LucShep

No, it isn't. Raptor Lake (13th/14th gen) is "Alder Lake 2.0". There was no fundamental change in design whatsoever, it's basically a refinment of the very same heterogeneous CPU architecture, to achieve higher clocks, higher L2 and L3 cache, with revised P-Cores and more E-cores added, all with "optimized" (LOL) voltage frequency curve. Of course, all at the inevitable cost of higher power consumption and temperatures, pushing the silicone and circuitry to previously unseen levels. I'm sure we can all agree that Anandtech is an absolutely valid reference in the tech reviewing space, and I'll quote from their 13th-gen review:

Well, it took a while to see the problem exposed. It had been pointed since 13th gen got out in late 2022 that there would be issues. 13th and 14th gen "K" CPUs are in essence 12th gen CPUs "cranked up", overvolted to the moon and running melting hot. A really bad idea, when it's a given that motherboard manufacturers, in their turn, then unlock all sorts of stuff on top of that (so, even more voltage, such as "Multi Core Enhancements" and all limits removed), just to extract that little bit more (even more) to beat the next competitor. It was a lose-lose bet from the start and, sadly, the injured part are really the users, not the manufacturers. Now people got degraded CPUs, and I'm not sure how many of the affected users will win the battle of RMA-hell. The other problem (if not the main one) is this obsession with "single-core benchmark scores", that most modern tech reviewers use as a yardstick, and that then influences people to chose this and that. Of course both Intel and AMD are watching and then "oh that's what they want, and using it to compare us with our rivals, ok... we'll ramp that up for next releases".... When that started to happen, you started to see hilarious voltages for insane single-core clock boosts, both from Intel and AMD. Which in the end matters close to nothing to your gaming and real life usage... unless (yep!) you're running the silly single-core benchmark! If you're running a stock 13th/14th gen i7 and i9 CPU (not overclocked), then perhaps consider locking all your P-Cores to the same clock, the same value that is listed for the max "all core" clock out of the box on your processor. And, after that, also using offset voltage to readjust the CPU bottom voltage (more or less, depends on individual CPU). By doing that, you're basically attacking the problem in two fronts, 1) you stop those one or two cores from boosting way too high, which pushes stupid voltages and degrades further, and 2) with the offset you move the bottom voltage just a little bit, to make it all work reliably with whatever application. Make a stress test (with AVX2) using Intel XTU, or continuous multi-core runs of Cinebench, while monitoring (HWinfo, for example) your CPU package temps, power, VIDs, etc. Just with that changed, it's imediately noticed a considerable reduction in CPU power consumption and temperatures, while fixing crashes, and possibly the further degradation.

My perspective is of someone who has dealt with all the problems that you, clearly, have no idea they even exhist. How about if I tell you that (over?) a 1/3 of the game total size is comprised of badly oversized and formated textures? That the game is unable to fit those inside the 8GB VRAM of GPUs that most people are still using? Do you even understand what happens when the VRAM of a GPU is filled up and it gets to the RAM and, when that's filled to the top, then to the pagefile that is slow (AF!) in sata ssd or budget nvme? Try this... get a three or four year old used 8GB vram GPU (RX6600XT, etc) in your system, then take a stick of RAM out of your PC; cap that processor to, say, 2 P-Cores only, and then get into that ECW or 4YA fully populated server again and, sure, go ahead and put that screen set at 1080P. (and yet you'll still have more performance than the average guy out there!) Then get back to us with the story of perfect smooth undemanding experience......... LMAO Regarding VR, that's your opinion based on speculation only. DCS could run pretty decent in VR and, indeed, it once did. It comparatively runs like heaven in 2.56, on systems less capable than mine. The question should be "why can it not run like that today with 2.9x", if it was more capable years ago? (and note, was already demanding then) Because, in various aspects, we clearly have had the contrary of progress.

