Sn8ke_iis

Had a similar issue with hotkeys in TrackIR, so there has to be a conflict somewhere. Do F1 and F10 control something on the monitor perhaps? Can you change back to an old monitor or hmdi connect to your tv to check if the problem can be isolated to the monitor?

I picked up XC Ultras direct from EVGA @ $1250 each. Prices are jacked up even on their site right now. The 2080 Ti is definitely a good card but really should be about $200 cheaper all around. Hopefully prices don't stay inflated for much longer. Nvidia got a little spanking on Turing card sales last quarter. Jensen Huang was very humble in his call to shareholders, which is rare for him. Buy what you can afford. I can't speak to specific performance differences in the DCS engine for 2080 to 2080 Ti, but generally speaking you hit diminishing returns on the top end. You are paying a lot of dollars chasing those last couple frames per second. A 9600K/2070 is probably the best bang for buck right now. If you can afford faster it will go faster but it gets expensive real quick and will be obsolescent in 2020. If you are serious about the hobby I always recommend good controllers and peripherals that aren't subject to early adoption fees and Moore's law before putting too much into your rig. A good chair, a good monitor/flat panel, and HOTAS lasts longer. I just picked up some MFG crosswind pedals a few months ago and I don't think those will ever break. The hybrid AiO cards will give you a lot of overclock headroom without all the hassle of a custom loop. I'm partial to EVGA for their transferable warranty and quality control. I've installed over 2 dozen EVGA cards in builds without a single RMA. I'm not a shill I swear, that's been my experience. I'm sure other AIB partners have similar QC as well.

That's right about where I'm getting mine now that they are under water. Can't seem to get them past 2085 though without crashing 3Dmark. I used Thermal Grizzly and Fujipoly TIM as well. Don't think it was worth the expense or effort. It runs whisper quiet though even when benchmarking. The loop took way longer to build than planned as well. Kept changing my mind and ordering new fittings. I'm pretty sure the lower cost black edition is just as Headwarp says. They are binned lower, a lower grade if you will. As the fabrication processes mature the chips tend to get a little faster. I'd really like to see some specific benchmarks for one of those cards. Might be the best bang for buck performance wise????

So after finally finishing the custom loop on my new build I'm glad I went with the 1200w. A 9900K with (2) 2080 Ti's can draw 860w + peak while benchmarking. She's still got some OC headroom as well.

Sigh... How are you liking your curved screen? I kind of regret now not paying the extra money for the curved version. I sit about 3 feet away from mine and the colors can be washed out in the far corners from that angle as well as the expected distortion.

Thanks Captain Obvious...smh. It also needs electricity too.

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html There is almost a 40% performance improvement per synthetic benchmark. Coupled with a newer chipset motherboard and DDR4 Ram. Newer generations of processors have architecture that allows them to do more faster. At the same clock speed the 8700 is a much better processor that draws roughly a 3rd less power. Ideally you could upgrade to a 2060 GPU with the 8700K and see a nice performance bump. Difficult to say how much.

On a 65" you can go beyond a 1:1 scale, it varies on the module and the default head position which you can change. I think the sweet spot is around 55-65" in my experience. You could probably get close to 1:1 on a 40" or so but you will be limited in how much screen space you have for sky and peripheral vision. If you went much bigger I don't think the perspective and distance will feel right from the way the cockpits are modeled. On my 65" I frequently shift my head position and zoom in real time via a layer mapped on my HOTAS. It becomes second nature very quickly. The modelers kind of assume you are using a smaller monitor though. Things like canopy struts will be out of scale while the main instrument panel looks about right. Cheap big screens that can display a good computer image are a relatively recent thing. I've been doing it for 2+ years now and won't ever go back to a smaller monitor. Probably switch to VR in about 5 years or so but as of now the graphical fidelity just doesn't compare to 4K on a big screen with TrackIR. I usually play at night in a dark room so your brain just blocks out your peripheral vision in a nice home theater effect and all you see is DCS. It's a really immersive experience. If you haven't seen these cockpits on a big screen in 4K you don't know what you are missing. They're absolutely gorgeous. Once VR gets a wider field of view and better resolution I'll lose all motivation to build a cockpit as I won't be able to build one better than the DCS cockpit modelers. I keep my big screen on a cart so I can wheel it into the living room or in front of my bed for casual gaming and watching movies and Netflix. I can take the UFC and MFDs off in a minute or so by unscrewing the wingnuts in back. The cart was pretty cheap on Amazon too. There are pictures of my setup on my forum profile. Important! before you buy a big screen for gaming check out reviews on rtings.com. They'll tell you more than you ever wanted to know about all the major flat panels on the market. The gaming modes for consoles and PC modes can vary quite a bit as far as input lag and the ability to display 4:4:4 chroma subsampling. The 2018 Samsungs started supporting freesync but lack Display port and only have HDMI so I haven't been able to get Gsync working. Maybe rtings.com will start testing for that if we ask? I'm sure most of the new 2019 panels announced at CES have some kind of gaming mode though, just don't assume every big screen at Walmart will be a good computer monitor.

