Worrazen

If you don't purposelly look for bad things, know what to avoid, and don't make yourself obvious on the web, have good firewalls, router settings, other options and settings, well configured OS and maintained without any bloatware, cheapware, it goes a long way minimizing the risks, this is something average users don't do well and they are being bombarded by the security threat hysteria and update hysteria perpetuated by the industry which stands to gain from this a lot more than a random user could gain. The security threat hysteria in the minds of average users is firstly fueled by a genuine factor of various individuals and teams on the web who do go in depth and are serious about security, however many of that applies more to serious targets and high risk systems such as infrastructure and big deployments, large websites and datacenters, various institutions, all those details in various security blogs do matter and there's nothing wrong with being extra cautious there, a lot of that comes from various linux communities and linux communities are largely populated by actual employees of the enterprise sector, they do have a good reason to take security that seriously. So this then drip down to other home users and so on, even tho it was never the home users who were the root source of being so security-careful in the first place, such and similar things, secondly, what's targeting average users/gamers next are ofcourse sneaky advertising campaigns by the very industry or individuals selling various security tools and packages, they have a vested interest in creating the idea you will be infected any time now buuhuuu. It has a much lower chance of happening if you don't do things that invite it in, even if millions do this out of convenience you're not suppose to have autoplay enabled and execute/run/transfer files immediately after you put a friends/unknown USB stick in your main PC, a Infact if you're hacked for real, breached by a real person remotely in actual real-time than the person on the other side is more than likely well equipped and he's going to throw all his focus onto your systems, that's where all those networking settings/configs come in first and foremost, passwords, and various measures and practices that are in addition to the file-scanning utilities that only clean things once you're already been infected, all of this is overshadowed because of this popular idea that so much about the security is down to anti-virus or anti-malware scanning software which I don't think is the case. The actual live hacker attacking your system would also abuse such vulnerabilities that aren't known at large which would mean even if you have all the file-scanning security software installed they may be totally ineffective. Secondly, such serious hackers don't even do much once they breach in, they sit and look, scout around, they don't start making it obvious by installing amateur malware to make it obvious, they gather info and may slowly try to gain more access while remaining stealthy, that's why being educated on networking, analysis and diagnostics is recommended as you can spot such suspicious network activity. It's hard for a home user to really be secure with any of these simple solutions, it's expensive and impractical for most home users to replicate corporate/enterprise systems where security is such a multi-layer setup with (hopefully) live technicians maintaining and watching network activity, if your networking setup is fundamentally bad there's not much any of these updates and file-scanning utilities will do, if you have ports open, no password on router, weak OS passwords, firewall and other misconfigurations, it's like swiss cheese. The third thing fueling this security threat hysteria are the over-exaggerating tech and gaming medias which, you guessed it, have vested interest in creating dramatic news for attracting readers, and half the time they take unrealistic and edge-case examples that don't have high probability to be relevant to most home users and make a big deal out of it, which freaks out the unsavvy computer users, thus fueling more security threat hysteria. Now ofcourse there is a valid use with file-scanning security utilities and such, but it should always be referred to as one helpful factor, not some solution with some overzealous assurances. Also many other "cleanup, scan, immunize, etc" softwares that are part of security, yes they do help, however they're not doing anything special what a computer technician/administrator/security expert knows how to do himself manually anyway, so it's a choice, pay for potentially overpriced utility to do it, or should I take some time and learn how to do it myself manually and perhaps better? Microsoft also has benefit from this hysteria, because they also have "anti-virus" software boundled with their OS, but they went a step further, they piggybacked on the security threat hysteria to promote their products and services through the update hysteria, which encompasses everything else that's not security related, because they don't necessairly benefit from just the security aspect alone, they have a vested interest to keep as many of their users on the latest versions to promote their products and services and get as many potential customers into their latest offerings, so this kind of update hysteria is used to scare people into updating ASAP, playing largely on the security aspect ofcourse, that you might be hacked any time now if you dare to have your OS outdated by a few days. Is it really about your security, or do you think it's first and foremost more about their control of the market, OS usage statistics, built-in advertising results, users of their built-in services (one drive), and ofcourse a truckload of telemetry data. It'd say it's all that before your security, they nor the security industry don't lose anything if you're hacked, infected or have your files deleted.

