Vertigo72

Im confused. There is an axis command for "DLC / manœuvre flaps". with the flaps up and the wings swept forward,I can use it to adjust flaps between 0 and 28%. Though not as an axis, but as it if where a 3 way button to increase or decrease flaps (and as the DLC buttons work). And the tomcat also seems to deploy that automatically? If the landing flaps are down, that axis does work to gradually adjust DLC.

VR performance is always going to be slower as it involves a number of additional steps, like rendering 2 eye camera's, warping / projecting the image and frames need to be rendered at a higher FoV, so rendering a ton of stuff you;ll never see, before you can warp them, and really it should be rendered at a higher resolution too or it will look rather terrible. You are basically doing a lot of work "for nothing". I dont know what you set your MSAA and SS at, but those are pretty much required for VR and will bring any current PC to its knees in DCS. Now whether the above has any bearing specifically on dram speed, I have no clue. That 70FPS sounds like a lot to me, but its hard to compare without replicating your exact settings and I dont have Nevada either. To give you an idea, using medium preset, instant action, P51, caucasus, cold start, I get about 60 FPS on triple HD monitors and 140 on just one. Thats with a ryzen 2600, 16gb DDR4-3200 and gtx 1070. I dont think our cpu's will be very different, gpu shouldnt be a major bottleneck on 1 screen, so if your performance is close to mine, ram isnt likely your problem; but it never hurts to test.

If you dont need dual throttle, then the TWCS that comes with the T1600 is actually very usable with a little modding to reduce fiction and sticky-ness. Out of the box I found it quite horrible, but just removing the tensioner and applying some decent grease is all thats really needed. I added a magnetic latch for after burner detent and Im gonna add lm8uu bearings too using a 3d printed adapter, because, well, why not? But the layout of the throttle and buttons and hatswitches and sliders is actually excellent and they all work well, it looks cheap, but I was pleasantly surprised. No experience with the stick or rudder..

Its DCS. You can spend a lot of money upgrading your components to things that are just marginally faster, and you will still get stutters and "lag spikes", especially in populated multi player servers.

GPU utilisation is not a reliable indicator of bottlenecks. Its one number that shows something. I have never found what it shows exactly, but it most likely shows shader unit utilisation rate (most common bottleneck and performance factor in games), while the bottleneck could be elsewhere, especially for DCS its more likely in the texturing mapping units or maybe even rasterizers. The number task manager shows is not proof the GPU isnt your bottleneck. The better way to figure out your bottleneck is underclocking, like you did with the CPU. Try it with the GPU, underclock it, see if it makes a difference. You could even vary core and vram clocks separately if you want. If performance drops almost linearly with clock speeds, then you found your bottleneck. If performance barely changes, then something else is bottle-necking you. But my guess is your main bottleneck is neither the CPU or GPU, but your DDR3 DRAM. See my post here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4378621&postcount=102

