some bugs and missing features that make instrument flying much worse than it should be. L39 has russian instruments so it's hardly a trainer for an F16.

It looks like the last open beta update has fixed the long standing issue with fireballs not visible unless close to the aircraft. Great! (https://forum.dcs.world/topic/201010-explosions-invisible-fov-depending/#comment-4798804) However, now the smoke from damaged aircraft disappears at a couple hundred meters, or when you zoom out. The flames are still visible, but some of the smoke particles vanish. All ok here: null Zoom out a notch: Ok here: Zoom out a notch:

Just change them and test if they are stable. Preferably one by one. That's all there is to it, really. The gains are minuscule though. The primary timings are not used that often in the grand scheme of things.

It would matter more if you provided us with a source of this information, rather than starting with "I think". Context matters.

Yeah, right: or https://www.techpowerup.com/review/best-power-supply-psu-buying-guide/ If crmaris (one of the most knowledgeable guys about PSUs) says you need at least 20% headroom and with 850W PSU we have around 40% headroom for the setup discussed here, then that's more than enough for me. Even with extra headroom for a reasonable upgrade in the future. Btw, the difference in efficiency between 50% and 60% load is minuscule, you won't get any noticeable savings from that. As for the amount of future proofing you can get when overbuying PSU, that's also questionable. The shrinking process nodes for CPUs and GPUs mean that it's going to be more and more difficult to cool those beasts not because they need much power, but because the contact surface is so small. The new 7800X3D is using less power than the old 5800X3D. 7950X3D is using less power than 5950. Yet they are hotter and would be absolutely impossible to cool using normal means at power levels that Intel is using on their 10nm CPUs. And even Intel will switch to smaller nodes eventually.

Identical in resolution, different in terms of colors, brightness etc... It's just that for whatever reason they decided there is some gain to run the headset at higher resolution, so the "100%" target has been moved higher. Heck, Oculus moves the 100% position depending on the refresh rate you select, so why not? Both G1 and G2 headsets looked comparable at the same pixel resolution. You could run them higher of course, if your pc could handle that.

Currently you have to press the button where the pylon used to be displayed.

Planes can fly faster when they get lighter. Do not test top speed with 50% unlimited fuel.

This thread is not about how many different key bindings a module provides, but rather how it artificially blocks a certain sequence of key presses from working. It's like having a 3 pos flaps switch, that would prevent you from going flaps UP unless you press flaps TO first. If the way Razbam implemented that switch on the throttle is so realistic, then why they didn't use the same logic for lights switch, or any other 3pos switch in the cockpit?

With a proper "proper" 3-pos switch you can simply use a different command for each position. 3 positions, 3 assignments, simple as that. The off-else-on special commands are only a workaround for hardware like Hotas Warthog which does not report a button press for the middle switch position. At least by default, because this can be fixed with a script. The off-else-on commands are not required with Winwing, each switch position sends a different button press to the sim.

It does not. If you have a matching hardware, then regardless of this option, it will behave the same way. If you don't have the matching hardware, then the current Razbam's implementation makes it unrealistically difficult to switch between modes. Either way, there's nothing to gain. Plus as I said, DCS sometimes won't register the middle position of a switch if you move it too fast, so even with a "realistic" throttle the current implementation can mess you up in the middle of a combat.

It's not realistic, it just plain stupid. Even with a proper 3-pos switch, if you move it too fast, DCS can sometimes skip the middle position and it will break Razbam's implementation. Real M2000 also has a 3-pos switch on the throttle (CNM), yet Razbam's own M-2000 does not require you to go through the middle pos. Real F-16 also has a 3-pos switch on the throttle, yet DCS F-16 does not require you to go through the middle pos. Real A-10C also has a 3-pos switch on the throttle, yet DCS A-10C does not require you to go through the middle pos. Real JF-17 also has a 3-pos switch on the throttle, yet DCS JF-17 does not require you to go through the middle pos. Only Razbam's F-15 does that. It adds nothing to the simulation.

Even War Thunder has removed Mig-17AS from the game, it's unobtainable (unless you bought it while it was available).

It's similar to the automatic transition to CCRP/AUTO from CCIP in other aircraft. If the actual bombs impact point is below the HUD (as you are too high and too far from the target), then the aiming cue is drawn at the bottom of the HUD. When you put that cue on the target and press weapon release button, then the system will designate that point and switch to AUTO/CCRP to guide you to the bombs release point.

The max resolution you can set in Oculus app is the same in 72Hz and 90Hz, it's just they define "default 100%" point differently. So that resolution is either 1.5x or 1.3x of default res.

If by "competent" you mean "AI", be aware that AI in DCS can sustain significantly more g's than player controlled aircraft. F-15E is a poor dogfighter, but not that poor to be easily out turned by MiG-21. Btw, fun fact, F-15E with 40% gas carries the same amount of fuel as F-16 with 100% internal AND a centerline fuel tank.

