BeastyBaiter

I didn't record CPU/GPU usage but I did have it up in the background (task manager + resource monitor). For 1.5, it was all CPU limited. At no point did the GPU exceed 50% and it mostly hovered around 30-40%. The i7-8700k was pinned at 100% nearly the whole time on thread 11 even when doing 45 fps. The Batumi area is absolute CPU torture which is why I use it as my benchmark area in 1.5. There is no place in DCS 1.5 or 2.x that pushes the CPU harder that I'm aware of. In 2.0, the CPU and GPU were almost perfectly matched. I never observed an instance where the GPU held back the CPU or the CPU held back the GPU. Sometimes one would be at 80% while the other was at 100%, but either way, they were matched given the 45 or 90 fps nature of the Rift. I did not look too much at monitor results as since 148 fps minimums in 2.x, so who cares? DCS 1.5 in monitor is CPU limited, just like VR. GPU usage does exceed 50% though, so... yay? In regards to Ryzen's performance, I did do the exact same benches before cannibalizing it for the new build. Here are the results (1600x at 4.0GHz, RAM at 2800 MHz): Edit: minor addendum. I was tinkering with some more modest overclocking on the 8700k for more of a daily use setup, using only 5.0 GHz for DCS and BoS where it is really needed. I found that 4.7 GHz all cores all the time can be done at 1.28v with LLC 3. This is actually below the default voltage of 1.31 when under load.

For me there is no going back to a 1440p monitor. I mostly fly choppers in DCS but even so, spotting is critical. In fact I'd say it's more critical given the lack of radar to spot for me. What I've found is spotting in the rift isn't any harder than at 1440p (actually easier since the pixels are bigger), but IDing stuff is very tricky. It's less of an issue in the Ka-50 or gazelle thanks to the targeting cameras, but any time I take out a Vigger or F-5 I'm just shooting at dots with no real idea what it is unless I see it fire or do something else that gives it's type away. But I agree the resolution needs a dramatic improvement. It's just the situational awareness and immersion far outweigh the loss in resolution for me. As for the original question, hard to say. If we're talking DCS 1.5, then your GPU is almost irrelevant. Flying with the Rift with a 1080 TI and i7-8700k, my GPU almost never exceeds 30% usage. That basically means a GTX 1060 would work just as well since it's the single thread game engine holding the frame rates down at 45 at times (I see 45 near coast, 90 everywhere else). If looking at NTTR, it's different. I get 90 pretty much everywhere except Vegas itself (at tree top level). Additionally, both the 1080 TI and 8700k are pretty much fully used at the same settings I use in 1.5.

You can look at the test track if you have the F-5, but I went for worst case scenario in both 1.5 and 2.x for an empty mission. Hence Batumi at about 100m heading north along the coast and flying from Nellis to the strip to McCarran Intl along the main highway just above the street lights/signs (between the buildings in the strip). As for delidding and additional overclocking, I don't plan to do either. AIDA64 cache and FPU tests are massively artificial and far removed from anything I actually do. Temps in the regular CPU test are fine though, so I see no reason to delid. Additionally, gameplay temps are basically in the low 50's, which is surprisingly cool though they do spike to 70-ish for a second at a time (1 reporting cycle I think) according to HW monitor. Not sure what those are about but it's worth mentioning the same thing happens at stock settings too.

