Raven (Elysian Angel)

Gierasimov's post is the solution to this thread, not yours.

Sure, but the reasons for that are very different: in the Falcon the entire canapy is gold coated to reduce the RCS, while on Cy-27 it’s just a type of plexiglass that changes colour due to age and exposure to sunlight.

The latest AMD graphics cards are really good, especially for the money. So a 9060XT (or 9070XT if you’re willing to pay a bit more) is a very good choice for those on a budget. I’d still be on AMD myself if the Varjo Aero wasn’t nvidia-only.

This is also my experience: I’ve never seen GPU usage higher than 92-94% in VR. If I were actually GPU limited, usage would be 98-99+.

It says the same for me: in 2D I’m ‘GPU bound’, but in VR I’m ‘CPU bound rendering thread’ with some dips to ‘CPU bound main thread’ on unoptimised sections of maps for example. My hope is that Vulkan will fix this, so that we are GPU bound even in VR.

As I mentioned before in another thread, I went from a 5900X to 9800X3D and the performance upgrade is eyewatering in games that are CPU-heavy (not just simulation games but also ARPGs for example especially in endgame). P.S. I kept the same graphics card but upgraded everything else - it was well worth it.

Contact frames exist for AMD too but for different reasons compared to those for Intel: while on Intel they are needed to ensure proper contact between IHS and cooler/pump, for AMD they are mainly used to prevent thermal paste making too much of a mess, as the IHS on AM5 doesn’t cover the entire die. I have one from Thermal Grizzly for that very reason; it keeps things a lot more clean.

You’re only using a quarter of your CPU. And why on Earth would you use 2 graphics cards, and dissimilar ones at that? For DCS that is no longer needed, and may in fact reduce performance if you set it up wrong.

I haven't had a lot of time for DCS lately, but the short test I did yesterday was pretty positive: far fewer frame spikes compared to what I remember, and far fewer ugly transitions between 2 very different types of terrain texture.

Optimism is good. “No news is good news” until proven otherwise

I was just making a joke - it was by no means criticism of what you wrote

I see what you did there

At the driver level yes, and yes I used Profile Inspector. I had to keep it off in fact until there was a new version, and it was fixed after so it was definitely a driver bug with that 1 specific driver version.

That new update apparently messed up certain NVMe controllers. You could watch this to see if yours is affected:

During the latest Mover&Gonky show, Wags said “definitely this year”.

Because: 1. Skeletal animations are complicated; 2. There are so many different factions that need infantry models and ED wants to release them all at the same time.

Indeed, the Belgian armed forces spared no effort in showing their disdain for the NH90 to anyone willing to listen: it was a huge scandal in our national media. They said it was so hilariously bad not a single thing about the entire helicopter was to their satisfaction - not even the floor of the troop cabin / cargo hold.

The MiG-21 AI got patched recently, but I haven’t seen any about the MiG-15. There is an updated lua by a user, but if I use that, every single AI MiG-15 in any of my missions gets turned into an A-10 for some reason

I suspect that in the real helicopter the yaw autopilot moves the pedals automatically if needed to maintain heading. I have it disabled as well, and I think it's only beneficial for us simmers if we have FFB pedals. Since most of us don't, it's best to leave it disabled to prevent problems.

Fixed it for you

This goes quite a bit over my head, but the amount of work and attention for detail won't go unnoticed, I'm sure!

I do, yes - but I can't test it myself now and for the next few days because of renovation works in my house. I'll follow this thread, and test it myself as soon as I can.

While I agree with you on the state of EA of ED modules, let me play a bit of devil's advocate here, since I think a part of the community has some blame here too. When the F-18 launched in EA, ED's plan (as per Wags - and I'm going off memory here so I'll be paraphrasing) for Early Access was to release a module with the basics functioning, at a point where everything that would be needed for a RL young pilot to start training on the type would be there, and then develop weapon systems and advanced avionics as time progresses - in the order it would be presented to a new RL pilot. But then came the community and they complained they couldn't blow stuff up... My personal priority for early access would be 'aviate-navigate-communicate': have a good flight model at EA launch that only needs minor adjustments, have all the navigation tools working (at least TACAN, ADF, manual waypoint/flightplan creation, etc), and have the radios in working order. I really don't care about weapon systems at that stage: I want to practice take-off and landings, fly the pattern, get used to the in-flight behaviour, do some in-flight refuelling (if available in that model), do some basic navigation and free flights. There are plenty of other modules available to please those who want to "blow stuff up" in the meantime (though that was less so when the F-18 first launched). Part of the community wants everything to work properly on day 1 so they can do their Rambo-style "you and what army?" scenarios immediately. And as a result you have the module released in a half-baked state with a lot of systems sort-of working, sometimes, on a good day unless there's a full moon and Mercury is in retrograde - and the community starts complaining again... That, and a lot of people expect every module to be as detailed and in-depth as the A-10, and for some reason only ED knows, that is not the case (not possible?). While ED claims to have a "standard" for EA and post-EA, when every module has a different "standard", clearly the word "standard" means something different for ED than it does for a lot of the community. So here we are... And the more modules there are in EA at any one time, the larger this problem becomes as it becomes a juggling exercise for ED... Do I like this? Nope, but I'm part of an old-school minority and I suppose from a business point of view you can't blame ED for trying to please a larger part of the community so they can keep their finances in order...