nayu05

Ah yes, i just noticed you are in the US! I am sure you will sell it, it is a good price. Thanks for your time

Hello, I am interested with your pedals. Do you confirm the bundle is complete? I would need it to be ship to France, how much would it cost? Thanks, have a good day!

Great, we continue in PM.

Hello, I am interested, how old is it? What is the software "DRM" method if there is one? Would it be easly transferable to me? I am from france so shipping shouldnt be a problem. I am ok with a payment via Paypal. Thanks.

Hello, A very small thing that I discovered recently: When I press the button number 4 of the up-front control panel, some part of the 3D model disappear (only visible from the cockpit when looking over the shoulder). Normal view: View when button 4 of the UFCP is push: It seem to only "work" with this specific action (either activate through external device or directly with a mouse click). Thanks for your work.

Still digging and it turn out I was not at the CPU limit yet, actually far from it (I was suspicious because of the stability of the fps) In the graphic.lua there is a maxfps value that do exactly what it is supposed to. The value was 180 and I changed it to 1000 to be sure. Now the true CPU limited chart: And me that was certain it was a CPU limited game :x I know that higher setting might affect CPU too (well I guess there is room for it!) but the GPU bottleneck so quickly… even at 800x450, that i can't check. I will try to dig into the GPU limitation thing, I still have a hard time believing there is that much too do at that low of a resolution. note: the maxfps value doesn't change the low point of the reference run (high preset 1440p no AA no AF) witch make sens.

Hello, I was playing arround recently, trying to understand how the game behave and particularly looking for the cpu bottleneck point. It turn out the game was a lot more GPU limited than i though (actually to the point I have a hard time believing it and suspecting there is something ****ed up). In any case, i realised as I was lowering the setting a lot that the game started to cap the FPS (64fps for me) when the display was too simple. Don’t ask me! I have no clue! I had to "stress" my computer with something else to push back the FPS to the max (in my test we are talking 64fps with the game alone, instead of 200fps with something running on the side (a video or something, it doesn’t matter). I can’t explain it (though, I remember having to do something similar with some game 15yers ago) From what I tested and seeing your problem it might be that somehow your GPU is starving, even in VR in 1.5 and the "cap" show up. On my side the problem appeared as I was benchmarking the game on a very low resolution on one screen only. When I really play it is in VR and even with low setting my 980ti is not starving. But the 1080ti is really much more powerful so the thing that happened to me looking for the CPU bottleneck (witch is very high from what i tested so i doubt your CPU is your problem) point might happen to you in VR. I would try to push the resolution multiplier to be sure that the GPU is not starving and see how it behave.

Just a quick feedback in my quest to find the CPU bottleneck point. It seem to be reachable with everything on low with 900x510 resolution (comparable result at 1400x900) Note that I had to artificially stress my CPU with something else to reach those number, for some reason the fps was capping at 64fps if I lowered the setting too much (while the GPU staying at max clock so I don’t think it come from the GPU power management). I use a park control software and every power management options are unlock so I don’t think it is from that either. Maybe something to do with the last windows update and there gaming mode. I suspect DCS itself, let’s be honest. If I turn the shadow back up the cap go away, the game seem to track if we starve the GPU somehow, and I don’t understand why it would do that. Result All low (shadow OFF) at 900x510 AA0 AF0 I think it is the CPU bottleneck point, but i am not even certain, look how the fps is higher in the first part of the 1440p run with everything high but shadow (+200fps) when it never does in lower resolution with everything low. Edit: I am surprise that the FPS are so stable too, it is the limit, but there seem to be no stress at all (maybe the track is too simple). Result All high except shadow (OFF) 2560x1440 AA0 AF0 This game is so strange, maybe all of this is for the best and it wouldn't change anything with a more "normal" behaviour but i would like to understand how and why it work like that. Anyway, to go back on track, if you want to actually test CPU on DCS, you have to go much lower than the high preset (and i am more than surprise).

