Vertigo72

draconus, we got your point by now. You are hardcore. You want it realer than real (except when it comes to things like G tolerance or proving theoretical knowledge). I bet if your smoke detector goes off while flying DCS you will land your DCS plane first before you "get out of the cockpit" to see whats burning. We are in awe. But this isnt for or about people like you. I will also say the "anyone can learn it" argument is horse shit. Ive flown with enough RC and RL glider pilots with decades of experience to know some people will never acquire the fine motor skills that others are born with. I can teach just about anyone to fly an rc plane or drone, I can teach many to fly a freestyle drone, but no amount of practice will allow me or everyone to learn .

Turkey, could you try the vjoy trick, and see if that also solves it for you?

I can tell you what reviewers and gaming benchmarks say, but unless someone does a proper head to head comparing modern AMD and Intel systems on DCS, we are all just guessing. And to get any chance of seeing DCS being used in hardware reviews, we need a good built-in benchmark first. What I can say is that DCS performance doesnt really behave like "most" games. Looking at cinebench or tombraider benchmarks really doesnt have much, if any predictive power for DCS. This is true for GPUs, CPUs and memory. For GPUs, most modern games seem to care most about shader performance, I strongly suspect DCS cares relatively little about shaders (at least without VR) and much much more about vram bandwidth (and quantity), texturing units and rasterizers. Some of those specs are often not even mentioned in reviews because they matter so little in modern games that do most things through complex shaders and are rarely performance limited in texturing units. You need to google hard just to find the specs, but when you do you may find out why older higher end cards, particularly Ti variants may be better for DCS than more modern and "faster" cards (in most games). Think 1070 vs 2060, 1080Ti vs 2080. If you look up TMU and ROP count of those cards, you may think twice before upgrading. Likewise, most games will show only marginal impact of dram speeds and latency, but on my system DCS performance scales linearly with dram speed. No other game does this, very few synthetic benchmarks do. This may also mean CPU cache speed/size/efficiency matters a ton more in DCS than it does in any other game and may or may not result in significant differences between intel and amd chips. Between AMD chips with one or two core complexes. It might mean quad channel threadrippers or S2066 intel chips are actually worth considering for DCS, despite appearing to be ridiculous choices given their number of non usable cores. Again, with no hard numbers, I can only guess. Historically Intel has had a significant cache latency advantage over AMD. That gap has shrunk a lot with recent Ryzens, but it still exists. I wouldnt be surprised if this gave intel a non trivial performance edge over otherwise comparable AMD chips in DCS. Or it might not. I really wish we could convince someone with access to a wide range of hardware to do an in depth DCS performance review, so we could all spend our money more wisely.

Not hard to beat that record. Get a PC from a dumpster, connect it to your tv (unless you also find a glorious 14" crt in that dumpster) and fly it with the keyboard. You might only get 5 or 10 FPS, but its still $0/FPS. Its not very useful or enjoyable though.

I dont know what background apps you run, if you are running bloatware like McAfee or some other shit, dont blame MS for that, but the simple reality is you can boot windows with 2GB ram installed and still run apps. If you have (lots more) installed and as long as apps dont request more ram, windows will use more as disk cache and to buffer and preload stuff, but it will make that memory available again to apps when they demand it. Thats not a sign of poor memory management, its a sign of good memory management. Ive regularly seen DCS using 15GB of ram on my 16GB machine with no real problems. The only problem is that DCS actually needs that much. So without edge you would be well below 2GB. Besides. "use". Ive tried explaining this to you. Using memory you dont need for anything else is a good thing. Why would you want your OS to ignore 95% of the ram you have installed when you dont need it for anything else and it could be used to cache, buffer and preload data from disk? When running light or few apps, why would you want your 16GB machine to be no faster than a 2GB machine and keep hammering your disk for no reason? This is basically what XP did, and which led people to install ram drives and put their swap file and temp folder on there. That is horrible memory management And yes, browsers are memory hogs. I didnt know anyone still used edge these days, but go ahead and try google Chrome, or Mozilla firefox, or the one I use, Brave browser. They all quickly use more than windows. Probably more than Edge. Brave right now is using 1.4GB with just a few tabs open. I dont blame windows for that, it does the exact same thing on linux or mac or android. Similarly if you think a DCS port to linux or mac would make a difference, expect to be disappointed. You are barking up the wrong tree.

