LucShep

If it occurs again, it can be remedied by taking the following procedures (and goes for any Logitech/Saitek HOTAS): LEDs always OFF in the Logitech software, pretty much a requirement to avoid any issues. Better make sure as well to connect it through a self-powered USB HUB. No need for expensive ones, cheap ones like TP-Link UH720 ($25.00) are absolutely fine. Do the following for both the throttle and stick, to solve ghosting and jittering problems (usual in throttle and rotaries, also happen with the X52 and X52-Pro), by using Vjoy +Joystick Gremlin, following this tutorial:

Opinions vary and there is no "absolutely right" or "absolutely wrong" aproach. We're not yet at a point where games like DCS can overload an NVME. On most cases, moving the entire DCS installation folder to the new separate driver location will more than suffice. Leaving the programs (SRS, Simshaker, TrackIR, etc) and DCS save folder in the main drive. That said, you may also want to move the DCS saves folder to the new separate NVMe as well. This is more involved but, if you want to experiment with it, you can do that by using symbolic links for folders (SimLinks). Once done, the shaders compiling, user mods and various configs and logs can (somewhat) benefit, space and speed wise, by being in the faster, separate drive.

Not quite as proficient with VR as others here, but have had the chance to test different popular HMDs. I too was on a budget searching for the best VR experience (and no lighthouses) for the least money. To me, the HP Reverb G2, and the older G1 as well, are still excelent purchases in the used market - if it's a good flawless specimen. Ended up getting a Reverb G1 ("Pro" version, the second version of the G1, with no mura issues and, it seems, a better quality cable). Pretty much as brand new, and it was cheap - you can find various Reverb G1 from 140,00€ upto 250,00€ on Ebay, both from private and professional sellers. Really happy with it (zero issues!), for the price I don't think there's anything better. Tiny sweet spot but great image quality, and works awesome for my needs (using it at 90Hz, 45FPS with reprojection). Decent audio and comfort as well. The cable splits in two, connects to GPU DisplayPort and to USB 3.0+ (use fastest available port in motherboard), meaning that it's direct - there's no image compression/decompression processing, so there's no extra hit on GPU resources unlike other HMD competitors. Downsides.... IPD is fixed in hardware, only adjustable through software (WMR). There's no possibility of wireless use - but then no headset battery to worry about. Also, if that's a concern - as you mention Half Life Alyx - the controllers are "meh", totally usable but not great (I don't use them, don't care). There have been reports of cables going bad on it (and then only fixable by modding the HMD, as they're connected internally), and that's the only concern with the device itself, as far as I'm aware. Tried the Reverb G2 and it's an identical experience to the G1 (and same resolution) with quite a few upsides. The colors seem a bit better calibrated, and audio-speakers are even better. The IPD adjustment is done manually (tab-slider) in the headset, and it's a little more comfortable. And if it's a "V2" (G2 version 2) you also have the advantage of the mask gasket swapping to adjust eye/face distance to the lenses. Also, the controllers are a bit upgraded (another upside, if important to you). Like the G1, it's not wireless. There are issues with cables becoming damaged with time (the twist and turning doesn't help) and replacements are expensive at 100,00€+ a pop. There's also the issue with Windows 11, rumours suggest no more support for WMR by the end of this year (which these HP Reverb headsets use). I'm on Windows 10 and don't intend to upgrade, so I'm not concerned at all atm. But could be a concern in the mid/longer term for Windows 11 users, though I'm convinced an alternative from third parties will appear. Tried the Quest 2 and, in comparison to my Reverb G1, was really awful in my recent experience (using it wired, but can be wireless). Overall image quality was noticeably inferior, resolution was fuzzy (and shimmering everywhere), horrible colors, though the sweet spot was a wee bit larger. The audio was really poor, and so was the comfort (or rather, the lack of it!). Very disapointing, would not recommend it. I'd rather get the much older Oculus Rift-S (also tested) at way cheaper used prices and, for me, near the same visual experience and much more comfortable. Tried the Pico 4 (wired and wireless with virtual desktop) and, coming from the Reverb G1, what you imediately notice is the MUCH wider sweet spot, due to the pancake lenses. It's really much better in that regard, you can look around a lot more without moving the head so much. Also, the lack of cables (when wireless) was an unexpected pleasant experience for me (not giving importance to it initially). The overall image at times does look inferior, as if "compressed quality", but still good for a VR device at this price point. The audio was just okay, as was comfort, though the owner complained that it's quite finicky to set up on PC(?). What we did notice was the GPU working much, much harder than with my G1 (encoding and decoding processing on background, it must be), with similar system to mine. You really need a very strong GPU for it, and that can be the deal breaker for some. That, and dedicated router requirement for the wireless experience to work without issues. I haven't tried a Quest 3 but, I believe, much of what I just said for the Pico4 will apply too. Though, knowing Oculus/Meta, it should be a more refined experience. Like with the Pico4, I read about the need of having a dedicated 5G router for Air Link (if wireless), which also adds cost - something more to think about. I hear a lot of good things about the Quest Pro, and it's the one HMD that intrigues me the most (Varjo Aero and BSB way too much €€€€ for me, no interest in Pimax HMD). The problem is, even in used market, the prices (in Europe) are still a bit too high. And it too seems to require a dedicated router for the wireless experience (but can be wired). The TLDR would be something like this..... Reverb G2, also older Reverb G1, gives most "bang for the buck" (but only on used market). You get a super nice image (ultra sharp and high quality) but only on the centre of fresnel lenses (small "sweet spot"). There's no wireless possibility and reliability of cables is a concern, as is long term usage with rumoured discontinued support of WMR on Windows 11, at the end of 2024. Quest 3 and Pico 4, good purchases (new or used) due to the pancake lenses (sweet spot is almost all across the lenses!) but require a potent GPU (4070Ti Super or better) for best experience in demanding games like DCS, and not an improvement in image quality if compared to Reverb G1/G2. A dedicated 5G router for wireless use is also somewhat of a requirement (extra cost on top). Quest 2 only if really, reeaally cheap. Quality is (IMHO) nowhere near, for any given parameter; even old Rift-S looked like an alternative to this one. Quest Pro looks like the one to get (?) but prices are questionable (usually high). Requires a dedicated router for wireless use.