Is it really that simple? I agree it seem straight forward but how do you explain the actual power consumption of the card? I check the GPU usage and power usage with EVGA precision X (similar to afterburner I suppose) and effectively, my GPU usage was at 99% pretty much all the time. Wanting to actually find the CPU bottleneck point I went on and reduce the resolution, I went down to 900x510 (keeping the ratio similar) and effectively, my GPU usage was around 80% over the desert but went up back to 99% close to Vegas. In the same time my power consumption went down by half though, and the temperature going with it as well. I am so confuse. I don’t have much knowledge in 3D render so my view don’t really matter, but I really find like there is so many contradiction in DCS behaviour. Still going toward the fact that we are "forever stuck" in a GPU bottleneck situation (with I have still a hard time believing, even with all the “proof” just in front of me) the actual FPS went up while keeping the exact same behaviour. See both run at different resolution: 1360x768 900x510 So you are right, you would gain fps with a new card (and I would too). What is the game feeding the card with though? I don’t get it, at those resolution it should be a walk in the park (and the power consumption kind of show that) and the CPU should be the limit. It is like the game was artificially feeding the card with something to do, I don’t get it. DCS always confused me performance wise and it seem like despite that many of my conviction build on old testing (pre 1.5) are now wrong, there is one constant: it is weird! I was convince that DCS was a CPU limited game like arma3, apparently it is not the case at all, in fact it might be the most gpu limited game I have ever seen! I will see how other gpu intensive game behave and see what is up, I generally don’t bother (because it is straight forward, at least I think so) and I might have a lot off preconceived idea that are totally wrong. For now I will stick to "DCS doesn’t make sense" Anyway, sorry for hijacking the thread, I am sure there is millions of hardware related stuff on the forum and I will definitely look into it.

Like some of you might have suspected, there is no miracle and it was an oversight on my part. The good news are: - Nothing wrong with your rig and, - I will not have to do hours of testing to see what is going on! So I tried this morning to redo the test as I did yesterday, and I got significantly different result, a lot more in line with all the score in the thread. Why though? Well I can’t be absolutely sure but I remember seeing the view distance set on low after selecting the high preset. Witch don’t really make sense I know, and it is specifically why I do remember it (I am almost certain I even switch back in forth several times). I went with it, thinking that is not the first weird thing I saw in DCS (I find the VR preset strange as well). Now, I don’t understand what happened because it is just not the case anymore, with high preset come the high view distance, as anybody would have suspected (and me too I insist!). I did those test again and even check if the number I claimed yesterday were in sync with a test on low view distance, and it is. I join you 3 charts showing my results again, a lot more in line with everyone. High preset + Mirror High preset High preset with view distance on low I will methodically test my GPU now and see what is up on this end, I never really bother doing it convince there was no way to bottleneck a GPU on this game on a single screen.

I do! But it is so strange. I really dont know about the GPU, i am so certain we are not GPU limited that it might be an oversight. I will dig it: i will do some test this weekend, stock VS OC (RAM and CPU) and 980ti vS 780ti. I will keep you update.

Interesting :o

I played around a bit and realised i was playing with the mirror off (it is a no go in VR) I got around 5fps less on low point (85fps at the lowest point) The gap is closer but still feel a bit too much. Maybe i still underestimate the value of the ram still (like most people i realize)