Yes it does. I’m sure there are many players who run this without trouble My previous point, which was in the post that you quote that from, was also to demonstrate that not everyone will be able to see these problems. Because we all have different perceptions, sensibilities, or even tolerances, to those problems that do occur, frequently or not. That is certainly true but look what I’m running, 4K 120Hz at all the highest settings. You don’t need such hardware to run the game in 1080p 60Hz at medium settings. DCS really is not a particularly demanding game provided you run settings compatible with your hardware. Not a particularly demanding game? You jest, surely. There are only a handfull of games that I can recall being as harsh (or badly optmized) as DCS, to demand the sort of hardware specs that people feel compelled to invest, to brute force around all the problems. I think you're totally oblivious to the reality. We're not talking scenarios like a free flight of Su-25T over Caucasus with a handful of tanks, because that surely can not be considered the example these days. Have you even entered a fully populated server, popular ones like ECW or 4YA, with, say, an F-14A/B module in Syria map? Very few people (if any, at all?) will be able to say that they have the perfect performance experience that you describe having there. What's the average "new build for DCS" these days? Ryzen 7800X3D, RTX4070TI Super or RTX4080 Super (both 16GB VRAM), 64GB DDR5 (6000 C30) RAM, 2TB or 4TB high-range NVME... something like that right? And then what are the "official" hardware requirements that are listed again? Does that make any sense? Are you even aware of what's the average gaming PC these days? I'd wager that it's something like a Ryzen 3600X or i5 10600K, RTX3060 or RX6650XT, 16GB DDR4 RAM (32GB with luck), 1TB SATA SSD or ultra-budget NVME, along those lines. I'm very convinced that it's those systems that compose a very considerable part (if not most) of the userbase, because that's also I'm most frequently asked to assist with. Even at 1080P, those will increasingly have to run the game at near-Minecraft image quality to enter and compete in those servers. And stuttering gallore, ooh I assure you.

That is beside the point. But, in anycase, the reality is that the sort of machine that the newest DCS 2.9x version requires to be absolutely stutter free still does not exhist. This comes from someone that builds and assists with gaming systems, as a hobby, in a variety of budgets and parts (used and new). Some of which I actually built for DCS... There are inherent optimization problems within the game itself (in so many ways) that even the devs recognize that it requires intervention - and why Vulkan (among other things) is being developed. "Stuttering", "Hitching", "Juddering" are things that are perceived differently, greatly or not, and easily tolerated or not, from one individual to another. 2D or VR, no matter. For example, with a 4K screen at 60hz refresh (S-Sync 60FPS, no VRR, as is my preference), you absolutely need a Frametime below 16.6ms at all times, regardless of maximum Framerate achievable. Anything over that frametime value will create a "Stuttering/Hitching/Juddering" effect (or sensation) in the image motion. Some people are not sensitive to it, others are (like me). For instances, I can (unfortunately!) even feel it going below and over 8.0ms in 4K 60Hz, locked at 60FPS, as slightly flutuation almost as "hitching". Yes, even when it's within that optimal sub-16.6ms Frametime. I had a friend right beside me with it occuring and he would not see/feel/sense any difference, no perception of such. I think you may be like him. Your yardstick for "smooth performance" (your own PC, looking at its specs in your signature) is currently beyond the capabilities of, I'd say, the majority of active DCS users. I'm of firm belief that ED (and 3rd parties) keep making the same grave mistake by insisting on making more things "prettier" but heavier. It gets harder and harder to increase (or keep same) game settings, an ideal image and game performance that will only be seen by the fortunate ones who can spend so much money on PC hardware. And even such fortunate ones get performance problems, looking at these forums.... Nothing to do with the ability of enjoying the sim/game as is (performance problems or not), but it's the truth.

