LucShep

@Onslott (or anyone looking into same information) Not sure I understand.... You want to move your DCS Saved Games folder to another location or drive, is that it? If that's it, then it can be done. I repeat, you do NOT need to have the DCS save files folder itself on the "C:\Users\"your-user-name"\Saved Games" folder. But you do need to put some commands in Command Prompt for symbolic links (aka Symlinks) for the game to pick the new location of that folder and files. ....read on, here's a step-by-step guide: OK, so let's pretend that we will move the DCS folder, with all the saves stuff inside, to a drive name "K:" Cut that big DCS folder (i.e, move it entirely) from the "C:\Users\"Your-User-Name"\Saved Games" folder into the "K:" drive. So then what we have now is a "K:\DCS" with all the saves file stuff inside there. Basically what we're going to do next is to trick the game, by creating a "DCS" shortcut (a junction via symbolic link) in the default location that the game will always look for. And this special shortcut, in the location that the game looks for, will then lead it to that actual real "DCS" folder that has been moved. Next, we will create a symbolic link to that new location ("K:\DCS", in this example) where the real DCS folder with all the saves files stuff is. Open Command Prompt as administrator. * For that, click the Start button, search "cmd" or "Command Prompt," then select "Run as Administrator". * * (note: if it's Windows 11 then it doesn't require administrative privileges to create symbolic links, only Windows 7 / 8 / 10 does). And now, with Command Prompt open, you would just need to type the following: mklink /j "C:\Users\Your-Windows-User-Name\Saved Games\DCS" "K:\DCS" So it would appear in Command Prompt like this image below (yes, the user name there is blurred): And now all you have to do, after typing that in there, is press the "ENTER" key. And it's done. If all went well, you'll see a message in Command Prompt saying "Junction created for C:\Users\Your-Windows-User-Name\Saved Games\DCS\ <<===>> K:\DCS" Now if you go check in the "C:\Users\"Your-User-Name"\Saved Games" folder, there is a shortcut named "DCS". If you double click on it, it'll go straight to that "K:\DCS" folder (as per this example) with all the saves stuff in it. And the game will now read from it.

When? I did not notice any such changes.

No, the solution is to fix the problem (and make it a priority). Instead of being negligent and, with it, make your customers feel forced to spend on expensive hardware that shouldn't be all that required in the first place. Here, more than enough written (and proven/tested) on the matter, for quite some time now actually...

What do you mean? One could buy pretty much any RTX2070S for less than $350 right before the pandemic. You can't buy a decent RTX4070S for less than $550 now even at discount. Have you seen the prices on the motherboards? Your "affordable" X870/E and Z890 is around $300 right now (and will probably increase in a month from now). Before the pandemic the very same models for then equivalent exhistent sockets (X570 and Z490) were $150... Even a "non enthusiast" gaming system is 2x the cost. Heck even entry level ones are. hmmm??? "the hardware requirements for this game are actually rather tame" ? Please don't kid yourself. 64GB is an actual requirement now for DCS MP, because most people don't have enough VRAM on their GPU, even with textures set at LOW. DCS swaps a lot. And most of the textures are stored in compressed .ZIP format. The bigger the texture size, the longer DCS will take to extract from the .ZIP file and then swap. Have you seen the size of the textures that are used, and how many, in the core files, in the maps, and especially in the modules? And notice, it doesn't only do that on the modules you own. For example, I don't have the F-4E but, if I'm on MP and someone else joins with an F-4E, I have to load all of his 4K DXT5 32-bit textures. And so on for other modules I don't own (etc etc). When the VRAM limit of the GPU is hit (and on any 8GB or 12GB it will be hit in MP), it then goes to consume your Swapfile/Pagefile if there isn't enough RAM (when that can easily go to 40GB usage on its own, if in MP). And neither RAM (best case) or Swapfile/Pagefile (worst case) will be anywhere near the speed of dedicated VRAM on the GPU (and why this is such a big problem with DCS!). And, again, considering that most of the DCS userbase is very unlikely to be with 16GB(+) VRAM GPUs and 64GB of RAM, the stuttering complaints are pretty aknowledged and recognized across the board... "Rather tame", did you say? You got to tell me which other game/sim requires a 16GB(+) VRAM GPU and 64GB of RAM just to make it "non stuttery" in MP... Now, back to the prices. How much again for 64GB RAM and a 16GB(+) VRAM GPU?? lol

