LucShep

As we can see, opinions diverge. But it seems ED recommends disabling Hyper-Threading on CPUs with more than 32 threads (like yours). Regardless, and as side note, and as your Intel HEDT processor does not have E-Cores (all cores in that chip are equal), I think you should try all the options at your disposal, see what works best for you. Be it all the 18 cores without their threads set to the game (so, HT disabled to the game .EXE). Or setting 12 cores and respective threads set to the game (so, HT enabled to the game .EXE) and the remaining 6 cores/threads excluded from it. You can adjust that with scripts to automatize your CPU affinity choice (f.ex, check this tutorial). Or you can use third party tools to set a custom CPU Affinity rule, like Process Lasso, or Process Explorer, or Process Hacker, or Bill2 Process Manager. (there may be other identical apps, tools or methods which I'm unaware of) So, no need to go to extremes such as disabling Hyper-Threading in the BIOS (too drastic and sacrifices everything that benefits with HT).

Thank you for your feedback and for the compliment! Glad you enjoy it too. Many thanks for the compliment, I'm glad you enjoy it too. DCS is constantly updated and (from past experience), in the process, it may break something in this mod at some point. If that ever happens (and your feedback is also important for this), I'll try to implement corrections if necessary. Other than that, and at this point, the "CGTC project" is to be considered concluded. But then, knowing myself, who knows if later I feel the urge to revamp it all over again.. lol

Sorry not understanding... is your CPU at or close to 100% usage with DCS? What processor is that?

And what does that even has to do with it? Turbo boosts have exhisted as "stock/default" in CPUs for decades now. If you have an Intel 12th/13th/14th i7 or i9, run DCS as you regularly do, then pause and check what's the CPU usage, wattage and temps. You'll probably notice that it is running at less than 60% of it's total usage capacity....

That's another popular fallacy. None of those processors will be going full tilt in DCS. Or any game for that matter. Very far from it. Noone is playing DCS at full FPS, can almost bet that most will be GPU bound. Most will be locked at 120FPS max at 1440P, probably less at 4K, and certainly less than that in VR. At that framerate with DCS set on the P-Cores, a 13700K will run at about 110W (if that much?) and a 12900K will probably be at or less than 100W. Not that far from a 7800X3D, which wil be at what, 60W or 70W? Then the resale value.... huh what?? This isn't a car or a motorcycle, where such things could matter. But if that's important, and FYI, a second hand i9 12900K (and I'm mean the "real" ones, not the ES bullsh!t) is worth at least $200€ in the 2nd hand market, and good luck finding one below $250. Buying an excelent processor like that i9 12900K in a temporary discount (like it is now in some places), which has no degradation issues, undervolts nicely, and is overclockable on top of what already it provides, is (IMO) one of the best investments you can do if building a new system with a budget concious mind. And then put instead the money savings on a better GPU = profit. BTW, you're very lucky if in your country you can get a 7800X3D at 329€, they're all out of stock here and those still selling go over 480€ (and 560€+ in AmazonES!! lol).

Sure, but that's not how things work. The 9800X3D may boost to 5.2Ghz but your regular MT (gaming and non-gaming) operation will be at 4.7Ghz, which is its default all-core clock. All in 8c/16t. On the Intel i9 285K, the single/dual P-Core boost goes upto 5.7Ghz, the all 8 P-Cores boost is upto 5.5Ghz. And 16 E-Cores boosting upto 4.6 GHz (24c/24t). On the Intel i7 265K, the single/dual P-Core boost goes upto 5.5Ghz, the all 8 P-Cores boost is upto 5.4Ghz. And 12 E-Cores boosting upto 4.6 GHz (20c/20t). We're probably talking about a deficit of 700 to 800 Mhz in MT, not insignificant. And that's before we start counting with the IPC difference rumoured to be far better in the new Intel (how substancial it is, is unknown for now). Add to that other benefits I mentioned above from the E-Cores and.... Perhaps better not count the chickens before they hatch.