Just a FYI, newest version of RTSS makes setting up Scanline Sync a little easier to do. Now you just have to set the correct negative value (to hide the tear line) for the Scanline Sync to activate, put V-Sync OFF in game (or force it "OFF" in the driver settings) and off you go. Calculation formula for that Scanline Sync value ---> "Sync total" - "Sync Line 0" = "Scanline Sync value" Example, for 3840 x 2160 resolution (4K) the Sync total for this resolution is 2250. In my experience, for most games running in 4K, the tear line disappears with the Sync line 0 set to 2110. 2250 - 2110 = 140 Therefore, for 4K resolution, I type in "-140" in RTSS's box dedicated to Scanline sync. For 1080P resolution, "-50" in RTSS's box dedicated to Scanline sync seems to work fine. Bigger or smaller negative number will adjust position of the tear line, higher or lower in the screen (objective is to get it where it can't be seen, usually at the very bottom). Important: you must use negative numbers.

A few things there to watch for: 1) Could be as simple as a defective or inadequate HDMI cable (my suspicion there) or, worst case scenario, defective HDMI port (either in GPU or in the 4K TV). Make sure you have an HDMI cable that far exceeds any requisits, then any doubts about the cable are gone for sure. I'd strongly recommend getting an 8K certified HDMI 2.1 cable no bigger than 9.8 feet (3 meters max) - just an example, but this is a good one to get. 2) Never seen any RTX3090 with only two PCIe power feed slots (always seen three power feed slots). What model is that? 3) Always use separate PCIe cables from the PSU to feed the respective power feed slots on the GPU (it goes for any power hungry GPU, like the RTX3090 is). Never, ever, use just a single one for a GPU like yours - which is exactly what you're doing there, with pigtail feeding the second power feed slot on your GPU. That's a big no-no. You risk severe(!) damage in your PSU and in your GPU. Use at least two PCIe cables (+ one pigtail if it's three PCIe power feed slots) from the PSU, for your RTX3090 - see image below from Seasonic.