Yes, but DCS doesn't need better graphics, which would impact even more the performance (and in fact pursuing it would probably heavily affect ED in the process). The budget that Asobo has to spend at once and continuously.... that's not comparable either. What DCS needs (really, really needs) is to be better itself (a better core, better optimization/performance, better AI, better ATC, etc). Yes it is. Look around and enquire whatever "vendor" or system builder (inclusively those in this forum) and all of them will tell you that a $3000+ full system for gaming is not so common, and less now than it was during the pandemic. The response you'll get is that the vast majority of new sim/gaming systems being build are mid/high-ish range (RTX4070S / RX7800XT / 7900GRE GPU, 13600K / 7600X / 5700X3D CPU with semi-affordable mobo, 32GB RAM, 750W/850W PSU, affordable mesh case). Do not mistake "Gaming system" with "Enthusiast system" (these last ones, like yours, are a minority). And I didn't say computers used to be cheap. What I did say, and exemplified, is that today's PC hardware is about 2x more expensive than it used to be, some 15 years ago (the period you mentioned).

I build PC systems and upgrades (or assist in the process if not present) as a hobby. Most people upgrade their 4 or 5 year old system with a faster and newer GPU, or a faster CPU swap, or larger capacity RAM, but rarely all at once. Complete new systems are less common then before. I have a bunch of people asking for help all the time, and if I have ten complete systems to build, one is a high end system. And pretty much all of them are, funny enough, always for simming (racing and/or flight). You're thinking of a small percentage of fortunate people that can afford (at once or on credit) such expensive systems, they're a drop in the ocean. People are definitely not spending as much as you think, and not as much as before. They're actually more weary than during the pandemic, when big bucks were being spent. You look at the plethora of high-end systems mentioned in signatures at the VR forum section, but I could bet any given module or map that those are a tiny minority of what composes the DCS user base. If you're thinking of the upcoming commercial and VFR flight sim sequel (yet another), you better also understand that's one with a much more casual userbase. On that one, only a percentage of people spend money on flight controllers (cheap gamepads gallore), while in DCS spending extra on head-tracking and a decent HOTAS is pretty much a given. Also, 30FPS is still considered "very normal" there. That's not practical in DCS, and the current version of that one pushes just as hard (maybe less) than DCS at 60+ FPS on a busy MP server. It's not comparable, there's nothing to "catch up" in DCS other than bug-fixing, and getting back performance loss since 2.7.0 with the new clouds system was introduced. DCS is very much its own thing, and going after that other one (catch up in "look like") is a very bad temptation.... (NASA computer requirements then?)

Let's separate things first. Consoles are not comparable to PCs. The consoles are sold at a loss (and always were, since the early Atari days). The gaming consoles business is entirely made around games, packs and peripherals, that's what makes money in that market. The problem there for consoles is that the advances in requirements are becoming increasingly difficult to be met, if the idea is to keep maintaining prices. Both on consoles prices, and games production time and cost (which is now in the many millions for any given AAA title). First was the jump from 720p to 1080P, then to 4K (which usually is just upscalled 1440P). Then the jump from 30fps to 60fps. Manufacturers are now finding really difficult to build consoles for these requirements at same prices, which means prices may increase, and then may impact sales. Meaning, either the games cut on demanding VFX, or targets will not be met (price or performance, choose one of the two, can't have both). As for PC gaming, the prices are not same now as they were before (even with corrected inflation for the period). PC hardware has had considerable prices increase in crucial areas. For example, let's go back in time to those 15 years ago and see what were the prices of hardware then: - A good mid/high-range GPU back in 2009 was a Radeon HD 4890 1GB, which then cost on average 250$ (in today's money that's $366). - A good mid/high-range GPU today is an RTX 4070 Super 12GB, and that is on average $600 as of this date. This is a high-end gaming system in 2009 (same system I built back in the day): CPU: Intel i7 920 ----------------------- $285 Cooler: Scythe Mugen2 ---------------- $37 Motherboard: MSI X58 Pro ------------- $180 GPU: Radeon HD 5870 ----------------- $400 Memory: Patriot 6GB DDR3 1600 CL8 -- $170 HDD: WD 1TB 7200 RPM --------------- $100 PSU: OCZ 700W 80+ Bronze ----------- $100 CASE: CM HAF922 --------------------- $80 TOTAL ---------------------------------- $1352 - in today's money that's $1990 Today, for same equivalent segment system in latest/modern specs, you'd have to pay double the price. The whole point is that far away state of equilibrium has been broken just in recent years. In 2020 we could probably point out to the pandemic and to the mining craze, but both have ended for years now, that's no longer the reason. Now we're just being ripped off (for example, RTX4080 at $1200 and RTX4090 at $2200 .....errr... go fly a kyte please?) Then we see a focus on "quick production" (and lack of optimizations) in games, with insistence on proprietary solutions that aren't really viable (six years later for ray tracing). A PC gaming system is a luxury, indeed, as is the entire hobby. But people can't keep up with current prices increase, they resolve to not upgrading for the largest extent they can, or sticking with older games or new ones with lower requirements (already a given looking at Steam sales). Where it relates to DCS? Well, where do you think the newcomers with the FS hitch are coming from? Or what do they come equipped with? Then they see the official PC HW requirements and "very cool, lets goo" only to realize later that is extremely optimistical (then go to other competitors with far less "real" HW requirements). ED modules/maps sales and income stability depends on those fellas too. BTW, even on consoles, XBOX is slowly flopping now. And when the cost of games productions is 10x or 20x times more expensive, it's getting to a point where something has to change, wouldn't you agree?

