some1

Now it would be interesting to see how much that translates into actual DCS performance.

Last time I checked, I got 5800X3D to 192 avg. FPS in Plazma test on ST build and 228 avg. FPS on MT build. Clean DCS with mirrors off. I have 7800X3D on order, but not yet delivered, it will be a week or two.

People do these tests with different DCS versions, different settings and fps limit. So the numbers are not easily comparable. A 7kX3D is roughly 20% faster than 5800X3D, there's no way it could produce 55% more FPS in the same conditions.

Just check your GPU usage or, if you play in VR, CPU frametimes. If GPU is at 100% all the time, or your CPU frametimes are lower than GPU frametimes, then no point in upgrading the CPU. Overall, if you don't have a lot of disposable income, then 5800X3D is much more sensible option with your current hardware.

The model is still not fixed, 2 years and counting. Maybe ask ED for help, they've made the correct model of this radio for MiG-15.

It is still not fixed.

Such arrangements would be under strict NDA, not for the guy to just blow it up on his 10k subs Youtube channel before the actual press outlets get their embargo lifted.

Anything that pops on YT before the actual embargo lift is most likely faked. Especially if they don't even show the hardware on screen, just the results.

Workloads normally don't switch cores by themselves, scheduler does that. That's because it is in fact beneficial for the modern CPU to spread the load (heat) between cores rather than lock them to a single one and suffer from thermal throttling. Plus even the threads that seemingly need 100% CPU, usually are in a wait state multiple times a second and can yield the core for other tasks. Locking the game to one CCD is fairly trivial, as the scheduler knows which process owns each thread and can simply decide that it won't move these threads to the second CCD. At least as long as the game doesn't explicitly set the affinity mask, or create a dozen of threads with heavy computations inside that all want to run at the same time. From the reviews I've seen online, there are a few odd cases but 7700X is behind 7900X most of the time, if only marginally. Overall, it's not worth the extra $$$ just for gaming, but if the prices of 7800x3d will be high, and availability low, then 7900x3d starts to look tempting. Anyway, 7800X3D reviews should be up today, in about 2-3 hours.

The cores on the second CCD do not have to be parked, as long as DCS is not running on them. Other background tasks should be free to use them if needed. That's the job of the scheduler, not to shut down CCD completely. The only real test of the scheduler with 7950X3D and 7900X3D is to run the same DCS benchmark with and without second CCD enabled in bios, and compare the results. Like the guys at TPU did when simulating 7800X3D with 7950X3D. https://www.techpowerup.com/review/ryzen-7800x3d-performance-preview/

Personally I will try to get 7800x3d, but if it won't be available or it will be sold at a price close to 7900x3d, then I'd just buy 7900x3d. In most cases 7900x3d is still going to be the faster cpu, at least as long as Windows scheduler is doing its job.

449$, so 150$ cheaper than 7900X3D. Of course no guarantee that you'll be able to buy it at that price, demand may be higher than stock.

I play relatively simple missions that I created for myself at 90 FPS. However, if I wanted to play a campaign or multiplayer, 90 FPS is hard to achieve and CPU is sometimes the limiting factor, even with MT.

Ok, thanks for the heads up

Hi, no change, tested MT version with Mosquito.

You can still edit the mission file itself, by unpacking the .miz file and changing CLSID's of the mounted weapons to UB32 pods. But I don't have the step-by-step instructions for that. A global option to edit the payloads has been removed some time ago for all DCS aircraft, nothing to do with plans to do a paid upgrade of Mi-8, most likely there aren't any in the near future. Depends what you call a "particular" version. Export customers of this particular version do carry S-5 rockets. DCS already has some exotic and anachronistic weapon choices, like AGM-62 Walleyes on a Lot 20 Hornet, but I don't expect any changes and improvements to Mi-8, the module is done and ED doesn't spend any time on it unless a new patch makes it unplayable.