To make gsuit work, you need a lot of extra aircraft components. Pneumatic pipes, regulators, electrical connections. Its not like you hop in and plug into cigarette lighter in the cockpit. Here's a picture from red star facebook https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid0Cavw4RdKYs9Ecsc4BjCsPMHAHNxdo5Ao9iqb41Gq4Qkn7Yt5GuRd1g67Ha1dd5wfl&id=106049571612972

Yes, definitely. It only affects the counters, the FPS throttling setting is in a different place.

As I understand it, this indicator is a simple calculation based on your current frametimes and target FPS that you have set in OpenXR toolkit, right below the Overlay option. For me it works correctly when I have the target FPS set to 90 FPS. Then when the ASW kicks in it shows "GPU bound" in red, it doesn't show free overhead any more. But for CPU it shows some weird things, like it only includes "app CPU" frametimes when calculating overhead, and not "rdr CPU" shown right below that. I checked a heavy mission that is more CPU than GPU bound, and the overhead % shown by OpenXR do not look correct there compared to frametimes below. I don't know why there are now two CPU counters, they are not described on OXR website (https://mbucchia.github.io/OpenXR-Toolkit/overlay.html) @mbucchia would need to chime in and tell us how to interpret these numbers. Enabling turbo mode can also make this numbers inaccurate I think, but I don't use that. As for the RAM discussion, I wouldn't expect large gains in your situation, especially if you are more GPU than CPU bound.

Foxbat is correct here. Lim-5M was a complex Polish modification that intended to turn Mig-17 into attack aircraft. And a failure. Lim-6 was another attempt at such modification, or rather the next phase of the whole project. Also a failure, IIRC the batch did not enter service. Lim-6bis was a much less ambitious modification that finally worked, and the previous variants were rebuilt to this spec, plus new batches were built. Lim-6M were 5P's rebuilt to serve similar role after they became useless as interceptors. Radars were removed and A2G pylons were added.

That's more of a counter example that a cheapo 1000W won't save you even if its well above "recommended" specs. The guy would have been better off buying something less powerful from a reputable brand for the similar price, rather than heeding your "50% Load, buy double that" advice. 1 kW to run X570 with 1080ti, really?

I know for a fact that these recommendations are not based on 7800X3D, because these CPUs did not exist on the shelves back when 4090 cards went on sale. They are just three months old, while the cards were released nearly a year ago. And I know for a fact, that every single "high-end" CPU has higher peak power consumption than 7800X3D. Often two or three times higher. It's simple really, if 1kW PSU is recommended to run 4090 with something like Intel 12900k or 13700k (250W CPUs), then 850W PSU is perfectly fine with 80W 7800X3D. And if you think that one needs at least 1 kW PSU to run even with 7800X3D, then automatically you imply that all those recommendations from MSI, ASUS, Gigabyte are worthless, because they should say at least 1200W for Intel and high-end Ryzens (non-X3D). Can't have one-size-fits-all recommendation when there's 200W difference between CPUs. Besides, I have already shown you how much power my 7800X3D system is using. Even if I put a hypothetical 600W GPU in it, which is the theoretical max for some of the RTX4090 cards and the limit of 12VHPWR connector, then it would still sit well below 850W. That's just the way it is with 7800X3D.

According to MSI it is enough. It meets the minimum requirement. https://www.msi.com/Graphics-Card/GeForce-RTX-4090-SUPRIM-LIQUID-X-24G/Specification Now I wouldn't recommend using it with 250W Intel CPU in such configuration and I would recommend at least 1000W PSU for that, just like MSI does.... but we're not in a thread about Intel CPUs.

EightyDeuce is seeing 400W difference depending on which device he uses to measure his own PC. Same PC, same cables, same voltage. How's your talk about 220V vs 120V relevant to that? It's neither on point nor on topic. And I just explained to you why the manufacturers put 850W as minimum for these cards. The power draw of a Suprim Liquid card is no secret. This is a factory overclocked card set at 480W out of the box (+30W vs stock) and can be pushed up to 530W (hard limit in BIOS). It's well within capability of 850W PSU when paired with ~80W 7800X3D CPU, but becomes a tight squeeze when you install it in a system with something like the latest 250W Intel CPUs. Hence such manufacturer's recommendations. Nothing more, nothing less, these are just generic guidelines without considering the CPU type, so they play it safe. But here we're discussing 7800X3D, which is a CPU with exceptionally low power draw for a modern high end CPU. It did not even exist back when those examples you cite were written and when recommendations were set. Anyway, I'm done. It was a simple question for which I provided a simple answer based on my experience with my own PC, that somehow turned into two page argument with people who don't even have the hardware, yet like to theorize a lot.