As said above, the RTX 4060 (any version) in comparison to those is garbage. Even if new, avoid it. The RTX 2080Ti 11GB would be a better deal if it was not a blower model (it's friggin awful, avoid it!), which that PNY unfortunately is. Try to negotiate that EVGA RTX3060Ti FTW3 Ultra. Go for it! That one is among the very best models you can get and, if it's good, for 250-ish it's a heck of a good deal, I think.

Nope. RTX 3060Ti is better than any other GPU in its price range. Better than RTX 4060Ti and RTX 4060. These are cheap for a reason, they're 128-bit bus (don't just walk, run from them!) Also better than RTX 3060 12GB. And also better (for DCS) than the AMD equivalents, the RX6700XT, 6750XT and 7600XT. RTX 2080 Super performs pretty much the same, but with a little higher power consumption (+50W) and higher temperature. RTX 3070 is pretty much the same thing as it, just with slightly higher clocks (~8% performance difference) and higher price.

In your case, for your budget, it's an absolute "correct" to answer your question. The best AMD GPU you'll manage for your budget is the AMD RX 6700XT and 6750XT 12GB models. While you'll notice and feel tempted by the bigger VRAM ammount in these (12GB vs 8GB), when compared to the Nvidia RTX 3060Ti and RTX 2080 Super they compete with, they are severely limited by their 192-bit bus once you go past 1440P resolution (and with VR). The two mentioned Nvidia models are better being 256-bit, and we're not even counting yet with, yes, the tremendous DCS bias towards Nvidia. What happens in reality when put into practice for DCS, those two Nvidia models (RTX3060Ti, RTX2080S) perform better and are far less fussy with DCS (2D or VR). From experience, I'd say to definitely get Nvidia, though those mentioned two are far from perfect (but it's an interim solution, as you said) given their 8GB VRAM limitation. Any AMD GPU that is 256-bit bus and 16GB+ VRAM performs fine with DCS (RX 6800 XT, RX 6900/6950 XT, RX 7800 XT, RX 7900 GRE, XT and XTX). But then those are well over your budget. And the Nvidia equivalents to those still perform notoriously better in DCS.

Are you located in the US ? If so, give a look to the refurbished RTX 3060Ti 8GB models in Newegg: https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?N=4016&d=3060ti&Order=1 Pretty much any RTX 3060Ti will do fine, but I'd recommend getting a triple-fan model (Gigabyte ones are excelent). I too had one as interimn solution and it positively surprised me - it's just a slightly underclocked RTX 3070 (more expensive) and performs as good as it. And a terrific performer once undervolted (tutorial HERE).

The thing is, you want a 200-300 price range GPU to do VR... with DCS, of all things. You can't expect too much, and only from the used market. There is nothing brand new for that price that will cut it (at least in Europe, may be different in the US). if you don't mind adventuring in the used market (Ebay, etc) there are some decent GPUs that may be worth it, as interimn solutions for you. From Nvidia, check the RTX 2080 Super 8GB and the RTX 3060Ti 8GB. With some luck maybe an RTX 2080Ti 11GB could be found (but doubtful). From AMD, check the RX 6700XT 12GB and RX 6750XT 12GB. These are all seriously good "mid-range" GPUs, very capable for a 2D monitor @ 1440P, whatever the game you throw at them (including DCS), and awesome deals in the used market - of course, if fully working. There's so many people upgrading (or just getting rid of) PC parts acquired during the pandemic days. They're somewhat capable for DCS VR but, honestly, better refrain expectations.

