Headwarp

That vulkan vs dx12 benchmark video is from 2017. Above are my results on the specs in sig of that same exact benchmark done today. 3dmark cost me like $5USD during a sale i think. Vulkan is completely fine by me vs dx11 and older. I'm also fine with DX12 because I'm already using 10 and i thought i read somewhere in these forums that win7 was getting dx12 support recently, but vulkan does come with the peace of mind that it's not tied to any specific version of Windows and I fully support that. My PC isn't built specifically for DCS, so their choice of vulkan over directx only helps in that it can be a substantial performance increase over dx11. But I have no qualms with ED doing it differently than the market trends, as in the long run, until MS abandons the idea of limiting directx versions to specific versions of windows, adoption of vulkan in the development community is honestly the more customer friendly move.

Just picked up the Tomcat, this is the first thing I noticed. Just trying to do the first training mission I can't read the master test switch or the hotmic/cold mic switch at all. I can read most everything else if i zoom or lean in. I'm using an odyssey.

Nothing wrong with the lenovo imo.. it's the least expensive VR headset for windows @ $99USD without controllers, has a higher resolution than the rift natively, which is only beat by the odyssey, vive pro, and pimax for the most part and still has room for improvement in DCS as far as I can tell until we break more boundaries in the industry regarding dx12/vulkan or as faster hardware comes over time for higher framerates or even higher levels of supersampling.

lol. the bobblehead. Looks good man hope it's everything you were hoping for.

Personally, I have no issues with 1809, and most manufacturer's latest drivers and bios coincide with windows build 1809. You want to be on the latest version, if it's not working right for you something else is going on. The only exception to this, really, might be older hardware that is no longer receiving ongoing driver support. As windows 10 builds seem to require hardware manufacturer's to keep up.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3812342&postcount=134 The video in this post of the hornet mini-updates explains it pretty well.

If you call thrustmaster they could probably answer this for you, or might even have the part you need in stock.

It should be enough for your CPU. Might require pulling out the motherboard to install a backplate. You might consider a 240mm version as it will be able to handle newer cpu's with more cores as well. But that also depends on whether your case has exhaust vents up top or intake vents in the front as well as a way to mount a 240mm rad. I'm pretty sure the single fan version you picked will work better than air, but should be more than you need for a non K series 3rd gen intel chip, and even cases not designed for water loops should at least have a rear exhaust port you can use for the radiator and fan. That being said if you're limited by case design, you could save money on using something like this https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835103099 if your case has room for it. There are even less expensive options as well. What you're mostly looking for is that it's compatible with the 1155 socket (most usually come with a way to fit to most available socket types. I'd hold off on the liquid unit unless you plan to get a K series processor or maybe use it whenever you decide to upgrade your rig. Stick with an inexpensive heatsink/fan combo rather than liquid if it's just to keep that non K series processor. Should be more than enough as long as it fits, and you apply thermal paste properly, if whatever you choose doesnt come with a pad. Watch some youtube videos and read some how to guides on how to change out a CPU heatsink.. If you feel it's outside of your abilities after that pay someone or take it to your son. :) It's not that hard but it can be frustrating and a bit of a daunting task, and might be easier with someone to hold the motherboard if you need to install a backplate. Make sure the power is off, the psu is off, and unplugged from the wall. IF you need to install a bracket it pretty much requires disconnecting all connections to the motherboard and any components in the way, and resecuring all connections and making sure they're snug. So if you take this on yourself make sure to take ample note of what's connected to what, and do some thorough research. It's less scary than it sounds but don't feel bad if you need someone with more experience to show you the ropes. Can't imagine it would cost much if you took the PC and your new cooler to a mom and pop's PC shop and asked them to install it for you and maybe let you watch. I forget sometimes that I learned a lot of this at a young age.