What's been implied there is that, instead of insisting with demanding and overkill VFX and other related solutions, effort goes into other more relevant things. It makes sense as things have been going. Take for instances the current fad of Ray-Tracing. It's a sh!t show everytime you run it because it impacts heavily on the GPU for some pretty minor visual gains. It becomes detrimental if developers get lazy and build primarily for it, instead of the widely more usable Rasterization. Or insisting on very demanding details that only a tiny percentage (its own devs perhaps?) will actually notice or wish for (the "sound that only dogs can ear" as he mentions in the video). It is also relevant for DCS, because it too is a bit of a victim to this. The devs could (should) really rethink some things. For example, there is currently focus on overkill texturing sizes and formats, beyond what is usually recommended. Insisting with the .DDS 32-bit textures when they don't make any difference in-game over 8-bit textures (much lighter). Or how DXT5 is widely used, even for those without transparency, for which DXT1 should have been used (much lighter again). Or how the sizes are outrageous in so many cases, 8K textures when they could be 4K, or 4K could be 2K, or 2K could be 1K (not only but especially with Specular and Normal/Bump maps), etc. A lot of wasted performance, bandwidth and storage, with nothing really gained with that trade-off. VFX tech and solutions are not the same as great artwork and attention to detail. You can have trully impressive results with the latter, with optimizations that don't impact quality. But not necessarily with the former, even if it's the best and latest tech or solutions, usually at a cost of resources impact and, therefore, performance. See, for example, how a very old game like Grand Prix Legends held on so firmly for years and years during the 2000s, for the time that it ran on that jurassic OpenGL (even in a time when DX9 became ubiquitous in racing-sims). So good that community artists (i.e, modders) then took it even further, and instead of it becoming dead (as most of its time already were) it still went on, embaracing highly advanced modern games (well, they were back then) in that mentioned period. All thanks to artwork, not for its VFX tech. Or, as another more recent example, how Ghost of Tsushima (especially the PC version) without any RT (doesn't have it) puts to shame so many AAA games that do use RT, all thanks to an outstanding artwork and attention to detail (and some very good optimization).

As the title says. This fella has his head on his shoulders, and what he implies (especially from 10:01 time mark and onwards) makes absolutely all the sense in the period we are currently in. Personally, I agree that, yes, game design needs a reset, a complete redesign of the business model for the development of new games. Everybody in the gaming industry should pedal back on the "eye candy" development, and respective higher HW requirements involved. What everyone needs is "better" games, not "prettier" games. Considering where the economy is right now, and where it's going (not for the better?), when only a portion of the userbase can afford that elusive top 10% performance incredibly expensive hardware (and then replace it and repeat every 3 or 4 years), it stops making sense going in the current direction.