I wouldnt really focus too much on the hours others claim. If you have oodles of experience with close formation flying, its gonna be a fair bit easier than then when you still have trouble just staying close to the tanker. And if you do, then maybe start there, just fly formation.

DCS is essentially single thread. It may spawn a few more threads, but only one is performance critical. A dual core cpu should actually handle it just as well, if you could still buy them and if they had similar clocks and caches. Buying second hand or not is of course your choice, but I do it often, from sites I know that have seller reputation ratings, and gamers that are constantly upgrading their system. My current 1070 is even an ex bitcoin mining card, I knew that when I bought it, dont care, it works fine and cost me peanuts. It was so cheap I expected to have to buy new fans or an aftermarket cooler, but 18 months later, its still totally fine, and I bet its performance is on par with a 2060 in DCS. For < 1/3 the price of a 2060 when I bought it. Pay with paypal and I dont see the problem. Ive done so many purchases that I can afford to get shafted several times and still end up having saved money. But like I said, its your choice. generations dont matter. I see no reason a 3xxx card wouldnt work in your system.

Windows 10 uses <1GB for itself. And Im being very generous here, because much of what is actually used when you boot, is used by nvidia/amd/intel drivers, audio drivers, joystick drivers, bluetooth, wifi, or whatever else you may be running. If you install logitech bloatware for your mouse and keyboard, it will use almost a full gigabyte. About as much as all of windows. Given that, if windows uses <1 GB and 16GB RAM still isnt enough to run DCS, should we really blame microsoft for it, or maybe ED? Because an extra gigabyte memory isnt going to solve your problem. And IL2 will run with as little as 4GB and frankly, looks a lot better than DCS these days. As for windows; like I said, there is plenty to complain about. Im all with you on forced updates (which I worked around), the bloat on disk usage is ridiculous. I run linux most of the time for a ton of good reasons. But I cant fault windows for its memory management OR requirements. Not since windows 10. Its actually become more frugal than my ubuntu install.

As I wrote above, in my testing the most crucial bottleneck is actually IO: Memory access. Newer cpus tend to support faster ram (and be paired with newer/faster ram modules). They tend to have larger, faster and more efficient l2/l3 caches. Higher clocked cpu's also have higher clocked memory controllers and l2/l3 caches. I wonder if we are not focusing on the wrong thing here, at least for DCS and in its current form. CPU clockspeed let alone IPC may not matter nearly as much as is generally assumed. If anyone has access to a threadripper or an intel x series on LGA 2066, I would love to see some results. If my thesis is correct, their large caches should help anyhow; whether or not quad memory channel also helps would depend if DCS IO is more latency than bandwidth bound, but I wouldnt be surprised if these chips outperformed their desktop counterparts in DCS despite lower clocks and basically identical IPC. Maybe even by a significant margin.

You managed to live this long with a CPU because really, CPU performance hasnt really increased substantially - except for parallel performance which DCS doesnt care about. Im really hoping neither of these statements remain true. But also because you bought pretty high end, even today cpus or gpus that are substantially faster may cost you pretty penny. If you had 960 or something, I wouldnt have second guessed your desire to buy a 2060. Now I fear it may not provide you enough bang for your buck compared to what you have. Hence my suggestion to save a buck and pick up a used 1070(Ti) or something. Or wait for ampere and get a 2070 at a discount or whatever 3xxx card nvidia will sell at that performance level later this year.

That almost unintentionally funny. I bit like me telling me GF I dont need a haircut, I got an expensive one only a year ago :) Im not saying you have to buy a new system, but 7 years is forever in this world, and its amazing you still get by with it. That doesnt mean buying top of the line is smart though. It rarely is. You are better off buying more mainstream components and upgrading them more regularly. As you move from mid range to top end, prices tend to go up exponentially and their performance increases are often only marginal. To get 10% better cpu performance you may need to spend twice as much. Better to not do it, and upgrade twice as often. Cant tell you how to spend your money best, as I dont even know what your problem is. Frame rates even at low settings, load speeds, stutters, VR, inability to dial up eye candy,..?