I'm probably one of the first here with an i7-8700k, so I thought I'd share performance and some settings. First off the specs: CPU: i7-8700k CPU Cooler: Arctic Liquid Freezer 120 GPU: EVGA GTX 1080 TI SC2 ICX RAM: 16GB DDR4 @ 3200MHz Mobo: ASRock Z370 Extreme4 Drive: Samsung 960 Evo 500GB OS: Win10 Home VR: Oculus Rift i7-8700k overclock settings: Delidded: No Core Clock: 5.0GHz AVX Offset: 0 Cache Clock: 4.2GHz VCore: 1.36v fixed LLC: 1 (lowest V-Droop on ASRock boards, opposite of most others) MB voltages: default from XMP profile, mostly 1.15v or 1.25v RAM: Straight from XMP profile, specific ram kit is this one: https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232476 Temperatures: Don't even think about using AIDA64 cache or FPU stress test without delidding, CPU test is fine though. Temps while running games never exceed low 70's for individual cores and averages are closer to 40-50C during gameplay. Idle temps around 30C with spikes to 50C for individual cores. Passmark scores for CPU and memory: Now for DCS results, settings for 1.5 and 2.x are the same except HDR gets replaced with the newer option (can't remember name), VR uses pixel density 1.4 in both versions. Test tracks attached at the end. Settings: Results: Tracks here (requires F-5E): DCS 1.5: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RibThEokGC6Rnl0R01h3gEboQLlR__er/view NTTR: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PlpSZfNwLn5wJKGVWExUZD-8gTG8IRKo/view Final thoughts: It cost an arm and a leg, but results are pretty good in 2.x. DCS 1.5 is still problematic in VR. The test mission is completely empty other than the player's F-5E. It's just a low flight over Batumi, NTTR is similar in that it's a low flight over Vegas in an otherwise empty mission. Multiplayer performance on 104th can generally be considered playable but not ideal. FPS is 90 over less populated areas but it runs at 45 pretty much anytime the coastal towns are in view. Given nearly all 104th missions are on the coast, it could be a lot better. The limiting factor is the CPU's single thread performance in these areas. GPU usage around Batumi is only around 30%! NTTR is well balanced though with both the GPU and CPU topping out at about the same time.

This is on a fresh install on a new system. When attempting to alter any control assignment, even just deleting a default one, the game will turn black and lockup upon pressing ok. Attempting to load a profile from the same game version on a different pc has the same result. This bug only effects the mirage and exists in both 1.5 and 2.x. Edit: resolved by removing both copies of module and installing it in 1.5 before 2.x. Strange bug though.

I've never noticed such a thing. What determines fps is trees and buildings. Shadows, textures and so on seem to have no measurable impact on performance in either 1.5 or 2.x because the choke point is the single CPU thread running the graphics engine. The only thing the CPU does there is send geometry data to the GPU. This is with any graphics card equal or greater than the RX480 or GTX1060. Below that it maybe different.

Lower rotary on the throttle of X-55. I used to have this mapped to zoom, but I'm using VR now so that function no longer applies. Agreed on Jabber's setup seeming super awkward. I assume the TMWH has some pinky buttons/switches like the X-55, seems hard to access those with the throttles split like that.

I plan to do just that. Main focus will be 4.0 GHz on Ryzen vs 5.0 GHz on the i7-8700k. But I'll take a look at underclocking to 4.0 GHz too. There are a few youtube videos doing that in some artificial benchmarks. The IPC of Ryzen and sky/kaby/coffee lake are almost identical. The only real difference is the raw clock speed. So I expect the performance difference to be within margin of error for such a test. As far as other hardware, the CPU, mobo and cooler are the only things being swapped. So same ram, GPU, nvme and so on. Cooler shouldn't be too relevant so long as the new one can keep the i7 cool with maybe 2 of 6 cores running full tilt. Ryzen is not a hot chip, even with a max overclock and so a cheap air cooler is all that's needed for it.

Indeed. The world decided about 10 years ago that the way forwards is more cores rather than faster cores. Unfortunately, DCS and to a lesser extent, IL2 have yet to adjust to that decade old trend. Regardless, I've ordered an i7-8700k to replace my R5 1600x. The 1600x is an excellent CPU, no question about that and it is faster than the i5-4690 it replaced in DCS (faster RAM mostly + modest IPC gains). But it isn't fast enough in single thread for DCS in VR at more than 45 fps. It's close, running at about 12-13ms instead of the required 11ms. But it just doesn't make it. That's mostly an issue with DCS being badly coded, but nothing I can do about that. I'll give a report of the 8700k vs 1600x once it arrives. I expect it to be a couple of weeks though, as it's effectively a pre-order (retailer only has a delivery date, doesn't actually have them). On a related note, I will be selling the R5 1600x + MSI B350 Tomahawk motherboard + a basic CPU air cooler once the new setup arrives.