I'm still with his biggest issue right now is his CPU is throttling. Under load that CPU shouldn't be getting under 3.6ghz period. In the same graph he provided you can see that when his cpu is at 100% usage, the cpu clock is also down at 3.4GHz or below and gets as low as 3GHz. It's fluctuating through the entire graph. Doesn't look like a faulty reading at all to me, it looks like a CPU throttling due to heat. I get speedstep on an idle desktop, I get Intel Turbo Boost. Lower clock frequencies than 3.6ghz for all 4 cores under load don't make sense to me unless there's also a high temp readout. Having intel features turned off myself, and my cpu being overclocked my cpu frequency graphs are a straight line period the end. In the OP's case the frequency changes would be more like 3.8 to 3.6 and vice versa under load depending on core usage, but more straight lines than the sporadic behavior shown in his cpu frequency graph. Just an idle desktop for me, but also what it would look like while gaming because my cpu cooling is sufficient. Look how his cpu never stops changing frequency, and how it appears to get higher as cpu usage goes down. This isn't the worst case of cpu throttling I've seen, but at every point that cpu is under 100% load on the graph, he's below the speed his cpu should be running at. you can see the speed drop below 3.6ghz at 70% or more usage, guesstimate as I didn't spend a horrible amount of time looking at them in comparison, but the general message is the same. Fix the heat issue ($15-$40USD for an aftermarket heatsink+fan, if cleaning + some paste doesn't sound like less effort) then log with afterburner or HWmonitor, as well as the performance of DCS World for your needs, then go from there.

Yeah.. 100C is a "little" high. 85C with the CPU under full load is about the highest anyone really wants to be. Check your heatsink/fan for the cpu.. is it filthy? if so easiest option might be to just replace it lol. If it's relatively clean or easy to clean, could just be time to replace the thermal paste. Your CPU is probably throttling at that temp, which you can verify in task manager pretty easily if it's not running at full speed under load. Just looking at the log you provided your CPU frequency is up and down, and gets as low as 3GHz.

I'm showing your board has been capable of 9th gen since bios version 1002, with more 9th gen chips added version 1412 =x Not that i'd see the need coming from an 8700K

I get charged sales tax with any online retailer like I would locally personally. The return policy @Best Buy is really awesome though, some retailers don't allow for refunds on GPUs, only replacement of the same model, or require a re-stocking fee. I'd def shop there when you can if you aren't sure about how much you'll like something. You can always go to the store and ask someone who works there :) But I'm pretty sure you can get 100% of what you paid back from best buy on a GPU within 14 days if you're for any reason unhappy with your purchase.

I don't know if I've chimed in here yet, but I felt a desire to say I'm stoked, Deka Ironworks. This sim needs some RedFor clickpits worthy of combatting the upcoming NATO hornets, vipers, and tomcats, and while my knowledge of the JF-17 is VERY limited, what I've seen from your updates as well as a little bit of reading this thing is almost definitely going to be added to my virtual arsenal. I wish you all the success in the world, and I can't wait to see what you bring to the sim in the future.

I remember my hacked together pit. You should like those mounts lol.

2560x1440 + RTX 2080 isn't going to be a horrible experience at all and still on the edge of enthusiast level. above that is going to extremes, and paying a hefty price for it. I have a friend running a 1080Ti and a Vive Pro, and I haven't heard complaints about it from him. the difference in cost like you said, could be a warthog, or maybe your VR headset Least expensive 2080 $699, and the higher clocked versions $800-$900.. and then you're nearing that Black Edition for $1k again. But it's the same deal, even the least expensive 2080 is still a 2080. In your post specific about video cards I'm pretty sure I've stated whether you go 2080ti, 2080, or maybe even 2070, you'll be able to have a good time. In that regard, the Radeon VII and it's 16GB of HBM2 also comes to mind again as well. But yeah I do emphasize the 2080Ti being aimed at high resolution gaming. I do apologize if I've nudged you in any direction, I'm mostly just trying to be informative to help you make the decision that fits you. I still advocate Best Buy's return policy for you here if they have what you want to experience for yourself in stock, which looking at the website, they do. Free shipping, BFV and Anthem for an RTX 2080 or better.