I dont call that memory management. Memory management is about allocating memory to processes, deciding what to keep in ram and what to compress or swap to disk, managing swap and cache and I do think windows 10 does a decent job there. XP was totally hopeless and people ended up using ram drives and putting the swap file on there, which is completely insane, but worked better than XPs own memory management.. As for system requirements; MacOS also requires 2GB. Ubuntu linux even requires 4GB. Even mobile phone operating systems like Android realistically need at least 1 or 2 GB. The comparison with ancient OSs is flawed. Modern OSs provide so much more functionality. Maybe you should actually try running that windows 2000 with 64Mb, and after adding a full (IPv6 compliant of course) networking stack, bluetooth and wifi, a firewall, anti virus, HTML5 browser, cloud storage, modern security practices isolating processes from each other and separating user and administrator tasks from each other, and using two trillion drivers for anything from 3d printers to modern graphics cards, support for 16, 32 and 64 bit APIs, plug and play support for all modern devices and IO, including things like raid and nvme and USB-C, multi core CPUs with variable clockspeed and understanding and correctly assigning threads to logical and physical cores and being aware of local and remote CPU cache architecture, support for modern (and ancient) file systems, modern graphic APIs, modern audio APIs, support for VR,.. Oh and also support for the ancient versions too! Maybe you should try it on XP and see how well it runs with 1GB. If you dont need all of those things, Windows 10 IOT core will run with 256Mb ram. And it will run a heck of a lot better than XP embedded did with 256Mb. Im not a big fan of microsoft or windows, I avoid it whenever I can, but memory requirements and management is not windows 10 problem. On the contrary, MS actually do a fairly remarkable job there. You can do all the things I just mentioned, but opening a google chrome browser instantly doubles or triples your ram usage. But I guess netscape was better right?

Windows uses it, mostly as drive cache. Thats a good thing. Why would you have 32 GB and not use any of it to buffer data from drives that are orders of magnitude slower (even NVME drives), when no other apps request that ram? As you start apps that request more ram, windows will reduce the size of its cache. It does a fine job at that, no different than any other OS. So next time you look at task manager and see 20GB used when running only windows calculator, look a little more closely: The cached amount is available to apps that request more ram. But it is used for something useful when no apps request it.

yeah. But dont read too much in to that, basically the only game I played then was condor and some rise of flight. Ive also seen some xplane benchmarks and AMD cards do quite poorly in it. Even with the vulkan upgrade. prepar3d seems to have serious issues, at least with the 5700 series but using the same driver, it may also affect lower end cards. So yeah.. I dont think they are bad cards but if the sims you care about suck on them, its not the best plan is it.

Ive had the RX580 for a while, I was impressed by it to be honest. I mean it was quite a cheap card even when I got it, but I only upgraded to a 1070 because I needed cuda and it felt more like a sidegrade than upgrade. nVidia is clearly the way to go if you want top end performance. But bang for buck? Id need to see some benchmarks in those apps. For most games, I think AMD is at least very competitive in midrange segments, and for DCS they have the big advantage of offering 8GB in their low midrange cards. How it actually performs in DCS, i couldnt tell you.

Well, the problem is you pay for it,and are unlikely to use it. Even in games that support it, the 2060 is usually not fast enough to actually enable it. I think its a gimmick for now. A 2060 will give you that 8GB, and yes, its important, but it wont give you a lot more raw horsepower than what you have now. I think its quite an expensive upgrade for what I expect it to deliver. If you want cheap way to get 8GB, and you dont want to buy second hand, RX590 is actually great value. Its not massively faster than what you have now, but a 2060 wont be either, and the RX is ~50% cheaper. If you want a more significant upgrade, Id save up for a 2070.