Nonsense. It takes seconds to do such rule once, and will stay like that for as long as you wish.... Paying a premium for 3D V-cache on an AMD 8c/16t chip with noticeably lower clocks (due to the tech limitation, to avoid overheating) when you can get a 20c/20t (i7 265K) or a 20c/28t (i7 14700K) for same or lower price, and now even a 16c/24t (i9 12900K) for almost half of its price, all with higher clocks, which can do nearly the same job in gaming and have the benefit of the extra (E-)cores mentioned above, along with noticeable benefits for non-gaming apps, is not really all that wise IMO. ....unless all you do is use your PC as a gaming console. If so, I may agree - get the AMD X3D chip. The 3D V-Cache chips are currently a fad, very popular (and rightly so) but it may or may not last for too long. The fact is that games are phasing out from DX11 to DX12 (and also to Vulkan, although to a lesser extent), where the raw clocks and core count become more important. So it may be the case that the current 3D V-cache solution advantage -which comes at a significant cost of clock deficit, besides a higher price tag - can become less benefitial in future. As to say, it depends exclusively on what you intend your PC to use it for - and for how long - but the 3D V-Cache may become a case of niche solution for specific cases, and AMD's golden eggs goose may run out of tricks...

There's a misconception in your argument, and one that no tech-tuber has yet put to the test (shamely so). A lot of misunderstanding in the usefulness of the P-Cores and E-cores of Intel chips, especially with these latter ones "what they're good for". The E-Cores in a PC gaming system are to be almost perceived as a "second processor" assisting the "main processor" (the P-Cores), this is what many haven't understood yet. Yes, the biggest benefit with E-Cores has been presumed to be for non-gaming apps (for actual work or hobby), by adding the E-Cores smaller power to the P-Cores, setting affinity to all cores. But the truth is it also provides indirect benefit with games - in this case (using something like Process Lasso), by setting all the extra background apps instead to the E-Cores (and exclude such apps from the P-Cores), i.e, so that the E-Cores can "carry that burden" off of the P-Cores, to make these last ones more "prepared" and even stronger for your games. For example, placing every little extra app running in the background only on the E-Cores (such as Discord, HWINFO, Afterburner, RivaTuner, the controllers and peripherals software, AntiVirus, Firewall, long etc) while gaming with all the P-Cores free of the burden or hiccups of those programs. Therefore the P-Cores become unnaffected by that stuff, clean and lean to run any games set exclusively on them. <--- this is a major benefit so often uncomprehended (or even unknown, it seems?), something very advantageous that AMD is unable to do with 8c/16t AMD CPUs, including the popular X800 X3D chips.

Paying a bigger premium for a less power hungry CPU with electricity bills savings in mind must be the biggest fallacy in the PC hardware medium. It'd take literally YEARS to make up the difference in purchase cost.

If you're new to the game, don't have a HOTAS, and not sure you want to fully commit, then I suggest getting a decent affordable joystick to get a good taste of it. While doable, and from experience, I'd say to avoid a gamepad with DCS because it's just not immersive at all, you won't get anything close to the feel of a flight stick. Something like the Logitech Extreme 3D Pro Joystick is just $35, and a nice starting point if you feel the investment on a HOTAS is too big at this point: https://www.logitechg.com/en-us/products/space/extreme-3d-pro-joystick.963290-0403.html?sp=1&searchclick=logi