I upgraded to 32 GB RAM a few months back. Seems more stable on an subjective level. Have not actually tested though. On an objective level if you want a 100% reproducible crash due to lack of memory, try rendering an .AVI from a .TRK in the mission editor at a high resolution for a movie. You'll see RAM usage in Afterburner just keep stacking up till it crashes. Granted that's a limited use case. All else equal DCS uses more RAM when you have it, even on same module and map usage can go up by a GB or two if it's available from what I have seen. And that's all in single player. If you play online, that's a whole other variable to consider. High binned RAM that is stable at higher clocks can get expensive real quick. You can typically get 32GB of memory at a cost approximately equal to 16GB at faster frequencies. At 32GB you are more stable and future proofed. The faster RAM is maybe getting you a frame or two if you are lucky my best guess. I already sold my faster sticks so nothing to benchmark anymore. You don't NEED 32GB but Eagle Dynamics put that specification in the recommended hardware for a reason. Especially if you are playing Early Access modules in Open Beta. RAM usage can be all over the place from build to build. For the original question, any decent brand name motherboard will be just fine. Buy one you think looks cool and is Z390 chipset. AMD might have some interesting options later this year if they can improve single thread performance. I'm partial to ASUS boards because of the BIOS. The high end OC boards really only make a significant difference in Benchmark scores if at all depending on what kind of chip you have. Generally speaking you are paying for cosmetic features more than build quality. The fanciest OC board in the world won't matter if you don't get a good chip. The price difference on a midrange board and a high end board could be used to buy a faster CPU. The DCS engine likes fast CPUs. The motherboard in my sig cost $150 US and OC's to 5.0Ghz just fine. A lot of the posters on this board probably don't even realize that their CPU is holding them back if they have a fast Pascal or Turing graphics card even at lower frame rate, higher resolution settings. Even without proper tuning my Titan Xp can put out more fps paired with my 9900k than with a 7700K which was the fastest gaming CPU at the time of Titan Xp's release. When I paired my 2080 Ti with the 7700K the performance bump was less than 10% when air cooled. If I had only bought the 2080 Ti without the new motherboard/cpu I would probably have returned the GPU because of the disappointing performance. EDIT: With a quick check on the US website of Amazon and Newegg RAM prices are definitely more reasonable than GPU prices at the time of this writing. High end cards have been marked up by a $100+ recently except for direct from Nvidia.

Concur. Just bought a Seasonic 1200w for my new SLI build. You definitely want to err on the side of caution when it comes to power supplies. A good case and power supply should last through several upgrade cycles. The rig in my sig is on a 650w. But it only draws 350w under load. My new build could potentially have double that when fully tuned. Didn't want to push it with an 850w. The PSU is one of the few components on a PC that can actually "wear out" and one of the most likely points of failure. Look at the power curves at your estimated power draw if available. I use a KillaWatt when benchmarking. Might not be worth the extra $100 bucks for a gimmick efficiency rating if you are only drawing 4-500w. DCS draws a lot less CPU power on a dual core overclock versus an overclock on all cores for Cinebench with AVX workloads. DCS will use all the watts you can throw at your GPU if you crank up resolution and AA. Yes, but some of those threads can be like looking for a needle in a haystack for the useful info. The threads can get very long. Some of the owner's threads are OK.

