Mr_sukebe

Fascinating discussion chaps. Maybe one to war game in DCS.

Nice set of tests. Makes sense. The T4 settings are very similar to my current setting.

Is this dedicated server primarily single thread, or does it now use multiple cores?

Maybe it was just upselling the importance of that area? From a quick look, the northern plains route looks easier for massed armour: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_German_Plain In the above, it suggests that the Fulda route would give easier access to likely Soviet targets, but doesn’t specify what they might be. When I was setting up my Cold War scenario, the Fulda route appeared to have a number of choke points that would allow the defender to make life much more difficult for the attacker, eg severing the rail links, which would probably have been the obvious method to resupply the assault force.

I think a Foxbat would be an interesting addition. I also enjoyed the video, though I’m guessing that some of the claims might well have included a dose of “hype”. Eg near the start, it mentions a big combat radius (900km??), then towards the end comments on how little fuel it has post take off and landing for flight time. It can’t be both.

Just had three more thoughts: - Vulkan does typically reduce CPU loading, though clearly we have no control over that - I seem to remember Mbucchia suggesting that the use of Quad views will reduce GPU loading, but will add a little to CPU load. If you have GPU resource spare, disabling quad views might actually help - if you look at task manager when DCS is running, CPU load appears to be primarily spread over 4 cores. Makes me wonder if ED has deliberately done that to ensure that almost all players benefit, without the extra dev effort to have it auto scale to however many cores a player actually has. It would be a sensible approach. If that is the case, do we expect Windows to be smart enough to run the other Apps on cores no used by DCS? Is there a case for using Process Lasso to tell windows to run all Apps but DCS on say 4 cores, and DCS on the other 4 cores?

It’s pretty easy to install on the same PC. If the server uses different CPU cores to the game, and you have enough RAM, should be an easy win.

I don't know. I've just run up a server, with nothing else running, and no one logged in. There's not a huge amount going on automatically, maybe 6 planes flying, but there's a whole bunch of radars running. That was using 2-3% CPU and interestingly, 19GB of RAM. I couldn't tell if it was single or multi-threaded with the other background "noise" of what my CPU was doing. Last year, it was single threaded and I'd previously never seen the dedicated server use more than around 8GB of RAM. That's clearly changed, with a LOT more RAM in use. I'll have a fiddle tomorrow to see if I can pin down if it's single or multithreaded. It's use of RAM does mean that running it on the same PC as the game, is looking like maybe a bad idea, unless you have 96GB of RAM. So hosting on another PC might well be a good move. If it's multithreaded, maybe I could run it on a spare PC that I have downstairs. Last year, the saving in CPU did help performance.

Can I please suggest you take a scan at this, which might include some useful suggestions:

That’s an interesting pair of graphs. Doesn’t look like mine. Im guessing that the first is showing ASW in operation (hence 36fps), as neither the CPU or GPU are peaking. I’m currently getting 72fps most of the time, which results in higher usage of both the GPU and CPU.

From what I've experienced, the VRAM isn't as big an issue as it appeared earlier this year. DCS now provides not only the VRAM reserved, but also now the VRAM in use. I've yet to see DCS use much above 12GB. So whilst having 24+ would be useful longer term, right now, doesn't appear to be needed.

I get the impression that the 5080 isn't that much faster than the 4080. I'd expect a bigger improvement from a jump to the 9800x3d.

I tried it over the weekend. Didn't really seem to help much, though that was with a heavy CPU version of the map with a LOT of SAMs on it. To use the server: Install it. Dead easy. Most of the files are copied from the main game install. Needs several hundred GBs of space though The install includes it's own .exe to run Once running, it's controlled using a web-browser interface. The URL is provided within the install folders By default, the install won't include all of the theatres. There's a command line to add them. It's pretty easy The install will need to have copies of any mods/liveries and similar that a map is using. The simple way is to use symbolics, such that the server looks at the folder for the main game In use, I've not seen it use more than 16GB of RAM (more typically around 8GB), but that does mean that you'll really need at least 64GB. It conducts no rendering, so won't use any GPU resources This used to be a great way to offload CPU usage, when the game was single thread. Now, I'm far less sure. The main game is now multi-core, whilst the server is I believe single core.

+1, same

Hey, that’s cool, go for it. As mentioned, this is just a sandbox, with some of the groundwork done, so feel free to play with it and use it how you wish.

Apologies if I've missed something, but I'm struggling a little with setting up FARPs. pg324 of the DCS manual states the Blue side should have the following for a mobile FARP: APC M1025 HMMWV M818 FARP Fuel Depot Tanker М978 HEMTT The APC M1025 has either been renamed or gone AWOL. It appears to now be the Scout HMMWV The M818 is the same, I've tried using the M939, seems to work. The 978 has been renamed as the Re-fueller M978 HEMTT. From a quick test, that lot seems to work. Anyone else found the same?

My solution was a set of 4 Zeitauto velcro straps. I strapped 3 side to side on the headset and they now happily carry the weight of the headset. They were also dirt cheap when compared to the normal commercial solutions.

Why stop there? Surely it’s viable to take in parts of Italy?

Have updated my sandbox mission and have attached it if it helps anyone. Key updates are: Added markings on the F10 map for locations of fixed Soviet SAM sites. By fixed, that means the SA2, SA3 and SA5 sites. SA6 are mobile and are NOT marked Added what appears to be the expected route(s) for a Soviet advance using the Fulda gap. For that route, have added target points for rail bridges that would likely be used to supply forward Soviet units Tidied up the positioning of the SA2 and SA3 sites New AI quick reaction flights on each side In the new few days, I'll be updating with pickzones and similar to aid with CTLD. Germany - 1985 - v.4.miz

Maybe it’s just a clever disguise? On a positive note, easy for Su25s to spot

Agreed mostly with Luc. CPU - 9800x3d RAM - 64GB, maybe 96GB if it's not much more Motherboard - Similar to Luc, you don't really need an 870. For that matter, I got the impression that the 800 series MBs only really added support for faster RAM and USB4 (please do correct me if that's wrong). The 650 and 670 motherboards are (or at least were) significantly cheaper With the savings on the CPU and Motherboard, grab yourself an Nvidia GPU. IMO the 5080 is a good unit. Half the price of a 5090, whilst providing 2/3rds of the grunt.

Personally I think it looks brilliant, but then I'm not German and have little experience of time in country. As for the repetitive buildings, that's true of many maps and also other flight sims. Maybe a better question would be whether you'd have been willing to pay more for some additional building types? If so, then maybe that's a marketing opportunity to create a "building DLC", with templates, allowing users to dump them around maps.

I found this site quite interesting: https://geimint.blogspot.com/2008/08/ddr-air-defense-cold-war-case-study.html

I have to say that they took me be surprise when I nearly ran into one in a harrier. Made as you say, an option to remove would be a great solution. Hats off to the devs, very cool to see.

About time. It's only a couple of years late...