Anyone looking into this thread in regards to a brand new system build, should post instead in the specific section of the Forums, to get more exposure and assistance. Supposing that you're configuring a custom system (to be built by yourself or somebody else) for DCS, please be aware that some popular performance parts are currently with super-inflated prices, making them a lot less worthy now compared to months before - do not feed oportunist sellers. One glaring example is the AMD Ryzen 7800X3D. For about half of its current cost, you can get a kickass Intel i9 12900K on discount, which is (pretty much) same as an i7 13700K, not that far off of an AMD 7800X3D. To put it simply: as of this date, it can not be beat for the price. And it does not suffer any of the Intel degradation issues of 13th and 14th gen. This is a system built recently with someone, it's mind boggling how competitive it is with AMD 7800X3D or Intel i7 "K" 13th/14th gen systems, for a LOT less money: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/NJ9nsh CPU: Intel Core i9-12900K 16 Cores (8P+8E) up to 5.2 GHz Processor ($264.99 @ Newegg) CPU Cooler: Thermalright Frozen Notte 360 ARGB 72.37 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler ($68.90 @ Amazon) Motherboard: Asus TUF GAMING Z790-PLUS WIFI ATX LGA1700 Motherboard ($229.99 @ Amazon) Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws S5 64 GB (2 x 32 GB) DDR5-6000 CL36 Memory ($179.99 @ Newegg) Storage (NVME x2): - Solidigm P44 Pro 2 TB M.2-2280 PCIe 4.0 X4 NVME Solid State Drive ($138.59 @ Amazon) - Solidigm P44 Pro 2 TB M.2-2280 PCIe 4.0 X4 NVME Solid State Drive ($138.59 @ Amazon) Video Card: Gigabyte GAMING OC GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER 16 GB ($1084.99 @ Amazon) Power Supply: be quiet! Straight Power 12 1000W 80+ Platinum Fully Modular ATX PSU ($139.90 @ Amazon) Case: Montech AIR 903 MAX ATX Mid Tower Case ($74.98 @ Amazon) And these are the other things missing ($20.00 only) from that list: Improved LGA1700 Contact Frame: Thermalright Intel 12th/13th LGA1700 Anti-Bending Buckle ($7.99 @ Amazon) USB3.0 flash drive with 8GB+: Various USB3.0 flash drive choices ($8.00 @ Amazon) This is to use the Windows Media Creation Tool, to install Windows 64-bit Win10 Pro or Win11 Pro (your pick) from that flash drive (here's a video tutorial). Win10 Pro / Win11 Pro legitimate OEM key: (to register the new Windows installation) - Windows 10 Pro OEM Key ($2.16 @ PixelCodes) - Windows 11 Pro OEM Key ($2.05 @ PixelCodes) --> TOTAL: $2340.92

Yes, the premium prebuilt systems by CORSAIR are very expensive (too expensive IMO), because they know they have direct advantage over most (if not all) in the market. Yes, they don't make the CPUs, GPUs and motherboards, but they make everything else, and are good at it. That's another advantage for the warranty/assistance as well. Considering all factors (the market and competition) they have their reason to charge such a huge premium. How much that is really worth is debatable, I agree. But then not everyone is into PC hardware, or has the will or desire to go and find their way into it, so there is that... FWIW, other good alternatives to get a premium (custom) prebuilt PC in the US are: https://www.pcspecialist.pt/ https://www.cyberpowerpc.com/

Nope, no problem. Using the different"options.graphics.XXXXXX" parameters with customized values in the autoexec.cfg file does not break IC. I use them so myself mostly for performance reasons.

That's unfortunate, but it's not really that bad. As much as it pains me to say it, perhaps a premium prebuild system is your best route. I think if there was a selection of prebuild PCs to look at (depending on location, desired specs and budget), I'd seriously look at those from CORSAIR. These guys have the advantage over most, because they build them with their own in-house components (which are usually very good quality, and are non-proprietary design). So, they have all the experience and can fully stand behind them. But, they do cost a bit. Have a look I say: https://www.corsair.com/us/en/c/gaming-computers/vengeance?filter=features_and_availability%3A%3Astock_status%3Atrue

I have to agree with this. Yes there are prebuilds that present quite good specs and worth a look. But, so far, I haven't seen a single one that presents the most balanced selection of components, or careful assembly. Cutting costs is seen in a variety of things in a prebuild PC, here and there, always. Sometimes more obvious, sometimes less. From budget drives, and/or coolers, and/or motherboards, and/or RAM, and/or PSUs, and/or fans, and/or case, and small things like cable management are often done poorly. (I've even seen screw threads and heads stripping on some). And, heck, don't even get me on the mentioned proprietary custom designs on components (Dell/Alienware!).... Yes they usually are absolutely horrible, and it's just sad how customers get to be so limited by that (actually cut from future personal upgrades) after paying top dollar for it.