Earlier: I happen to have some issue displaying the long post, I used pages thinking it was a "horizontal rule", now I'm trying to get rid of them and HTML is playing tricks on me. I got rid of the page breaks and tried many different manual separators (minus signs, or slashes, spoilers, etc), that didn't work, it seemed like page breaks were being added automatically randomly which didn't make sense. I resorted to trying to recreate the page separation which worked fine (split correctly) the first time, but it won't budge now, it seems it's broken and does not respect the page separators anymore, pages are thus split incorrectly producing a messy result. I spent like 3 hours trying to fix it and I can't do it all day long so, I'll be trying as time allows, forum staff might have to look into it what's going on with it. Final update: I decided to declare this thread broken and used a completely different method in a new thread instead. Below is a modified excerpt of the new thread, what this thread was originally about, and this is the content that the replies here are referring to: New Thread:

So I made a test that may be taken with a bit of salt, because I had to use DXVK that translates DCS DX11 to Vulkan and is quite glitchy (smoke behaves different, trees don't look right, cockpit blinks) ... but despite that it may not necessairly be totally useless. This is an example of idling in cockpit of F/A-18C on runway, with "normal" FPS. Event Timing: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is the summary when I caught the frames excatly when the FPS drop happens: Event Timing: As per Radeon GPU Profiler (which doesn't support DX11), if the tool and this test is valid, you can see it says "CPU Bound" in the second set of pictures, which indicates the GPU is sitting around doing nothing and waiting for the CPU to provide more work apparently. Root cause of the issue could still have to do with what's usually classified as "graphics" but I think from what I can see I can say it doesn't look like a rendering issue, and in my other anaylsis I didn't see any other indicators, it looks to be some bug accessing the tables of weapons, with the data, LUA or IMGUI issue. Infact the CPU usage of the DCS "GPU-Driver" thread lowers to almost nothing when it lags, but that's just another consequence most likely because there's no work for the GPU for a long period, what's stalling this up is probably stalling up the whole pipeline yep. Probably not much of help technically, but I guess something for us to crunch on while we wait, well at least for me it does make it easier if I thinker with it if time allows.

Must be some edge case, because it has improved significantly, it's so fast now compared to 6 months ago the last time I was active.

Hi So I figured out by accident, it is possible to minimize DCS by forcing it in a program called GUIPropView from Nirsoft which known for a lot of various useful tools, well this is one big useful thing to the list. Normally DCS doesn't have a way to be minimized, but this is also due to slack on MS/Windows part as they started cutting back on features ever since Windows XP days, for example the commonly present "Always On Top" was missing unless an application specifically supported it past Windows XP. DCS currently has had for many years this unique kind of approach with it's windowing behavior, supporting only borderless fullscreen if I'm not mistaken (tho when I went to 1080p and fullscreen it kinda flipped the screen as if I went to exclusive fullscreen) and always sticking in front except by focusing another window over it, losing that focus fallbacks to DCS, trying to actually minimize won't work, WINKEY + M isn't respected, and ofcourse right clicking on the taskbar item and selecting Minimize isn't an option with MS Windows anymore. Thankfully it will respond to the command issued from this utility, you need to find DCS in the list and Right Click -> Minimize Selected Windows Now you can navigate the desktop without DCS popping back in front, while it's idling in the background, minimized. https://www.nirsoft.net/utils/gui_prop_view.html

I made the final decision back in November 2020 to go 64 GB for the new PC (WIP), I pretty much made that decision years back, but wasn't sure 100% until it was time to actually start purchasing a new PC, I knew it'll be worth it for many things, but only now I tried Syria and holy cow it takes all my current 32GB RAM and 40% of a 8GB Pagefile in one of the MP servers, as well as instant action mission. But there's always a question of how much you want to have things cached and what type of optimization you prefer. However, if you ask me I think there's still room for optimization, I did some quick testing and I see some signs of that.

