some1

When following the limits displayed on the Engine Power Indicator, Ka-50 shows much worse performance than Mi-8 and Mi-24. For example here's a test hovering with engine power at 'H' setting (max continuous). Same conditions, same weight (9.9 t). Antiice and air filters off: Ka-50, with supposedly the most efficient rotor system: barely lifts off the ground at 1m/s and can only hover in ground effect. PTIT: 855C, EPI 7.5, engine RPM 96% Mi-24 with supposedly the same TV3-117VMA engines, climbs initially at 6 m/s, still climbs above 1 km altitude at 4 m/s: PTIT 920C, EPI 7.8, engine RPM 97%. Mi-8 with the weaker TV3-117VM engines, goes like a rocket at 10 m/s and barely slows down, at 1 km altitude climbs 2x faster than Mi-24. PTIT 890C, EPI 8.2, engine RPM 96%. The same is with horizontal flight, max speed at 'H' max continuous power is roughly: Mi-24: 160 kts Mi-8: 155 kts Ka-50: 135 kts Note the much lower PTIT temperature in Ka-50 at 'H' setting. Looks like either the power limits displayed on the indicator are too low, or some helicopters in DCS are over/underpowered. climbTest_mi24.trk climbTest_mi8.trk climbTest_Ka50.trk

You forgot to explain that in the previous post. Dropping numbers like that without explanation might as well suggest OP that there's something wrong with his PC or cooling.

Which is apples to oranges comparison. This drops the temperatures by 10-15C.

5800X3D tend to run hot due to construction. It's not that the CPU produces much heat, but rather the extra cache acts as an insulator. Temps in the range of ~80 degrees when gaming and hitting 90 with Cinebench are nothing uncommon, though it depends on the particular unit and motherboard combination. Some people get much better temps even on the same hardware, it's a lottery.

1. update your bios 2. if that doesn't help, try different usb port 3. if that doesn't help, try downgrading PCIE from 4.0 to 3.0 in BIOS, and try different USB ports again 4. If that doesn't help, maybe external USB hub will.

This can happen if you load a mission with fog.

If I go into the front cockpit and manually play with the sights, then after I'm back to piloting the helicopter, Petrovitch is unable to find targets any more. I think it's related to sight zoom level, because I managed to "fix" it in the attached track by changing the zoom level back to wide angle. 1st attempt at searching for targets after taking off - Petro OK. 2nd attempt at searching for targets after changing sight zoom to narrow FOV - Petro Blind 3rd attempt at searching for targets after changing sight zoom to wide FOV - Petro Ok again PetroBlind.trk

The issue is back, IHADSS brightness starts to flicker whenever rotors get in the field of view (or close by).

Thanks for the write up. Yeah, I don't know what combination of settings causes such difference on my system, but I did several test and it always came out like that. Back when I used RTX3080, both were about equal in performance. SteamVR always offered better reprojection quality, as you've pointed out.

In case you guys haven't noticed, there have been some updates to WMR for SteamVR software recently that claim to fix some stability and performance issues. May be worth checking out if you switched to OpenXR. As at least on my system with RTX4090, I get noticeably better FPS with SteamVR now than with OpenXR at the same 140% resolution on Reverb G2. Where OpenXR makes 80 with GPU loaded to the max, SteamVR can hold 90 fps with some room to spare. https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/719950/view/3680036899858715469?l=english

I just use OpenComposite runtime switcher. If I press the "switch to OpenComposite" button in that program, it's using OXR. If I start SteamVR after that, it automatically switches back to SVR. It's the opposite for me. In the same spot where SteamVR produces 90 fps with a hefty headroom, in OpenXR I barely get 80 fps at noticeably higher GPU usage. That's at the same resolution per-eye (140%) and without any upscaling/FSR, as these work differently in each runtime so they are not really comparable. For what it's worth, I have "optimize rendering" option checked in WMR for SteamVR software, and HAGS is disabled in Windows settings, VR really doesn't like it. (not my screenshot, ignore other options).

