-
Posts
1699 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by LucShep
-
Yep, it's been crazy. And perhaps you were lucky with yours. Word here is that it all sold out everywhere in less than three hours(!) even those through external sellers pushing silly prices (some had them at 770€!) I guess scalpers already took over online retailers and reselling it at 800€-1000€... PS: those less lucky should calm down temptations and wait for it to normalize, price and stock wise.
-
Consider me impressed. Was not a fan of previous 8-cores X3D chips of AMD, but this one impresses in the changes, for temps and wattage department, given the higher clocks it can now achieve. I'd probably be all over one if AMD made it a single CCD with 12 cores, but alas... If anyone getting into a new platform wants gaming performance and 8-cores is all you need, yeah this is it. Yes, the price (of motherboards inclusively, not just X870/E but even X670/E and B650/E are seeing prices rising) is the biggest question mark now, at least in Europe. That and availability. I suspect these will either get inflated prices and/or get out of stock soon. Anyone thinking about getting it should do it NOW.
-
Fair point, but at least wait for BlackFriday deals and such (keep an eye out there).
-
Intel 285K reviews going live...
LucShep replied to EightyDuce's topic in PC Hardware and Related Software
....ooh you'd be surprised how many people in competitive gaming (so called "Esports") look for the last little bit of performance edge to get some advantage (and pay for it). -
Intel 285K reviews going live...
LucShep replied to EightyDuce's topic in PC Hardware and Related Software
It's been commented in various other videos, of other youtubers, that the 285K "Error Lake" (lol) comes quite a bit effed up right out of the box, that there's a lot to tune but then is quite complex to OC (far more than before). Some sell modmats, hoodies, hats or t-shirts... he builds and tweaks systems, and gives lessons. That complexity in OC'ing the 285K seems like an opportunity he sees to promote his own business. (or at least that's what I take from it) As usual, I simply ignore that part and take the rest that interest me from his video(s). -
Intel 285K reviews going live...
LucShep replied to EightyDuce's topic in PC Hardware and Related Software
He's been around for quite a while and knows his way very well around stuff, and is severely underrated (his somewhat obnoxious tone doesn't help him, I guess). It's one of very, very few people in the tech space that doesn't give a hoot if it hurts or not the manufacturers/brands (and fanboys) of whatever product, sponsorship and samples be damned etc, as he fully relies in his own community and related business for own funding. Tells like it is, and calls a spade a spade, every time. But, from that to recommending his (or any) course goes a looooong way. I have no interest in that, and honestly can't see why would anyone here would need it. -
Intel 285K reviews going live...
LucShep replied to EightyDuce's topic in PC Hardware and Related Software
Finally.... the one that most were looking for (always tells like it is) - Framechasers review. -
and I did...... Means nothing. The included terrain.cfg.lua bypasses the encrypted one (at least for now), no issues there at this point.
-
64GB of RAM is recommended for DCS, especially if you tend to do complex missions and/or get into MultiPlayer (40GB+ of RAM usage is not uncommon). Of course, 96GB will be even better - that's kind of overkill today but at least you won't bother again about RAM for years. There is no need for 128GB, that's way overkill. The thing is, not all RAM is equal (speed and latency varies), and advice on which memory kit for your to get will depend on the system... Which processor and motherboard is going to be used for that new system? As for the VRAM on the graphics card, models with 16GB are recommended. DCS has many large textures being triggered and swapped at the same time, it can easily consume over 12GB of VRAM, and even more so when in MultiPlayer. If it's for a 4K screen, either RTX 4070Ti Super or RX 7900 XT will be good. RTX 4080 Super or RX 7900 XTX even better. You may wonder about something extreme like an RTX 4090, but spending on that one only makes real sense if you're going to play DCS in VR.