You did come to mind here Mokey, and almost mentioned your situation as I have in the past. But I got side tracked by the prices of 4th gen processors, and now you got me looking at 7700K's and i'm shocked at the pricetags I'm seeing, but part of that can likely be recouped by selling the old CPU. Thing is I'm seeing z390 boards down at $114, and $124 (USD) , which are sale prices, but paired with a 9600K are comparible to the prices I'm seeing for just a 4th gen intel CPU. RAM might tip the scale there in the OP's case, but aren't you already using DDR4? Might be worth looking into ram compatibility lists via motherboard manufacturer. Don't get me wrong, it's not my intention to challenge budget constraints. Just offering food for thought. I agree with you though, his system might be enough to get by with a gpu upgrade while putting some funds aside to later upgrade either his CPU to a K series, or part out what he needs for a more recent chipset should he feel the need. My instinct is to lean towards more recent hardware even at the cost of a longer wait to save up, looking at pricetags, but totally respect that some might have the need to save that extra money even if the CPU price seems higher than I think it should be and forego additional components. - OP don't listen to just what we say - you can examine what's happening when you try to run DCS yourself. I like MSI afterburner for the on-screen display to monitor cpu/gpu usage while in game, polling rate can be tuned as well for more accurate readings of what's going on.

Having been into the hobby of pc building and pc gaming ever since I was a kid, most hardware takes time to reach the hands of the majority. Look into the debates about 4:3 vs 16:9 when widescreens first hit the scene, where people were convincing devs not to support widescreens due to it being "unfair" to 4:3 users, when they could buy the very same monitors that eventually turned into a standard aspect ratio over the years. The vocal arguments against 16:9 seemed to stem more from people who didn't like the idea of a new hardware purchase, albeit an optional one. Which I get.. the latest and greatest PC hardware isn't for the budget minded. It took people saying "hey.. i bought this devs.. please support it" and vocalizing their enjoyment of the product to bring the world into widescreen gaming. Steam users include a lot of budget gamers and probably sells the most during sales throughout the year when games are cheap. The right developer could come along and make a VR game at some point that plays all of it's strengths vs some of the lackluster titles out there right now. But it takes time for developers to catch up to hardware as they continue to milk the cow that's keeping them in business currently. Hence evolutions in usage of directx API have taken years to be adopted, but now there are more devs using DX12 and putting newer hardware to use. Still a bit early to call it a failure imo, there's still ground to be broken and future hardware to make it more viable, and I'm seeing more and more flight simmers put it to use increasingly, as well as racing simmers, where there's at least a market for thrustmaster warthogs and wheel/pedal sets that are more expensive than some VR headsets. Valve, HTC, Samsung, lenovo, acer and Microsoft have other markets as well to let current gens linger for awhile, perhaps even drop in price as people open up to it. Oculus VR on the other hand, well they started this whole mess, but might have a harder time with it due to VR being their only focus. The price point, and ease of setup might be keeping them in the fight however. Not necessarily directed at dburne although I for some reason quoted his post lol. *Edit* - on discord, my aussie wingmates are busy passing blame for the latest addition to the VR Club, as another reflects on his purchase of a used Samsung Odyssey. Of which I accepted some of that blame, while also passing said blame right on along to the guys who got into it early. But it was harder for me not to talk about how awesome the experience was, where the initial VR owners only nudged once or twice. Which leaves me at thought - if you can afford it, try it, if ya don't like it return it. If you like it, spread the word and the chances of a VR future go up. Would like to add to something I stated earlier in this post. "The right developer could come along and make a VR game at some point that plays all of it's strengths vs some of the lackluster titles out there right now." Of course I'm talking about other than ED and flight/racing sim devs.. who already seem to be committed to making good use of these things. Lack of G's? Motion seats are available, although building one takes some smarts, or buying one takes some dough. For the most part I think people would find themselves surprised at the experience they get in DCS for the cost of a brand new lenovo explorer without controllers ($99 usd) provided they had hardware that allowed for no less than 45fps gameplay. At least, the people I know doing so are having a good time with it. If your stomach can handle it, there might be a good chance if you just fly with it for a week you'll end up having too much fun to focus on the cons of DCS in VR.