Looks like in some cases, doing something, or just nothing in particular with MSIAfterburner, RTSS, OBS, ProcessHacker can cause a crash with DCS. One time MSIAfterburner it self crashed due to an invalid value I entered into it's PerfCounter item (out of bounds, invalid type), it crashing in a bad way also caused DCS to crash with a similar error message as show below, that occasion was in mid-gameplay on a longer session. In this example, for which I provide the crash log and error image, I started DCS on the login screen, idling and doing something else in Firefox, I did not start any other game except ProcessHacker, OBS and MSI Afterburner with RTSS. DCS was detected by RTSS but I wasn't actively doing anything with it because on the login screen, 3D wasn't loaded yet so there's no overlays or anything, and OBS was also started default to capture game from DCS but there was nothing shown nor did I actually need it to do anything, I was using those programs for an unrelated thing in this case, while DCS just happened to be idling on the login screen for no reason. I exited all of those programs later, and then I logged in and DCS began launching, but it crashed right away with this: Crash_SuspectDiagUtility_dcs.log-20210123-172743.zip I was not able to repeat this in 5 attempts I tried, usually I have had no problems with these softwares with DCS, but I'm sure it's one of them, it happens to be rare thankfully. EDIT: I was writing this in a hurry, I'm not sure what caused it, it happened twice on different circumstances, one of them very suspiciously timed with a problem in MSI Afterburner, but no real idea if these two are related. This report only includes the second case, when this error happened by it self without anything else going wrong.

Yeah, coun't me in, I've reported it in the other thread, could be merged into this one.

Not impossible, but unlikely, because of so many factors not panning out, you have things like, IIRC (there was an official list somewhere, or in the interviews): Potential customers, maximum, etc. Documentation Classification of key systems, Manufacturer licensing, autorization Usefulness of the module in DCS gameplay Development requirements, costs, manpower resources Understanding that early on, I was rather advocating for another type of a stop-gap solution, the key flight characteristics difference that heavy multi-engine bombers have, so let's look at just about ANY kind of wide-body, wide wing-span, multi-engine jet or prop out there that would fit in these criteria, it doesn't need to be a bomber in that case, just so we have one sort of an example of the kind of experience in comparison to what DCS usually is, and to have that comparison right here in the DCS umbrella, that's nother point, non-DCS stuff doesn't count ofcourse. This example can be used as a testbed to gauge popularity and how, I do know popularity is definitely not going to be comparable to other fighters and stuff, but I think this is natural and there's no way around it, if such a module struggles it would need to have a special deal where it could be subsidized by the overloaded success of other modules or by simply having a "break-even" rule that it pans out as long as the costs are covered and no loss was made, it doesn't have to produce pure profit. I think the hottest thing around the community here has been the idea of AC-130 for a while AFAIK, at least the last time I checked more than half a year ago. I don't know in detail and perhaps others know more, but it kinda ticks all those requirements except the popularity, that's what the main thing the community can do is, to promote and ask others, to bring the topic up if talking to someone that was part of the C-130 programme if they would be in for such a module, get them to know about DCS, etc. AC-130 is old enough that docs would IMO be easier to authorize, less strictly classified I would assume, it has the combat component, and all the support components that would go well with the "Dynamic Campaign" of transporting cargo/ammo/fuel around the area of influence, transporting building materials to construct bunkers and forward bases. In the end having that different flying experience is still, or it should be, more of a side-thing, just as it is in reality, at least I would advocate for it like that, for the existing community to not be locked-shut to their favourites, and for the wide-body fans to not expect decisions affecting the whole DCS to be all about what benefits a wide-body type of experience, I wouldn't want to create these super-specialized niches within DCS that would compete for attention as I think that be detrimental to DCS as a whole in some fashion (that I happens to elude my mind right now what specifically could it be). Just to clear something out, I don't come with this sort of idea from a civilian wide-body transport mindset, I'm simply entertaining the technical feasibility of this and satisfying that experience for who would have liked it, but I don't really have any connection with those civilian communities. If it counts, I played Lock On and Apache Longbow way way back, even before I had internet connection at home or tried out any civilian sim.