Thanks for responding. I appreciate that ED and third parties are onto it. But, unfortunately, the issues have been around for so long and so prevalent that I'll have to reply with "I believe it when I see it". About 2), I don't know the proportions of Single-Player versus Multi-Player. But I'm sure you're aware that the Multi-Player numbers are pretty big, and it's flourishing (despite all these complaints). And there are valid reasons for it. People feel compelled to get into Multi-Player, and that'll only increase, because: The AI is basically "alien", it's super-human. There were improvements, but it's still a big issue. Not just the AI pilots, which most times seen to ignore same rules/routines that we have to follow. But especially the silly ultra accurate AAA, ruining ground attacks, which makes missions and campaigns sometimes unplayable. To engage other humans, in places (servers) where that playground is well set, it imediately means improving that experience, and forget such common issues. The type of semi-dynamic missions in some popular servers as of late (with all the merit) such as HeatBlur's Cold War, Contention, Growling Sidewinder, or ShadowReapers (among other big servers), disguise some of those issues of Single-Player, and it really improves the player's experience. Having those, as they are, is perhaps not "traditional DCS" but it certainly is -and makes it all- far more engaging and rewarding, because in one swipe makes it unpredictable and reduces the pesky "Alien" AI presence with other fellow members in their place. So, instead of the all scripted (sometimes frustrating) and also repetitive experience that you get once you play/replay a Single-Player mission/campaign.

I'm not sure what authority the creator of the video has to represent everybody, by using the word "we". But, that said, I appreciate the patience and will to post the video, to voice some common concerns - thank you for that. I could list a whole group of issues, with the AI, or with new features introduced while others get broken, and with bugs that remain in the modules for indefinite. But the three main issues I have with DCS (which were not really addressed there) have exhisted for years and years on end. They are 1) the performance, 2) the issue that new maps create, and 3) the lack of depth for specific eras where the aircrafts exhist in. Performance. No need to be a scientist to understand that the wrong size and format of textures has been chosen for many years, and it gets worse with every new module/map release. No, it's not a matter of reducing texture settings in game options because those only reduce the texture MIP in use. But the whole texture file size is still loaded regardless, overwhelming the drives, RAM, and barely aleviating the VRAM. Another example (and there are others), and beautiful as it is, the new clouds system (introduced with 2.7.0) was a mistake, as it heavily bogged down the performance benefits we add with 2.5.6. In my experience, VR was never the same again (still isn't). People want better and better detail 3D models (mooaar polygons), larger rendering distances, but forget that all that imediately means a heavy price to pay, in performance hit and (even higher) hardware requirements. A bit of a comical sentiment and desire, when that (performance issues and hardware requirements) is already a problem for so many users (I'd wager the majority?), especially for those playing complex missions and more so if in Multi-Player. Simply put, you can't have your cake and eat it too. What we need now is not prettier graphics, we need drastic optimization. Like yesterday! It's only once that is done effectively, and achieved in the practice, that the next graphical improvements can/should be considered. Issue with new Maps. These can become a really bad investment because the size of the community forces players to gather on one or two main maps (usually Caucasus and Syria), which leaves all those nice new maps unused in Multi-Player. So, basically, buying these new maps ends up in having to focus on Single-Player (not Multi-Player), with their buyers left with the hope that mission/campaign creators expand/add to them. It makes little sense unless you want to help funding (like a donation to) ED. The issue becomes even more prevalent because some of these new maps overlap with each other, but are released separate of each other. When, instead, they should have been expanded (joint together, continuously) onto a larger map. Lack of depth for specific eras. Then there's the issue with assets, maps, and overall content that doesn't focus on specific time periods, which is a must for realistic conflicts recreation (past and present). This has been one of the longest issues with DCS (maybe since the start?). We have aircraft from different periods and generations, all beautifully done, but then the content and context in which they're used does not follow same lines. In the end, it becomes a beautiful mix of disjointed period content (sometimes not making much sense) that turns into something rather generic.

Come on, really? ...all it took was a single search on youtube (10 seconds?) It's the same content as in the written review at Techspot that I previously posted.

Let's split that in two parts... IPS vs OLED. I think you already know where I'm going with this... 1) reliability and 2) color/contrast accuracy as well as general picture quality. Instead of writing a wall of text for such matter, I suspect that for 1) reliability, you're already aware that you'll need to baby an OLED if you're doing a lot of prolongued time with static images (you mention this is also for work). Search for mitigation solutions and routines to avoid "burn in" with OLED screens. FWIW, no such issue with IPS. As for 2) color/contrast accuracy and general picture quality, you're probably aware that nothing beats OLED. That PG38UQ has a really good IPS panel, good in that aspect but, still, it won't be as good for that as the other two OLED models you list. 38'' vs 42'' screen size. The 38'' screen size is a good balanced size for daily use monitor but, IMO, if you have the space and will for a 42'' screen size, definitely go for that instead and never look back - especially if coming from a 32''. The bigger screen allows for a more "real life scale" of things, which is no less important for immersion. Especially in flight sims with 99,9% of the time spent in the cockpit. Also, the bigger screen size allows you to have separate windows almost like a multi-monitor (see here for example), which may come very handy for work as well. Lastly, let me add suggestions for other models in your research list: The KTC G42P5 OLED --> https://us.ktcplay.com/product/g42p5/ This a less known brand, which also translates to a more competitive price (around $950, depending from where it's bought and location), which may or not be a factor for your purchase. Like others, it's based on an LG OLED panel, which is already a big positive. I don't have first hand experience with this monitor, but there are reviews on that model's website (scroll down in there), also others on the internet (google it) from well known reputable and exempt sources, and all rate it very nicely. Of course, can not forget the well know LG OLED42C2, OLED42C3 and OLED42C4, which are TVs but work great as monitors too, so are worth a look as well.

