etherbattx

we are not "in the dark". if you use a process diagnostics tool, you can see that DCS uses many threads (execution contexts), and the way operating systems work, the operating system will schedule those threads to an available cpu core when they are ready to run. if two (or more) one of them are ready to run at a given time, the operating system will schedule each thread onto a separate cpu core where they can run simultaneously and make use of multiple cores. if you feel like it, you can constrain your system and limit what cpu cores you allow DCS to use, either manually or by using a tool like Process Lasso. some users claim DCS runs faster when you constrain it, but i haven't seen that (and it doesn't make much sense that it would)

so, what you're saying is, we can limit DCS to two physical cpu cores (tell Windows not to distribute threads across multiple cores), and it will run correctly with no performance loss?

this is not correct. it maybe have been like that 5 years ago, but it's not that way today. if you use a process diagnostic tool, you will see there are many execution threads and more than two of them get significant execution time. if you want to test this theory yourself, set your cpu affinity to only 2 cpu cores and see how DCS runs. you'll know right away if it only needs 2 cores :)

Best SSD to use for Dcs i have benchmarked my system. if you copy a lot of large files around between drives, it’s noticeable. but booting windows isn’t much (any?) faster. for loading games, in a blind test, you’d be hard pressed to see the difference.

Ryzen or Intel mid-range CPU are you sure this is what people are looking for? most of the thread posts in these forums are about finding and achieving the best performance. for apps like DCS, it really is about 0-60 performance.

double the cores , double the threads double the performance. smh it’s like free magic all rolled up into one.

i hope so, but right now the large game development companies are pulling funding away from VR, claiming the market is to small and adoption to slow.

i like your analogy. the issue is that most software sees no performance increase from the preloading. even intel own material claims a maximum of 20%, and you can bet they benchmarked that with the optimum use case!

500% increase in fps from adding RAM? what happens if you add another 16GB ?

with HT, if two threads get assigned to the same physical core, they have to share the single cpu execution unit. that's why you only see a 20% increase with HT (optimum case) instead of 200% sharing mean means coordination overhead and one waiting for the other to finish. that's why you don't get 100% utilization.

91% RAM, should i upgrade? how are you measuring that? windows will take advantage of available ram and use it for temporary storage. even if it’s not needed by an application (like dcs). to measure dcs ram usage, take a look at the “working set” size. that’s the amount of ram the process is actually using while it’s “working”

Intel or AMD i was trying to help you understand that DCS is multithreaded and always has been. you said we were wrong and wanted to double down and argue. i am happy to have this conversation with you in private, but i would ask that you stop spreading the “dcs doesn’t multithreaded” misinformation in the forums. please reread what we posted. Hyperthreading is NOT a trademark name for multithreading. it’s a hardware feature that allows some workloads (almost never games) go a little faster in very specialized scenarios. it has very little to do with multithreaded applications and for most discussions it can basically be ignored altogether.

The CPU doesn't "have" a thread, the number simply states how many it can process quasi simultaneously. i don’t think we are going to be able to help this guy. he’s a youtube/wikipedia expert telling developers how the OS and cpu work.

those numbers look correct. rift cv1 is 90hz refresh ->. 11.1ms rift s is 80hz refresh ->. 12.5ms you can’t change that. it’s part of the headset design

Intel or AMD yes mostly likely. and it would interesting to see the amount of difference in the real world. people sometimes think 2 hyperthreads = twice the performance but since the cpu execution unit is shared and only able to process one thread at a time, the results are not even close to 2x even intel’s own technical literature makes multiple references to “up to” 20% increase. and most likely they are testing with optimized workloads to enhance the increase. for most users with desktop pc’s HT’jng can be ignored, other than being able to brag about how many threads they have! :)