Agree with @kksnowbear and @Rudel_chw. But, in addition, I also see some incorrect Nvidia Control Panel settings, which you need to rectify. And also settings that are too ambitious, and features that should be used for you to take advantage of (such as DLSS) with that hardware. You should never, ever, enforce Antialising mode and settings in the NVIDIA driver profile for DX11 games (like DCS is atm). You placed that at "Enhance The Application Setting" and following one at "4x". That creates a conflict within game settings, and imediately impacts performance. Always leave Antialising mode and setting at "Application Controlled" for DX11 games (different story for older DX9 games, but that's irrelevant here now). The Antialising settings are to be changed in the game options only. The sole exceptions are "Gamma Correction", "Line Gamma" and "MFAA", which can be enabled/disabled to own preference (but perhaps best left at default). Anyways.... you got nothing to lose, so might as well experiment a little. We'll go in two parts. The NVIDIA profile settings. After it, I'll opiniate a bit (a few notes) about in-game settings that you may want to experiment as well. 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"). The other important thing is, you should costumize particular settings in the specific profile for DCS instead, in the NVIDIA specific settings for the game. So, let's go in steps (please bare with me)... First of all, open the NVIDIA control panel, and once in the "Manage 3D Settings".... In the Global Settings click "Restore". It'll be a clean sheet for it again (resets those settings to Nvidia defaults). Then still in the Global Settings, search for the "Shader Cache Size", set that at 10GB (as said, this is a "must do"). Go to the "Program Settings" (it's at the imediate right of the Global Settings). Search then select "Digital Combat Simulator: Black Shark (dcs.exe)" (this is the profile that NVIDIA identifies and applies things for DCS World). Click "Restore", so that it reverts things as a clean sheet for the specific profile of DCS (it'll do so only for the selected game profile). Next, and just for sheit and giggles, try my settings as in the image below, exactly as they are (NOTE: obviously feel free to experiment after, which is also the point). Of course, these will depend to the individual and opinions may differ, but just do it anyway. 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 (freedom of choice man!). Once you finish with the changes, click "Apply" on the bottom. 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. (click on image to enlarge it) Now the second part, the ingame settings. Finally, but this is just a starting point for DCS System settings (the game options), just try changing yours in there to these, and see how it goes: "Upscalling" - - - - - - - - - - - - - DLSS (absolutely vital if at 4K resolution/screen, and using an Nvidia RTX graphics-card that isn't top of the line) "DLSS perf/quality" - - - - - - - - QUALITY (best upscalling image that doesn't impact performance too much; "Balanced" is also an option to get more performance) "Visib Range" - - - - - - - - - - - - MEDIUM (good enough detail that doesn't bog down performance too much) "Civil.Traffic" - - - - - - - - - - - - LOW (this setting is really no big deal for immersion and just consumes CPU cycles - maybe even consider it at "OFF") "Clouds" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LOW (this is to avoid impact on GPU usage and VRAM; "Medium" is also an alternative, but avoid higher settings) "Water" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MEDIUM (good balance of detail vs performance; "High" adds more complex reflections and impacts performance) "Terrain Textures" - - - - - - - - - LOW (this is important to avoid stuttering due to VRAM overflow; avoid "High" with GPUs with less than 10GB of VRAM) "Shadows" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MEDIUM (good enough detail that doesn't bog down performance too much) "Clutter/Grass" - - - - - - - - - - - 1000 (nice enough detail for that, usually doesn't bog down performance) "Forest Visibility" - - - - - - - - - - 100% (so at maximum, this will balance and mask somewhat the tree-popping by the limited Visib Range) "Forest Details Factor" - - - - - - 0.4 (this is a LOD switch for forest related details; always avoid more than 0.5, as it impacts performance ) "Scenery Details Factor" - - - - - 0.4 (this is a LOD switch for scenery related details; always avoid more than 0.5, as it impacts performance ) "LOD Switch Factor" - - - - - - - - 1.0 (this is the main LOD switch for all details, decrease for more performance; do NOT increase over 1.0) "Preload Radius" - - - - - - - - - - 75000 (nice for 64GB of RAM, more than "90000" the loading times become long and impacts RAM + pagefile) "Chimney SMoke Density" - - - - 1 (this is the number of chimneys smoking in a radius; at minimum is best also for lower repetition pattern) "Anisotropic Filtering" - - - - - - 8x (you don't need more than this in DCS, be it for VR or 2D screen, and can impact performance) "Terrain Object Shadows" - - - - OFF (this is important to avoid stuttering; "Flat" or "Default" is to be used only when performance is good and smooth at all situations) "Lens Effects" - - - - - - - - - - - - Flare (clean and natural sun effects, with no BS camera lens bubbles; If you dislike the effect, change to OFF) "Heat Blur" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LOW (no need to use more than this, higher settings can impact performance with no benefits on image) "Motion Blur" - - - - - - - - - - - - - OFF (of no real importance for a flight-sim; OFF avoids creating ghosting (or adding even more) on objects, especially with DLSS) "Depth of Field" - - - - - - - - - - - OFF (huge impact on GPU usage; avoid enabling it at all times, no matter the system) "Wake Turbulence" - - - - - - - - - OFF (this particular setting is found under "Gameplay" settings - can greatly impact performance with more aircraft ingame). The devs also left some quick notes regarding newest DCS options: Also, if using DLSS, this can provide slightly better performance and better image in motion --> latest DLSS .DLL (recommended!) This may also be usefull it interested in tweaking some Windows settings for better gaming performance --> see here. And if nothing else seems to work.... heck, consider reverting to a previous version of DCS that works better for you, if you do feel that's better. I actually ended up reverting to a much(!) older version - that one in my sig - and it's been the best DCS experience yet for me (but then I use it in VR).