The video streaming arena has been reshaping considerably in the last few years and there's many other things now that could also get more attention to work fluidly around the web, in this case supporting bitchute video links to auto-embedd or embedd at all, seems like none work (edit **) Right now I've set up a fresh Win10 installation and didn't brought up all my stuff over from the old installation yet, I wanted to upload a quick bug report video and didn't had my youtube accounts set up, I wanted to separate my DCS stuff from other things anyway so I just created an account elsewhere, went very fast and smooth, and to the point without dealing with pages and lawyers of account management and policy stuff just to upload a 20 second video. For example some DCS content in this one: https://www.bitchute.com/video/YL0JqPX9MGo/ <iframe width="640" height="360" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="border: none;" src="https://www.bitchute.com/embed/YL0JqPX9MGo/"></iframe> ** EDIT: I guess this new forum doesn't have a way to enter raw mode, or paste HTML section, despite the old one (or the short lived transition one) having that capability IIRC ?

Oh don't get me started on Crimea I realize it's not a historically combat active area, but I don't come from a military background so I'm kinda not tied to those interests in how my mind thinks what's interesting or not, I do realize that's a minority and not an overpowering opinion so I obviously won't force it upon anyone else not try to make a case for it to be a deciding factor, however I did come to peace with nothing happening in DCS with crimea, despite hints of some activity if I'm not mistaken (if you go to certain zoom levels you can see some texturing in that area), because all of this infrastructure that's being constructed and rebuilt in the real Crimea is all ongoing or starting and I guess any modern map development would rather wait for that to be finished first, so in the case we get Crimea 5-10 years later it'll look great with that new infrastructure we'll have a lot of new stuff on the ground to enjoy. All the Crimean construction mania reinforced my interests in DCS having that supply-transport-civilian-tech-structure support that we'll be getting a taste of with the "Dynamic Campaign" which I'm so happy about!

Yes, this one confused me a while a go as well, one other taskbar window item should do the trick.

Just came back and installed on a fresh Win10 (2004 20H1) with Radeon Software Adrenalin 20.11.2 - PC2 specs described in the signature below. I happen to be one of those with really bad FPS drops which are thankfully momentary, but because it happens on every single time a submenu is show, it's basically spam and it stutters continously. I made a video about it here: https://www.bitchute.com/video/gls3UTezsbgA EDIT: The video works now. I've read the old reports which I wasn't aware of until now, so it looks like it's not just the menu lag, it may not be the menu's lagging at all, it's the fps that drops heavily which affects everything else ofcourse, and the menus themselfs, it may be a combination of both, but the result is that it's hard to navigate, I keep missing mouse clicks. EDIT: Looks like all of these performance monitoring and diagnostic software tripped Destiny 2 anti-cheat protection, forgot to turn it off, I have been banned (trying to appeal) So yeah, be careful people with this stuff because various highly competitive games are very strict when it comes to cheaters, and by the technical nature it also affects such tools. I also think that Process Hacker might have had something to do with it because of it's name alone, tho it is more advanced and perhaps does have some kind of capability to do something someone could abuse such games with. https://www.bungie.net/en/Help/Article/46101

Yeah, and it just struck me last week, as I finally came back and reinstalled DCS after 6 months of unrelated chores, what if it's all the Driver's fault too, most mainstream games get extra and continued optimization throughout the years, but I think DCS doesn't get much attention from the GPU manufacturers, seeing that Nvidia still detects DCS World as "DCS: Black Shark ..", that may be just the label but that can still be a peek that if the label is outdated, they probably didn't touch that piece of code for a long time, IMO. Which means, many people should actually go to AMD and Nvidia and ask them if they even test DCS at all and if they did any optimizations in the past 5+8 years lol. DX11 is one of those APIs that needs GPU vendor babysitting, Vulkan API on the other hand transfers many responsibilities on the developer of the game so while it's harder and takes more work it allows developers to optimize and fix things themselfs without relying so much on the GPU manufacturer's driver team.