This is the best advice I would give to Noobs. Keep it simple. Obviously, the issues around V-sync, G-sync, Freesync, tearing, stutter, etc. are very confusing for people. Not to mention the variability between our builds, modules, maps, etc. In my testing on my G-sync monitor with TrackIR, stutter is noticeable around 75-95 fps and more frequent when panning over your shoulder in jet aircraft, less so in props. Turning down heat blur settings can mitigate somewhat. A little below or above I perceived as smooth. At 120+ butter. With decent hardware you can hit 166Hz at 1440p, over the desert or water, at high altitude, with just a wingman, in clear weather. That gets old quick. I was able to run at 1080p pretty consistently at 150fps+. Pretty rare use case though. I'd just play at a higher resolution. Even with my new build (9900K/2080 Ti) and custom loop I don't think I'd be able to hit 166 at 1440p at low altitude in complex scenarios. We'll see. Haven't had time to finish it yet. I usually play DCS on my big screen and use the monitor for shooters and CC. Much better experience at 4K60. Think of it this way. If you were flying a real plane and you saw a stutter, you should probably land right away and have a medical check up. When it happens on a PC simulator it's a complete immersion killer. Ruins the suspension of disbelief and reminds you that you are playing a computer game. Even 1440p at 65" looks pretty good with Anti-aliasing if you are having trouble pushing 4K with your respective specs. The smoothness is key, even if it means sacrificing some eye candy. Even with the many technical people that are attracted to flight sims on this board there's a lot of speculation unfortunately. People should stick to reporting experiences with specific hardware under controlled conditions. I tested a lot of AAA game benchmarks with 2080 Ti's over the holiday along with DCS. The DCS engine is its own animal. Even in comparison to other DX11 games. The variability, new builds every 2 weeks, possibility of a Vulkan build in 2019, etc. It was hard for me to even come up with valid benchmarks without just brute force testing every combination of module and map. Also, something to keep in mind for the really high frame rates. You start to hit physical limitations of what the hardware can actually do. Processors have gotten much better at doing more things at the same time rather than just brute force speed in a Moore's Law sense. Hope this helps.

+1 for color MFDs. If nothing else it will make the cockpit and display modes more visually interesting. Love that they announced the CJ. Tamiya has an excellent scale model in 1/32 for that version. Will be fun to build when it gets released in early access. I have a model of the two seat Israeli SUFA version with the CFTs and all the bells and whistles. I'm not expecting an accurate mod for that version but something close with accurate livery for Arab-Israeli scenarios on the new Syria map would be swell. Recreating the Bekaa Valley would be fun once the MiG-23 is out.

My "TV" does 120Hz at 1440p and 60Hz at 4k. By far a better experience than a small display. It's not even in the same ballpark. I only use a 27" display for testing and first person shooters. Once you get used to a big screen you never go back. Just be sure to check rtings.com for a model with a decent gaming/PC mode and that can display full 4:4:4 Chroma. HDR doesn't matter for DCS but is awesome when playing console ports and living room/couch gaming. In terms of cost for performance Big screens by SAMSUNG/LG/TCL/VISIO are way ahead of their desktop counterparts. You get the benefit of economies of scales whereas gaming monitors are a very niche market. DCS cockpits are absolutely gorgeous on a 4K big screen. You don't know what you're missing. Crank up the view distance and you can spot dots way off in the distance. If you have to lock your framerate at 60 for TrackIR you might as well be playing in 4K anyway. Gsync only mitigates stutters so much in between 60-120 if you are using TrackIR. It prefers an even 60 fps or 120+ otherwise microstutters are visible even with Gsync. I think I'll be able to sustain 120+ on my 2080 Ti's but I haven't tested them yet. I'll let you guys know.

Concur 110%, it looks gorgeous. I've never flown around in the f2 view for so long! The metallic reflection of a newer polished panel, next to an older worn one. The oil stains, smoke stains, panels lines. Superb. The new cockpit even looks good zoomed in from the f2 view.

