Vertigo72

Backy, are you sure you are GPU limited? Like you, I was looking to upgrade my 1070, but Ive done a few tests in DCS and found that depending on the test, Im either overwhelmingly or entirely CPU limited. In my tests cpu speed and ram speed is pretty much all that matters, and even underclocking my GPU has no impact on framerates. I would probably not see much difference if I used a 1060. Of course, I run at 1080p and 4K is different, but if you cant achieve good framerates at 1080p, upgrading your GPU isnt going to give good framerates at 4K. If you havent seen it already: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=240207 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=240131 Especially the first thread proves how much we are bottleneck by the CPU and ram. Someone reran the test at 4K with his GTX 1080, and pretty much achieved identical results compared to 1080p instead of upgrading my GPU, I ordered DDR4-3466, and I will wait to see if Ryzen3 brings anything to the table. But the most significant upgrade for all of us could well be the Vulkan API.

It doesnt always work for me either. Sometimes it works without the AP light lighting up, sometimes it doesnt work although its on. I did notice two things: - auto wingsweep seems to mess things up. Try setting it to manual or bomb mode. Ive had much more luck activating AP that way. - When I press control enter, I see my trim going way out of whack when the autopilot actually works. That may be normal if the autopilot steers through the trim, Im not sure. Bit trim is weird period, at least in combination with FFB . Pressing trim forward can do what you would expect, or almost nothing, or the opposite depending on where my stick is?

Your stick need to be centered when pressing NWS button. And if you have a force feedback stick, then that is causing your problem, as trimming interferes with the center position on a FFB stick.

Alternatively, if this is possible with DCS, have some text appear reflecting the selected option.

For those that have their pilots ejected; could you do a quick test? Fly offline, put the cat in a flat spin and let it spin in to the ground. On my system, Jester will eject briefly before impacting, but he will let me suffer my well deserved fate. Does he eject you?

I tried various lubricants, and found it basically made no difference. The only way the throttle is usable to me, is removing the friction plate completely. Even then, its hardly silky smooth. The problem seems to be the lack of linear bearings, so if you apply any pressure that is not in the direction of the rails, like some twist or particularly if you tilt the lever backwards, it simply locks up. Even without friction plate. It works okay if you apply some down pressure. Its a cheap device, and I think everything else works pretty well (the POV hats are fine, I love the front levers, even the mini joystick is more usable than I expected), but for its main function, ie, being a throttle, its really unimpressive and only barely usable IMO. If Im bored, I may try designing some 3d printable replacement part that lets me mount proper linear bearings. May not be easy, there is no room for traditional linear bearing unless I also relocate the shafts.

Aside from Brunner, which is not really affordable nor really usable in DCS, due to patent licensing issues, there havent been any decent FFB sticks made for the past ~20 years , ever since the MS FFB2 launched. Those Patents start expiring this year, or may already have, Im not too sure. I sooo hope Virpil or any of the boutique hotas shops jump on this. 2 of my 3 FFB2 sticks are beginning to show some slop around the center, and giving up forcefeeback is something Im not willing to do, especially not when paying premium prices for a highend setup.

Averaging over 30s is a good idea, however, there is an E2 taking off and if you wait too long, there is more variance. Shortly after loading, my framerats dont vary more than 2-3 FPS, so I just mentally averaged it. This is not the most accurate or most consistent test ever devised, but I wanted something simple that required minimal effort to paint a rough picture. And I think it has. FWIW, I wanted to upgrade my GPU, but that seems a complete waste of money with my 1080p display. So instead Im going to upgrade my RAM to much faster ram, and maybe wait for ryzen 3 and hope it provides a decent frequency boost on some of the lower core count SKUs (no point in paying for 8 or 12 cores).

I do use a FFB stick, and I have done a few ACLS landings. The trick seems to be to center the trim and the stick before enabling it (pressing N). It still occasionally falls out of automatic mode, but Im not sure if that is FFB related. And btw, its unbelievable the only warning the pilot had was dim barely visible light going out. If ACLS disables on short final and you didnt see the light go out, you are pretty much dead. BTW, my issue with the carrier not activating ALCS seems to have been that I just need to announce Im inbound?