Short question, have you tried SteamVR instead of OpenXR lately? When I checked, I got better performance with 4090 on steamVR, it received some stability and performance improvements no so long ago.

Looking at CPU utilization is useless for games, because it will show 100% only if all cores are fully loaded. Which is rare for any game, and especially for DCS that is still mostly limited to 1-2 cores. A more meaningful metric is GPU usage. If GPU usage is not close to 100%, then CPU/memory is the limit.

People may confuse two things. The Frame Generation feature introduced in DLSS3 for RTX4000 series cards will not work in VR. But the DLSS itself (antialiasing and upscaling) works just fine. It may not produce image quality to your liking, but that's another matter.

Your Ryzen 3700x is THAT old. Best course of action would be to change it to 5800X3D, which should be compatible with your motherboard. It's sold at some pretty discounts lately. If you want to be sure, chekc FPS VR or OpenXR debug statistics (depending on which runtime you use) and check if CPU frametimes are higher than GPU frametimes. That's an indicator of CPU bottleneck in VR.

Yes, it's noticeably lighter, but at the cost of being more prone to slide on the desk, unless you mount it or use the included suction cups. In the Warthog throttle iirc most of the weight is in the bottom plate, you can remove it and replace it with something lighter.

In this case you're testing GPU limits, not CPU. Not a bad thing to do, just different. For me the GPU usage in this spot does not ever reach 100%, so my FPS measurements are limited by CPU.

What's your gpu usage with all shadows off? 100% or less?

Ok, I tested the same spot on High preset but with All shadows disabled (both terrain objects and main shadows setting to OFF), and the performance of both 2.7 and 2.8 is the same, hovering around 180 FPS. And looks like I'm still on CPU limit, so GPU is not skewing the result. I guess that is a good news, it shows that the shadows are indeed the main culprit of increased CPU usage in 2.8.

In a situation where you are cpu limited, cranking up a gpu intensive option will not have a noticeable effect. I could increase resolution or msaa, and it also wouldn't decrease framerate, at least not in that spot. Besides, it's not that Default option has no penalty on the cpu, more likely the cost of extra objects added with shadows OFF negates the gains from not displaying shadows. Maybe tomorrow I'll check how are the numbers with all shadows off, including self shadowing and cockpit. That should reduce the object count.

Default shadows are not free, they put more load on GPU. In this particular spot and with an RTX4090, the GPU has extra power to spare, so they don't make a big dent in FPS. Doesn't mean it's always like that. You can see this difference between various options better in the screenshots from VR that I posted on the previous page. Gpu frametimes are the worst with Default shadows, Flat shadows reduce GPU frametimes but increase CPU frametimes. Setting the shadows to OFF reduces both, but not by much. CPU Frametimes without objects shadows in 2.8 are still higher than in 2.7 with shadows on.

Glideslope needle is nicely lit, but you can barely see the localizer. Also the ILS needles on the ADI are the only ones not affected by UV lighting knob, so there's no way to make them brighter. On the screenshot below you can see, or rather not see, the localizer needle that is in the centre of ADI.

HSI course setting does not take into account the magnetic declination. Which causes CDI to show incorrect deviation from course. For example here I'm parked on the runway heading 028 and tuned to LSV tacan at the opposite end. Bearing pointer shows correct direction to the beacon (25 degrees), yet CDI is centered when I set the course 37 degrees on the HSI, not 25. This difference happens to be the magnetic declination on this map (12 degrees). Same problem exists with VOR. CDI should be centered when course setting is the same as bearing to station. The two pointers should align. VOR and TACAN use magnetic bearings.