You should indeed post your separate issue in another thread and explain what is it that you feel is wrong with it, this thread is about a case with very low RAM, below DCS recommendations. I don't see any proof of a memory leak here, this is showing stuttering from what I can see initially, a memory leak is an ever increasing memory usage for no apparent reason until you get BSOD/CTD/Critical Error. However, you are roaming the landscape and jumping to different aircraft, that is naturally loading more assets which are getting cached (built-up) in RAM / VRAM which is normal (to some degree) and this is going to look like a memory leak ... True that if this does produce a BSOD/CTD/Errors or heavy Pagefile swapping it may be a design flaw and considerd a bug, otherwise that's not how to test for a genuine memory leak, you're suppose to only get to the point where you suspect the leak is starting and then stop and do nothing and see what happens. You didn't said anything what you think is the main problem so please explain. What you may be referring to is simply higher memory usage than before, the comparison is vital because you need to provide some video or log done with the previous version where it worked fine for you, and only then you can argue that higher usage is wrong based on analysis, however it's not necessary wrong, higher usage of RAM may be normal due to DCS natural evolution. Also we don't all follow steam or discord or other places at all times while on the forums, so you need to summarize your issue fully, please don't just "continue" that discussion here, it adds burden to those who want to help and the staff.

Something else could have been going on while you flew around the same city in the game, who knows, you will ofcourse get such annomalies with these specs, it's hard to help here specifically unless you go step by step replicating the problem, otherwise just lower the graphics, because with only 2GB VRAM you'll get stuttering in no time if it's swapping (trashing) it to RAM, and RAM being so low as well, it's then swapping RAM onto the pagefile Chronology matters, the city you have flew over once might have been fine becuase the assets were in memory, then once it got saturated it kept trashing and you got stuttering from that which lowers your FPS, or the city had to be loaded back from pagefile/disk(for the first time) because you were flying in another area previously, but streaming textures usually don't cause the engine to stall (or they don't suppose to) so I'm not sure if that would be the biggest cause.

But ... it's not truly free, you pay with sharing info/metadata.

You're absolutely right in one way, that's why I'm planning to do a thread on helping out Win7 user with Win10 for DCS. The reason why people don't prefer Win10, is because it's not an improvement, it's a change in a new direction, without alternatives. One of the reasons is that Win10 it self is actually a security risk, tho, that is an opinion that anyone themselfs can formulate if they wish. Also, there is a very common focus by the proponents of anything new on whether something is regarded "supported" by the author/manufacturer as if it's some kind of a grand law, such as the fact that MS discontinued update support for Windows 7, now we must follow suit or else? Let's put this in perspective that will completely shut down this argument at least partialy (security patches in some cases do matter yes): What about all the retro consoles, games, cars, excavators, tractors, farm equipment, build tools, workshop items, that are all "discontinued", companies no longer even existing, do you throw that out for scrap too ? Newer doesn't always mean better, certain things are better, other thing are worse, in some cases far worse, as every excavator and machinery operator can tell you, all the new machines with computerized systems are much more annoying than the old machines, even with all the gimmicks and conveniences (indicators, readouts, LCD screens, gadgets, etc), they break down, difficult to troubleshoot and repair. I would like to make you aware of the big deal sorrounding Right To Repair causes around the world if you haven't been familiar. https://foodtank.com/news/2021/01/farmers-fight-for-right-to-repair-their-own-equipment/ Skip to 43:46

These side terms are only ofcourse broad and shouldn't be taken literally, the official terms should be taken as such even if they clash with the understanding/meaning, so if it's unsupported and there's no other explanation, it's unsupported in the hard way and you're on your own. For the sake of debating, if we overthink this it really depends what the programming is like, for a real soft support, because the term support means some work, that "some work" would most effectivelly be in such fashion: minimal effort on just making things run, with various components and options disabled that weren't designed with the platform/hardware support in mind. So yeah if there's enough of you guys that would really benefit from a 3-6 months of such a period, or at least the first 2.7 release, they could perhaps do that if it's feasible and practical under a list of conditions: work required is sufficiently small, no new features would be ported or made sure to run, whether it's still practical and fair in the end, disabling some effecty might give you advantage in multiplayer that equates to cheating for example, and imagine if they would need to disable water altogether, you would have no oceans in that kind of a build, you'd be searching for lost treasure in a mission of Drain The Oceans For balance, I should rather post some tips to help out Win7 users transitioning to Win10.

