KansasCS

Apologies. For some reason I saw a 21:9 1440p monitor there. I know that a 1080 can handle 4K quite well. DCS is, as we all know, not as GPU focused, though 2.0 Alpha is a different story. The Benchmark sticky suggests that the performance hit from 1440p top 4K isn't that big, but I wouldnt bet on it when flying over forrests or very populated servers. Performance can be very errratic with DCS. My rule of thumb is: Upgrade GPU now (to 1080), there is still some stuff you can max out in your settings(water, draw distance, etc), which would make your current resolution very neat. And when 4K monitors drop in price further, say 1-2 years, migrate. I'd rather have a higher constant framerate on 1440p than struggle with lower ones on 4K. http://www.computerbase.de/2016-06/inno3d-ichill-geforce-gtx-1080-x3-test/3/#diagramm-rise-of-the-tomb-raider-3840-2160 This is a benchmark for the upcoming 1080 with 4K resolution. Take it with a grain of salt though. Those are all very GPU intense games, some of which run on DX12.

I'm currently running the latter. The Gsync all the way up to 144Hz is nice, but not really needed most of the time. Around 30-50fps is where Gsync really carries. The former has 21:9 ratio, which is very good for Flightsims, but I'm not sure your 780 can handle the extra pixels. Bare in mind that Gsync only starts at 30fps.

Overclocking my rig - rough gains? Going into xmp mode, setting the multiplier to 45, the cache to 40 and the DRAM frequency to 1330, leaving everything else on auto, including Voltages, XTU is showing 1,27V under stress test load, 10 min and no crash. Temps stay under 81 Celsius.

Well, I tried it and fps wise I didn't see a difference. I'll look closer again tomorrow, but my my first impression is that it has no impact for me. BTW: 12 hour stress testing and no crashes led me to believe that my System is stable. The fact that the entire system froze after 1,5 hours of DCS told me otherwise. I don't get it. I tweak everything and I simply can't get a stable system. These crashes seem random too. A few weeks ago I used the mobos auto tweaker and had no problem for days. Then all of a sudden, every evening, the PC would go blue screen on me at least once. I reverted back to standard boost clocks of 4,4, and just yesterday tried myself with manual OC. Not really getting a hang of it, despite extensive reading. Or maybe My CPU just doesn't like me. Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

2016 Hardware Benchmark - DCS World 1.5.x I currently run with DDR3-1330 memory. Is it safe to say that an upgrade to DDR3-2400 will see a considerable performance increase? (I deduce this from the 2133 to 2400 Performance gain with DDR4, but I don't Know of this can be applied to DDR3) Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

Overclocking my rig - rough gains? Can anyone confirm this? Normally, turning off HT has adverse effects. (At least with other applications). Does this bare truth for 2.0 alpha as well? BTW: I too, have a 4790K. I'm in the process of OCing to 4,5(beyond that I get unstable). But if the difference is 2-3fps, I won't bother. Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

Also. These are games that are GPU dependent. DCS is a different story entirely. Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

These are stock clocks. I want to see a 1070 beat a factory overclocked 980 ti.

I am very curious to know if and how much the performance advantage has an impact on FPS. On high settings with maxed out visibility and 2xAA, my 980ti struggles around 24fps when I'm flying low and have both the TGP and MAV pages active in the left and right MFDs. If anyone gets his hand on a custom 1080 with some 18xx boost clock(reference clock is bad for comparison because I have a 980 tI sc+), I'd be happy if some impressions could be conveyed here.

Nice! :) Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

I flew this mission a while back and the problems are still there. Neither does the JTAC have any targets for me, nor does the AI SEAD flight do its job. With the current subpar WHOT/BHOT TGP modes, looking for Tunguskas at night is not very successful. No matter how I play this mission, fly within the waypoint time frames or loiter for god knows how long while a pretty static battle rages below, I simply cannot finnish this mission.

In order to fit larger pages for more detailed pictures, mostly. I like that the Briefing is streamlined and that you can open the mission planer to configure stuff. But sometimes I'd like to upload more specific jpeg elements, only they can be quite small on not so big monitors. Cheers

Incidentally, this only happens on the buddyspike server. I manage to connect and fly just fine on others. While this might be a be a problem on their side, a complete crash to desktop most likely is not. I attached the crash logs. I hope they can help. Logs.rar

Mai 2016 Still no news :D

Having issues since 1.5.3.53108. It seemingly detects new hardware, where there is none.

Ausgezeichnetes Nachschlagewerk :) Wirst du das Ganze vlt auch irgendwann ins Englische übersetzen? Gruß

Yes of course :) my mistake.

Indeed, I stand corrected. Further reading on the same site: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html I highlighted the areas Kurfürst might be referring to. He is not wrong that the 150 grade fuel in MkIXs were primarily(moreover initially) used for V1 intercepts; yet they saw broader action over continental Europe later on. Furthermore, the order to pull mainland based spits from the fuel again was apperently not done extensively. I reckon ED is modelling an 18lbs boost Spitfire, simply because there might be more consistent and detailed data for it. After all, minor changes had to be made to the engine to endure the higher rated fuel(As read in the article, spark plug problems were initially not unheard of). Bluntly put and as far as I understood the article, modelling a Merlin 66 with 150oct fuel is more complex than simply "making the boost needle hit the 25 and adjusting level speeds". It is a different engine entirely, at least from a sim developers POV. This article reveals something else too, which I noticed in complaints from other threads as well: That the DCS Mustang is literally underrated. But that is a for a different thread. PS: If all this was mentioned in this thread before, I humbly apologize. Also, for the sake of being the nitpickers we apparently are, a second different source on the matter would be good, though at the time of writing this, I haven't found one.

So the speed advantage coming from the higher grade fuel is roughly 23mph in lower altitudes. Highly substantial. If it bears truth though that the 150 octane fuel was a rarity among allied forces(as stated by Kurfürst I believe), only used for V1 hunting, why is everyone upset that we aren't getting a 25lbs version? Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

It's dawning on me. The mustang has a similar system. Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

Ah. Ok :) Still, the graph is confusing. How do I read it? Was the S gear only used at higher altitudes, I take it? And from which altitude onwards? Or is it overlayed, meaning the boost lines can be imagined as going through the M gear lines, slightly below? Apologies for my reckless lack of knowledge. Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

Also, I'd like to see concrete Speed/rate of climb over altitude charts. Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

What am I looking at? (What is M/S gear?) Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

Side question here before you people can get back to this wonderfully lively debate: What is the actual Performance increase from the 25pound boost over the 18pound? Is there a comparison diagram someone could link me to? Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

Ok. Will Try asap