remi

I'm honestly surprised that it's boring to be able to read cockpit gauges and be able to spot targets. Why are you even playing DCS?

No, when people here tout the Oculus v1 as the ultimate VR setup, and some poor lad decides to spend hundreds of dollars on a v1 kit only to be disappointed by the lack of features and low resolution and other disadvantages, it's skin off THEIR back, all for the sake of you making yourself feel better with using an inferior set of displays. Everyone should wait until the technology matures before recommending purchase of extremely expensive equipment. Of course VR has the potential for great things in DCS, but the disadvantages outweigh the positives, despite the current gimmicky "immersion" that people here keep touting. VR is immersive, no matter what game you're playing. Heck, a bathroom toilet could be modeled, and you literally crapped your pants because you thought you were sitting on a real toilet, and yet you would say "get the Oculus, because I literally crapped my pants on a virtual toilet! So immersive!" :doh: Wait until v2!!

I think the benefits of VR will outweigh the negatives once the screen resolution improves and computers become powerful enough to handle it. Until then, the people who use VR right now are fooling themselves into thinking that VR right now is superior to traditional displays enough to use VR exclusively.

Low resolution, high system requirements, difficulty spotting targets, inability to read fine details in the cockpit, not being able to see your keyboard or your HOTAS... yeah, I wonder why there are negative comments! :doh:

Dam busting

Glad to notice the small improvements.

I think a lot of people like new stuff, even though it's not feature-complete. I'd be happy with just functional traps and catapults.

Curved is better for gaming, flat is better for image work.

Reasons to go with Threadripper: 1) AMD NVMe Bootable RAID will be possible with a motherboard firmware update soon. Intel: need to pay up for anything other than RAID0, and you also have to use Intel-branded SSDs. 2) Cheaper many-core, with the $999 threadripper you get 16 cores vs Intel's 10 cores. 60% more cores means much higher performance in multi-threaded apps, which will translate to much higher gaming performance once developers start incorporating multi-threaded optimizations (which WILL happen since enthusiasts are now buying things like Ryzen and TR much more often than previously with just Intel's 4 core). Intel: need to pay much higher prices for HEDT parts, and need to pay more for unlocking features, and need to pay more for more cores, and need to pay more for motherboards. AMD prefers to offer value instead of nickle-and-diming its customers. 3) 64 PCIe lanes (60 through CPU) is much better for storage transfer speeds, multi-GPU, 10-GigE ethernet, etc. Intel: severely limits the number of CPU PCIe lanes, and instead sends data more through the DMI. The trajectories of Intel and AMD are very, very different, and I am more hopeful that AMD will push the boundaries farther than Intel, for higher performance, for less cost. Intel currently has better single-threaded performance, but it might not last forever. They're having a hard enough time getting their process nodes down to 10nm. There might be a better approach with just "gluing" dies together and weaving connections between them than just building higher core single die parts. NVIDIA seems to be evaluating this as an option to increase the number of cores on its chips. Maybe we'll see more and more dies that are linked as the plans to shrink process nodes becomes harder and more expensive. Go with AMD, and you'll have a socket (TR4) that can easily fit an updates Threadripper CPU in several years. Why go with Intel when they seem to change sockets and motherboard requirements every couple years so that they force customers to buy brand new motherboards?

This is the problem with not making people pay for the core engine. The development is focused on money-making endeavors, which is primarily modules, which is why are getting mostly new modules and not new engine features. If engine enhancements were paid for, and required a monthly subscription to keep getting updates and access to new modules, then the engine itself would be a money-making endeavor. Having a steady stream of monthly revenue would allow the hiring of additional programmers solely for engine development.

If ED charged $1/month for a subscription to DCS updates from 2.5 onward, this would generate a lot of revenue for the ED team so they could hire additional development staff, and actually work out the bugs and deficiencies. Doubt people would be supportive of such a move, even for such a low subscription fee.

It makes perfect sense!

I'm at $1214.… still waiting to actually play the modules in a decent state. I've only used KA-50 so far.

Good summary of the situation. I think priority should be: 1) DCS 2.5 2) Strait of Hormuz 3) F/A-18 4) Carrier Ops 5) Korea (modern day) 6) SOH campaign for all relevant aircraft 7) Afghanistan

What is the stuttering from?

What do you mean by performance? Loading time? Frame rate? Stuttering with texture and asset loading?

Good points. Do you see a high failure rate of SSDs? Or are you specifically talking about spinning platters? We're not sure on 7920x+ intel chips either, they might have 64 lanes like threadripper, though we'll find out in a few months.

I think the VROC unlock key is for other kinds of RAID besides RAID0. I don't know what the advantage of RAID redundancy with SSDs is, but I wouldn't dedicate redundant M.2 SSDs for data security, would rather just backup to a RAID hard disk array or maybe a regular 2.5" SSD array. There haven't been any benchmarks with VROC, but I would imagine that any drive even if non-RAID that goes through the CPU lanes directly without going through DMI is going to have blazing performance for games that load data from storage while in the simulation. We all know how big and detailed the new maps are, and I doubt that the RAM and VRAM will be loaded with every possible texture and model for a map. My goal is to minimize stutter to provide the smoothest simulation. I am hoping that AMD has some sort of similar technology in the works, because the PPF ratio for threadripper is so much better than Intel at the moment.

More lanes are coming with threadripper and skylake-X. Fortunately we won't have to worry about lacking PCI-e. Regarding RAID-0: the key will be when the VROC boards come out for Intel motherboards. RAID-0 through the CPU directly. Doesn't even go through the DMI 3.0 chipset. Should be blazing speed!

What about Vive? I say go with 4k. Especially with the others in this topic saying that you can operate the aircraft without zooming in, I think 4k is the best, and it's the future. The only thing better would be 4k 21:9, but that won't happen until next year at the earliest.

Any plans for content creation?

Does he have any relationship with Gametrix? What if the Gametrix seat is defective? Who do I talk with to get a replacement/refund? The mechanism is motorized, correct? Everything wears out. $100 for the seat seems realistic, but $200 for something that won't last more than 3 years? I'll probably be buying it, but I still have some hesitation.

I went through several pages in this thread, but the basic idea I got was that Gametrix manufactures the seat, and you just resell the seat for English-speaking customers? The price difference is quite substantial. Is there anything I'm missing?

Just wait for the next version. DCS would benefit greatly from higher resolution screens.

What is difference between this link and this one: http://shop.gametrix.ru/vibronakidki.html ? Any planned updates to the seat within the next 12 months?