I think he wants to know if Win 7 will enter "soft support" period. The term would in this case more accurately be "might run but all further maintenance and testing has stopped and it may cease to run at any time". In software there is sometimes a distinction between soft/hard or in other words strict enforcement or not, which means, whether the author enforces a system/software/hardware before trying to execute more code, whether the author tolerates inoptimal and unsupported hardware/software or not, whether the author lets the program try to run on something it's no longer optimal to do so and doesn't make it harder for the program, soft support as in, "just leave it so it hopefully runs and don't intentionally hamper it" kinda. You might see this more in open source project tho. Soft support is usually seen in cases where you previously supported something and then dropped the testing, validation and maintenance part, in that case the platform/component/device that is labeled unsupported might still run relatively fine for a period of time, however progressively worse, erratic and buggier with each new update until major of it's components are half-broken and it becomes impractical, but before that happens something critical could go bad even trying to load things fully so it ceases to run all-together even with all the discovered power-user tricks. So in the best case scenario, some hardcore Win7 users could hope it's not a hard drop, a hard enforcement that detects Win7 and won't even attempt executing, and tweak themselfs through making it run if there's any further issues, however that is if, .. this soft period might have already gone through internally, even if the public DCS 2.7 wouldn't have the hard enforcement, the chances are that most likely the components and code necessary to run on Win7 migth have been modified or removed too greately to be able to start and run in any practical way once it hits the public anyway, so truly making it unsupported on Win7. Speaking of Win7 refusing to die, indeed I still have the plan to install Win7 on a spare drive for old games and stuff, but not for DCS.

It would have been useful 5 years ago, it's when I made a big deal about it roughly, now I'm slowly getting to a new PC with 1TB NVMe SSD already here, tho I really need that for work more than games, but I let DCS be one of the exceptions But I've obviosuly have to wait for RX6000 and Zen3 to become available at reasonable prices to finish the new beast up, right now I only use it for testing/maintenance and running linux, with a cheap second hand CPU/RAM just so it boots So for a while I'm still going to be running DCS on the refreshed old PC on a 250GB Sata SSD and it'll fill it up with DCS, so not much space left for pretty much any modern game (tho I don't really in a hurry) So it's kinda back-and-forth, it seems like it's not needed anymore, then well, you get into a situation when you'd need some extra space again, in this case it would be rather wasteful to spend money on old SATA SSDs so that's why I'm sort of artifically capped with the SDDs I have at home right now. But it's still not actually a problem, what I want to point out now, is the future when we would like to push graphics up, and texture detail, liveries are the place where you want as high-quality as possible, HDR, WCG, that'll add to the space requirements and it may start catching up again with the expanding storage, so the ratio of how much liveries take space may actually stay similar or same which might make it an issue give or take, or again in this area where it's hard to say whether it's an issue or not. I certainly don't want livery quality to be sacrificed, so from the get go I realized this should be figured out before so that all liveries could be enjoyed without the size being the limit, you just don't need to have them installed at at once, in theory. I got another idea, perhaps I mentioned this in the past, but apart from the Multiplayer stuff I talked about, Mission Editor could support, for mission authors to select which alternative livery to use if the primary selected one is missing, it gets more complicated tho if the alternative is missing too, then you need to go down to second alternative, third alternative and so on, so kinda gets to the point you ask your self why just don't buy more space and get over with it, so I completely understand, but me being a wiseguy if I entertain the idea to put this aside for now, for an edge case when someone has enoguh to affort a beast of a computer but not a little bit more for more storage, further there could be a user prompt when the mission is loading, with a GUI to download it or skip it, or use and alternative suggested by the author of the mission, or use an already installed custom alternative livery decided by the user. But there's always a simpler solution or something else I haven't think of that provides a similar effect.

Yes, rest assured I'm well aware of that that it's mostly computer technical and not really DCS-content related, tho most people here should be well used to reading long pieces of material as you heard. It was meant for the beta-tester and the crowds that are regularly reading this subforum, but more importantly for the devs themselfs to get as much detail and overal picture that could help them out getting to the solution faster. Plus, sometimes I like doing this kind of stuff for my own kicks when time allows (unless if I'd be doing this as business work then I wouldn't had as much time and energy writing it in such a style or at all) I'm pretty close getting my systems up and running again, tho things keep delaying as new things pop-up, I was just updating my router's firmware and doing a whole re-configuration with custom plugins and stuff, hopefully I can finish setting up in the freshly installed Win10 and get back to DCS, so I'll have a new report I was not able to finish from half a year ago coming up soon, that is if it wasn't fixed already, I didn't had DCS installed during all of this.