Yes, 4 sticks of RAM can be sometimes complicated. I think this is noticed more on lowest latency DDR4 kits, such as Samsung B-Die mem (3200/3600 14-14-14-34, 15-15-15-35, 16-16-16-36). But then those can withstand tremendous tuning and voltages (OC'ers paradise, also why quite a bit more expensive), allowing to somewhat offset things. The GSKILL F4-3200C16Q-64GVK kit has slightly more relaxed timings, it's either Hynix DJR or Micron Rev. B or E, usually less prone to such issues. But, that said, it's also not unheard of. In my opinion, when using a 4x modules kit (regardless of speed/latency) it's always better to give a little more DRAM voltage over what is applied by XMP (about 0.05v). For example, that GSKILL F4-3200C16Q-64GVK kit is 1.35v. So, in the BIOS, after loading the XMP profile, I'd then change the DRAM voltage to 1.40v. And save/reboot.... Most DDR4 kits (including the Hynix DJR and Micron Rev. B or E kits) are supposed to withstand up to 1.45v with no problems whatsoever (though I wouldn't necessarily recommend that much), and with 4 sticks it's usually just a matter of giving it a little more juice, and/or relaxing a little bit the timings. Always try that before quitting and RMA'ing the memory. Mine are Micron Rev.E, and were okay with XMP loaded, but I decided to run them at 1.40v anyway, having had issues with other kits. It has been like that for almost three years now (even overclocked from 3200 to 3466, and tighter sub-timings) and in two different systems (Z490 and Z690 boards). Zero problems, also in whatever mem test.

FFB stick iterations of what the VKB Gladiator and WW Ursa Minor are today, will eventually come. It just won't be now, because the "mainstream" (as in "non boutique") FFB stick market has just reborn. It has also have to do with other reasons, such as creating an appeal and image, to such resurgent products. Remember, the MSFF and MSFF2 were a success and very coveted (also the Logi G940, to some extent) not just because they had FFB, but also because they were considered "higher end" sticks for the mass-market, at that point in time. They were not "budget end" sticks back in their day. Almost a parallel then, to what these Moza and WinWing upcoming FFB sticks are for today's market. There were low budget iterations, like the Logi Wingman 3D Force Feedback, which were a flop in sales. I don't think any manufacturer entering this resurgent market will want to risk investing blindly in such a product right away, maybe fearing that to happen. There will be plenty small obstacles for these upcoming FFB sticks (software and reliability, for instances) with mostly "early adopters" who don't mind paying and going through that. And manufacturers need to create the biggest imediate impact (image and product wise) while getting the biggest profit margin per unit. Which more expensive and complicated "bigger" flight sticks, like those announced, will suit. The more affordable sticks, like FFB iterations of the VKB Gladiator and WW Ursa Minor, would (and will, I think) obfuscate all that. Their time will eventually come, but it's not that time yet.

