some1

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.

I can read the same numbers from a display directly on my UPS. It shows voltage, frequency, load in VA, load in Watts, and other things, same as an inline meter. It's just more convenient to display them on my PC screen sent through an USB connection. So is that a meter or a software? Also you're diving into minutiae that are becoming less relevant to the discussion here. The efficiency curve at various loads, or 110V vs 230V difference is something that may save you a few cents in the long run, but it makes little difference when it comes to the choice of PSU output power. Here are example efficiency curves from Corsair manuals. You have something like 1% drop in efficiency between 50% and 75% load, and 2% drop between 110V and 230V. Plus the efficiency curve of the more powerful PSU is shifted left, so the difference between them at the same wattage is even smaller. First of all you need to know which CPU will be used with the card. These recommendations come from the simple fact that these GPUs can be paired with any possible CPU. An 80W AMD, or a 250+W Intel. So in this context it makes sense that a card that's slightly more power hungry will require at least 850W PSU. But we're discussing 7800X3D, not Intels, and it this context, any 4090 model will fit in the recommended 850W.

Sure, but we're not in a business where it has to be measured super accurately. 50W this or that way won't change the overall picture. EightyDeuce measurments are... something else I also checked my UPS with an inline meter and it also showed similar numbers. Reading them from UPS software is just more convenient.

Check the Bloom checkbox in the VR tab in DCS settings.

For turn&burn, it's mostly the weight. If you compare them at the same weights, then F-15E actually has better sustained turn performance in DCS than C. At least at the speeds and alts I checked. But that means comparing a fully fuelled C with an E that has 20% of gas.

Sure, here's a benchmark run of Cyberpunk at the highest setting. 640W max, and that includes a 42" TV that's connected to the same UPS and everything else I have on my desk, not necessarily connected to the PC. I mean you have a GPU that at stock setting won't take more than 450W, a CPU that takes less than 100W (during CP2077 benchmark it's more like 40-50W), so either you have something else inside your PC that eats additional 300W, a very inefficient PSU, or a power meter that is somewhat pessimistic. Don't worry too much, even if the readings are true, you have to multiply them by PSU efficiency, so that's around 800W of actual PSU load.

I think the PSU should be more accurate, and also give you the actual output power readout, while the power meters at the wall socket measure power draw including PSU efficiency losses, so they skew the numbers high. Regardless, even basic power meter that is off by a few % will get you in the right ballpark. Interesting I wonder what else in your PC can take so much power above what I got here.

That's a lot @EightyDuce, 300W more than my Pc with similar specs. Is that only the computer, or also including Monitor, and other things you have on the desk?