You'll get different replies and experiences. Like you, I have an RTX3090. In my own personal experience, with mine and with other systems with RTX30-series GPUs (RTX3080 10GB, RTX3060Ti 8GB, RTX3060 12GB), and with different CPUs (12700K, 12600KF, 10700K, 11400F, 5600X) the Nvidia's driver 536.67 is still the best, with 537.58 being a very close second. It went downhill right after those, IMO. Lots of tearing in some older games (where there was none) and stuttering occurrences in most (newer or older), and hasn't improved. I try latest Nvidia drivers every month, using same settings, or default, or even further altered ones, only to get back again to either of those two mentioned versions. Of course, with an RTX40-series it may be a totaly different story. If it's running good, and not using some recent game requiring particular bug-fixes of latest drivers, then the old motto "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" applies here, IMO. Regardless, and no matter what Nvidia GPU model, if you wish to try newest drivers I'd recommnend Nvidia "Clean Version" drivers, instead of the official Nvidia ones. The clean drivers only differ in not containing any of the unnecessary bloatware (which causes higher resources consuming) that you get with the official ones. They exhist in GTX form (GTX10-series and older) and RTX form (RTX20-series, RTX30-series, RTX40-series) and are always up-to-date (archive of previous drivers HERE).

@kksnowbear What we (especially me, for several posts) have been talking about - and you misinterpret it - is that Gen 3 drives have been at similar price as Gen 4 drives. It makes no sense to buy the slower drive if you can get the faster one for same price, right? Which will also work better once you upgrade the motherboard (if it's a Gen 3 one), hence the "future proofing" I mentioned. The difference here to your Gen 5 rebuttal to it, is that this is a daily ocurrence. Not a "for a few hours" promotion, like it it was for that "one in a million" scenario on that (much, much more expensive) Gen 5 drive you luckily found at such low prices. I'm not sure what is so hard to understand here that takes 3+ pages of back and forth silly arguments. You're argumentative for the sake of "frak knows why", really sounds like in bad faith. A discussion is made of concessions - I haven't seen a single time in recent times at these forums where you've done that. I don't give a hoot about your "40 years in IT" and "my business" and "my customers". Next time you use that stupid argument to shut down people followed by "you're just haters", I'll report you for SPAM, for interacting in the forum merely to fish potential customers.

Talk about "incredibly poor judgment". I guess you'd advise those with Gen5 boards to use Gen4 drives always and regardless (your words, not mine). My point throughout has simply been that if 'future proofing' is a valid argument, then buying a Gen5 drive isn't bad advice at all. Pretty sure that's what I said. What, this again? Yep, I did say that, and would say it again, and again. A million times. And I also posted the following image, showcasing the huge prices differences, for the blatant reality of "law of diminishing returns" across one continent (Europe), if not the majority of the world (but not the US where you live, it seems). Which (of course) you won't put into context or even consider, because it doesn't fit your narrative. Again, quoting myself - and yes this also goes regardless of having a Gen5 compatible motherboard: I'll put the "Gen 5 NVMe purchase for a gaming system" as an analogy, and a pretty basic one..... ....would you recommend a Threadripper 7995WX for gaming (sims, shooters, esports, or otherwise), even if it worked on an AM5 X670 or B650 motherboard? You wouldn't, right? (huh ...right??) Just like anyone in his right mind won't recommend 128GB RAM for gaming right now. And why not? Because it's silly, plain and simple. It's overkill spec'ed and considerable higher cost, for a purpose that (gaming) won't see any benefits, not anytime soon. This is a different matter, actually. If you already have a Gen3 board, like I do, you can buy a Gen4 SSD, hoping that you'll eventually upgrade that board (because a Gen3 board these days is going to have to be upgraded eventually), then you'll already have an SSD that can fully utilize the new board's capabilities. Since Gen4 isn't going to get any cheaper, and inflation will eventually have the opposite effect, you might as well get it now. Finally!! I thought I was going crazy thinking noone was seeing the obvious! Have a good one, gents. I'm done with this silly "Gen5" and "Direct Storage" ping-pong discussion. Picking parts of someone's post without placing the context, to spin a narrative and string us along for nonsensical arguments, gets to a point I'm not sure anymore if it's trolling.

