Jooga

DCS Vulkan by the end of this year with the next gen Nvidia/AMD GPUs is my wet dream. Couple that with Valve Index and I'm in Nirvana.

Exactly! 1800x->3900x here I come! Was surprised how close the 3900x gets to oc 9900k with SMT turned off in Gamers Nexus benches.

My menu + radio dialog disappears if I reload an instant action for example with shift+R or re-join a multiplayer mission, or every time I need to load a mission the 2nd time. To get Menus visible again I need to shut down DCS and restart the game. I just re-installed DCS and AMD GPU Drivers from 18.5.1 to 18.6.1. I don't remember exactly when this issue started, but probably after 2.5. I'm using RX Vega 64 GPU (+ RX Vega 56, crossfire disabled). Radio menus do work but I can't see any options. For example I can press F1+F1+F3 to tell my flight to attack bandits, but I need to memorize the command as I can't see what I'm doing with radio. Also I can start a game by pressing ESC when there should be a briefing/pause window that I just can't see. But for MP-servers this is a bigger issue as I can't join a slot after server re-start or something similar. main PC specs: Oculus Rift CV1 AMD Ryzen 1800X DDR4 16 gb @3333 Mhz Radeon RX Vega 64 (+ Vega 56) Windows 10

Hornet uses same sized chaffs and flares so 1 flare equals 1 chaff, shouldn't be a 2:1 ratio in slots needed. Hope ED fixes this.

Not totally sure if a bug or a feature, but when you program ALE-47 dispense programs and decrease amount of chaff/flares from 0, the counter jumps to 100 and can't be put back to 0 with up. Really frustrating if you then have to decrease again 100 times to get back to 0. Is this intended?

I did some more testing and got mostly nice 90 FPS by setting the visibility distance low. I didn't notice any impact on how far I could spot other aircrafts, but FPS did increase noticeably. I will try to do more tinkering on what pixel density is best for Vega-VR, 1.5 seemed to have some impact on FPS but it was still playable. I mostly used 1.0 PD and with it radar display was a little tough to read.Flying low and doing some M2000 BFM in missile instant action FPS was bouncing around 45 (Rifts ATW). ^ on SkateZilla's post I don't think the GPU is heat-throttling in my case, as temps are ~30-35 degrees and both core&memory clocks are mostly only 50% of maxed values. In full GPU load (other games) max temperature is ~45c on my watercooled loop. I'm quite happy with this as now I can at least play the game and enjoy it. But I still wouldn't suggest getting a Vega for DCS unless you have other uses like Freesync-monitor. Also, I don't know anything about normal monitor-performance with the Vega since I'm only using VR.

Well TBH the power consumption isn't that high compared to last generations cards, Pascal just made a huge leap forward in terms of efficiency. Also undervolting helps with performance and power consumption. Sure it is ~100W more than a GTX 1070, but in my case PC's total consumption goes from 450-> 550 Watts, roughly. I have a Vega 64 running in custom waterloop but I haven't had much time to play DCS yet. Performance seemed worse than with GTX 1070 with my ~30mins of playing. FPS seemed to drop below 45 everytime I maneuvered, but if I flew straight FPS would go over 90 with VR (Rift) even if I moved my head around. This seemed weird and needs more testing when I have the time. GPU usage seemed to fluctuate between 40-90% with GPU clocks jumping between 400-1200 mostly, where max settings were at 1700 Mhz. Seems like DCS doesn't push the GPU nearly as much as it could be used, compared to GTX 1070 that I had previously. I hope Vega drivers improve in near future and there would be some performance leaps. DCS is certainly flyable with the Vega, but just not as smooth as it was with a Pascal card. I don't know if my monitor change from 1080p 60Hz to 1440p 144Hz had something to do with performance, as VR copies the image to monitor too. Don't really think it should matter. I opened another thread for Vega performance as I somehow missed this Hardware section totally. Could have just posted here instead of opening a new one.

My CPU is 1800X @ Stock settings (4.0 / 4.1 GHz on single core) and 3200 MHz DDR4 RAM. When I changed from 3570k @ 4,5 GHz to 1800X @ 4.0 I didn't notice any jumps in performance. Maybe the 1800X is a little slower which was smoothed out by switching to better memory. Can't tell. I haven't had time to test a lot but I did another fast test with the Mirage where FPS jumped to over 90 when flying straight at low altitudes even if I moved my head in Rift. But when I started to pull G's FPS instantly dropped under 45. I didn't really see any other amounts with DCS's FPS counter. It was good to at least see >90 FPS and maybe the performance can improve in later drivers, though I think AMD doesn't really do anything specifically for DCS. With GTX 1070 FPS transitions seemed a lot smoother and I can't remember it being tied up with how I moved the aircraft, but moving my head had some impact. This seems logical as your view changes and GPU should load new textures stress its memory. But with Vega rapidly moving your head didn't seem to drop FPS nearly as much as pulling Gs and slowly moving the aircraft around. I know the synthetic 3dmark isn't the best point of reference for a single game, but it should show some area of how the card could potentially behave. Every game has its own preferences.

Hi, Wanted to start a thread about the new Radeon RX Vega GPU-series performance in DCS world. I personally just put a waterblock/custom loop on my Vega 64 and overclocked it to its limits. It goes beyond GTX 1080 on Firestrike benchmarks, but the performance seems to be way below GTX 1070 in DCS. My initial tests are mostly first impressions from flying 10 minutes both in 1.5 Caucasus and 2.0 Nevada singleplayer using M2000C in A-A instant actions. Both started from medium/high altitudes where FPS was still below 45 using VR, Oculus Rift CV1 to be exact. On GTX 1070 I mostly had 90 FPS (Rift maxed) at high altitudes with fairly low traffic. I tracked the GPU clock/memclock graphs using MSI afterburner and the clocks seemed to be only 300-1200 Mhz on core while max setting was at 1700Mhz, GPU load was low ~50%. Memory performed the same where memclocks were a step over idle clocks at 500 Mhz, while max was 1100 Mhz. I wonder if ED could get a hands on with some Vega cards and try to see if you find the same scenario, and if you could do something to increase GPU usage. The issue might be in AMD drivers too, and generally AMD lacks in performance using DX 11 or older APIs. I'm eager to hear if some of you have also bought Vega GPU and how it performs.

Why do you even compare 8c/16t clocks and price against lower core count intel clocks and price? You should compare R7-1800x against 6900k and if you want a gaming CPU from AMD wait for the R5 series with 4 and 6 core designs. I'm pretty sure top end 4 and 6 core CPUs will have higher clocks than an 8c design since less heat production from 1/2 the cores. Also the price for R5 designs would be a lot less than the price for a flagship 1800x-CPU. And keep in mind that the 1700/1700X are still 8c/16t models for 320/380$ and they can be both overclocked. Also, IPC seems ok from what we have seen on AMD's demo against the 6900k. But here you have to remember that it was AMD's demo, not a third party review. Also the arguments that Ryzens are too expensive seems so weird. They are about half the price of their Intel counterpart, that seems pretty cheap to me if they are even close on performance, they could even lose a little and still have a lot better value.