Harley

I saw something interesting last night when I was flying in Syria. Lately, I've been using the utility within DCS when you press "R-CTRL+SCROLL LOCK" to see how things are going. I exceeded my /budget (I forget what the other category was, but it's the equivalent to "used/budget", pertaining to amount of things stored of a total allocated on the GPU) By a few MB. Of a total of 7.2XX of available, it exceeded that, something about 7.6XX, which came as a surprise that it didn't CTD. Meaning, I think that adding more VRAM is exactly the secret. I'm still waiting for the Radeon VII I ordered on ebay to arrive, but that may stave off the CTD being experienced with the Iraq map for a bit. Just some corollary data I thought may confirm what's happening.

I've figured it out. I said that up there. Years ago, I'm sure I was touching down at 7° glideslope with 3 full tanks just to get the approach right. I was an abuser of the technique, paying no attention to the E-bracket at all. It was like a "game" in that regard, because approaching by anything close to "on the numbers" would almost always result in a bolter. It was quite the shift in technique. If we all had the opportunity to be taught the numbers as the cadets in the Academy are, then none of this would be an issue at all, and the feel would be irrelevant, as surely it is for real pilots in the sim. They know what 3° of glideslope feels like on their backs, and already will hold themselves to the learned technique taught to them by experience. Training is the difference. We have a battery of training track files in DCS, and I've used them a few times, but most learning came from studying from the NATOPS book and watching videos. There's a lot to learn, and the fundamentals are important.

I'm not saying that the representation is not realistic. I understand the intent. I also know that from the NATOPS manual that there are limitations. That is all very reasonable. My only argument is that the line between a successful trap and breaking the gear is very "digital". What I mean is that I think there is an exact instant where the force calculation (stress moment, arm, length) is a make or break result. Not much tolerance. We're still unable to "feel" the landing, and so there is no associated thought that "Oh, yeah, that was a hard landing" happens. It's likely very accurate for the calculation, but the missing parts are hard to assimilate into knowing exactly when too much is too much. We can't account for everything, and I haven't read the entire content of the NATOPS manual, either. There are very few real world naval aviators that fly DCS, and I'm sure that with the type of training one would get at the Naval Academy is all the difference. We're just simulating this experience, and some elements are difficult to reconcile without "real feel", and that's what is likely happening to us on the deck. I've improved a lot, and I'm paying much more attention to the E-bracket now. It's the learning curve that can be a frustrating experience, considering how easy it once was.

Surely in real life, it's not this easy to break the gear. I think it is awfully sensitive, and perhaps the limits are being pushed by us, because of the lack of real training, but I can't imagine that breaking the gear is as easy to do in the real world as it is here.

Additionally, I'm going to put this out there: I just picked up a used Radeon VII. I've been using 2 Vega 64s for years, and they really do fine, even on just the one that DCS will use. It's a dedicated rig for only DCS, so I anticipate using this GPU will really help with that 16GB capacity. These cards had issues at launch, and were abused by the mining craze of that time, but if one can be found at a decent price point, consider it. DCS isn't likely to use many of the interesting or intense graphics features that other AAA titles use, best I understand it. Maybe one day, but not as of now. It seems the direction things have turned as of now, to take full advantage of the scenery at least, the feature most likely to be the most important for the foreseeable future seems to be VRAM capacity, and associated bus width for keeping things smooth. The Radeon VIIs are 16GB cards with HBM2, at a ludicrous 4096 memory bus width. The DCS engine, as it is now, seems to play fine on the Vega 64s I've been using, I just need more VRAM. Doubling it for the $200 price tag I just got it for will likely see good use for another few years, I think. Definitely not future proof, but if capacity is such a big issue, don't rule these cards out. On the current Vega 64, I have many sliders in a great spot for good scenery at 1080P, although I know that lots of folks are doing the 4k thing, but I think it could still crank out pretty good frames at that resolution. Folks could enjoy this sim on less capable hardware, and I just basically bet $200 on solving my CTD issue by throwing more of the same memory I'm already using at it. I'll share my results when it's installed. With the one, and with pretty decent scenery settings, I'm still at the 60 FPS limit in all phases of flight, so I expect it to only do better. Full stack if upgrades for cheaper than one new GPU.

Agreed. I prefer AMD, because something about watching Rocky 4 when I was young, and the underdog, and because they're the only competition for the just plain brazen Nvidia Corp, with the audacity to charge $2500 for their top of the line new card. Surely that should make some folks cringe, considering how often all the manufacturers want us to upgrade. Yikes. But, there are other offerings, and the used market is becoming a more enticing option. On the performance:use ratio, it would be nice to see how much VRAM is actually needed. I think I'm missing some part of the transaction, but it seems that games (and simulators) are all about just loading up any size GPU you can throw at it, filling up all the available space with textures to minimize the load times, best I understand it. That said, that if you run out of space, to result in a CTD is a new thing for me. Maybe we are seeing some other issues with optimization, like perhaps it is supposed to dump unused textures at some point, or something. But as it is now, it's my guess that any amount of VRAM will be used as much as possible. The offerings as of now are not all that impressive, either. Especially for the value per dollar ratio. Holy moly. These folks need to know that they're dealing with regular people. Not all of us have bitcoin just laying around for GPU allowance. I think the market has peaked, and that we should see prices throttle back at least a little bit. No way a card that someone will keep for a year and a half or less should be a mortgage payment.