Yep, pretty good! Potential "sticky thread" material, as it sure can help others. One side note I'd like to add is that, with most cloning drive software (BTW, I too prefer Macrium Reflect Free) you can also resize partitions in the destination drive. Either by readjusting partition limits with mouse, or by inserting a desired size number for the specific partition. This can be usefull if you decide to increase or decrease a certain partition that you're cloning, in the destination drive, right before you advance with the cloning process.

Yep, I agree. Again, and sorry for repeating myself. Another scenario, and one that I now think is the route you should go for... the RipjawsV F4-3200C16Q-64GVK (4x 16GB, 3200 16-18-18-38, 1.35v) is available at a good price: https://pcpartpicker.com/product/7Xbkcf/gskill-memory-f43200c16q64gvk That RAM kit is also on their QVL for the Z370 ROG Maximus X Formula, which means it is listed as tested and compatible (so, peace of mind). https://www.gskill.com/qvl/165/184/1536139226/F4-3200C16Q-64GVK-QVL The Trident Z RGB version (F4-3200C16Q-64GTZR) of same memory, which you'd prefer, is hardly found at stock and is overpriced at the moment (over $350, where available).

Worst (best?) case scenario, and I think probably the route you should go for... The F4-3200C16Q-64GVK (4x 16GB, 3200 16-18-18-38, 1.35v) is available and at a good price: https://pcpartpicker.com/product/7Xbkcf/gskill-memory-f43200c16q64gvk It's also on their QVL for Z370 ROG Maximus X Formula: https://www.gskill.com/qvl/165/184/1536139226/F4-3200C16Q-64GVK-QVL The Trident Z RGB version (F4-3200C16Q-64GTZR) is overpriced at the moment (over $350, where available).

Meanwhile I just phoned the guy with the Asus Z270 ASUS Maximus IX Hero and i7 7700K. He says the kit we placed was Ripjaws-V F4-3200C16D-32GVK (2 x16GB), not the 2x 32GB after all. my mistake with the info (sorry!) I think you're onto something @TKhaos, maybe we should just find a 4x16GB DDR4 kit, maybe 3000 CL15, or 3200 CL16. EDIT: found this one at a good price ($114,00): https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-64gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820232092 It's on their QVL for Z370 ROG Maximus X Formula: https://www.gskill.com/qvl/165/184/1536139226/F4-3200C16Q-64GVK-QVL

Are you sure that motherboard only supports 16GB per channel? Now I'm confused... IIRC the max capacity limit was 64GB and it would accept up to that capacity it in any configuration.

Yes, performance impact will be noticeable. Avoid it! I think they don't appear in the QVL of a motherboard prior to Z390 because 2x 32GB DDR4 kits only became common during that chipset period. Manufacturers don't re-test previous gen motherboards for QVL after a subsequent new chipset is launched (not that I know of). FWIW, I've used RipjawsV F4-3200C16D-64GVK on an Asus Z270 ASUS Maximus IX Hero + i7 7700K, with no issues whatsoever - an older system than yours. It didn't have that RAM on the QVL (for the same mentioned reason). EDIT: the guy this system went too says it's the 2x16GB kit version, so not an example after all! AFAIK, unless I'm missing something, I see no reason why either of those GSKILL two kits would create a compatibility problem with your motherboard. But then all I have to offer is too little - my opinion through prior experience on an differente (older system).