Yep, we've been hearing about Direct Storage from Nvidia since 2020 (was to be present with RTX 30-series). I was not aware that Nvidia finally announced it to bring it to VULKAN but... it's still an RTX I/O, and just how feasable it actually is remains to be seen (may take years). People with Nvidia GTX GPUs are left out, as are those with AMD and INTEL GPUs. How and if those will make their own version remains to be seen. It's the DLSS and RT story all over again. No mention as well if there are other kinds of limitations (such as locked to Windows 11). You see, untill Direct Storage becomes a thing that is "universal" (OS and hardware agnostic) and something that "is there, doing its own thing", for which the developer doesn't have to preocupate, doing its job as normal, it won't stick. Of course, we're in 2024, hopefully this will all be different and a certainty in, say, 2030.

All that doesn't matter? Not the reality? Being an XBOX ports means everything - the console uses Direct Storage. They just port the content to make it functional also on PC. You're not getting the bigger picture. Today, the Direct Storage solution is happening in the consoles, and it happens on PC by those developers with invested interest also in the consoles - hence why you see it in console ports. Console gaming and "PC only" gaming development are very, very different. PC gaming today is no longer comprised of huge publishers pumping the cash and giving the orders to developers for certain projects - those are actually a minority today. Perhaps in the console arena it happens, but in the PC arena the days of a big table of rich and dumb investors calling all the shots is long, long gone. Most developers for PC gaming today are independent dev-houses, comprised of a team of people (big or small but, of course, with hierarchies) leading every aspect of their game title. Exactly because the independence gives them freedom to decide on everything. Because they've been burned out by those bean-counters in the past. IIRC, we have Eagle Dynamics as one among multiple hundreds of developers exemplifying this. I'm an ex-developer myself (sound-designer, worked as "freelancer"), who worked intermitently in the industry for about a decade, surrounded by hugely talented people of all areas of game development, so (at least I believe), I can speak from experience. While these people do the best they can according to their ideals for a project, it's still according to fastest ROI, for the given moment. If you're a "PC gaming only" dev-house, it's most likely that you're independent with tight funds (like most are). And if you decide to invest in an API for 3D graphics, it's likely you'll prefer an "open" one (say, Vulkan). This is even more relevant if you're investing on a project for a niche market. Why would you "lock" yourself to a certain (certainly closed) API, only because it gives a certain nice feature (like DS) with its own major downsides? Do you understand the conumdrum there?

If you mention manually ediiting the .CFG files in the profile folder, you may need Notepad++ in "administrator mode". Or, alternatively, you can simply take those files (ones you want to edit) out of there, edit them and, once you're done, put them back again. Copy/paste them into another folder (a new folder in the desktop, for example) and, after editing them, copy/paste them back again.

Not sure you noticed but, those nine games are XBOX ports? As in, not PC based game titles? Actually, I am privy with a few developers in the gaming industry (sim-racing segment, more I can not disclose) who show no interest whatsoever in Direct Storage, mostly for the reasons I mention. It's investing precious time and resources on something that, at least currently and as it is, has "impending doom" written all over it. A bit of shame really, because it's not the tech per se (which is actually appealing), it's the unfortunate downsides wrapped around the application. We'd need for it to be API agnostic, and perhaps "open source", for it to evolve as desired. But, alas...