DCS performance is unfortunately not often comparable to "most games" and no reviewers use it as a benchmark. Even more annoying is that performance "depends". It depends greatly on what plane you fly, what mission, what map, what module. it varies enormously with settings. Im convinced it even depends on the position of the moon and the color of my lawn. That said, a few things are generally true. DCS really loves as much VRAM as possible. Your 4GB is going to be a bottleneck and will hurt performance. More in some modules than others. It wont make it unplayable, but you will have to (significantly) reduce settings on some modules and maps. DCS also loves fast ram (and ideally lots of it). 2666MHz is not terrible, nor is it stellar. Its ok. 16GB is also ok, especially offline its fine, but may lead to longish load times for large/online mission. Then again, everyone has that to some extent. DCS doesnt care how many cores you have. 2 or 8 makes no real difference. It only cares how fast they are. Yours is pretty fast. All in all, you will be able to play DCS. You will have to make some compromises, but everyone does. Dont expect to fly VR fluidly, then again, no one really can :).

hmm. seems those new i3s are limited to DDR4-2666 unless you pair them with overpriced motherboards. In that case, Id scrap that suggestion and stick with ryzen. Or a i5-10400F which is only marginally more expensive, and give you 6 cores too.

Shouldnt be hard to overclock that to 4Ghz, given that its base frequency ;). Still for comparison, using local euro prices incl 21% VAT Ryzen 3600: 170 AM4 motherboard: ~60 euro RTX 2070 : 450 euro case+psu : 60 total: 740 Using a core i3 10300 its about the same price and for DCS may even be faster (for FS2020 Id rather have the extra cores on the ryzen). And faster than that i7. May need to add a cooler though, but you where going to buy that anyhow. . Then there is ram and storage, but looks like you would need to buy that anyhow too.

Just try? You can go online with the free version cant you? just hop in a Su25 and a busy server and find out. My guess is it will be borderline playable with settings turned down far enough. But keep in mind a module like the F14 can cut your framerates almost in half.

I usually tell people to underclock a component to get an idea of how much that component is bottle necking them (if you underclock cpu or gpu or ram by 50% and barely notice a difference, doubling that components speed isnt gonna help you either, if performance scales close to linear, increasing that components performance will also yield close to linear increases), but that strategy doesnt really work if there is a "capacity" bottleneck, and that 4GB vram almost certainly is just that. If you set everything to low, maybe 4Gb is enough, and a 2060 will not yield massive better frame rates at those low settings, but it will allow you to increase those settings without performance falling off a cliff. Im not the biggest fan of the 2060 though, you pay for the RTX stuff you have no need for (for DCS at least). The GTX series doesnt have that problem but they are limited to 6GB, and if you are buying a new gpu, you really want at least 8GB for DCS. Maybe you can look for a used 1070 (or 1080 if you get lucky) or consider a radeon 5700.

At least with the tomcat you can have that. Just bind "x" to ACLS. Not sure if or when that is coming to the F18

- AFAIK there is no such thing as an i5-6700K. There is an i7-6700K and an i5-6600K. Im gonna assume its the 6600K. Either way, seems like a fair price, and you will get something that is comparable to your laptop. I wouldnt bet it performs better, but at least it wont be far.

I bought the CH pedals for a simpit I build for our gliding club, as their movement is closer to what we have in real gliders and their price isnt exorbitant like those TPRs. I didnt find them too bad honestly, smoother and more accurate than I expected, and I think they also deserve consideration, but they are not really (easily) adjustable and your feet are close together which not everyone will like.

More like $100 for me, if that: https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:4407778 btw, we are full circle now (no pun intended). Did you not read what I wrote and what you quoted before saying the MFGs would be perfect for me? I said I didnt like the circular motion of them and then you replied the MFG would be perfect. I said I much preferred the VKBs, and they you asked me what was wrong with VKBs. I said I preferred the TPRs even more, but couldnt swallow the price tag, so I already linked the above cheap alternative , and then you suggest TPRS but call it highway robbery. Waiting now for you to again recommend MFGs for being cheaper :).