It's a long time ago DCS only used 1-2 threads, it does benefit from a quad-core CPU for a number of years now, and the ratio of workload has improved as time passed, there's around 4 significant threads and a bunch of terrain-texture-loader or "IO" threads which are responsible for texture streaming and mission loading. However that doesn't mean that work on the main thread was necessairly shifted and spread around, as time passed I think more work has been added overall and DCS became more demanding, yet that doesn't mean it's not single-thread bottlenecked, certain things will bottleneck the main thread and this will continue to be so even after Vulkan API will be supported. That actually depends on game behavior, some don't like it enabled at all while some don't care whether you have enabled or disabled and will be very similar. Yeah, disabling CCXs may no longer be necessary on Zen3 based CPUs, but I'm afraid the higher core-count Zen3 CPUs that are multi CCD would still have higher latencies between the CCD despite all the improvements, tho the OS thread schedulers could start to catch up. A bit of a background on this for others who aren't familiar: So Zen 3 aren't 2 CCXs in a CCD anymore being glued toghether separated by circuitry, now the CCX is a proper octa-core the size of the whole CCD and all the cores are more equal*, but the latency pentaly between CCDs would still remain ofcourse, but OS thread schedulers should hopefully improve with such topologies in the future to make this a non-issue. The root problem isn't actually with the amount of cores themselfs or the fact that the Zen1+2 octa-core CCDs were made up of two quad-cores (CCX) inoptimally glued together (kinda fake octa-core), but the fact that due to default OS thread scheduler behavior and default program settings, the main thread of a game would jump between CCXs and on even higher core-count CPUs between CCDs, requiring a lot of time to complete before executing again, resulting in a stutter. There can also be inconsistency in this happening, to some people and not others, or some times yes, sometimes no, because not all the DCS (games) process threads are so latency critical, work may be delayed but it won't stop the program from executing if minor threads are caught up in a inoptimal Context Switch (CS = thread starts executing on a different CPU from where it stopped on) such as the IO threads, you won't really notices those trees or textures taking a bit longer to update to higher-definition LODs and your FPS will remain stable, but when the main thread gets caught up in this inoptimal context switch (aka "thread bounce/jump") being instructed to move from CCX1 CPU2 to CCX2 CPU3 for example, a move between CCXs (or CCDs) requires more time for the CPU to do this kind of operation before the thread can start executing again so the thread can do nothing but wait, the caches have to copy over to the CCX2 CPU3 context (area) and the L3 stuff isn't shared so there's more operations invovled there, so you end up with latency big enough that you notice in practices as a stutter. Disabling a whole CCX or CCD is the fast and easy solution, but more of an emergency one, but also overkill. Setting process affinity of the DCS process to the same CCX or CCD would be the way to go. Tho, that's only in regards to HTT/SMT on vs off, but not in regards to Zen1+2 CCX/CCD and Zen3 CCD topology, if were talking about it as well. So if you have a Zen based CPU, optimizing affinity for the CCX/CCD is more important than SMT, but you can do both, only pick one CCX/CCD and then also only pick 1 logical CPU per 1 Core. I don't know why the heck would Ryzen Master go startight to the nuclear option of disabling a whole CCD, must have been so bad it was a real rush to get the gamers calmed down? Or do you actually mean disabling affinity to a CCD, that's a WHOLE other thing ... because the former means to disable the CPUs physically, to shut them down, so nothing else can use it ... ?!?! I personally don't have an AMD PC so I don't know some of the details, but I will have Zen3 PC soon-ish so I'll see some of it. I wasn't that following all the Zen1+2 events and gaming news in general either so I guess I'm not familiar with the scope of this CCX/CCD latency issue in practice, I've just focused on the technical aspects, reviews and explanations.

They could have fixed the potential zombie terrain thread ... which I so apologize for not reporting since summer or even earlier IIRC, because I got tangled up with other work and couldn't finish the testing and making of the report. Thankfully I'm finally literally hours away from installing fresh Win10 and DCS as we speak, albeit on the same (secondary) PC as the new one is still WIP (be gone scalpers!), right in time for the free play period (sort of, missed a few days oh well)

https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket?ProjectID=100356