I dunno, how much space are you currently using and how quickly do you add to it? Speed really isn't a concern with a good nvme like the Samsung 960 pro or evo. So a single big drive is a perfectly reasonable option if you don't need more than 1 TB. Currently I have a 500 GB nvme + a 1 TB HDD. Probably going to replace that HDD soonish with a traditional SATA SSD.

It's my understanding they've been working on the Hind off and on since the Huey and Mi-8 were released back in 2013. The F-4E seems to have only just been started. Honestly, I'm a bit surprised they announced the F-4E this early. Normally they keep their projects a secret or at least an open secret pretty much up until a week or two before the buy page goes up. In any case, I'm sure they are working on them in parallel. Can't really program the cockpit till the 3d cockpit models are ready*, so while the Hind is being coded, the art team can work on something else. That's how it works for the whole project and any software development project in general. Everything is pipelined. *The code can technically be written, but it isn't possible to properly test it in game until the 3d models are in place. So that kind of thing tends to be a waste of time in my limited experience. Obviously one could use placeholders, but that's just more stuff for the art team to make.

Quick comment, your 2.x test had visibility range at ultra vs high for 1.5. That does make a massive difference as visibility range is the primary hit on CPU usage in the game. Radar, flight models, AI, shadows, it's all trivial compared to the visibility and tree draw distance as far as the CPU is concerned. This is true in both branches of DCS. As for my own experience, there is no noticeable difference between any of the aircraft in terms of VR performance. The only exceptions being the MiG-21 and Viggen with their radar on, that causes it to drop a few fps in both VR and 2d.

It is kabylake with 50% more cores, so should use 50% more power at any given clock speed.

Odd,I find it easier with VR compared to 1440p, the dots are bigger! The true 1 to 1 head tracking also helps a lot compared to TIR.

Thanks for that, guess it's going to be a while.

Athlon CPU's haven't been a thing in nearly 10 years... As for Ryzen, they work well in DCS at 1440p but I have found the VR performance to fall a bit short. VR doubles the CPU load for the graphics engine and given DCS uses only a single CPU thread for it, that's a problem for every CPU ever made. But the 20℅ better clock speed of a max overclocked kaby or coffee lake CPU gives Intel an advantage in DCS and BoX in VR. On the topic of Coffee lake specifically, this video basically matches my thoughts:

Turn anti-aliasing off, use 1.4 or higher pixel density, map the VR zoom button to your HOTAS and get good at tracking a single pixel, err, pair of pixels. That will put you on a level playing field with those using a monitor, who also have terrible spotting problems.

I don't need 90 fps, but I'd certainly like it. 45 fps doesn't make me ill, it's just fine in that respect. But I would like it a lot smoother. Also, though DCS 2.x will run 45 fps all day at very high settings (going ultra low doesn't have any impact on fps) about half the map in DCS 1.5 is completely unplayable in VR even in an empty mission due to the way the graphics engine works there. Last time I was on 104th, I exited the mission mid flight cause I was getting 12 fps in the middle of no where at high altitude with nothing going on within 50km of me. Admittedly that's just DCS 1.5 being DCS 1.5, but an 8700k at 5.0+ GHz might bump it from 12 fps to 22 fps. That's still kinda sorta playable. This is with a GTX 1080 TI btw. In any case, it shouldn't be a hugely expensive swap. I expect I'll get a good price for the 1600x + mobo since it still crushes Intel in terms of value and is great for gaming in general. It's just DCS and to a lesser extent, BoS in VR where it struggles some. Both are due to the engines not being properly multi-threaded and not at all a fault in the CPU, but it is what it is. I hate calling such problems a CPU bottleneck as the CPU is definitely not being fully used. Can't really call it a CPU bottleneck when the CPU is running at 12% capacity.;)

I had an i5-4690 (locked) and moved to the R5 1600x a few months back. It added a fair bit of performance (about 10-15 fps, same settings on the deck). The two CPU's have basically the same clock speed but the 1600x has superior IPC to the Haswell CPU's (and by extension Sandy Bridge). Performance is still lackluster in VR though. Typically I get a locked 45 fps over NTTR with jumps to 90 when at high altitude away from Las Vegas. DCS 1.5 is anywhere from 90 fps to 19 fps in an empty mission. But that's not terribly surprising since those 19 fps areas in VR were 30-ish fps with the i5-4690 and 40-45 fps with the 1600x on a 1080/1440p monitor.