Salt in the wound here - 4th gen K series processors, seem hard to find used and are priced pretty high for being 5 generations old. It's an option if you're on a Z series mobo, and less than an entirely new build, but not necessarily an inexpensive option, and it's kind of aged as far as hardware is concerned. Might be problematic when it comes to driver compatibility with future windows updates. Using msi afterburner you can run the client with one of the free modules and monitor cpu usage per individual core and gpu usage. If gpu is at 100% a gpu upgrade should offer more performance. If cpu is at 100% on any one core, a faster cpu would offer increased performance, and might help you decide whether throwing some money might offer an immediate benefit but I'd say without being able to overclock that CPU, bitmaster is right, there is a limit to how much a more powerful gpu would help you. Interestingly enough...nvidia launched the GTX 1660Ti today with 6GB gddr6 based on Turing architecture, @ $280 USD touted to perform 1.5x than the GTX 1060. https://www.techspot.com/review/1797-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1060-ti/ It seems to be keeping up with a 1070/1070Ti according to benchmarks from the linked article. It's not the best card but it might be a good start on a budget, and might last you long enough to part out a newer cpu/mobo/ram over time. In some cases keeping up with the $350 RTX 2060. If you don't smoke around your PC and take good care of it, you can make some of your investment back by selling it used if you decide you want a more powerful gpu in the future. Frankly this card launch caught me out of the blue, but I haven't been paying as much attention to it lately as I've bought my hardware for the next several years.

I may have drooled a little bit there.. but am still too happy with my XC Ultra to be disappointed ;P

My apologies for my part in your thread going south. Der Hirte is correct here, you're seeing a gpu limitation, indicating a gpu upgrade being the most sure form of performance increase. Bottlenecks are finicky. Upgrading one component may shift the balance from gpu limitation to cpu limitation, which could be just one single core maxing out, which will only be a percentage of total cpu usage. Display resolution being a big factor here. Hope you enjoy your new hardware.

I bought the 21:9 for DCS and "my other sim" when I was using trackIR and a 1080p monitor for added field of view, and did enjoy that until the Samsung Odyssey price got low enough to convince me to try VR and now the monitor doesn't get used for simming. But I've grown fond of it for titles that I don't use VR with. After using a 980Ti for a couple years @3440x1440, the 2080Ti is a wonderful upgrade for certain. Here's the catch however - in buying a higher resolution monitor, I pretty much locked myself in to wanting to pair it with a beefy gpu. In half a decade as software development catches up with hardware, I'm probably looking at another high end gpu. The price of luxury. Truth be told though, I'd be alright still gaming at 16:9. But I already have it, so why not enjoy it? You might be able to find a decent 4k 16:9 monitor for less money than an x34 or asus alternative costs. In most titles my minimum framerate equals or bests my 100hz refresh rate. Other titles I'm at least above 70fps with eye candy maxed. You have choices here.. and the gpu is aimed at 4K@60fps gaming. If you were to go 2560x1440, you'd want to use supersampling to justify the power of the GPU in dx11 or older. DX12 can put a gpu to work @ 1080P. VR - right now the benefit of a 2080Ti vs 1080Ti or equivilant is up in the air, as in most cases you won't be able to maintain 90fps and will rely on motion reprojection or ASW or motion smoothing, @45fps depending on your brand of headset. Vulkan could change that maybe. With the 980Ti (comparible to a gtx 1070) i had to use low/medium textures, and native headset resolution, anything 1080Ti, 2080 or above should allow for you set textures to high as well as increase the pixel density to a setting that allows you to read gauges and text as it stands. Still not quite as crisp as monitor display, but I just don't have enough words for how the pros of VR seem to outweigh the cons when it comes to combat flight sims. Everything's lifesized, in 3d with depth perception, and while some things can look blurry from far away, the sensation of being IN the cockpit just takes the cake for me personally. More of my wingmates are using VR lately than not. I will say - I love my PC. It's one of the most valuable items in my household, and I use it a LOT. This sim convinced me to chase the best I could when i built.. and I don't regret it one bit. But - you can play DCS World comfortably for less money most certainly.