Are you sure? It is less noticeable with RTX4000 series GPUs than with RTX3000 series and older, but the slighly better framerate/frametime is still noticed on Nvidia 537.58 too. Did you do a clean installation or an express installation? When installing the Nvidia 537.58 drivers, make sure you do a "Custom" (not "Express") with checkbox ticked on the "Clean Installation" option. Even better if you'd clean traces of previous drivers with DDU, prior to its installation. Before doing it, please note that you'll lose all your driver settings and customized profiles. If that is important to you, then I'd absolutely recommend NV INspector - you can backup any and all custom Nvidia "3D Settings" profiles, besides all the possible tweaking.

There is no problem and, actually, no influence on GPU memory. It only lightly affects storage space in the drive where you have the OS (your NVME, SSD, HDD, whichever type of storage you use for it). The thing with this setting is that every single game tends to compile shaders in specific folders for the Nvidia shader cache.* The default set is size is 1GB, I think? (IIRC, and hasn't changed for many years). What happens is that, once these specific folders for the Nvidia shader cache get "full", it interferes with that compiling exercise. And given that most games today are far more complex than they were a decade (or more) ago, it does tend to get filled to 1GB much faster than before. ...and so, there we go with the dance of recompiling shaders during gaming, which causes long loadings and some stuttering/hanging while doing the job.... While this may be normal on the first time you run a game, it should not be so in its subsequent usage - but it does because the lack of space forces the recompiling again. Increasing it to 10GB will suffice to solve this issue (some even increase it to 100GB but that's way overkill). * PS: do not confuse this with the DCS shaders compiling (FXO, Metashaders) in user Saves folder, it is not related. - - - - - - - - As a separate (side) note, sometimes deleting this Nvidia shader cache may help with rendering issues, artifacts, and stuttering, etc (due to broken shaders). This is done in the following way: https://www.downloadsource.net/how-to-clear-nvidia-shader-cache-to-improve-game-performance-delete-nvidia-cache/n/23340/

@FLAKK88 and anyone interested: I know my post will sound as a generic response but, IMO, it's worth a try if nothing else is working... In my own experience, with mine and many other systems with Nvidia GPUs (older or newer), the Nvidia's driver 537.58 is still consistently the best, and by quite a margin. It can make a difference (for the better) with frametimes, increasing performance and reducing stuttering. I know it sounds strange how an older driver can be better but... that's just how it is. Regardless, and no matter what Nvidia GPU model or driver version, I strongly recommend installing only "Clean Version" drivers, instead of official Nvidia ones. These clean drivers differ in the removal all of the bloatware that you get with the official ones (which causes higher resources consuming with added unnecessary processes in background, affecting and interfering with performance). For the mentioned Nvidia 537.58 drivers, its "Clean Version" is found among other older ones in the following link: https://mega.nz/folder/dQRX3AQI#9RmtXT0cTw45RsWxTQgYiw If you insist in always using the very latest Nvidia driver version, then its newest "Clean Version" is (currently) found here: https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/rtx-560-70-exostenza-edition™.452356/ There's also the matter of Nvidia driver settings If you have the patience to try someone else's settings, I suggest trying same as mine: (click on image to enlarge it) Please pay attention to the following - my global settings may be different to yours. So, when you see "Use Global Setting" in my settings there, pay special attention to what appears inside parenthesis right after it (it's what it's set at in my Nvidia CP settings). Change accordingly. Also note, I've set Vertical Sync at "Fast" because it works best for me (but try it?). It should work good, but if it doesn't try ON or OFF instead. Once you finish with the changes, click "Apply" on the bottom. One important setting to change imediately in the NVIDIA Global Settings is the Shader Cache Size, to be set at 10GB (this is pretty much a "must do"). NOTE: If at some point you wish to revert again to default DCS profile settings, and start all over again (for whatever reason), then click "Restore". And you'll have a DCS profile clean sheet all over again. Play around with stuff.

