Aluminum Donkey

Probably, yes. The only way to find out for certain is to suck it and see, and if it doesn't solve the problem, you just burned through some cash. I'm only using 16GB RAM with an 11GB graphics card (1080 Ti) and performance is pretty good. I'm running a 2560 x 1440 single screen. If you try it, keep us posted, I wanna know how it goes AD

Just flying over the islands in general. Usually the biggest one. At 4x MSAA, or 1.5 SSAA (but not both) I usually get FPS numbers in the 30s. Switching SSAA off and using 2x MSAA I get numbers in the 50s, or high 40s low down and near heavily built-up areas. That's pretty nice, but I *really* like the fluid motion at 60 FPS! Marianas just has a heck of a lot of trees. They're pretty high-detail objects and, as such, are hard on framerates. AD

I'm just flying the Hornet around with no combat and few other units. RAM is 16 GB of 3000 MHz 15-15-15-35, two 8 GB modules. CPU is 4C/4T at 4.5 GHz. Asus Z170 mobo. Wake turbulence and mirrors are off. AD

I haven't a clue how he's getting a 1080 Ti to run Marianas at 50-60 FPS with MSAA at 4x! I have one, and I'm lucky to get half that with the same settings as him. It sucks. AD

I have a 1080 Ti and 471.41 works well for me in DCS and other games too. I'm using it with an i5-6600K (4C/T) at 4.5 GHz. A hefty computer like yours should chew through anything you throw at it, spit out the bones, and be hungry for more. Go ahead and give it a try! Keep in mind that your RTX 3090 is really new, and newer drivers may contain bug fixes and performance improvements for the newest and meatiest graphics cards, so it should definitely be worth it for you. If it doesn't work out, you can always go back to the one you're using now (always make sure you have a copy of your current driver just in case!) Peace and happy warfare AD

Ok, here's the no-BS answer: As a general rule, helicopters are a "handful of busy" compared to fixed-wing aircraft, no matter the type. You're dealing with a whole lot of different forces that really screw with each other whenever you make any sort of control input. One control input messes with more than just one axis of control--requiring other control inputs to deal with it. Losing altitude slowly? Raise collective, and you generate reaction torque requiring pedal input. Fly faster, and you generate translational lift, reduce collective to compensate and you change reaction torque, requiring pedal input. It's a whirlwind of messing about that takes a lot of getting used to. Cyclic roll input changes reaction torque as well--more pedalling around. So, yes, helicopters are very difficult to fly compared to airplanes. It's a whole different skill set, and the only similarity is the word "pilot". AD

Imagine this level of AI in an F1 racing simulator. It would be a multimillion-dollar demolition derby AD

That's the way it goes with flight sims. If it doesn't have any bugs, you better not crash it--because you're flying the real aircraft and not a computer! Come to think of it... The last time I ran any game that seemed bug-free to me, I was playing Dope Wars. AD

Flankerjun, That's really weird. I generally find that 2.7 performs better overall, not worse. I'm using an aging computer by today's standards, but I'm still getting good performance overall in 2.7 as long as I don't overdo it with the AA. i5-6600K, 4.5 GHz all cores 16GB DDR4 Zotac 1080 Ti, 466.63 drivers 2560x1440 (I don't use VR, but those who do are having performance issues in 2.7. Try a regular screen if you do) AD

Without belaboring a discussion with jibba-jabba... CPU: Whichever one you can afford that has the highest possible single-thread performance. Brand doesn't matter. 4 cores is plenty for DCS, and most games. Many today have more than that. Graphics card: The fastest one you can afford. Brand doesn't matter. That pretty much sums it up. AD

In real life, the 109K had ~100 HP more than the P-51D, and weighed more than a ton less. Of course it will out-perform the Mustang, and should be able to do so in its sleep The Kurfurst was a top-performing fighter, despite being a dated design with some handling issues and impossibly stiff flight controls at high speeds. It's power-to-weight ratio made it a booger to fly against, and especially the 2000 HP version (not modelled in DCS) was able to out-fly just about anything the Allied countries in the war were able to throw at it. AD

Open Beta (2.7.1) has nicer visuals and better performance (higher framerates.) Stable version (2.5) has fewer bugs. Choose your poison! If you have enough drive space left, install both--suck it and see. AD

The real Hornet can carry the Litening pod, so it will probably stay. The real plane can also carry infrared-guided Mavericks, so they're in the sim too. Apparently, it's very rare for the Hornet to carry either one in real life, but since it's technically possible they will probably stay. For best realism though, just use the ATFLIR pod and only laser Mavericks. AD

