Lurker

Well yeah I guess you could do that. However it would be very clunky difficult and slow. Since there are so many variables involved, I never test within DCS World itself. If I can get a stable overclock, with software designed to do that, I do that and test that. Then only once I do so, do I enter DCS World and play a scenario that I use to "test" my changes so to speak. I put "test" in parenthesis because I never test with FPS counters or frame-time counters or anything else within DCS World either. I usually just play the game and see how responsive and smooth it is in comparison to the last time I played it. I choose one single player scenario with a relatively large unit count and drop some weapons on them. Usually with demanding maps\modules. Lately Syria+Hind.

Just download the XTU utility from Intel and take it from there. It has convenient benchmarks which will score your overclocks. If at any time your PC becomes unresponsive, you can reboot your PC and it will default to the last stable overclock.

I can't comment on anyone else's performance but my CPU frame times are significantly lower than GPU times, so I don't think it's down to my CPU. Again, this is in VR. I don't discount the probability of the Apache requiring a very hefty CPU in addition to the GPU requirements. Which is why I would like some official comments on this matter. I have noticed that the Hind (which is the last module I bought) has significant overhead, and most of it is GPU related. (Which everyone who monitors those kinds of issues can confirm) I did not buy the Mossie, but I have heard and read from others on this forum that it is also intensely GPU bound. It would really be appreciated if we could get some comments on how the Apache will perform in VR at Early Access. If that is not possible then at least maybe we could get some general comparisons to the other already released modules and maybe some performance targets. I don't think this is an unreasonable request.

What exactly does CPU core usage tell you about CPU performance? Let me answer that. Just one thing. That your CPU is in use.

What do you mean? An M2 is just another type of SSD.

I think that these types of videos, while informative actually improve our understanding of the various tech and how it works behind the scenes only marginally. The answer is, as it invariably always is with these types of questions: It depends. And a lot of it depends on what software\games you run and how you run it on your GFX card. We have no idea how DCS World allocates VRAM and how much of the memory is pre-allocated, changed on the fly, emptied and filled up etc. What we can definitively say is that with increased resolutions, more VRAM is definitely better. In VR, not only are you pushing double the pixels of a typical scene, you are rendering two different viewpoints and here VRAM is definitely going to be an important consideration but definitively not the only one. In short. No it's not just about VRAM, it's the whole package. If you are asking whether your GTX1060 is enough to run DCS World in VR then I would say, yes you probably could run it at Rift S resolutions (and no upscaling) but only barely. It would not be a satisfying experience.

An interceptor doesn't necessarily mean that an aircraft needs to maneuverable. In fact, the best interceptors were usually anything BUT maneuverable. The Mig21 is not an interceptor by design. It might have been used in that role, especially later and by client states who could not afford a dedicated interceptor (or didn't need one) but it was always designed to be a fighter first and foremost.

I haven't done detailed testing, but as a VR user myself it definitely helped with performance. My overclock is modest, and I use a pretty decent cooling solution (BeQuiet 240mm Watercooling). I can probably push it higher but I don't want to go overboard with voltage. I'm using a i5-9600k and have overclocked it using Intel's XTU to 4.8Ghz stable, with a cache overclock to 4.5 Ghz.

I've recently upgraded from the Rift S to the G2. The result is a significant upgrade of the clarity of the headset in the middle or the so called "sweet" spot. I can now read pretty much every single instrument without resorting to zoom. It does need beefier hardware to run properly, or be prepared to lower detail settings. It's also a bit of a hassle to set up.

I'm trying not to get too hyped about it. While the footage looks very sexy and cool, I keep worrying about performance. The Hind has literally brought my PC down to it's knees (I run a 3090GTX and VR) and I have had to drop graphical settings to get it to run at 45/90 FPS (Usually 45 with motion smoothing) significantly since it's release. The Apache seems to have even more detail and I wonder if we really need it all. Maybe some of the internal alpha\beta testers can chime in on the current performance of the module to set our minds at ease. The last thing I would want to do is pre-order, only to discover that it is unplayable in VR.