I think you guys are missing the point. I would love all those things and more. You are NEVER going to get that level of accuracy for aircraft in current use. The best you will get is Jane's level open source approximations. The people with access to that kind of info necessary for the full monty level of DCS accuracy sign NDAs. I.e. that level of accuracy for Vietnam is reasonable, otherwise it's like saying "I want a full fidelity F-35". The information that is publicly available for release in an entertainment hobby product is not and will not ever be accurate. The F-14 that everybody is all excited about is retired. It went into active service before I was born. The A model had vacuum tubes iirc. F-5 vs F-14 dissimilar in DCS is as accurate as things need to be for hobby purposes. If ED can get a full fidelity F-16C block 5x circa late 80's early 90's out in EA in 2019 I will literally throw money at the screen. I would love to have a full fidelity MiG-29 as a counterpart but one with maybe a clickable cockpit that is a close approximation is all we are going to get. It's real simple if ED could sell one, they would, why wouldn't they? I far as "balancing" I don't play online enough to have a valid opinion. I've read whole threads where people argue about missile performance envelopes and radar ranges like they actually know what they are talking about. It's very amusing. If it can't be accurate what's the point but to balance online game play? 109 vs Spitfire, great example of accurate flight models dictating tactics. Applying that to anything 4th gen and up with radars, jammers, IFF, etc. is an exercise in futility. I don't consider that an arguable opinion, it's the reality of our hobby and how good these sims have gotten. Look up Combat Tree circa air war Vietnam. Spoiler alert: intel guys hacked Vietnamese comms and IFF. That info is almost 50 years old and I'm not sure how you'd incorporate it into online play without a whole bunch of MiGs getting shot down. But it would be historically accurate.

Ahhh, absolutely right Sokol. I was thinking of the new thumbwheel as an axis instead of buttons. I will just map a layer to those as well with a modifier. My first thought when seeing the prototype is that we are losing a hat switch. They just reconfigured it into different buttons.

I was taking a look at the new grip in TARGET. Looks like the castle hat is a 5-way, i.e. has a press function along with the side thumb 5-way with press similar to the Warthog grip. And the new thumb wheel/lever has a press function as well. So, only losing 2 buttons from the Warthog grip. I should be able to adapt my stock profile -which uses all 4 hats - to the new grip. Hopefully, it gets released soon. The thumbwheel will come in handy for F-15C/E as well.

I updated my post with a zip file. I doubt I'll ever make a Target profile that thorough again but it was definitely the best way to learn Target and all its features. Start with Chuck's guides and the essentials. It's difficult to remember all the switches and layers even if you only fly the Sabre. Using a base template you can jump right in to a new module, just have to assign axis. It's nice to have standardized controls that are common to all the modules. Cheers

That's the one, thanks Aileron. I'm working on a custom loop for my new build and doing benchmarks. I like a good counterfactual argument over something historical but these boards can really get really silly sometimes. The F-16 were going to get is going to be circa Desert Storm/Gulf War I or earlier. The radars, black boxes, jammers, data links, munitions, and flux capacitors have gotten way more advanced since then. There are still F-16s coming off the production line with stuff we won't get an accurate sim of till like 2050. The only country besides the US and NATO allies that probably get the full monty with all the bells and whistles are Israeli versions. But they have an indigenous aerospace industry that can build that state of the art stuff. We should all be very happy with any block 5X we can get. For the more modern stuff NATO/Cold War etc. We are just going to get close approximations. Arguing about radar ranges, IRST ranges, IFF, missile avoidance TTPS, comparative rates of turn, and other hush hush stuff of aircraft still in real world use is pointless. We should be more worried about game play balance for more recent aircraft. Arguments about radar ranges and missile envelopes will never be accurate. It's fun to speculate based on open source information but this is just a game. For the people who don't understand the gravity of these things in the real world, go and take a road trip out to Nevada and visit Groom Lake. Don't worry about those signs that say "Deadly Force Authorized" just keep on going...