yes, YES, YEEEES. For DCS it might even make more difference than the CPU! I wouldnt have believed that myself, until I "accidentally" tested it. Last year I upgraded my old i5 to a ryzen 2600x. I didnt plan the upgrade, my motherboard just died, so I did not upgrade anything I did not need to, including my ram, which was pretty old DDR4-2133 that I could run at 2400. If you look at any hardware review / benchmark suite, it will tell you that, yes, faster ram will improve gaming performance, particularly on Ryzens, but we are usually talking less than 10% even with super duper high end ram. Ram prices being excessive back then, I didnt bother. Until I did, and considered adding the new ram to my old to get to 32 GB, but that would require running all my ram at low 2133 or at most 2400 speeds, so I benched the difference in DCS. And fell off my chair. The frame rate increase was perfectly linear. Comparing my old DDR4 at stock 2133 to my new DDR4 at 3200 I saw a 50% frame rate increase in my recorded test track (Su25 caucasus track with medium settings at 1080p, removing my 1070 as bottleneck), correlating almost perfectly with the increased ddr throughput. I dont even think synthetic benchmarks will show you that. Now I dont remember the CAS latency of my old ram. Im sure it sucked, it was old valueram that dated back to when DDR4 was first available, so it wouldnt be only the higher throughput that helped me, latency may play a big role too, but the two are related and the difference was enormous. Think about it, even if I could overclock my cpu to 8 GHz, I probably wouldnt see such a boost. Did I feel stupid for not spending a little more on DDR4-3600. In most reviews, you will see that gaming performance on Intel cpu's scales a little less with ram speed than on AMD cpu's (especially gen 1 and 2 ryzens), so the impact might be smaller on Intel, possibly due to its different cache or whatever, but I dare anyone to show me a review of even a ryzen that shows anything like the linear performance boost I saw on DCS. So dont rely on hardware reviews or cinebench to judge DCS performance. To anyone saying that these newest intel cpu's are faster or not than the old 47xx chips; I really dont think the difference is in the chip or its IPC. Let alone the clockspeed. I bet by far the largest difference is due to the fact that the more modern chips can use faster DDR4. That may not matter much in Tomb Raider, so toms hardware guide may tell you its barely worth upgrading, but from my testing, ram speed seems to matter a hell of a lot in DCS. Dont believe me? Try it. Underclock your memory and see if or how the performance drop correlates with your decrease in ram speed. If its anywhere near linear, you may assume that increasing ram speed will also lead to similar linear performance increases. And I would be very curious to see results on intel platforms. (BTW on a general note, under clocking is a good and simple way to help you identify performance bottlenecks. You can easily and significantly under-clock your ram, cpu and gpu and then measure the result. If there is no or almost no difference, then upgrading that component isnt going to help you much or at all either. If you see a significant or ideally close to a linear decrease, you almost certainly identified your main performance bottleneck)

edit: Turns out my free sync monitor can also do g sync, so I did some more testing. g sync works as expected in the nvidia g sync demo (find it hard to tell it apart from v sync, but at least it works) But in DCS there is something going on. When I disable v sync and enable g sync, I do get micro stuttering and some tearing when panning around with my trackir. When disable g sync and I enable v-sync (at 75 Hz and ~50-75 FPS) its smooth as butter. Not sure whats to blame here, but it seems like DCS doesnt play nice with g-sync? or I misunderstand how you have to setup g-sync. Either way, if anything its more evidence that g-sync is not exactly something worth paying for in DCS. v-sync is all you need and want.

hmm.. a few things; first, about that falling out of the sky and flying backwards.. a sidewinder accelerates to mach 2.5 in just over 2 seconds. If you launched it backwards, it would initially even accelerate faster as air resistance would help it achieve positive airspeed. The time it would spend being aerodynamically uncontrollable (if any by the time it leaves the rail) would be just a fraction of a second and barely more than any ground launched missile who all launch with zero airspeed. But if even that is a problem, there is always thrust vectoring. And that doesnt have to be fancy gimbaling rocket motors, just putting control vanes behind the rocket exhaust would work. I guess I cant say that isnt rocket science, because it is, but its hardly a new idea or high tech, the V2 had that in the 1940s. Im also unsure what kinetic advantages you think the pursuer has, when the defender has nearly twice the missile range and considerably shorter missile flight time, all other things being equal.

You mean in the RIO seat or cockpit seat using jester? Havent tried in the RIO seat yet, but jester certainly loves TWS-A now! A bit too much. I have resorted to telling him to set azimuth to forward, that solves it. Selecting radar auto make make him start using TWS-A again.

I was just flying in my tomcat, when at cruising altitude one of my engines would "backfire" or have a compressor stall or I dont know what, other than making loud BANGS. Also the after burner wouldnt come on for that engine. First I thought I took some damage, but looking around the cockpit I discovered I had accidentally clicked the right engine "Eng Mode Select" and put it in SEC(ondary): Flipping it back solved it. But now Im curious what this does?