Since no one else tested this yet, and I still dont have my ram, I just tried to overclock my old ram. From the default 1066 Mhz (DDR4 2133) to 1200 Mhz (DDR4 2400), which is about as high as it will go. CAS latency only took a small hit. Without mirrors: 51 FPS @stock speed Without mirrors: 56 FPS @2400 ram With mirrors: 43 FPS @stock speed With mirrors: 47 FPS @2400 ram A 10% performance boost for a 12% ram frequency increase. And probably closer to 10% ram latency decrease if you account for the increased CAS timing. There may be a point of diminishing returns, and this is only one limited test, but it certainly seems like ram speed matters a LOT. Now I understand better Supmua's results with his DDR4 3600 ram. Those sticks cost an arm and a leg, and if you had asked, I would never have thought it would be worth it, but if your cpu can actually run the ram at that speed, it may be totally worth it for DCS.

As I suspected, according to my tests, and results posted by others, rendering the F14 cockpit with DCS default HIGH settings, especially close to the ground where FPS are lowest, is almost entirely CPU (*) bound on even the fastest CPU's: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=240207 If you have a fast enough GPU, you can switch from 1080p to 4K and it makes pretty much no difference in frame rate. So a highend card like a 2080 might enable you to run 4K at the same (low) FPS as at 1080p, but your lowest FPS is still bottlenecked by the CPU. At 1080p changing the clockspeeds of my modest 1070 made absolutely zero difference. I could upgrade to a 2080Ti and it would make no difference. I probably could downgrade to a 1060 and it might not make a difference at 1080p in challenging conditions (ie on a carrier or on the ground, and using default high settings). But changing the clockspeed of my Ryzen cpu, resulted in an almost 100% correlated FPS change. (*) There is some good evidence that CPU IO might be a critically important factor, ie, L2/L3 cache, ram speed and/or latency. More testing is needed to determine that for sure, but I saw almost linear increases when overclocking my old DDR4 ram, and by far the fastest framerates where posted by someone with DDR4-3600. OP has a slightly dated CPU with small caches compared to modern CPUs, and DDR3 ram. Just sayin'

When making a mission in mission editor, what do I need to do to ensure ACLS is available on the carrier? I tried enabling tacan and ILS, but on the kneeboard, ACLS is still unticked for the carrier and Im not entirely sure if ACLS works or not, due to the forcefeedback bug preventing me from actually using any autopilot

This is weird. Ive had jester eject perhaps 10x on me now, never once did I get ejected. What am I or you doing different? FWIW - I almost always manually do the start up procedure (no win+home) and from the pilot seat - I pretty much never sit in the RIO seat - I never used jester menu to change anything about ejecting

Which tutorial? This is from the case 1 carrier take off tutorial:

Your cpu is maxed out. Or at least, one core is. The overall average of all your cores is meaningless, details here in this very thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3899840&postcount=17 This entire thread is showing that, at least with F14 and on the ground, all of us are CPU bottlenecked. A faster GPU wont help, not in this test.

That pretty much proves my point that in this test, we are all CPU bound (possibly CPU IO bound). The GPU, especially if you have a fast one, is hardly being stressed at all. Hence you get almost "free" 4x higher resolution. And if you dont run 4k or high MSAA settings, its probably not a good idea to spend 1000 euro on the gpu. Once airborne, this may change significantly, and a fast GPU will likely produce higher framerates than a more modest one, but if you have good enough FPS on the ground, it generally only gets better, and I prefer to have better framerates where they are currently too low, than 100 extra FPS where I already have 100. VR is yet another different story. But Im not touching that as long as even a 2080Ti cant get good online framerates on low end VR sets. I would want good framerates on pimax 5K or 8K in wide FOV. That will have to wait, I dont have the space for the "PC" Cornelius linked :)

There is a lot of truth in that, but the two are not unrelated. All things equal, the higher the memory frequency, the lower the latency in absolute terms (microseconds), and the latter is what matters. Typically you have to relax the CAS latency settings in order to hit higher clockspeeds, but CAS latency is expressed in clock cycles, so despite the increased relative latency (CAS latency expressed in clockcycles) you almost always end up with lower absolute latency (microseconds).

