some1

That's not how it works, all 6 or 8 cores from that CCD have equal access to all that extra L3 cache on top of it.

Simply look at GPU utilization on your PC. If you don't see your current GPU working at 100%, then there's not much to be gained from buying a more powerful one. Unless your target is playing MSFS with a fast monitor (120Hz and above) and not VR. Then DLSS Frame Generation in 4000 series cards makes a huge difference.

It's the same, all 6 or 8 cores have access to the whole L3 cache on that CCD, there is no split per core.

Fair point, looks like Gordon's book has some incorrect weight numbers, or taken for a different aircraft version.

Something looks off in your numbers, the Bis lost 2358 kg between takeoff and landing at 7% fuel, while F-13 lost 2153. Minus 150 kg missiles, that is 2200 vs 2000 in consumables, fuel mostly. Only 200 kg difference. Yet the difference in fuel capacity between the planes is around 400-700 kg depending on the particular F-13 s/n, not 200 kg. Yefim Gordon gives empty weight for F-13 at 4870 kg, while for Bis he quotes 5340. Takeoff 7100 vs 8750 respectively. As I said, it looks like the difference in fuel and payload makes the most of it, not the airframes themselves.

If MSFS is any indicator, it's good: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-9-7950x3d-cpu-review/6 Also here: https://www.eurogamer.net/digitalfoundry-2023-amd-ryzen-9-7950x3d-review?page=2 But the 7800X3D that is coming in 2 months should be just as fast in these applications, and much cheaper.

To my knowledge, the change to the new ejection seat that required two-part canopy happened mid production, so both PFS and PFM's existed with one or another. And they are outwardly so similar even the Soviets mixed them up.

Yeah, but we're looking at an empty weight difference of about 500 kg (roughly 10%). It won't be night and day. MTOW is much higher, but that's just stuff - fuel and payload. Do not load full tanks on the Bis, set 1/3rd of gun ammo and two R-3S, and you get a rough approximation of what F-13 could do. That being said, I'd still love to see F-13 in game, although I would prefer an early PFM with the old style one-piece canopy.

Looks are deceiving. What F-13 looses in weight, it also looses in thrust, and I'm not even counting emergency reheat on the BIS. It won't be much better dogfighter. Plus it only gets two R-3 missiles and a single gun with tiny amount of ammo.

It looks like it's still happening on my end, at least in 2D I'm not back to the normal viewpoint after I perform the sequence described in the first post. Maybe you need a custom snapview first?

Looks like a repeat of the situation with 5800X3D, which means calculating average from a set of games is the least useful thing to do. In games that make heavy use of cache, which often includes open world and simulator games, they show up to 25-30% improvement. That is more than a generational jump between CPUs. In games that favor raw clock speed the X3D shows worse results, but these are often lighter, online oriented games which run at couple hundreds FPS anyway.

Motion reprojection is not a "few frames here and there". It effectively interleaves real and generated frames at even pace, while the main app is throttled to produce frames at half refresh rate (or 1/3rd, etc.). That's why you see the FPS counter step down from 90 to 45, then to 30 fps when reprojection activates. You can read more about it in the detailed explanations provided by mbucchia in his links. You may be thinking about an edge case when your app can produce all new frames below 11ms target (or whatever is the refresh rate of your headset), except it stutters once in a while for one frame, then you'll get only a few reprojected frames thrown into the mix. But that's not what happens most of the time. Most of the time we end up with real and generated frames interleaved at at least 1:1 ratio.

Unless you have a very fluctuating framerate that turns reprojection on/off, the ratio is the same. You end up with one "real" frame interleaved with one "fake". Or two fakes if you support reprojection at 1/3rd of headset refresh rate. The frames are generated differently with each method, but I've already said that before.

I don't see anyone suggesting that, other than yourself. From what I understand, Kermit is primarily interested in BVR/WVR performance level, so he listed aircraft that are more or less balanced on an MP server like Enigma.

The AJS modification was nowhere near as substantial as F-16A to F-16C or Mig-21bis to LanceR. Saab improved the navigation computer somewhat, added compatibility with the new weapons (RB15, BK90 and RB74 Sidewinders), plus enabled the outer Sidewinder pylons. Disable these weapons, and you get a pretty good representation of a mid-70's AJ 37. Performance is the same.

ASW doubles the visible framerate, just like DLSS3 Frame Generation does. The artifacts in ASW come from the fact that the additional frames are extrapolated from the past frames, not interpolated from the frames that have already been created by the game engine, like is the case with DLSS3. It's hard to say if DLSS would produce better quality images than ASW if it was asked to do the same thing. Even when interpolating, DLSS3 still produces visible artifacts in some situations, just like ASW.

Flat shadows equal "no shadows" as far as cockpit is concerned. These shadows are visible only on the ground surface.

I think any single failed authorization would cause DCS to quietly wipe out all unauthorized modules settings from the "special" tab. Normally they are saved with other options in the main 'options.lua' file in your DCS settings directory (Saved Games\DCS\Config). Would be nice if ED finally fixed this.

What I'm saying is that the hardware on the nvidia GPUs and the underlying software (to some extent) can support frames extrapolation. No, it's not part of DLSS3, which in turn is an umbrella marketing term for several different technologies. I can use DLSS3 Frame Generation on without DLSS upscaling, or DLSS without Frame Generation, in some games I can also use DLAA instead of DLSS.

nvidia optical flow engine, the same used in DLSS3 frame generation can also be used for forward estimation (extrapolation). They even mention VR applications on their website. https://developer.nvidia.com/opticalflow-sdk However, since VR is not the next big thing any more, integrating it with VR software from various vendors is probably not very high on priority list at nvidia. Besides, I'm not even sure if it will produce much better results than what we have now in the form of reprojection.

The image you posted above says that GPK is recommended for high latitudes, not MK. This applies to all aircraft, as magnetic compass readings become unreliable there, while bearings are changing quickly over relatively small distances due to basic geometry. In other parts of the world, that may depend on where you fly, for how long, and how good and reliable is the flux detector installed in the aircraft. But for our flying in DCS, GPK doesn't really bring anything to the table, except for more risk for accumulating errors. It's better to set it to MK and forget about it.

There are multiple issues with DME on DCS maps. IIRC it was all reported at one time or another, but fixing it is not a high priority. -using DME component of a VOR/DME navaid with a TACAN radio - doesn't work -using DME component of a VOR/DME navaid with a VOR radio (like C-101CC) - also doesn't work -using DME component of a ILS/DME navaid - doesn't work because these don't exist in DCS at all, while in the real world this is the most common type of ILS installation at the airports. The last issue makes it impossible to fly almost any real world ILS approach in DCS. Most of them use ILS/DME and require ability to measure distance from ILS. null

That's NDB. It's the name used in all the files, so it may be a rough Russian translation.

Lol, it's the AI flying in both cases, and not even on Ace level. Still, it smokes the Patriot site, but can't defeat one S-75. Yeah, like it's the case with half of DCS. Careful, as Bignewy said in the first post, "SA2 has been modelled with the information available".

These look like a sum of all types of losses, including non-combat accidents. https://www.vietnamwar50th.com/education/week_of_july_3_2022/#:~:text=A total of 18 B,lost on July 7%2C 1967.