-
Monitor advice requested
LucShep replied to BaronVonVaderham's topic in PC Hardware and Related Software
All of the 42'' OLEDs in the market are as flagships and outstandingly good, some slightly more than others (and not all have USB-C) but you can buy any with confidence. That is, provided that you're already aware of risk of burn-in in the long-term with prolongued heavy usage of static images (but mitigations and routines to avoid it exhist). All have continuous support with own Firmware releases that keep slightly improving things. As for the lack of DisplayPort 1.4 on those labelled as TVs, it's not a problem at all in practice when using them as a PC monitor, though you must have a good quality HDMI 2.1 cable (Zeskit, Maxonar, Stouchi, Audioquest, etc). 42” OLED 4K 120Hz (138Hz w/OC) --------------------------- ASUS PG42UQ - review: https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/asus/rog-swift-oled-pg42uq Philips 42M2N8900 - review: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/philips-evnia-42m2n89-review KTC G42P5 - review: https://www.guru3d.com/review/ktc-g42p5-oled-monitor-review/ 42” OLED 4K 120Hz --------------------------- LG OLED42C2 (TV, only HDMI, no DP) - review: https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/lg/42-c2-oled LG OLED42C3 (TV, only HDMI, no DP) - review: https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/lg/c3-oled LG OLED42C4 (TV, only HDMI, no DP) - review: https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/lg/42-c4-oled 42” OLED 4K 120Hz Bendable (flat to 900R curve) ------------------------------------------- LG OLED Flex LX3 (TV, only HDMI, no DP) - review: https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/lg/oled-flex For more listed specifications of these (and other) PC monitors and TV's, you have good old DisplaySpecs website (https://www.displayspecifications.com). -
DCS Optimized Textures Powershell Script
LucShep replied to zbysiek's topic in How To Mod for DCS World
@zbysiek Hello, Please disregard the following wall of text, if it's too much work, too complex to accomplish from a batch conversion. They're just suggestions. If it's already being taken into account, pardon me because I'm not up to speed (I didn't read all the pages in this thread, sorry all!). I wonder if you can separate sizes and formats depending on the type of texture and aplication? Core and Modules? And for Modules, if you can separate packages for such batch process, "external textures" from "cockpit textures" ? For example, this is what I've manually done (took weeks then!) for myself a few years back (for older DCS 2.5.6, not latest DCS versions). I found outstanding results for smoother performance, with minimal (pratically unnoticeable) graphical difference: CORE textures (weapons, tanks, ships, vehicles, non flyable aircraft, etc, etc - i.e, every other texture not belonging to Maps or Modules) Diffuse maps (the main textures) ---- resized to 75% of original (4096 pixels become 3072; 2048 pixels become 1536, etc). Bump maps and Specular maps ---- resized to 50% of original (4096 pixels become 2048; 2048 pixels become 1024, etc) MODULE textures - External textures Diffuse maps (the main textures) ---- resized to 75% of original (4096 pixels become 3072; 2048 pixels become 1536, etc). Bump maps and Specular maps ---- resized to 75% of original (4096 pixels become 3072; 2048 pixels become 1536, etc). - Cockpit textures Diffuse maps (the main textures) ---- size remains as they are originally (I think some could be resized but, as they're so close to POV, pixelization becomes evident, so best avoid) Instruments / Gauges ---- resized to 75% of original (4096 pixels becomes 3072; 2048 pixels become 1536, etc). Bump maps and Specular maps ---- resized to 75% of original (4096 pixels becomes 3072; 2048 pixels become 1536, etc). All the .DDS textures converted to 8-bit whenever possible, whatever the case (i.e, no use of 32-bit textures as far as possible). Even better, if there is any .DDS texture for the above that has no transparency alpha, then converted to DXT1 (and not DXT5). - - - - Please don't bother with the Maps (the terrains), it's not really worth it. The problem is not so crucial with these because all Maps have their own "LOW" textures. Core and Modules don't have these (they use single set of textures), so are the most problematic. That said, there is a simple trick that works well for slightly smoother rendering, which is to use the corresponding "LOW" (.min) trees in place of the "HIGH" ones in a Map. There are then improvements without any prejudice for graphics, for those that wish to keep Terrain Textures set at "HIGH" (terrain remains the same, difference for trees is very minimal). Benefit impact in VRAM might be small, but smoothness is noticed, especially in forested areas where tree textures are being triggered/rendered by the dozens. Or at least I woldn't bother much with Maps (terrain), unless it's an 8K texture that is found - then maybe it should be 4K. Lastly, and still about Maps, if you're going ahead and doing it anyway... You may have already noticed that all the Maps use some sort of a system in which, if you resize a texture differently (or use different format) and repackage it again inside the respective .ZIP where it belongs, it may produce a rendering error once in the game - parts in the terrain to which that .ZIP package content corresponds become fully black. Meaning, for the Maps, pay attention to the .ZIP packages where all textures inside have same size and format. For these, you either resize ALL the textures exactly same format and size inside their corresponding .ZIP package, or otherwise problems will be ahead once in the game. PS: sorry all for the wall of text! -
Help Needed: Editing the Saved Games Folder Location for DCS
LucShep replied to Onslott's topic in Installation Problems
@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. -
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.
- 234 replies
-
- 15
-
-
-
Looking for new display
LucShep replied to BaronVonVaderham's topic in PC Hardware and Related Software
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.- 1 reply
-
- 1
-