I can already say its not going to make a difference. Game mode might be useful if you have an old/low end cpu with few cores and you are running a game that uses about as many and you forget to close any cpu hungry background apps. Then Im sure it helps. A bit. But like most these days, I have more cores than I know what to do with, 6 cores and 12 hardware threads, and DCS uses about 2 or 3 of them. Background tasks can easily run on a few spare cores, as long as they are not excessively IO heavy (say a virusscanner), it makes ~zero difference. Certainly not more than inherent FPS variance when running a track in DCS

Its not a high absolute number, but its still 10-20 FPS higher than others on this test with what seem similar CPUs (4.9-5 GHz core i5s and i7s). Only one other person reported a result so far that is in the same ballpark, but he used different settings, most notably lower settings for shadows, so that result is not comparable, and thats why Im slightly suspicious your settings may not have been properly applied and you would have to delete those folders to apply them. Then again no one else so far uses 3600 Mhz ram, so that may be an important factor.

Wow. Those are really high numbers. It might be worth double checking those results after deleting the fxo and metashaders folders as cobra suggested. If those numbers stand, Im a little confused as to why you have such high numbers. From my testing, GPU performance is all but irrelevant in this test. Your CPU is about as fast as it gets today, so high numbers are no surprise, but I wouldnt expect it to be 30-40% faster than my rig and substantially faster than any other 5GHz intel rig so far. Maybe the 3600 memory does play a role? If you feel like experimenting a little by downclocking cpu, gpu and memory and I would love to hear the results.

I have not tested this exhaustively, there may be scenerio's where I would have to do that too, but I got the same results when I tried. I have also noticed changing settings doesnt always seem to take hold, but it seems to be enough for me to restart DCS. Im using the steam edition if that would make any difference. Sure, there are plenty of tests out there comparing single thread cpu performance and in general, and particularly in games, Ryzen performs slightly lower than recent i5s per clock, so I did and do expect that to be the case in DCS. Add to that the generally slightly higher clockspeed, and usually slightly better OC potential and intel is a logical highend choice (if you dont account too much for the price). But you never know how applicable one test is to a given app. Is the test or the app FPU heavy or not? Is branch prediction an important factor or not, is it cache latency bound or cache size sensitive, does it use AVX(2), etc, etc. A single number cant tell you all that and DCS performance on ryzen could be significantly worse or significantly better than on those benchmarks, the only way to know for sure is to test. The same applies within the intel product range, there could be large differences between various models like i5 or i7 at the same clockspeed if L2 or L3 cache size is an important factor, or it could make no difference at all. FWIW, i think cache size does matter. It does seem i5s, particularly older ones, do get beaten by i7s with similar ram subsystems. See Radokills results.

Can you do the same for the interior? Im not so much interested in comparing with the F18 as having a ballpark idea how much Vulkan might help.

Asus has a list of approved modules for your board: https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/LGA1155/P8H77-M_PRO/H77_memory_report.pdf?_ga=2.212202454.357895971.1556912573-1596746078.1556912573 Plenty of 8GB dimms of which you can even use 4. You may need to ditch your existing modules though.

I find that hard to believe. Can you post your motherboard? If you are unsure, run cpu-z and look at the mainboard tab. Im fairly sure you will be able to install 2x 8GB modules, and unless you are saving up for a new rig, it could be worth it, as 8GB honestly isnt enough for the F14 / online.

even at the end I dont get FPS remotely that high. I dont think I ever seen them that high in DCS on my machine period. edit: oh in the menu. Possible. Not sure what FPS I get there. Background apps etc, shouldnt matter too much on our 8/12 thread cpus. I even had a (lightweight) virtual machine running in the background, it makes no difference. I will say that every time you play the track, its slightly different. On some playbacks the missile that kills me, doesnt appear to hit and my plane tumbles without any visible damage. Kinda weird. The times where I switch camera's also seems to change. Overall I think the result should still be fairly representative though.