TomOnSteam

Definitely the right thread - because that is the funniest and most cringeworthy thing I've seen all year :) I haven't seen anyone that delusional since the whole Charlie Sheen thing.

Looks fantastic! I hope the slow refresh rate of the HUD will be an option though. I'm happy to pass on that aspect of realism for a more pleasant experience.

For any regular game I would say 3GB. But DCS is different I think, so the more VRAM the better. It's a tough one though, because in most benchmarks, the difference in performance between the 3GB and 6GB card is only about 5% at worst. Yet the price is about 40% more. I'm sure even with the 3GB you could lower some settings, and it would still be smooth though. But if it's an upgrade you might as well upgrade to a card where you can have more eye candy too :)

Logitech's last HOTAS (G940) was a failure. Saitek's X-55 has has issues ranging from ergonomics to spiking and ghost press. Maybe two wrongs can make a right?

Gone :)

First come first serve. I have a spare license key - I will PM the key to the first person to respond:thumbup:

Incompatible ports :)

As long as they do a hind or cobra first! :P

You can create a stutter effect with a high amount of fast phase/flanger/chorus and only apply 100% wet, 0% dry. It won't sound like a skipping CD. but it will be similar enough I think.

Buy eithe rthe 1060 or 1070. Which ever suits your budget. You'll be happy either way if you are running a single screen then 1060 will be plenty.

Lovely flying - what kind of control set up is being used? Also the enemy aircraft were really visible - can I ask what settings you were using - I have a lot of trouble seeing aircraft. Multi-crew looks like a lot of fun! I love how you can do pop-up attacks - especially the one 1/2 way through the video. I found that kind of stuff quite a handful in the ka-50, but with two pilots (and a lighter helo) it looks very do-able now.

This box is beautiful once you get all the crap out of it :megalol:

Alienware 23" 1080p @ 120hz. Of course if this was a wishlist thread I'd say 40" 144hz 4k :P

I'm sad to say that there is no such thing as a 120hz 4K monitor......yet. I would think maybe in 6-12 months there might be something. http://www.kotaku.com.au/2016/06/asus-will-apparently-have-the-worlds-first-144hz-4k-monitor/

Looks really nice, but needs to be about 1/2 the price before I'd even consider it.

If that's your question, then that tells me you won't need to worry about it :) Some newer peripherals such as external USB hard-drives will have USB 3.0 support only. USB 3.0 is much much faster than USB 2.0, but only if the peripheral itself is 3.0 (it doesn't speed up any 2.0 devices). But anything USB 2.0 also works with USB 3.0 ports, so older things will keep working on the newer ports. The default 4x version 3.0 ports will be plenty to future proof yourself. You can always buy an extra card with more USB 3.0 ports if required.

Probably not at max detail. But I'm sure you could turn off a few settings like shadows to low which makes very little visual difference, but big performance gains.

You can turn on DSR to x4 in the Nvidia control panel. (Under 3D settings). This will give you a pretty accurate indication of how your graphics card will handle 4K. Then in DCS you can choose the 4K resolution. It might have changed recently, but I wasn't happy with any of the 4k monitors for gaming when I last checked around 6 months ago. The all had fairly low refresh rates etc. I dunno if I'd be able to play on a screen less than 90hz minimum.

Only if you want USB 3.0 on the front ports of your PC. You can just pick a different ATX mid case (not MicroATX) if it's something you want :) (otherwise you'll only have the 4x USB 3.0 ports on the back of the PC, and you'll have to make the front ones USB 2.0 only) Either way you'll have a total of 8 USB ports, if you need more than 4 of those to be 3.0 ports then pick another case. EDIT: actually going by the manufacturers website, one of the front ports supports USB 3.0 - and one is only version 2.0.

Most DCS modules support mouse axis for slew - so I've been thinking about getting a touchpad mounted infront of my throttle, that would be very accurate I think. Either that or a finger mouse. Neither one are particularly realistic though.

I personally don't think you'll be able to perceive any performance difference between a barely overclocked 6600k and a stock 6500. On a benchmark, sure there will be a 10-15% difference, but it's not perceivable if you are getting 80fps or 85 or even 100fps. Especially on a 60hz screen. Anything over 60fps looks smooth. And all of the builds will get you over 60fps easily with reasonable settings. (With this set up I don't think it's possible to overclock far enough to make it worthwhile. To get to 4Ghz+ you'd need motherboard that can handle it, as well as 750W powersupply - otherwise you might get stability issues, crashes, reboots etc). Overclocking on a budget doesn't make sense to me, unless it's just for fun and you like fiddling with this stuff. Overclocking really is only worthwhile if you've bought upper end gear, and you still want/need more grunt. On a budget you end up paying quite a lot of money just to make your PC overclockable and stable, when you could have just spent the money on faster parts, instead of spending money additional equipment to make slower parts faster. To me it makes more sense just to put the money into components that are already faster in their stock form, and have a reliable PC so you can just play without tinkering or worrying about it. The new build you have is fine, but I still wouldn't recommend overclocking it as I don't see the point. It will in it's default form run DCS at around 80+ fps when you are in the air (with a combination of high-med-low settings).Overclocking might get you another 10 frames on top of that which doesn't seem worth it in time or money to me, especially if it's running over 60fps most of the time. I'd also go with the largest monitor you can afford, every inch extra makes the cockpit more readable and more functional, and you won't have zoom in/out as much. Just for reference I'm running a GTX 970, which is slightly slower than a GTX 1060, and a i5 3570K at stock speed (3.4Ghz) which is 3 generations older than the i5 6500. And I'm getting anywhere between 60-120fps depending on what's happening. Using a combination of low/med/high settings. (busy airports/runways can still drop to around 40fps, but I don't spend much time on ground :)) And I have 8Gb RAM as well. So I figure if I'm getting this kind of performance then an i5 6500 and GTX 1060 will give you the same at least, or better. It will certainly be smooth performance, and with the extra 3" monitor you'll have a more pleasant experience too.:D Don't worry about it too much though, either your latest build or my build will give good performance, overclocked or not.:thumbup: SSD will definitely be a nice thing in the future if you can afford it. It won't improve your frame rate performance, but it will shorten your loading times by big amount.

Of course, the faster the better. But it starts to get expensive, to get a worthwhile overclock you need better coolers/fans, K version CPU, better motherboard, better power supply etc Otherwise you can only overclock a little bit, and there is not much point if it gets you an extra 5-10 fps.

It's fairly easy. If you know to put a circle into a circle hole, and square into a square hole you should be fine :) But while it's shipping I would watch a few tutorials, there are somethings that help if you have seen how it's done. And then there are some things that are a bit annoying such as attaching the case LED and Button pins to the motherboard. It's quite fiddly, and usually done at then end once it's already stopped being fun.

All good, I just assumed because I tend to keep the same HDDs for several builds :) It's probably worth waiting for someone else to double check that I haven't done something stupid but, if it was a PC for me I'd certainly be happy with it :joystick: It's all brandname components, and I made sure they all had decent reviews in case there was something really bad about them. I've included a USB wifi adapter, I prefer them over the internal ones as I've had driver issues in the past, and it gets really old having to open the case to pull it out and in over and over when troubleshooting. And you also have the option of using a USB extension to position it better if signal is an issue.

I'd go with the 1070 since budget isn't a big deal. You'll be able to turn up the quality settings and enable more options such as as anti-aliasing and shadows etc and still have things run smoothly. Even if those sort of things are really interesting to you, I'd still go with the 1070 because it will remain relevant longer. So that $150 buys you the extra time if that makes sense. (or you can hang onto the $150 for now, and upgrade earlier, I guess it doesn't matter so much).