It should be unpacked to the saved game folder. C:\Users\yourname\Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\Mods but I still had the same issue and several others reported it too on discord. Usually when using DCS steam edition, but Im not sure that is the real reason. I worked around it by creating a fresh install/copy of DCS that is not steam. It worked then (even when sharing the saved game mod folder with the steam install). I didnt go much further that that because this mod doesnt support force feedback joysticks which makes flying almost impossible for me.

Or maybe didnt read? Tearing can occur especially when the game frame rates is higher than your monitor frame rate. When you sync game frame rates with monitor refresh rates, there is no tearing, regardless if you do that using v-sync, which will cap your game frame rate to what your monitor can handle, and buffer frames if need be, or g/free sync which will try to vary your monitor refresh rate to match your games frame rate. The difference between both are things that basically dont matter to DCS: frame rates above your monitor refresh rate (a rare luxury in DCS), and input lag. If you are pro FPS gamer maybe 144 Hz helps you, and the up to 16ms extra input latency (its really output latency but everyone calls it input latency) caused by v-sync may matter; but in DCS it just doesnt.

No it doesnt. syncing game frame rate with monitor refresh rate is what stops tearing. What freesync and gsync allow is varying the refreshrate of the monitor to match the framerate, but that only prevents tearing if refreshrate and frame rate are synced in the first place. The real benefit free/g sync provide is less micro stuttering at low frame rates (but framerates still above what the minimum the monitor can handle, usually 30 Hz). Here is a demo: https://www.testufo.com/vrr#photo=quebec.jpg&pps=960&framerate=slowramp&compare=1&fullscreen=1 Its better with variable refreshrate, but its a bandaid, the real problem still is the low framerates. And this is not tearing. This is tearing: https://www.testufo.com/stutter#demo=tearing&foreground=ffffff&background=000000&pps=720

The tearing really has nothing to do with resolution or AA or AF. Its just that if you lower the resolution or graphic settings, you increase the framerate, possibly above your display refresh rate which can reduce the tearing. Its a side effect. But it solves nothing because in other planes or maps your framerate will drop again and you will get the same tearing. Setting vsync to On in your nvidia panel should solve it (make sure its the setting for DCS) and you probably want if OFF in DCS if you use the nVnidia option. It isnt (for DCS). And g-sync probably makes no difference whatsoever for DCS as very few people get frame rates that high.

Cool. So the idea is not entirely crazy. Even if still too crazy even for the russians :) I can see the problem with trying to mount a rearward facing radar though, even a small short range one, which is why I assumed you'd want IR only. Thanks, googled that, and then also stumbled upon this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-152_AAAM Which was a planned replacement for the phoenix. I assume "Multiple-pulse solid-propellant rocket" achieves exactly what I had in mind. Weird that none seem to have made it off the drawing board so far. Its probably not quite as easy as it sounds.

GPU (and CPU) load really arent very meaningful numbers. They only measure one aspect of the card and modern cards adjust their clocks dynamically so the load tells us even less. Being pegged at 100% doesnt mean the GPU is "the" bottleneck (and seeing CPU load at say 20% says more about how many cores your cpu has than what is bottlenecking it!). The tests posted here really dont mean a lot either when so many different parameters are being changed between them (CPU, GPU, Ram speed, ...). Just because MSAA is set to 4x doesnt mean the framerate will depend solely or even mostly on the GPU. Despite what many people say, based on my own testing, I found DCS really isnt very GPU bound with "normal" settings (and no VR at 200% SS). Performance is bottlenecked primarily by CPU and Ram speed. As you increase eye candy, the GPU may further reduce that, and become a bottleneck in its own right, but even with low resolution and no MSAA or SS, I doubt anyone here gets >2-300FPS (just guessing, havent actually tested yet).

You can answer your own question best by running some tests. Underclock your cpu, gpu and ram one by one, and see if it makes a big difference or not. If it does, it means that part is a significant bottleneck in your system. If it makes (almost) no difference, then upgrading wont make a (big) difference either. The amount of ram should have no real impact on your framerates, once everything is loaded. You can double check in task manager to see if there is a lot of disk activity going on, if there isnt, then you are not ram constrained. The speed of your ram I found to be surprisingly performance critical, but you can test that yourself, just underclock it. Another data point is comparing performance to non VR. And possibly even setting display resolution ridiculously low (1024x768 or something). That should completely remove the GPU as bottleneck. If performance still sucks, then you know its something else. That said, can anyone run supercarrier fluid in VR right now?