Could it simply be High Explosion area damage? (As a way to simulate fragmentation modeling?)

@ebabil You got a link to that reddit thread? Could be that you're reading too much into it, but if not that is indeed great news.

Just came across this little walkaround of a former RAAF F-111 (that also used to serve in USAF previously)

I like this answer. No unrealistic expectations or hype. Even though the trailer seems to make it look like it's already in a pretty advanced state at least with regards to the external model, weapons use and some of the cockpit functionality.

I noticed that not every single round fired from the cannon is a tracer now. I assume that's by design? Haven't had the chance to test the mixed belts against infantry but it's a welcome change, so well done Eagle Dynamics.

I'd say that you can't go wrong with the F-5. What you have to realize though is that it's definitely not a BVR fighter. If you want to learn the basics of beyond visual range fighting you will need to purchase another module. My favorite in that regard, due to it's simplicity and ease of use is the Mirage.

Please provide one example of where this has happened. Just one. I'll wait. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying that I have never noticed this. My solution so far has been to buy better and better hardware.

One other thing to consider, the promise of some future update that optimizes the performance of DCS World across the board like some kind of magic "silver bullet" sounds great in theory but it's not really relevant in the context of this performance\bug report. Plenty can already be done with regards to the current engine and models, there are definitely ways to optimize triangles and polys and textures to make better use of our hardware and it doesn't require any kind of magic bullet. Just some degradation of visual fidelity and some extra work on the part of 3d model\texture artists.

Dropping settings to get stable VR performance should not be a trend in DCS World, and it certainly looks like it's becoming one. This is completely unacceptable, and very consumer unfriendly. I understand that these are early access models, but why isn't performance at least as important as visual fidelity? We are certainly living in an age where for some reason chip scarcity and demand is driving prices up across the board, and buying prohibitively expensive hardware to fix unoptimized software should not be the answer. (Not to mention the fact that for the most part we already have the best hardware that money can buy)

Well this is probably the future of simulator training. Maybe even as a toy for the insanely wealthy.

It would probably be a good idea to report back on Mossie performance issues in the Mossie part of the forum. But it's a sadly a trend in DCS World, so I doubt they will scale it back. So much detail goes into the modules, that each successive module is more performance hungry than the previous one. It's getting way out of hand I think.

Maybe some of the early testers who have access to the module will chime in on the control logic within the SIM itself. Let's hope that trimming the pedals is an optional checkbox. Thanks for the reply kgillers3.

I have another question, hopefully Raptor9 or kgillers3 can enlighten me I've removed the spring from my Saitek Pro Rudder Pedals, which has allowed me (now that I've adjusted them for proper tension) to move the pedals to their desired deflection and simply leave them there, dispensing with any pedal trim. (Which on the Hind is optional) This works quite well, although with the AP logic that the Hind uses, doesn't let me use the Heading Hold YAW AP channel, which isn't really a problem. Do you guys foresee spring-less pedals as a problem with the upcoming Apache module? If I understood the gist of the thread correctly, whenever the trim button is released in the real Apache both the cyclic and the pedals are trimmed for the new flight conditions. I'm afraid that with spring-less pedals the game logic might be: "Oh look the pedals are not in neutral position, which means tell the flight computer to disengage all AP logic"

I've removed the spring from my Saitek Pro Flight Rudder pedals and it works like a dream in the Mi24p. Takes some getting used to, but they work surprisingly well. Air starts are a no go though as the pedals are not centered usually. Still makes the helicopter very controllable, especially if you can get them to the correct tension settings so that the inputs are smooth and precise. The take-offs and landings are a bit harder now because you don't have the YAW channel to assist you but I think it's how the real pilots do it anyway.

What system is that? As I have an i5-9600k overclocked to 4.8Ghz, a RTX3090, AIO Watercooling solution, and a NVME M2 SSD 1 TB and I'm still struggling with DCS World and using the G2. Don't under-estimate the system requirements for VR. They are HUGE.