It matters if you play in VR though, VR needs around 150-170 fps on monitor to get 90 fps in VR. Additionally, in DCS 1.5 there are areas that absolutely tank performance. I did a Ryzen 1600x review a while back here and though faster than an i5-4690 in single thread, even it was sub 60 fps in a few areas at low altitude. I'm actually looking at swapping my 1600x for an 8700k. I need the extra cores/threads of the 1600x compared to the 7700k, but I would like to be able to play DCS at 90 fps instead of 45. The 1600x falls just barely short of the required single thread performance to hit 90 in VR over NTTR while on the deck. Admittedly all of this is due the game engine not taking advantage of the other 10 threads my CPU has, but it is the way it is at the moment. No telling when DCS will get updated to use CPU's more effectively.

I've largely stopped attempting to play DCS 1.5 due to the horrible performance in VR with a Ryzen 5 1600x and GTX 1080 TI (it's ok on monitor though far below what it should be). The problem is DCS is single threaded and DCS 1.5 doesn't use any sort of clip mapping, and so everything is rendered, even stuff behind a mountain. Additionally, nearly all graphics load is placed on the CPU rather than GPU. There are areas where I can get 90 fps on max detail with a decent sized battle going, and others where I get 22 fps in a completely empty mission at minimal detail settings. And there is no real pattern as to where since it isn't just stuff that's actually in view that slows it down. With very careful mission creation to avoid the low performance areas, it is playable but the hassle of doing so kills it for me. DCS 2.x runs much smoother and so I do play that a bit. But even it is very poorly implemented since it's still single threaded. I've mostly been playing BoS and some shooters due to this. Matt did suggest in a recent video interview that they were working on multi-threading the game, but that hasn't happened yet obviously. Hopefully we don't have to wait too long. I really, really want to play this at 90 fps all the time in epic battles, my 1080 TI will support it and I have the CPU for it too. But the game engine has to actually make use of the hardware rather than trying to run as though we're all still using Pentium 4's and Voodoo 3 graphics cards.

Maybe through a config file somewhere, but I can already tell you that steamVR will perform worse (possibly not measurably, but certainly theoretically). The reason is steamVR acts as a middle man between the game and the Oculus drivers. Obviously direct access to the drivers is going to be faster than going to an interpreter, doing a conversion and then going to the drivers.

Vive advantages: 1) Marginally better room scale tracking 2) Additional available peripherals (such as rifle shaped controllers) Rift advantages: 1) Slightly less screen door effect 2) Better touch controllers (for now) 3) $100 cheaper (in USA) Overall they are very comparable. I have the Rift and am pleased with it. For DCS and BoS, a good HOTAS such as the X-52/55/56 is a must. You really can't be messing with keyboard shortcuts in flight. A few things like landing gear are doable since "G" is right next to a key with a bump, but anything harder to find is going to be a problem. I don't find using a mouse a problem though, that's easy enough to find and click on stuff. Actually, it's easier than with TIR due to greater head tracking stability (it's 1 to 1 and never freaks out).

Hopefully it's the MiG-23. The RAZBAM confusion resulted in a few posts by Wags and others that suggested someone else was already working on it. We know that someone isn't M3LLC, Aviodev or VEAO and obviously can't be RAZBAM. Heatblur seems the most likely candidate and was part of their original plans back when the MiG-21 was being made. It would make use of swing wing tech. The Tornado, though an interesting aircraft, is probably one I'd skip. If I pay $50-60 for a module, I want it to offer something new. The Tornado doesn't do that, too much overlap between it, the Viggen, Hornet and Harrier. That doesn't mean it isn't a cool aircraft, just a bit redundant.

I think the rift is doing just fine. They lost a ton of ground to the vive when the vive had controllers but the rift didn't. But they've been regaining market share ever since I think. In any case, though I have the rift and am happy with it, I'm not convinced they will still be a player in 5 years. In a lot of ways they are trying to be the Apple of VR, I'm not sure that's a viable business model. But then I'd say the same thing about the iPhone and iPad, yet they seem to do ok. So what do I know? :P