If its actually screen tearing, you should be able to eliminate that completely by enabling vsync. https://appuals.com/how-to-fix-screen-tearing/

hmm. yeah, but military planes do have ejection seats that arent used 99.99% of the time. Same goes for chaff and flares. Its not how often its used, its how effective it is at saving the plane or pilot when you need it. AFAIK, strike aircraft are sometimes armed with AA missiles for self defense. Like the sidewinders on the A6 intruder and experiments with the FB-111. Those plane are not going to get on the 6 of an enemy fighter very often I imagine, so if pointing them backwards would work, that would actually make a lot more sense for self defense than pointing them forward. Ah? Which ones? I dont know about that. Look at the phoenix or even amraam.

No thats not how it works. His CPU will boost one core to 4.2 GHz anyhow, provided there is enough thermal and power headroom. It doesnt matter that DCS uses a bunch of threads, there is only one thread that is really intensive and windows will schedule that to a core that will be boosted to 4.2. Unless the overall CPU load of all other background (or even DCS) threads is too high for the cpu to boost to its maximum, but then changing bios settings isnt going to solve that. @OP as others said, even the highest end cpu's available today do not provide substantially better single thread performance than what you already have. However, I found that increasing my memory speed made a completely unexpected and dramatic difference (linear FPS increase from DDR4-2133 to DDR4-3200 on a ryzen 2). Intel cpus tend to respond less to memory speed decreases or increases than ryzens, so I dont know if the effect would be as dramatic, but then again no hardware review/ game benchmark I ever saw even for ryzens showed anything like what I measured on my system; so the outlier may well be DCS, not so much my CPU. Your cpu does not support DDR4. But that might be a valid reason to want to upgrade. And you could keep costs down by going for a low core count but high clocked cpu. Even if intel and amd are increasingly forcing us to buy more cores than we need to get the (single core) clockspeed that we want. A core i3-10320 or Ryzen 3300X would make for a nice upgrade, despite being sold as "budget" cpu's, especially if you can overclock them. CPU performance will not be much better, but you'd have modern platform again with support for fast DDR4 and from which you can upgrade later. Is that worth the cost? I guess it depends solely on how DCS performance scales with DDR speed on intel cpus, and I couldnt tell you that. Maybe you can get a feel by downclocking your DDR3 and seeing if performance drops (close to) proportionally to your dram speed. If it does, its a good sign that DDR4 will also help you a lot on intel platforms. If you notice only a marginal difference, Id hold off.

On the bright (dark?) side:

And do that with 2x16GB Dimms, not 4x8. Or 2x8 now and thinking you can always add another 16GB later. Most cpus significantly reduce ram speeds when you use 4 dimms, and in DCS ram speed matters. A lot. When I upgraded my old carried over 2133 MHz DDR4 to 3200 DDR4 I saw an almost perfect linear increase in frame rates. Yes, that was with a Ryzen 2 which are known to be ram speed sensitive, but I still found that astonishing and no other game that hardware reviewers use will scale with ram speed like that. Usually its a few percent, which is was I didnt bother upgrading it straight away.