Both videos are most likely fakes. No hardware shown, only a bunch of numbers overlaid on a game footage. Take any video like that with a grain of salt.

If you only want a livery with a black pilot in a red tailed Mustang, then you can have that now, it's already in the sim. But you've asked about changes to the models themselves and separate control over pilots skins, and this is something that requires modifications in all model sources across DCS, plus core changes in the sim. It's just the nature of the software itself. A small tweak may seem easy, but a game-wide solution suddenly involves a team of developers. Were there any? That's a serious question, I don't know. There were several female regiments in the Soviet Air Force during the war, but none of them flew I-16. Maybe some individual pilots, lost to history... Anyway, that's not even ED model, you have to petition the author of Polikarpov module for DCS.

Ok, you say it's very very easy? Then let's think for a moment. A pilot model in DCS is part of the aircraft, there is not one model, there's many. That's pretty understandable because of different gear, uniforms, helmets used over the years by different countries. Some models could be reused in several aircraft, like "British WWII pilot", or "modern Soviet Fighter pilot" and so on, but with over 40 aircraft already in DCS, you still need to change about 20 unique models to make them more female looking. And that's not only ED models, every 3rd party would have to adjust their artwork too. Then the skin color. Should we make several sets of different textures for each aircraft, or make a dynamic skin texture with color adjustable by the user? Swapping textures is easy and already done by some modders. But it will quickly get out of hand if you want to create several options for each model for each aircraft. Say, 20 models * 2 genders * 4 skin colors, and we're already in the hundreds of new textures. Dynamic skin texture on the other hand needs to be implemented by ED first, and then for every model by the respective aircraft developer. The above only covers external cockpit models, no the high-poly interior models, ATC voiceovers, etc. So no, that's not "very, very easy". It's something that would require several weeks, if not months of work to be implemented across the current DCS aircraft fleet, and would involve all 3rd parties as well. Very few things are easy when talking about a complex software like DCS.

Both your Huey screenshots show GPU pegged at 100% or close to that. No amount of CPU will make a significant change in FPS in that scenario. I wouldn't pay too much attention to DCS counter showing "CPU bound". Even if it is not bugged, it's only what the game sees, without VR software overhead. As I explained here, FPS is not a good indicator of CPU performance in VR, you should look at CPU frametimes.

Measuring FPS is really not the best way to benchmark the hardware in VR. Even if you have motion reprojection disabled, the VR runtime is still able to "lock" fps to a certain number. VR can't have tearing, so the headset display is a monitor with vsync-on always enabled. The synchronization has to happen somewhere. In OXR, turbo = off will drop your numbers because then OpenXR governs frame timing. And of course if you're GPU limited, then the faster CPU also won't make much difference on FPS. In VR you can be GPU limited even if GPU does not show 100% utilization, in fact that's what often happens. The best way to check if the new CPU is working better in VR than the old one is to look at CPU frametimes reported by the runtime. If they are lower, then the CPU is better. But whether that makes a noticeable difference in FPS, that's another story.

Same conditions as my previous test above https://forum.dcs.world/topic/318603-7800x3d-7900x3d-7950x3d/?do=findComment&comment=5168474 A solid FPS increase with MT and even a little bump without MT, but one part of the mission shows more stutter now than before the patch. Also without MT. Without MT: With MT: Previous Open Beta:

Changing DCS FPS limit to 400 fps also makes a significant change in test results for older CPUs. Below is my run on 5800X3D, 3600MHz RAM, RTX4090, mirrors off, 1080p and 400fps limit. Comparing to the results posted here, it looks like 7950X3D is faster than 5800X3D by 20% to 25%. At least in this particular test.

It's taken from steamdb.info

Thanks, that's a first test of the new X3D Is that with mirrors on or off? Mirrors are not controlled by graphics preset. Most likely you're just hitting GPU limit. Even at 1080p your screenshot shows GPU limit 25% of the time, so it's only higher at other resolutions. A combination of no FPS limit in DCS and a very powerful CPU.