Please stop, now it's getting into pure fantasy. It's been a few years now that we read about Direct Storage on PC. The reality check is that the full list of games using DS is comprised of 9 (nine!!!) games only. And no, they're not really growing in number: Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart New World VOXEL HORIZON SYNCED Forspoken Diablo IV EA SPORTS FC 24 Forza Motorsport Test Drive Unlimited Solar Crown source: https://steamdb.info/tech/SDK/DirectStorage/ Microsoft Direct Storage won't be universally adopted (far from it), and here's why: It's an API by Microsoft, which has been walled off from Windows 10 - baffling requirement, as it's still the most used OS also for gaming (source: Steam Survey), a scenario that will continue as Windows 11 adoption has not been widely praised. You're also out of the loop if using Linux for gaming. That's right, you're forced to use Windows 11 to use it. You also require a GPU that supports the DirectX 12 Ultimate API. This limits the GPU choices to NVIDIA's RTX 20-series, 30-series and 40-series, Intel ARC, and AMD's RX 6000 and RX7000 series. While this is fine here in DCS-land, it's not in mainstream PC gaming. Anyone that is still using a perfectly usable GTX 10-series (GTX1080Ti, for example) or AMD RX5000 series (RX5700XT, for example) will be forced to upgrade. As side note, these are the most sold GPUs on the used market, and with huge numbers in the Steam survey for GPUs. Another hardware requirement that's baffling is that you need an NVMe drive with at least 1TB in capacity. So, if you're one among many thousands of users who bought one or two (or three) SSDs or NVMes with 500GB and have been fine with them, tough luck... That's right, will be forced to swap/upgrade to a 1TB+ NVMe drive. The final nail in the coffin is that it requires games built around DirectX 12, to take advantage of Direct Storage. Yes, you read that right. In an era when other APIs are growing in strength for PC gaming, such as VULKAN (because it's "open" and cross-platform, can be used on Windows, Linux, and even smartphones) - DCS soon being another of its adopters, as we all know now. I don't know what experience with game development (and with game developers) you have but, anyone in this difficult business knows that the PC gaming market is comprised of people with limited funds, not your typical wealthy enthusiast. This is part of the reason why the progression in "eye-candy" hasn't been as big as it was in decades prior. Games with more aproachable hardware requirements are often more popular, frequently in the longer term as well. And it's a tough market out there. You can not invest "head first" in solutions for a product that only a percentage can use, while leaving out most of the people that would buy your product, due to requirements. Again, we're talking mainstream usage (not niche segments), which ditactes the success also of APIs. If there's any lesson to be learned with recent history of AAA games is that, focusing on proprietary "closed" solutions (like Nvidia's DLSS, among others) is partially doomed. First, because it takes many, many years on end until finally adopted. And then can only be used by part of the game's userbase - sacrificing a substancial chunk of customers. Second (and even worse), reality shows that it's most often used to mask "lazyness" from incompetent developers (and faults of game-engine in use), not to improve the medium as initially intented. Considering the current PC gaming market and users, the imediate impact with downsides are too many with Direct Storage, because of its (current) requirements. They'd have to do a complete 180º turn with decisions for it to become widely adopted. The reality is that, for PC gaming, Microsoft's Direct Storage will likely be limited to a few XBOX console ports to PC. And that's it.

Yep! F-16A (and a two seat B) Block 10 is the version I've wanted in DCS for a long time, would buy it. I do have the F-16C module but, as good as that is (now), I rarely use it. I much, much prefer my "old" favorite F-14A/B. I feel the F-16C, like other NATO modules in DCS, it's just a bit too modern and way too much "computer gadgetry" for me. The old debate of CW era, "analogue vs digital" preferences and quirkiness liking, I guess.