@OzDeaDMeaT Perhaps try this: In your DCS save files (default is "C:\Users\'Your-User-Name'\Saved Games\DCS"), go to the Config folder. In there, and if it's not in there already, create an "autoexec.cfg" file (with notepad or similar app). Open the "autoexec.cfg" (with notepad or similar app) and paste this line in it: options.graphics.lights = {200, 80000}; Save and exit the "autoexec.cfg" file. Restart DCS and see how it goes... That is for all lights you see in game - aircraft lights, airfield lights, building lights and so on. The first number means the closest popup range for them, and the second number means the farthest popup range for them. I suspect that increasing that first number from "200" to "5000" should achieve what you're looking for. But adjust as you see fit (bigger value = bigger covered distance).

As others said, final budget is the most important thing before the discussion goes anywhere. Another aspect to consider is that, while hardware has improved, so did the VR headsets (newer higher end stuff around). Meaning, the newest (higher end) VR headsets also require far more "hardware horsepower" than before, and are expensive themselves. If your intention is to go head deep into DCS VR, then be prepared to have deep pockets for it all... DCS in VR is still a LOT more hardware intensive if compared to it on a 2d screen (even if 4K) with headtracking. For GPU, I'd say RTX 4070 Super 16GB is bare minimum, and ideally an RTX 4090 24GB, if you want a good VR experience. To match those, I'd say for CPU an i5 12600K or Ryzen 7600X is the minimum required (ideally i7 14700K or Ryzen 7800X3D). You also want to have the game installed on good NVME storage, and have 64GB(+) of fast and low latency RAM. I honestly lost hope of a "democratic" VR usage for DCS at this point. It's just too intensive for the average user, even if with a "decent system" (like myself), and requires too much sacrifice also in settings. My own solution for VR was to revert to an older DCS version (see sig) that is much lighter on resources, and so far so good.

This is false. I'm looking at both mods' content and I don't see any less textures in CGTC, on the contrary (even if excluding the LOW textures - which is not a small factor). They also sure don't look like lower quality to me. What I haven't done for CGTC is a separate "snowless winter / later autumn" optional, which is a nice alternative that Bartek left for those who dislike a (white) snowy winter. I mainly kept with the default ED theme for Caucasus seasons, goal was "Caucasus overhaul" after all. This is also false, in both accounts. I'm looking at both mods' content and I don't see any "brighter/darker" textures either. Actually, I'm surprised how close they are (not same, but closer than expected). What I definitely see is an implementation of Reshade with own settings in Bartek's that, yes, change vibrance, tones and shading - this influences immensely. CGTC is meant to be used with Gamma set at 2.0 (avoid less than 1.8 or more than 2.2). It is so because that specific value is usually the most balanced for both monitors and VR, for all terrains and atmosphere related shaders. (IIRC, used to be default in early 2.55 OB) CGTC has its own specifically tweaked palette and shading settings and files (which look different, and also darker than stock), so that such aspect isn't dependant on external applications (like Reshade, or SweetFX). The use of Reshade on top of it was not intended but, if you want to do it, that is up to you. I also don't see where the "superior" towns and buildings (Hardsplat) textures come from. They're the same. I'm looking at them one by one right now and they are the same ones seen in "stock Caucasus" that I prepared for ED (brought back and rebuilt from the older 1.5 ones for the release of 2.7 OB years back, still in stock content today). And are same ones that I still included (just tone readjusted) in CGTC. What is obvious is the different art style and techniques adopted by each different mod, for certain aspects, when placed in the game. Which has to do with personal preference and taste. And this is why mixxing both mods is a bad idea - things look mismatched in places then. To some extent, similar can be said for the usage of reshade (or none usage of it). All in all, it is definitely dependable on individual - given that the choice is there, use what you prefer. My question to @Art-J and @dlder now is: Are you sure you tried the latest version of CGTC (2.84) over stock Caucasus, not the older releases (before May of 2023) ?

Another great review, this time by @graywo1fg:

Oh noes... Jester now has the commands! *PANIC ENSUES* Seriously, that was an awesome review! Many thanks

Well, I did say "usually", not "always"...

Ditto.