Jump to content

some1

Members
  • Posts

    3444
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by some1

  1. I already posted a test with no mirrors and clean DCS previously, but here's another run in 1080p instead of 4k. (5080X3D + 4090). In 4k high preset, even 4090 is the bottleneck half of the time. But not by a large margin, as on average I have gained only a few FPS more in 1080p. At 1080p, the last 30 seconds of the track simply runs at 180 FPS which is the limit of DCS itself.
  2. I would check if your friend does not have HAGS enabled (Hardware accelerated gpu scheduling). That tends to break MR and cause issues in VR. But I have no experience with AMD cards.
  3. Yes, fs2004 will recognize it as a regular joystick. One thing that may not work is buttons numbers above 32. But winwing has a mode that can split the controller into several virtual ones each having 32 buttons.
  4. That's another issue, still unresolved after almost 2 years:
  5. Here's instructions: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/318603-7800x3d-7900x3d-7950x3d/?do=findComment&comment=5166464 And here's my 5800X3D + 4090 + 64GB 3600MHz CL16 RAM, at 4k High preset. Not sure where this huge spike comes at the beginning, maybe because I have HAGS enabled, which normally I would disable for DCS.
  6. It depends. Best to check DCS memory usage on your system while playing the kind of missions you normally play. On the extreme end, I have an "airshow" type mission with all different aircraft parked in one spot, and it barely loads with 64 GB.
  7. Looking forward to your thorough testing then, when you finally launch BS3 for the first time.
  8. The page may be outdated. F1CE variant is available on the stable, the newer F1EE is on open beta only.
  9. I posted these pictures to further illustrate the issue since you've complained about the methods used in the first post. So I used a different method, with different weights. If you want something super scientific to satisfy your curiosity, you have to do it yourself, sorry. At this moment I doubt you would be satisfied with anything I'd upload, anyway. Well, that would be great if you'd finally stopped talking about your memories and launched the game. It not like in BS3 there's any harm from flying constantly at takeoff power or above it. Most people won't care about power limits until the engines start to blow up.
  10. Another lengthy post and you still haven't even fired DCS to check if your bookworm knowledge actually applies to the current state of the sim. We're in DCS BS3 "bugs and problems" section, not "real world aviation", or "what I did in DCS 5 years ago" section. The speed readouts I give you are from the DCS status bar in the external view, not from the cockpit gauges. If you think 70 meters difference would reverse the situation drastically, better check you math. These are not the same conditions I used when testing speeds several months ago, so I'm not surprised the numbers are different than in my first post. Like it or leave it. Nope, as I clearly stated, Ka-50 on the screenshot was as light as possible, no stores and little fuel, while Mi-8 on a screenshot was full tanks, IR supressors and pylons. Since you've complained that in the first post in this thread I tested the aircraft at the same weight, now you have them at two tonnes difference. Around 8800kg for Ka-50, around 10800 kg for Mi-8. Mi-8 is still faster when flying on the 60 min. engine limit, and no, neither Ka-50 (nor Mi-24 for that matter) won't easily do 300 km/h at that engine setting, despite your claims. At full take-off power, yeah, barely. This was just a short 10 min test to show you that the numbers which you claim do not match with what happens in DCS right now. If you don't believe me, or think the test method is flawed, fire up DCS and you'll have all the answers to your questions in 10 minutes. Certainly would have been quicker than writing all of this.
  11. As I stated in the first post, which you still seem to ignore, these are not the numbers the Ka-50 shows at the 60 min. threshold. I moved my head to verify that the pointers are on the 'H' mark during the test. Besides, I mostly fly in VR and the gauge is better visible there. That's Ka-50 (III) btw. All the speeds I give are TAS. You're mixing the two. Never claimed Mi-8 will do 300 IAS.
  12. Then I suggest you go back to DCS and compare the aircraft yourself again before trying to start a pissing contest. Maybe a thing or two have changed since then. Absolutely not. Here's Ka-50 on a standard Caucasus day, at 60-minute power limit on the power indicator, with no weapons and almost empty tanks, and it can't even do 270 km/h TAS. In the same conditions, Mi-8 with 100% fuel in the tanks, IR supressors and external pylons is still faster by ~15 km/h. Even though it's almost 2 tonnes heavier than Ka-50 as shown here. Mi-24 also has similar top speed. null
  13. I am aware of the engineering differences between airframes and engines installations, I don't expect them all to perform the same. However, that still does not explain the weird power figures in DCS. Or maybe just the power indicator pointers are off. You posted a lot of text, but hardly on topic. If you cared to download and check the tracks I uploaded, which you obviously did not, the tests are performed with heat dissipators on all helicopters. If you actually read my first post, which I'm starting to doubt, Ka-50 engine runs much cooler at max continuous setting. Again, Ka-50 engines run colder and slower than other helicopters, not hotter. When was the last time you flew these helicopters in DCS? Mi-8 is quite sporty as long as it does not carry any cargo, and almost as fast as Mi-24. Ka-50 is a dog if you try to follow the limits on the engine indicators. Re-read my first post. Mi-8 does 290 km/h on continuous engine setting, it will exceed 300 km/h with takeoff power. Ka-50 barely does 250 km/h, good luck getting it to 300 in level flight without exceeding engine limits.
  14. If other apps need them, the cores are unparked, it's not like they shut down completely:
  15. No harm done other than it is harder to reach. Depends on the aircraft you fly, some require trimming more often than others. Also USB keyboard duplicates the buttons you have on the regular keyboard, so you will have the same assignments there. It's not like a joystick where you can have several different devices, each with its own mappings.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. Fair point, looks like Gordon's book has some incorrect weight numbers, or taken for a different aircraft version.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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?
×
×
  • Create New...