You can also try Scanline Sync (aka S-Sync), as alternative method. Just follow the linked tutorial. It's pretty much using V-Sync OFF without the screen tearing. You can also use "Fast Sync" (instead of "Force OFF") in conjunction to it - works even better that way in DCS, in my experience. Also works fine with head-tracking. Matter of preferences but, at least with 60Hz refresh-rate, I prefer it to GSync or FreeSync. It's really smooth, and as close as it gets to V-Sync ON without its performance and latency penalties. The major downside of Scanline Sync is that you really need to ensure the GPU does not work at over 90% of usage, otherwise it gets very choppy real fast. EDIT - added video about someone disserting about it:

You can also try Scanline Sync (aka S-Sync), as alternative method. Just follow the linked tutorial. It's pretty much using V-Sync OFF without the screen tearing. You can also use "Fast Sync" (instead of "Force OFF") in conjunction to it - works even better that way in DCS, in my experience. Also works fine with head-tracking. Matter of preferences but, at least with 60Hz refresh-rate, I prefer it to GSync or FreeSync. It's really smooth, and as close as it gets to V-Sync ON without its performance and latency penalties. The major downside of Scanline Sync is that you really need to ensure the GPU does not work at over 90% of usage, otherwise it gets very choppy real fast. EDIT - added video about someone disserting about it:

Good point. And, well, it's again same principle as the game installation folder. The files inside the DCS Saved Games folder can be considered also part of the game files, being somewhat frequently loaded from there too. So yes, if you already have a separate drive for DCS, and if so inclined, moving the Saved Games files of DCS away from the OS drive can be another good move. If you want to experiment with it, you can do that by using symbolic links for folders (SimLinks). It works fine. Actually, I think ED should consider moving the Saved Games files of DCS into the game installation folder, altogether (just my opinion). It can get quite big (especially with mods), and it would help those who are already using a separate drive (or even a separate partition) for the installation of DCS.

Yep, good for DCS 4K. Not sure what RAM or motherboard you're going for. I suppose the motherboard may be one of the latest "14th gen ready" Z790 DDR5 models. If it isn't, then make sure the BIOS is updated (to fully support Intel 14th gen). For the DDR5 RAM, 96GB (2x 48GB kit) of capacity is a good long-term investment, though I believe 64GB (2x 32GB kit) will more than suffice for quite a while, if budget becomes a concern. As for the speeds and latency, 5600 CL28 and 6000 CL30 should be cheaper and theoretically more than good enough, but it's not that far off the price of the slightly faster 6400 CL32 kits (maybe even the 6800 CL34 kits), so also consider the faster memory. It's all a matter of budget.

Fellas, I don't think anyone contests some points being debated here. Some are not even debatable, they're just facts. Such as "the faster the drive, the better". Or "keeping intensive games in a separate drive" (to avoid the so called "resource contention" mentioned above). These are all true, as of "being better" strictly speaking, that has not been the point. The point is.... the debate, for the actual "real life usage and gaming" results, turns into splitting hairs. It really does. It's like those hot debates about sky high overclocking and refresh rates - diminishing returns ensue. At a certain point, as of today, it really makes no difference to your gaming experience. So long as it's a good system, with a good NVME PCie 3.0 and above, it's really hard to see/feel any game choking just because it's installed on same drive as the OS. Even with the "heaviest" stuff available to the gaming public (DCS is not the only one), this won't be an issue. It won't hamper the experience. Perhaps in the future, with (even) more intensive game titles it will make a real difference? Who knows? If you're very strict and anal about your system, willing to have the "the bestest" then, sure. Get a separate (fast) NVMe drive for your intensive games, keep those off the OS drive. That is technically the superior solution. But does it really make a difference? Not for now, it hasn't made any difference in my experience. Similar to what @Baldrick33 and @SharpeXB mentioned above. I'm sure some logged data may appear disproving it, but it's not something you can empirically notice, really. And no, one way or the other, it's not a solution or otherwise guarantee for DCS' ocasional stuttering issues (a particularly sensitive aspect in VR) as some may wish to dissect. The problems lie elsewhere.

Nvidia can "polish it" as much as they want, but nothing will ever beat this: https://github.com/Orbmu2k/nvidiaProfileInspector