It isn't really a bug, it's how she goes. I'm fine with it as long as they fix the clunky looking clouds near the center of the HUD. It's really noticeable when you roll a bit. They're still a massive improvement over the old clouds! AD

Sure they will. Monitors are still pretty much the universal standard. Also, not everyone wants to drop $2000+ for a graphics card and more for a VR headset. Admittedly, it's been a while since I've tried VR, but when I did it was awful. Really bad motion blur, the world blurs whenever you move your head. Really bad resolution too. Considering the wide field of view, you probably need a bare minimum of 4K resolution for decent detail, and since there are two screens, you need a BEAST of a graphics card. Realistically, for something like DCS, probably the RTX 3090 or Radeon RX 6900 XT are the only ones that are finally up to the task--and, they cost a mint if you can find one. AD

Shit man, with BOTH of those disorders you'd be the most kickass pilot in the whole country! AD

It *is* underpowered. As in, the real aircraft wasn't what you'd call a thrust monster. It looked cool and handled great, but the F-5's pure turbojet engines were rather wimpy. It was small, light, responsive, supersonic if you were patient enough, and as far as fighter jets go, it was pretty cheap. Corvettes look cool too, but don't expect to win any Formula One races with one. No bug here. AD

In all fairness, good gaming rigs do tend to absorb about half of the cash on the graphics card. So, a grand for the card, a grand for everything else. Maybe 60% for everything else if if you want a CPU with a huge number of cores/threads, which don't do jack in a gaming system most of the time. Unfortunately, new graphics cards are priced through the roof and are also subject to scalping. Hopefully it's temporary, but even if I had the cash to blow, I'd have one heck of a hard time justifying spending that kind of cash just to burn time playing video games. Even with nice graphics AD

Well said, and I agree with you. But you gotta admit, the Typhoon will be a great introduction to the future world of high-detail F-22 modules and the like! (Speaking of which, isn't the F-22 a third of a century old? So c'mon, ED!) AD

If you're going to be spending an outrageous amount of cash, I don't know why you'd ever consider getting anything but a K processor. Even if you don't overclock it, the K ones are still faster because they have higher default clock speeds. And, in the future, you can overclock them a bit if you want (easy to do, and no point not doing it at least a little.) Don't bother with fixed multiplier (non-K) processors for gaming rigs. For the same money, or possibly less, get an i5 or or i7 K version and you'll have a better-performing computer overall. I'm still using my ancient i5-6600K (4 cores, 4 threads) and it actually runs DCS and everything else surprisingly well, the only thing it doesn't like is MSFS 2020 which I don't play anyway. AD

I'm using it, Windows 10 Home. It seems OK... It comes with Windows, so the price is right. I also use the free version of Malwarebytes for the occasional virus scan, it's good to use two different programs. Makes you more likely to catch everything. Also, every antivirus program out there produces false positives. I get quite a few of them because I've used modding programs to minimize the amount of spying that Windows 10 does. AD

That's how it works in DCS World. 6 months from now: "Man, I remember getting my RTX 3090 and it was soooo kickass, but now it's showing its age!!" AD

I wouldn't build a new system right now until you have a handle on what's causing this. I re-read one of your posts, did you make sure you re-set all of your NVCP settings to Application-Controlled? In other words did you turn off all of the Enhance Application Settings options? Also, turn off FXAA and all that, so DCS runs completely clean? There's gotta be some way around this! I have an "old" system and DCS 2.7 runs great for me. AD

Damn, that's really weird! Sorry man, wish I could help you with this! Have you tried physically disconnecting one of your monitors, unplugging the cable from the graphics card? Also, do you have another, different graphics card you could install and try? I wonder if your current one is on the fritz. Maybe it's overheating and downclocking itself? Maybe check peak-load GPU temps in MSI Afterburner or something? If it only happens under very heavy load (on the ground, lots going on) then it might be thermal throttling. AD

For VR in DCS, I really wouldn't want to go with anything less than the mightiest of graphics cards that mortal man can conceive. That means either RX 6900 XT, or an RTX 3090. Maybe 3080, or RX 6800 XT if bread's tight--in which case, just save and wait until the really good one becomes available to you. VR doesn't come cheap, and if you're gonna fork over the cash, may as well get what you really need. That way you can just fly the blinkin' thing for 5+ years instead of still wanting to upgrade, which would really suck after burning through that kind of dough AD