https://www.techspot.com/review/2801-amd-ryzen-5700x3d/ ^^ TECHSPOT is the "written website" of the HUB youtube channel, where Steve Walton also posts hardware reviews.

Exactly. Not good for the shareholders, for sure. The gap in sales numbers increased since the 13th/14th gen degradation fiasco, and it'll now grow even more (prepare to pay more for AMD now). Meanwhile, it's a shame that AMD didn't improve that much with Zen5 as well, the goal posts would have provoked a bigger step-up, and we'd all benefit from it. But then, as it is with Arrow Lake, they don't even need to (and wont?) improve now. So, basically, we're heading back to where we were a decade ago, but the roles have now been reversed. The way I see it, this is a "Bulldozer" moment for Intel. But then if AMD survived that dark period, so can Intel. Just how much and how long will it take for Intel to get (if they can) the necessary improvements is the next chapter of the story, and what makes this interesting.

Nice, so SkatterBencher got the OC videos out already (always great videos from him every new Intel Gen). He and Buildzoid are, IMO, two of the guys that show it how it is, worth following. Arrow Lake really is a departure from previous chips, some things going the opposite way of Alder Lake and Raptor Lake. It's not just from the tile aspect (with separate memory controller) or lack of hyperthreading, but this DLVR thing and how the E-Cores got such a proeminent role now. The OC'ing margins on the E-Cores are insane, 500Mhz or more possible now. And the reverse on the P-Cores, quite limited and not much margin. I think I've seen enough and, TBF, it's not the direction I was hoping for some things are actually not making much sense. I now wonder if Arrow Lake was meant to be just a "stop gap"? I find weird how the planned Razer Lake, which was to be Arrow Lake refresh, was reportedly cancelled one month before the release of Arrow Lake (see here). If the following release, which is Luna Lake, is not in LGA1851 socket, then that is confirmed.

Digital Foundry

It won't but, other than P-Cores+E-Cores clocks, I find that the Ring tweak settings can be interesting, now that it is separate from the P-Core voltage. Pushing the Ring will surely help a bit with the high latency issues, due to the memory controller in a separate SOC tile. "Arrow Lake has about a 5% IPC improvement on the P-cores and about 25-30% on the E-cores. This ends up in very nice CPU-Z and Cinebench benchmark results, however the new tile system with TSMC has a massive latency penalty on memory. More massive, in fact, than even Rocket Lake, which is enough to cause performance regressions even worse than what we saw with Rocket Lake vs Comet Lake. Hyper-Threading enabled would have prevented any of this, but the amount of heat HT would have caused on this platform would have prevented even the already pedestrian clock speeds from being stable. You can expect about a 20ns latency penalty with the same RAM on Arrow Lake as compared to Raptor Lake."

I agree for the most part. It has become (even more of a) niche. But looking at the plethora of new tweak settings (a lot more complex to overclock these), the general consensus is that there is performance hidden within those BIOS settings. It's not going to be an X3D beater, but it looks like Intel was so scared of reliability and critics on power/temps that they choked Arrow Lake with enforced default settings (many of which motherboard manufacturers can not go over this time around). For example, one among other threads on the web: https://www.overclock.net/threads/storming-the-power-gates-with-asus-z890-apex-and-intel-285k-are-you-ready-to-overclock-like-never-before.1812707/