Information Policy Department RAC «MiG» Contact Director of the Department Anastasia ********* Email: presscenter@rsk-mig.ru Why don't you ask them yourself why they don't release technical data so you can play a video game? Of course this is all an elaborate ruse, there really are 4th gen Russian full fidelity modules in DCS they just aren't selling them to people who whine about it on the forums. You have to have a special product code to unlock the full fidelity modules. Again, common sense people. You can link to my post, I'm the primary source. There's a whole bunch of other people who have heard WAGs answer this question ad nauseam as well. If you choose not to believe us that's your prerogative. I looked with a quick search on Youtube, it was a guy with a nasally voice who did a live stream with Wags with chat questions. It was over a year ago, I don't remember the name or channel.

I see a bridge! Is that the Rhine? Arnhem, Cologne, or Mainz my best guess. Some Western edge of the Ruhr valley. I lived close to Mainz, the area has rolling hills.

Guys use a little common sense, WAGs shouldn't have to state over and over and over again why they can't do a full fidelity Russian module of a current gen fighter. The Western fighters portrayed on DCS aren't even current gen. They are 80's and 90's versions with their associated avionics, ECM, and radar capabilities. It's almost 2019. Tell you what if one of you guys can get Putin on the horn and tell him to order the Sukhoi and Mikoyan and Gurevich Design Bureaus to release all the relevant technical data including any secret and proprietary design information that would be swell. Besides the fact that some of these fighters are still in use for real world national defense purposes, we are talking about billions in aerospace R and D. China can't even properly copy a Russian engine when they have one right in front of them. There are MiG-29s and SU-27+ all over the world now with potentially billions in upgrade contracts. The Russian government will never release any information that could potentially be used to undermine the technical aspects of these aircraft or give any competitor some kind of advantage in wartime or arms deals. When the west got a hold of a MiG-29 after the fall of East Germany that was an intel goldmine. Read up on some of the defections that took place over the years with various models of MiGs. ED is a business that operates in Russia and has a commercial division geared towards real world military customers. They can't be seen to encourage any kind of dissemination of potentially sensitive information so they can make a cool game. We should be happy we get any modern 4th gen fighter aircraft at all that are this detailed. Circa Vietnam/Arab-Isreali conflict era as accurate as possible is the best we can hope for. Intelligence, technical data, and code breaking give enormous advantages in warfare far beyond numbers of tanks and planes. We are just playing a flight sim as a hobby. It's not a rumor. I've heard him say it in interviews on a Youtube stream. Common sense isn't so common apparently.

Liked and subbed. Thank you for taking the time to make these, I know how time consuming CC and tutorials can be. I'm sure the views will accumulate over time as these topics are really niche but it's the definitive resource on YT right now. I've just gotten into the ME and the documentation is vague at best. Thanks for the help, much less tedious watching relevant examples than trial and error.

Get a campaign for the Spitfire it will change your mind. I felt like I was really flying combat missions in Normandy. VERY well researched and very detailed. Hopefully they can expand the map to include early war Battle of Britain scenarios and later 8th Air Force bombing campaigns.

That's the one. Do it, I play on a 65" 4K and my eyes are about 3 feet away. When I do testing on the 27" the image is super crisp at 1440p with 2x MSAA at that viewing distance. You can adjust the zoom and position of your POV in the cockpit so you have your normal perspective on the instrument panel but you will have more screen space for blue sky/target scanning in your peripheral vision and while panning around. You'd be well future proofed with that monitor as DCS running at 1440p with 4x MSAA and SSAA on will bring any processor to it's knees and would be comparable in quality to a much higher resolution image. It's going to be a while before a CPU/GPU can push 166Hz at those settings in the DCS engine. Load up Doom/Counterstrike/Battlefield or some other high frame rate game and you'll see that monitor really shine. I also use it for image editing/CC as the colors are much more accurate than my TVs panel. Your eyes definitely get used to the high frame rate. The difference between 166 and 60 fps is dramatic. The monitor will still be smooth at less than 166 but when the frame rate drops things start to look sluggish and the Track IR panning isn't as responsive. That monitor is very well reviewed in tech media (why I bought it) and I concur 100%.