Will it boot windows and work, if mem settings on BIOS are placed put on "Auto"? ....yeah, it may do it. Or if set with the slowest timings and speed between the two? ....yeah, it will run. Will it be 100% stable all the time? ....very doubtfull, IMO. The problem is you'll be mixing differents kits with completely different base timings (and sub-timings as well) and also different speeds. Not worth the trouble, even if Intel is far less sensitive when it comes to memory speeds and timings. Don't get me wrong, it's not "impossibrruu". But if you're asking that question, I imediately take it that you're not into the possible headaches of mem tweaking and stress testing. And why I say that max-mix of RAM kits aren't a good choice. Also, it'll never be as good as propper tuned factory kit, for which you just load XMP profile in BIOS and it's done. If you like GSKILL and you're not necessarily into rainbow puke, I'd say to look around for the Ripjaws V F4-3200C16D-64GVK (2x 32GB, 3200 C16-18-18-38, 1.35v): https://www.gskill.com/product/165/184/1571733948/F4-3200C16D-64GVK EDIT: there's also the Trident Z F4-3200C16D-64GTZR if you want to keep the same aesthetics (w/ RGB) as those you have. They're basically the same memory as the F4-3200C16D-64GVK: https://www.gskill.com/product/165/166/1604284896/F4-3200C16D-64GTZR F4-3200C16D-64GVK goes for about $120. F4-3200C16D-64GTZR goes for about $140. (...check in Newegg, Amazon, Ebay, etc) Either of them is a fairly good deal if you intend to to use that system with DCS for a while still. In the product links I posted you have also the QVL for compatible motherboards. But, as far as I've seen, either of those two 64GB DDR4 kits should work with any desktop PC that supports DDR4 3200Mhz RAM, and great with an i7 8700K.

I'm very sure that there are many here and out there who, if reading your words there, will imediately think "yep, that sounds somewhat familiar". Unrelated, but I read your post and hear echoes of experiences in what now looks like another lifetime. "Passion projects", you'll often read/hear the term. These are of wide variety of complexity, done all at the cost of your free time and personal investment. Sometimes for many years, maybe over a decade. Sometimes at the cost of uncalled and harsh criticism, misjudgement and misinterpretation. From others and sometimes even from yourself - "why did I waste so much time and effort on this?" (etc). When, after all, it was what you wanted to do (and going back you probably would end up doing it again). Like others here (I suppose), I too look back and sometimes regret such long "passion projects" that, in the end, regardless of success and accolades (or not), have not given me the best "return" after such huge personal investment and effort, of my time and energy. Yet there are more positives than negatives, experiences and lessons, and why most of us into these kinds of things end up repeating the process, although more "cautiously" next time (live and learn!). A few things I later learned to be true, and you might as well: For each loud "hater", there'll always be a quiet someone that appreciates, admires and recognizes your effort. If you've created something that lasted and was appreciated by so many, then it's because it had/has value. Give the least possible importance to what others opiniate (the "IDGAF" principle). Not just because it's of no importance, but mostly because it pollutes your perception of things. Your mind is powerfull, it creates perceptions, and your perception creates your reality. Do not let what is of no importance become your reality. Always question yourself if you're doing it for the right reason, and if you're giving it the right importance. If you're into a project for the recognition of others, or by some sort of commitment you feel obliged to, then it's not really the right reason and is not important. It's great if it benefits others. But if this is your own project on personal free time and effort, then make it for yourself first and foremost. If your passion project or hobby starts to feel like work, then it's because it has become like work. Step aside for a while (like going on vacations), returning only when you feel that fire again in you - otherwise it may consume you (aka "burnout"). Or simply don't return to it - no shame on that. Sometimes the best course is leaving it, and reignite that fire in you with one other project, something else, somewhere else.

