Gnadentod

It's not.

When it happened once I just wrote it off as ... well whatever. Now, I had it happen two times in three sessions that, when I want to bug a bandit in TWS radar mode when we're approaching each other very fast within about 10 to 20nm the radar actually locks a bandit behind my wanted target in STT mode, which was still 70nm away from me. They were in about the same direction in relation to my aircraft heading. The one which was of zero danger was locked in STT mode although my cursor wasn't even close to being near the radar contact on the MFD. My radar wasn't even configured to scan 80nm but 40nm range at the time, so it makes even less sense. Needless to say this happens in the worst possible time, losing the radar contact of the dangerous bandit and thus the ability to give off the first shot when we're about to merge. Killed me 2/2 times. I've started to watch both trackfiles to upload them and give exact timeframe but once my aircraft approaches the runway it's actually showing me taking off besides the runway, crashing into trees and shit when I never crashed in reality?! So no trackfile I guess. Am I the only one? E: I was on about 3000ft, bandit closing on me in front on 2000ft, like 15 nm. The bandit which was locked behind my actual threat was flying like 17k to 26k feet (guessing from the HUD symbology) and was 77nm out.

I initially scrolled to your post and saw the first graph, which gives off the impression that the 9900K is far superior in terms of gaming compared to the 3800 or 3900X, which is not true. It was true before the latest AGESA versions came out. So I posted and a moment later edited because I saw your second graph which is way more true to this. The more you look for latest benchmarks or bench yourself, the more you can see that there really is no difference between these processors anymore, it only and only depends on the application you're benching with/using in general.

3900X and 3800X are about the same performance as 9900K with the newest AGESA versions. Stop living in August of 2019 and spread false and/or outdated information. Thank you. Edit: There you go, you can see it on the second graph you yourself posted.

If you don't have a externally powered USB hub to connect your Reverb into ... get an externally powered USB hub to connect your Reverb into. For the Reverb you really, really should use this or an separately powered PCIe card, to deliver enough power to the display. These headsets are essentially two WQHD displays in one. It needs power. No one with a brain would connect his normal computer display through the mainboard USB controller, especially not two.

You should have seen me first time flying back to home plate alone above the ocean, thinking some online MiG or Sukhoi pilot sneaked up like 30 metres behind me. Was instantly taking defensive movements, twisting my head to both sides to look behind my shoulders, initiating full survival mode (flying in VR). Lasted some good 20 seconds. Ah ...

I mean totally retarded to release a BIOS version which doesn't have this option. Even in the first version F3 or so it was possible to turn it off/on and in F11 now too. So they have released one version in between which doesn't have it? Why? These retards. Frohes Neues.

Not the first time I'm wondering who the hell is programming in these companies: I had it on the F3 BIOS version, and now this is from the F11 version which I'm running, which is the latest. Let SMT on Enable by the way, if you want all cores running, it turns the virtual cores on or off.

It's a IFF/Datalink bug and is reported already.

The weaker stuff for 1080p, the stronger for 1440p.

Me neither, and yes.

Well ... it's epic. It's like going the VR route, once there, accustomed to it and set up, you'll miss something flying without it. You'd really don't want to. Getting your back massaged permanently by your engines running adds indeed a new dimension to DCS flying.

Must be there, I literally have the same board, X570 Aorus Pro. Turn this off and see if it persists. It's in Advanced CPU Options.

That's my overcorrected part about. This dim, also in evening and night? Never sat in a F16 with these lights on but still, how are they then called flood lights when they are this dim? Wondering.

Am I the only one having the effectiveness of the F16 floodlights decreased to like 20% compared to before the last update? I flew before and after the last update and the flood lights did light the cockpit up much, much more. Now it's almost doing nothing literally in terms of FLOODING the cockpit room/respective area on panels with bright light. Was this a solution to the flood lights FPS problem some had, but is overcorrected?

Bump. It's not a "it depends" issue. Even in winter you have trees, walls of buildings, steel/concrete bridges or rivers (!) giving out the same amount of heat, considering to the FLIR image, as enemy vehicles or soldiers do. That certainly can't be the intention, not in the real world with this sensor, not in simulated world here aswell.

Clutter/Bushes off, Heat blur off, Trees visiblity maybe down, terrain textures on low if you're too close to the VRAM limit of your card (didn't see much of a visual difference tbh), Resolution of Cockpit displays down. Especially the first three are real FPS killers. Until the new engine arrives. 120% SteamVR SS, no DCS AA or PD. Motionvector reprojection. 3800X, 32GB, 5700XT, HP Reverb here.

4.5 Ryzen GHz is about the same performance as 5.0 Ghz on Intel right now. They aren't comparable simply by numbers.

Yes. "Yeah just let him put you in a negative light while you actually answered his question when it was him not being able to articulate himself properly, then getting butthurt about it." Muh feelings. Nope, not gonna happen.

You usually won't get help in whatever it is in life if you can't articulate yourself properly. Nice try.

Bugged Target in your initial post -> System target in your rewording post, after admitting to yourself I was right but don't want to admit it in written words, especially after putting me in a negative light. Enough for here, the posts speak for themselves now. Over and out.

Nice rewording of your post, let the back-paddling begin - after you tried to put others in a negative light :D

You still don't get it and even better is the fact that you project your failure to admit understanding it wrong as me being "stubborn". Very cheap and weak. I'm out. Get over it.

.... No, you misunderstood me and how the TWS works aswell, not the other way around. Atleast you tried I'd say.

You yourself said in the first post that if you unbug the first target you can make the second target the PRIMARY. When there are two targets only then you can't have both targets primary, otherwise the terms primary and secondary wouldn't even make sense in this situation, hence the whole reason why you would bug a target would make no sense. Your wording and its underlying logic isn't even correct. You can only designate one target as primary, which is called the bugged target. If you could bug two or even more targets then you would really designate neither of them for the AIM 120, there would be no primary target.