Im pretty noobish when it comes to military aviation technology, so I dont pretend to know any better than the engineers actually making this stuff, but Im curious why we have never seen any of these, or maybe I just missed them? - rear firing IR AA missiles. That seems like such an obvious "cheat" to win dogfights. Have one or two IR missiles that point backwards and instead of losing a dogfight you suddenly have at least a kinetic advantage over that plane on your 6. This does require all aspect IR missiles but we've had those since the 70s. And you could mount them to bombers and other non fighters to give them something to protect themselves against planes they have no chance of defeating in a dogfight. Arguably modern fighters have a similar ability with helmet mounted huds and all aspect rockets, but has no one ever tried a cruder version of this decades ago with the rockets already pointing backwards? One reason I can think off is airspeed will be negative initially and then be zero at some point. But given how fast these missiles accelerate, I doubt thats a big problem, or? - two stage medium/long range AA missiles. Being educated by hollywood rather than anything else, I always imagined AA missiles burned their rocket motor from launch to impact. I was actually surprised to learn how they work, that they burn only for a few seconds and from then on are basically gliders with a very limited amount of kinetic energy to manoeuvre. That makes them "easy" to defeat if you know they have been launched at long range. Now imagine they worked differently, if they used just 80% of their fuel for launch and lofting to get close to the target, and then had a second burn once within a few miles, to be able to out-manoeuvre any plane and basically ensure a kill (if locked). I know there are 2 stage sams, but even they dont work like that AFAIK.

So its just like real flying, except without any physical sensation, and if you substitute the visual sensation with looking at a small pixelated screen before your eyes. So I guess that leaves only the audio sensation ? :D Its not just the restricted FoV that bothered me. In fact, the actual field of view your eyes see, lets call it the "retina coverage" is comparable to what most people will get with a single monitor, depending how large it is and how far you sit from it. The problem is that in VR the same or even larger retina area sees about 1-2 million pixels (depending on set, but also, in theory, in reality the warping software reduces that significantly), where as you get over 8 million actual pixels on a single monitor. That means your eyes see something much closer to real world resolution and it allows you to zoom out further, ie increase DCS FoV setting so you can project a much wider in game viewing angle that is far more like RL. And this projection factor from a wide game world FoV on to a relatively small area of your eyes, is something that we all adjust to easily. Especially with head tracking. VR does give you 3d depth. But I found that unconvincing too. Just like 3d tvs you have this problem of infinite focus, which you dont have in RL. Maybe its because Im near sighted that this bothers me more than others, but that alone totally kills any sense of immersion or reality for me. That might also be the reason why basically no one anymore runs 3d monitors. It used to be a hype 5 years ago, its still perfectly possible today but does anyone know anyone who uses it? DCS isnt very GPU limited, in my testing its mostly IO limited (ram speed is a BIG factor) and single thread CPU limited. Two area's that are unlikely to see significant improvements in the foreseeable future. If you add VR, and then enable MSAA and SS to overcome the worst of the resolution issues, it obviously does increase the GPU load, and thus the need for faster videocards, but if frame render times are already bottlenecked by the CPU (or the code running on our cpus), then even the fastest GPU imaginable will never get you a steady 90FPS. Im also not overly optimistic Vulkan will solve our performance bottlenecks either, but who knows, lets hope. As for new VR sets; you can already buy 8K sets today, the main problem is getting acceptable framerates on them. The key factor that IMO will affect VR experience is eye tracking. That allows foveated rendering, meaning even current hardware might be fast enough to render the area you are looking at in something closer to "retina resolution" while providing lower resolution (and wider) peripheral vision. It may also also allow dynamic focus, so the 3d effect doesnt look flat and fake, but much more like the real world. The first VR sets with eye tracking already exist. It may take a while to trickle down to consumer sets, and then for software to make most of it, and to be combined with high res / large FoV screens, but this tech is "just around the corner" and much more exciting to me than a new generation of GPUs.

You have now. And I have been racing drones with FPV goggles for almost a decade, so its not like I was a stranger to the limitations of limited FoV "diving goggles" effect, screen door effects or low resolution goggles (my FPV racing goggles and video transmitters use analog PAL, straight out the 1970s, comparable to 640x480 resolution, because analog video is still the only feasible way to have true zero latency). Nor was I untrained in VR nausea, as its the same thing with FPV.. And yet I was sorely disappointed. It reminded of me 3D TVs. Something to experience for an hour, and then put aside and continue enjoying the glorious high resolution and wide FoV and peripheral vision of a large or triple monitor setup. Now Im not saying this isnt the future. I bet it is. For some it may already have arrived, you might well enjoy it, but if you can, try before you buy.