It reminds me of one I tried years ago (Motion Sim, I think?) during a gaming expo. Though it was with a rally-sim (RBR) not with a flight-sim. Have to say that it was a little disconcerting at first. That particular one was at points actually radical, violent (heh... like the real deal!) and it did impress there (huge smile in the face!), not like some other motion platforms that only move and rattle a tiny bit (mostly laterally), which are extremely disapointing. I don't know how that NovaSim compares. But also made me think about the space it requires, the possible required maintenance(?), and how long would a screen (or screens) last with so much movement and shaking (VR was not this huge thing then). It's also not something I would put in an apartment with companions/family around, or sensitive neighbors... but it'd make for an awesome toy in a gaming bunker or garage!

+1

Agreed, upgrading to 64GB will definitely benefit your DCS experience. I wouldn't necessarily recommend it for your current system, not if you're already planning to do that CPU+Motherboard+DDR5 upgrade sometime soon. But it's also a solution if you're up for it. Meanwhile, there may be other things you may wish to try, if not done already, such as: Setting the pagefile if using less than 64GB of RAM, make it fixed to at least 32GB (32768 in both initial and max size) and set on the fastest drive. DCS can use as much as 50GB of RAM, especially in Multiplayer. If you don't have that much RAM, doing that will make it assisted by pagefile (aka virtual memory). Enabling HAGS. It allows the GPU to reduce the load on the CPU and improve latency, as the GPU's scheduling processor and memory (VRAM) take over the same work and runs it in batches to render the frames. Disabling VBS / HVCI, as it's useless on a gaming system and can benefit performance when gaming. Disabling HPET and Dynamic Ticks, as it allows unrestricted I/O to occur, and helps to decrease micro-stuttering and screen tearing that may occur during gameplay. Meant for portable and battery systems, can be a problem for desktops, it's known to cause issues especially when gaming. Disabling Core Parking, as it's a feature meant for energy savings. Disabling it can help to reduce micro-stutters when playing games or using resource-heavy apps. There's also a newer (free) application called ParkControl which handles this better on modern CPUs, along with Windows power plans. If you're still gaming on "Balanced" power plan, then try enabling a higher performance power plan, such as the Ultimate Performance Power Plan, in Windows. While peak performance won't be all that improved, it can benefit things once in game. Enabling rBAR (if using NVIDIA GPU 30 or 40 series). While benefits for DCS are debatable (or non felt), it benefits too many games for it not to be used.

The thing is, you'll be paying over 900,00 €uros for an upgrade that will be surpassed by its sucessor counterparts in a matter of few months.... That i9 10900K is not a bad processor at all. If you have a good cooler on it, and if that's not done yet, then I'd overclock that chip as far as it can go reliably and stable. And then calmly wait for the AMD Ryzen 9800X3D to come out (later this year) and do that CPU+mobo+DDR5 upgrade. Or for the upcoming Intel 15th gen i7 or i9, which may actually turn out to be surprisingly good.

With that kind of system there shouldn't be a big problem with performance, but that does not mean that you should crank it all up. It's DCS after all. Anti Aliasing. MSAA x4 currently gives the best image quality, but is very heavy and will impact, regardless of hardware. MSAA x2 is "good enough" in 4K, but won't be perfect image wise. TAA is probably a better alternative, it looks a little blurry (so you may wish to play around with the sharpeness setting to counter it) but does the job and has okay performance. Upscaling is a reasonable solution, though it's one of those things that work better for some than others. I'd suggest to at least try DLSS at "Quality" if you're using a screen monitor (and not VR). It can provide a big performance boost in situations where that's welcome, and works pretty good with latest DLSS .DLL. Anisotropic filter Personally, I think more than "8x" is not necessary and becomes a waste of resources, but won't be really a problem there if you crank it to "16x". Settings that you should refrain from cranking up... "Forest Details Factor" and "Scenery Details Factor" are like LOD switches for details at distance, and can be complicated at a certain point. I'd avoid more than "0.5" for those two. Similarly with "LOD switch factor", I'd avoid more than "1". "Preload Radius" at 75000 (+/-) is a good idea. More than "90000" the loading times become long and definitely impacts RAM (+ pagefile), even with 64GB of RAM. "Wake Turbulence" is better disabled (tick off) as it can greatly impact performance when number of aircraft ingame increases. (this particular setting is found under "Gameplay" settings) Lastly, not sure what you mean with "pairing DCS with Nvidia control panel"(?), what are you looking for?