Thanks for that. If it doesn't pass integrity check, however, I'll just let it be. It seems that the global settings in DCS may need to be throttled due to each map having its own and higher demands of your system. It's sad, but it seems the only other way around this is to upgrade the GPU to something with higher capacity. Newer maps seem to have higher requirements, but throttling global settings will have an adverse effect on other maps, such as the Caucasus region whose requirements seem very gentle. For me, I,suppose it's time to upgrade that GPU also.

In the F18 and flying over Baghdad in the Iraq map is when RAM use hits over 32 GB. I could adjust some settings as you've pointed out, but man, it looks so good, I don't want to do that yet! I am likely to spring for a new GPU sometime soon, because crossfire doesn't work for DCS. It causes issues, like the sky going dark during the day, and other issues. When I enable it, it still doesn't see any more VRAM than what one card has on board, at least with the "CTRL+SCROLL LOCK" utility inside DCS. It may be a lack of my understanding within the AMD utility, but every time I've tried to enable crossfire and then run DCS, there are issues, and I end up just disabling it. What is this texture optimization script you mention up there? Is it the same as reducing a slider in the settings menu? Sorry if it sounds like a noob question. I'm not as well versed in the .lua scripting as I was with the other simulator and their .cfg files in C+.

First problem is that I'm running AMD cards. I disable crossfire because DCS doesn't like it. Also, I've only got 8GB per card now. I'm sure there will be optimizations, and that's what I'll hope for. Is anyone else able to fly over Baghdad without issue?

Also, I think it's worth saying that Iraq looks so good. What I can see of Baghdad before it crashes is what I hope all these maps look like one day. Very dense scenery, and there's stuff everywhere, and it looks lived in, even at this stage. For someone that loves CAS roles, it will be a target-rich environment for Combined Ops. I can just see A-10s BRRRTing indiscriminate buildings to bring some freedom to this map. Let the good times roll, just at some lower settings for now.

Well, as expected, it was a mission successfully accomplished, as in all the new parts ran just fine. Didn't even have problems with windows after all that. Started right up. That said, the scenery in Iraq is DENSE. It will want more than 8GB of VRAM, and it doesn't seem to cache extra textures into system RAM, either. If it's told to load anything that exceeds the VRAM allocation, crash. I just saw it crash hard at 6GB VRAM with the in-sim "CTRL+SCROLL LOCK" utility. So, to run it with any acceptable settings, one will need a dense GPU with plenty of VRAM. I wish that it would use the other card I've got in this system. I have a total of 16GB available, if only it would cache to the other GPU also. But, nobody is really doing that these days, and I think I'll be ahead to upgrade that vs asking Wags if there's any plans to implement that. But, for those of us that will inevitably have these problems undoubtedly in the future, seeing that a 24GB card is top-of-the-line now, how much longer before we exceed that? Also, how hard would it be to add some code to use both PCIe slots to just cache textures? It doesnt seem to do that now, but if it did, we could flip them sliders all the way to the right and UNLEASH THE BEAST. What if we really do want 48GB of VRAM to run MAX settings on this platform? Point being: soon, that may not be a totally ridiculous number. This sim is getting pretty large, and Leon is growing larger! -Airplane, 1980. Something to consider. @Wags@BIGNEWY I feel the need: the need for speed! Kick the tires and light the fires!

Over the years, I've noticed how the next zip chip that someone develops becomes the new bare minimum, and they're innovating so fast, you can't install the newest thing before it's obsolete, dang it! Thank you for that. I've resisted long enough, and the time has come for at least some minor upgrades. Mission:success, BTW. This machine is now running with a 5700X and 64GB RAM at 3200. Seems to be OK for now. So, it seems that this particular map wants to consume all the resources. 64GB of RAM was what was needed, only because it's the only next logical step from 32GB. With task manager open, flying an F18 through Baghdad will use some 34GB RAM and perhaps more depending on your settings, but the kicker is the VRAM. 8GB is not enough anymore. I don't know what it's doing, but maybe the cached textures are either high res, or there's just a big pile of them to keep from repeating similar ones. Depending on the area within this map, I'm running against the VRAM limit, right at almost 8GB. This map must want much more VRAM. Apparently, the GPU that the developers are using are top of the line, and they likely don't see the problems that we stragglers (myself) are likely to see. I can tell you that I'm not adjusting scenery settings. No sir. I'm gonna have to splurge on a another new component, now.