It is surprising. The reviews of Arrow Lake are overall as everybody expected - very good multicore performance with excelent (low) power consumption and temps at full load, much better than previous Raptor Lake there. Exactly like the leaks and rumours said - give or take a direct competitor to Ryzen 9950X and better than i9 14900K, even without Hyper-Threading, which is a real step up IMO. The missing piece of the puzzle was only the gaming performance - where the surprise gets in. It was late in the party that we learned about Intel moving the memory controller to a separate SOC tile, which is what is believed to be the culprit for such a lower performance in so many games. I generally agree with the reviewers, that this is a "ZEN 1" moment for Intel. If you remember, that too was a departure and the beggining of something new for AMD. And those (too) were good chips, but with a mediocre gaming performance (took them at least two more generations after it). Resuming: Arrow Lake is a good processor, but not one for gamers. Not at this point anyway. My curiosity is with overclocking - there could be a lot of performance hidden (or none at all) and, so far, we're none the wiser. The techtubers were so concerned with rushing out the reviews (for the clicks, moneyz moneyz) that, strangely so, they didn't even explore that aspect. That's historically a crucial piece on any "K" CPU review, and noone has done it yet. PS: waiting on FrameChasers review of it, should be entertaining!

Welp goodbye Intel, it was good to have you. LOL At least AMD is the saving champion brand that cares about people... *IMPERIAL MARCH SONG STARTS FOR AMD INFLATED PRICES* PS: gosh, I love my little i7 12700K "...my preecccious..."

@PLUTON I'd say to avoid 2x 32GB kits with your Gigabyte Z270-HD3P motherboard. Yours is one of those that won't play nice with modules (single sticks of RAM) with more than 16GB each, as the 64GB limit on it ensues. Meaning, you'll buy a newer 2x 32GB DDR4 memory kit and then it may or may not work in it. Instead, better get a 64GB quad memory kit (4x 16GB) of DDR4 3200 CL16 or DDR4 3000 CL15 (with i7 7700K you won't notice a difference between these two). And even better if it's one that is listed in the QVL of your Gigabyte Z270-HD3P - then you know it is guaranteed to work in your motherboard. Since DDR4 has gone down in price (as everything is now DDR5), you find discounted prices on what used to be very expensive premium memory. All of these are great for your i7 7700K and are listed in the QVL of your Z270-HD3P, with prices at or below 150,00 Euros: F4-3200C16Q-64GVK GSKILL Ripjaws V DDR4-3200 CL16-18-18-38 1.35V 64GB (4x16GB) F4-3200C14Q-64GVK GSKILL Ripjaws V DDR4-3200 CL14-14-14-34 1.35V 64GB (4x16GB) CMK64GX4M4B3200C16 CORSAIR Vengeance LPX DDR4-3200 CL16-18-18-38 1.35V 64GB (4x16GB) CMD64GX4M8B3200C16 CORSAIR Dominator Platinum DDR4-3200 CL16-18-18-38 1.35V 64GB (4x16GB) CMU64GX4M4C3200C16 CORSAIR Vengeance LED DDR4-3200 CL16-18-18-38 1.35V 64GB (4x16GB) HX430C15PB3K4/64 KINGSTON HyperX DDR4-3000 CL15-17-17-35 1.35V 64GB (4x16GB) F4-3000C15Q-64GVR GSKILL Ripjaws V DDR4-3000 CL15-15-15-35 1.35V 64GB (4x16GB) CMK64GX4M4B3000C15 CORSAIR Vengeance LPX DDR4-3000 CL15-17-17-35 1.35V 64GB (4x16GB) CMD64GX4M4C3000C15 CORSAIR Dominator Platinum DDR4-3000 CL15-17-17-35 1.35V 64GB (4x16GB) CMU64GX4M4C3000C15 CORSAIR Vengeance LED DDR4-3000 CL15-17-17-35 1.35V 64GB (4x16GB) ....of all these mentioned kits, I think getting the one with best price is a good solution for what you want.

Guys, come on. Yet another multi-page thread digressing from the OT is in the making. The OP made his query pretty clear. He did build his previous system, enjoyed it, and even upgraded it a few times but, due to time constraints, he'd rather purchase a custom PC this time around. Wants to know what others in the flight sim community have been happy with (CyberPower? Corsair? PCSpecialist? FalconNW? etc etc etc). I get the feeling that he already knows that a custom PC from whatever vendor is always going to be more expensive. Considerably so if compared to building the whole thing from the ground up, with every single part bought separately, by yourself. It's his choice and his money. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you want to do it yourself next time around. Just because I know how to do maintenance in a motorcycle doesn't mean I want to do it, and rather have it (professionally) done by someone more experienced recommended by my peers. Or, just because I can cook doesn't mean I want to prepare a whole meal and.... you get the gist. Pretty similar lines here with the subject in the OT, I think?