I am going to spend some time to answer you since I was in your exact case not long ago. Like you, I have a track IR and I was very happy with. I was very interested in VR for a while and the price was really the thing that was blocking me. I got lucky and bought a dk2 for a very low price recently. You have to keep in mind I was very interested by VR itself and not only for DCS, I really like to tweak and play with hardware in general, it is a good part of the fun for me. Now my opinion: I really like my dk2 as it is exactly what I needed in term of feature. The tracking with the single camera is an amazing upgrade compare to the trackIR, (actually it is kind of a problem because I just can’t use my track IR anymore!) It have some dead angle if you turn back completely but it is fine. Having another camera would be nice but it is really not a big deal. The lack of motion controller is a non-issue to me since I am not interested by the content available (for now I guess, but I am not optimistic). There is no official support for the dk2 anymore but I don’t have any problem with it, granted, that might change at some point but I really doubt it will be a problem soon. The dk2 screen are at 75hz witch might be considered as a problem but not by me, and certainly not in DCS where the frame are hard to get. I have a very good PC and even 37.5fps (with AWS) is not possible in every situation. I was afraid of the motion sickness coming with a “low” frequency but is not a problem whatsoever, at least for me. Overall I consider that the 75hz of the dk2 as an advantage and hope future VR hardware will come with customizable frequency. I play a lot of racing game with it and it is amazing: I think racing game are the best application for gaming in VR for now, those game are not very demanding and the simple interface with the wheel make the immersion great. For DCS it is another story. It is good don’t get me wrong, the game itself is great in term of compatibility/setup but there is a lot of little problem coming with the usage of VR. First the complexity of the input needed to fly is sometime problematic and being blind can be an issue even with a decently configured Hotas. The poor screen resolution really is a problem in DCS, downscaling and AA make it acceptable but there is no miracle. The need to lower the graphic doesn’t help the visual experience (I play with no shadow personally). I would say that VR in DCS is for the most part, carried by the incredible motion tracking. That lead me to go back to your initial question, it is much better than trackIR in term of tracking (night and day really, even if it is a bit unfair to compare the two). But the trade of in visual quality is very rough and beyond the simple visual comfort, it impact gameplay heavily (missile launch detection, and detection of anything a bit far is really problematic). The difficulty to read the instrument is sometime a problem but it is not that bad (the zoom play around that). Being blind is a little problem as well, you get used to it but it affect immersion a bit (a paradox I guess) I see you plan to play with the Ka50 and the Huey and it is a good thing because I think chopper beneficiate the most from VR, close range perception is amazing and help a lot with all manoeuvre. Now I am talking about the Dk2 it is where I stand: I will not upgrade to a CV1 or a HTC VIVE. I am not interested in motion gaming and I guess it influence a bit. The screen quality is better but by how much, feedback go from “night and day” to “barely an upgrade” so it is hard know from all the hidden marketing/war “fake” review you have everywhere. I was able to try a HTC VIVE (before the dk2 sadly) and even as a first experience I was shocked by the low resolution of the screen. The screen door effect was less present than in the dk2 but that was about it. My opinion is that is it not worth it, it might be better but still far from enough considering the price. I don’t own either a CV1 or a HTC vive, it is an opinion based on what I know and what I think from it. (I would love to really try one again). It all come to the price you plan to pay your dk2, I got mine for 125€ witch was a steal, if you can get one for less than 200€ it is still worth it I think, beyond I think I would have waited. I am curious to try those “4k” headset from china but the lack of true motion tracking make it a no go (head tracking is really half the immersion) That was a bit long but I hope I describe my feeling well enough. TLDR: The dk2 is really good and still functional, the feature are close to perfect for DCS. Head tracking is amazing, far better than track IR (by design, it is kind of unfair to compare) the screen resolution is pretty bad but CV1 and HTC VIVE are not good either in that aspect. Paying more than 3 time the price for the CV1 or the HTC is not worth it in my opinion. Feel free to disagree and express it, I would love to be wrong and play DCS in perfect condition!

Hello I am quite surprise by your result overall. particularly the 7700k@ one because that is the cpu i owned. I usually play in VR and even then I feel like my FPS is higher (though, it is harder to check). I know DCS is such a strange beast when it come to performance, so I tried this track in single screen to check. My setup: 7700k@4.9Ghz DDR4 @4133 CAS17 980TI 1550/7800 Result: Start 140 Nellis 120 Vegas Strip 90 Vegas Airport 105 (Do you track those numbers with some kind of tools? I just check the fps with the in game counter so it is very inaccurate. I think only the low point matter tho) I ran the benchmark track as you said, 2560x1440p no AA no AF (I think we are very very far from GPU bottleneck anyway) and high preset on DCS 2.0 and my fps is never going under 90fps (between 95-90fps for a few seconds when the track get close to the center building of vegas) It is over 100fps all the time otherwise (up to 140fps at the begining) The difference might be that I have very fast optimized ram (4133 CAS 17) and the game scale very well with it (like most single core/cpu limited game) but still, the difference seem like too much. Am I missing something obvious? Are you testing in 16/9? Wide screen and multi-screen are very taxing on CPU so it could be that. note: I "clean installed" DCS recently so there is no tweaking whatsoever. Thanks for reading.

Hello, I have a question about FC3 plane's "control indicator" (the little UI that show the position of the stick we get with "lCtrl Enter" I use a 3 screens setup and i am use to move it from the far left screen to the center screen by editing a lua file (it is easy to do for the blackshark that i mainly use). (Reference for Ka50: "x:\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\Mods\aircraft\Ka-50\Cockpit\Scripts\ControlsIndicator_page.lua") Sadly i cant find such lua file for FC3 planes. Luckily this tool is not as important for FC3 in general so i can live with its current position, still it would help to make it more usable now that i flight more and more with the flankers (that need triming a lot) Thanks