I think it is paging, and on an ssd, it's limited by the SATA speed, because I haven't plugged in a M.2 drive yet. I don't know that I will, either. I don't like the idea of sharing PCIe lanes with anything, even if there's more than plenty of bandwidth available. But I'm sure it is already doing that, and the load times from the page file must be less than optimal. I hope 64GB is enough to store this map at my set LOD in RAM. I'm sure I'm not the only one using only 32GB of RAM, especially of those of us reporting crashes. But that's where I'm going to start. If that test fails, then I suppose a new build becomes a higher priority.

I was looking at the 5800X3D, but the only one I found in my timeline was $350, and that's more than I want to spend on an unplanned basis. I'll eventually upgrade to the x870 chipset, ddr5, and the 9800X3D, but not just to make the Iraq map work. I'm goingnto wait to do that for when AMD and NVidia both get their issues sorted out. Neither of them seem to offer anything worth the price tag at this point. I'm upgrading to the 5700X, and 64GB of the same GSkill RAM I'm using now. That ought to nudge me into this decade (man, it really has been a while) with enough leverage to keep things going until a new system build happens. I guess I did pretty good for my last build if I got 7 years out of it without issues, even despite the generational leaps that hardware has made. DCS is really the only program I use regularly, and of course the winwing software, but this is almost a dedicated pc, and it runs the simpit. It's only got the one job to do, really. 7 years is about the longest I've gone without building a new system. Not bad, me!

So, I suppose for someone looking for this kind of thing, I'll post what specs I'm using that don't meet the newer requirements, and then what I'm upgrading to in hopes to catch up. Currently, I'm on these: Amd 2700X Asus Crosshair 7 hero x470 chipset 32GB GSkill @3200 2x Asus Vega 64 8GB HBM2 each 2TB SSD Processor will be: AMD 5700X 64GB GSkill @3200 (hopefully) Keeping the other components in service. I don't know if anyone is interested, but I'll update with either mission success or failure when I learn if these 2 upgrades make it work or not.

If your system can do it, when you're ready for takeoff in Iraq, open task manager. I saw this map eating up 30GB of RAM. The rest of my mere 32GB available were presumably running windows and other background processes. I am considerably behind the curve, but I've ordered some PC parts over the last couple of days to catch up some. I've had the same specs for 7 years or so. Time flies! And, I've been fortunate enough to skip all the generations of CPUs since then, but my time has come. I'm going to be using 64GB of RAM now, and the Ryzen 5700X will be in tomorrow to use it. I tried putting that 64GB of new DDR4 RAM into my motherboard and the old 2700X I'm using didn't like it. Constant crashes, and memory errors. The 2700X can only address 64GB of RAM, and there's a GPU to manage, also. So, I'll still be behind by 2 generations, but at least I can use what appears to be a new minimum requirement for these newer maps. I guess I've been lucky so far, but time has run out for this former beast with the 2 Vega64s in it. That new GPU pricing is WAY out of control. I think I'll keep the GPUs in service a bit longer until these guys get their act together.

That is a very logical statement. It's hard to remember that the F18C is still in "early development" with the depth already modeled. It's my chosen airframe, because it does most things decently, and is one of 2 or 3 available so far for carrier ops. I'd like to see more naval aviation involved in this, and perhaps the f-35 will give us that. Maybe also an S-3/awacs, A-6, many others could also be made, but understanding what you've said, it makes the most sense.

Just watched the 2025 and beyond trailer. Looks nice, but am I really understanding that we'll get an F-35 before an F/A-18E?

Looks like something else happened, because the same DCS shortcut I have on the desktop didn't work anymore, either. I'm re-downloading the whole program. I dint know what else to do now. The repair option wasn't available because DCS wouldn't even start.

At least they are aware. Should be back soon. Lost a day of KILLIN, but we'll just make up for it online tomorrow.

Saw that. Also, Uninstaller and reinstalling may undo the .dll text edits needed to sync the AA/AG lights in multi-player. I know I will likely not be alone looking for the thread posted with the required text edit. I hope it's fixed soon. Really wanted to fly today, but now even DCS won't start after whatever happened with this update.

Indeed. Syntax error, surely. A semicolon in the wrong place.

Ticket opened. Support seems to be on a holiday today. It is their normal business ours, but no response from them yet. Whatever has happened, even DCS won't start now. Winwing really did something big with this one. Perhaps the entire eastern hemisphere has become very upset with the TikTok ban... @WINWING@WinwingTech

It is the same for me. I have done as instructed above, as WinWing also said to do this on their support page, but it did not work then, either. I have uninstalled SimAppPro and opened a ticket with them.

I've been using the same machine for almost 7 years now. 2x8GB Vega 64s, AMD 2700X, 32GB RAM. It's been a while since I've even had to check the requirements for anything, but lately, DCS has been really consuming the hardware specs. That said, it does mean that we're seeing better visuals, but I had no idea how quickly I'd fallen behind the curve. I just ordered 64GB RAM to replace mine with, simply because I can't do a system upgrade with the cost of GPUs now starting at $1K, which is absolutely crazy. These maps lately are getting so good. Now with 64GB RAM, I'll only be at the minimums, and who knows for how long.