For me with the RTX3090, no. I've been thrilled to rigorously test every single new driver release from Nvidia, only to realize my previous opinion above remains the same.

@Blackhawk163 and @Aapje The suggested build I posted from SCAN.UK is somewhat restricted in variety of parts to choose, to what they list in the configurator. For example, the Thermaltake Phantom Spirit SE (or Peerless Assassin SE) are mostly sold on Amazon. There isn't any other equivalent price/performance part in SCAN.UK or OcUK (and others), and why the Noctua NH-U12A was chosen, also because of compatibility with the Corsair Dominator Ti RAM (another thing where variety is limited). If I could, other equivalent components would have been listed instead (such as other air cooler, pc case, PSU, lower profile RAM, and own source Windows installation and key). But, that said, the components they list are very good (no complaints there). It's just that those are more expensive than other possible equivalents in the market. Yes it's expensive, but that system is a mighty good one for sure, and includes all the service commodities for people who are not building their own systems, within the UK. I agree that the RTX4090 might be too much, as is the 1500W PSU to go with it. But it's all under the OP's budget, and doesn't look to me like someone who upgrades often... If the intention is to get a top gaming system like that specific custom one from SCAN.UK, but price needs to go down a bit and/or there's less need for "extreme horsepower", the only things I'd change are the graphics card to the RTX4080 Super 16GB (Asus TUF listed only) and the PSU to the Corsair HX1000i (again, from their configurator choices).

I don't work for them nor do I want to advertise for them, but... SCAN.UK can build and deliver it for you. Which is also a good idea, because they then have to ensure everything is working and also provide assistance, besides the mandatory warranty on everything. But if you trust your local guy, then nothing wrong in it. Show him the following system, and see if he can do something equivalent to this: Custom PC with AMD Ryzen 7800X3D / 64GB DDR5 / NVIDIA RTX 4090 - 3XS (scan.co.uk) Within SCAN's selection of parts (which has limits), I've configured that to a combination that is all around top performance, and still below your max budget. But it can be reconfigured (again, within their parts list) if you prefer a different GPU, or Motherboard, or NVMEs, or PSU, etc, etc. As you can see from that link, that custom system is currently composed like this: PC case: Fractal Design Torrent [Black with Light Tint] Motherboard: ASUS ROG STRIX B650E-F GAMING WIFI CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-U12A Chromax Black RAM (DDR5): 64GB (2x32GB) Corsair Dominator Titanium RGB 6000MHz [Grey] GPU: ASUS GeForce RTX 4090 24GB TUF GAMING OG OC PSU: Corsair HX1500i, Modular, Silent, 80PLUS PLATINUM (ATX3.0 Certified) NVME storage #1: 2TB Solidigm P44 Pro NVMe PCIe 4.0, 7000MB/s Read, 6500MB/s Write, 1400K IOPS (for system, apps, dloads and docs) NVME storage #2: 2TB Solidigm P44 Pro NVMe PCIe 4.0, 7000MB/s Read, 6500MB/s Write, 1400K IOPS (for DCS and other sims/games) O.S.: Microsoft Windows 11 Pro 64-Bit TOTAL: £3,844.33

If I understood correctly, you're not using VR. If so, no need to buy the latest and greatest, though the most potent machine for your budget is obviously the best idea. But we need more info to recommend or advise hardware... What are your current system specs? What is your total budget (rough estimation)? What is your screen (native) resolution? What DCS modules+maps you intend to use? Are you computer savvy, i.e, will you be building the system yourself?