Flat shadows are created by making a flattened version of each object and drawing it as shadow. This is an older method of creating shadows, not very efficient when there is a lot of high-poly objects around (like on a ramp) but it does not put as much load on the GPU as the GPU-based "default" shadows. For example when flying over a city where there are many simple buildings and trees, it will perform better. But why in 2.8 there's so much more geometry generated with flat/off shadows, and why even "default" option reports a lot of extra geometry for no apparent reason, I've no idea. That's the question to ED devs. Another example is the same mission tested in VR. Standing in the parking spot and looking to the right. You can see that "Default" shadows in 2.7 put a bit more pressure on the GPU, but less load on the CPU, so it's always a tradeoff. Either way, RTX4090 + 5800X3D is able to make 90 fps on "High" preset in this particular scene (just barely). That's simply not possible in 2.8. Even with "default" shadows, there's noticeably higher load on both CPU and GPU comapred to 2.7. "Flat" shadows in 2.8 are abysmal, with 30% increase in CPU frametimes compared to the same setting in 2.7. Only turning the terrain objects shadows OFF brings the performance back, but the CPU load is still suspiciously high, higher in fact than 2.7 with default shadows on. No wonder with all that extra geometry created for no reason, as explained in the first post. 2.7 preset HIGH, terrain objects shadows default: 2.7 preset HIGH, terrain objects shadows Flat: 2.8 preset HIGH, terrain objects shadows default: 2.8 preset HIGH, terrain objects shadows Flat: 2.8 preset HIGH, terrain objects shadows OFF: hornetReadyRampVR.trk

I used the Hornet ready on the ramp instant action mission comparing both the latest DCS 2.7 and 2.8.1 which was uploaded to "stable" branch yesterday. Using clean DCS "saved games" folder, "high" graphics preset, just changing the Terrain Objects Shadows option. So it's the same track, the same preset and the same conditions in both cases. The tests are on a PC with Ryzen 5800X3D, RTX4090 and 64GB ram, in this scenario the game is CPU limited all the time. The results, according to the built-in stats are: Version Objects Shadows FPS Objects Triangles 2.7.18 Default 139 1511 1,5 milion 2.7.18 Flat 130 2689 2.8 milion 2.7.18 Off (doesn't work) - - - 2.8.1 Default 131 1700 2,5 milion 2.8.1 Flat 111 3880 6,4 milion 2.8.1 Off 133 3880 6,4 milion Several issues are clearly visible: 1. Even with terrain shadows set to off, the game is preparing all the shadow related geometry like it would with Flat shadows. Which is A LOT, especially for something that is never displayed on the screen. It may be related to the fact, that this option still creates shadows in 2.7 even when OFF, and it might not have been correctly disabled in 2.8. 2. Flat shadows generate a lot more geometry in 2.8. In 2.7 the increase between "default" and "flat" is 86%. In 2.8, the increase from "default" to "flat" is 155%. I'm not surprised that Flat shadows create extra geometry, as I understand they work by creating a "pancake" version of every model and add it to the scene as shadow. I'm not even surprised that this option in both 2.7 and 2.8 generates less FPS in this particular scene, as it doesn't work well when there's a lot of high poly models around. It still works better when there's a lot of shadows from a simple geometry, like flying over a city. But what's surprising, is the huge jump in generated geometry between 2.7 and 2.8, which is reflected in FPS hit: 7% in 2.7, but 15% in 2.8. 3. Flat shadows look nothing like they did in 2.7. In the previous version they were sharp and aliased. In 2.8 they are smooth and blended. Don't think it comes for free. 4. Even in a "best case" scenario with "default" shadows, DCS 2.8 is creating 66% more triangles for no apparent reason at the same game settings, according to the metric in game. It looks like the poor performance in VR is just a reflection of worse 2.8 performance overall. It's just that people playing the game in VR are more susceptible to 10-20% drops in performance, while on a monitor it may not be noticeable if the game now makes 110 FPS instead of 130. Also with a weaker GPU the results will look different, as it will mask the problems with CPU being overloaded with extra geometry in 2.8. 2.7 flat: 2.7 default: 2.8 default: 2.8 flat: 2.8 off: hornetReadyRamp.trk DxDiag.txt