They've put out several new versions of the FTW 3 since I was shopping for GPUs it looks like. Several hybrid air/water cooled versions with a closed loop or no maintenance liquid cooling system + fan(s), and a custom loop ready version, that you'd have to buy a pump, radiator and bend your own tubes for as well as maintain your coolant. 3 of those have the 1755Mhz boost clock and they are all FTW 3 Ultra. 1 being a hybrid and the other being the custom loop ready, the other being the triple fan version. IMO - these are for the highest of tech nerds, who crave the fastest absolute extreme speeds they can reach, not because performance but to be able to say they have the fastest. I'm talking spending more time benchmarking than gaming, breaking out the liquid nitrogen trying to break records. Although that doesn't exclude eager gamers who just want highest performance out of the box offering. Nothing wrong with that turning out to be you or anybody else. But bang for buck i'm still stuck on the XC Ultra and the black edition when it comes to 2080Ti. Hybrid might offer a decibel solution, but frankly the fans on the XC Ultra at 100%, despite being audible, are still not as loud as previous gpu's I've owned. I think you'll be able to set up a fan curve profile that keeps the gpu cool enough without being too loud. Being someone who doesn't fancy building a custom loop if I were aiming at a FTW 3 I'd just go for the ultra triple fan setup. If you want a custom water loop later, aftermarket custom waterblocks can be found with compatibility with motheboard branded RGB lighting, or evga might sell one seperately as well. Haven't felt the need myself. I'm like 99% certain, that EVGA warranty still stands, even if you were to use a custom waterblock. But this process takes some know how. Don't go all willy nilly on that one without some diligent research on how to guides.

RAAWWRRRRRRR :bear: XC Ultra isn't a bad pick just comparing available 2080Ti's alone, FTW 3 comes with a higher power target, higher clocks out of the box and likely more headroom for overclocking than the xc ultra.. but in most cases until you start running at 3440x1440 or 4k even the cheapest 2080Ti is more than you probably need, which means you'll more than likely be happy with the performance. Paying for the XC ultra already hurts. Paying for the black edition still kind of hurts. But, it's a 2080Ti, and at the moment it's king when it comes to framerate. Overclocking a gpu is something I'm only doing because my GPU allows for it. Not something I felt was necessary. If you have the RGB fever, which I think I saw you mention an AUROS board, being gigabyte - a gigabyte auros gpu would be able to sync lighting with your motherboard. I say that, but I have an asus mobo that uses aura, and an EVGA GPU that uses it's own rgb software. But they're all pulsing purple in my black case slighty out of sync and it looks yummy enough. I still like the xc ultra @ $1250 but am not scoffing at that black edition. Personally.. i still felt like I was spending too much but @$1400 yeah I didn't need an ftw3 or an asus strix gpu. and that evga customer service offers some confidence. I think you have a higher chance of getting working hardware than not however, but luck is subjective lol. The ideal period for an error to occur is within the replacement or refund period from the retailer. OUtside of that, I've personally read some horror stories regarding manufacturer RMA processes. But I almost held out for that strix to match the RGB theme myself lol. The FTW 3 is the winner at that pricepoint but that pricepoint is even more up there than the next best which, will probably make you just as happy. Compared to Asus Strix O11G (the $1400 one) comes with 1665 clock in OC mode, and 1650 in gaming mode, where FTW 3 comes out of the box at 1755mhz. Out of the box, that puts the strix just slightly ahead of the XC Ultra, out of the box @ 1650mhz. Gigabyte Auros for $1299 - 1695 core clock. Without overclocking them, you won't notice the difference and the silicon lottery is the silicon lottery no matter what brand you buy. And we're talking like differences of 3-5fps @ 100mhz. Perhaps more, but still negligible. Bottom line I think, is that 100mhz here and there to the clock frequency isn't going to make or break your enjoyment of the video card. If you're going to spend it, make sure you can live with it. Radeon VII is impressively contending with the 2080 for $700. Both of those are options as well. But you got your eye on something bigger. And ultimately, it's your choice and you get to live with the results. ;) If you go with the XC Ultra, do read up in the EVGA forums, as there was a bios update released after the initial launch that allowed for a 130% power target rather than 120%, and without touching the voltage slider in Precision, my XC Ultra is running at FTW 3 stock speeds +600mhz to VRAM. I personally have no complaints, and frankly haven't put the effort in to see how fast I can get that memory clock and be stable.

The anger was short lived, it's a running joke at this point. Hippy love Bit...i mean peacemaster. :drunk: I'm letting it rest now.

Further demonstrating reading comprehension is your strong suit, and still being a douche. Just sayin. What have you exposed of me? That I can back up statements with fact? I even provided you pictures and videos. For easy learning. Here's what I can admit.. continuing to respond to you, does in fact make me look bad. But I can also admit when I'm wrong, and this isn't one of those times.