LucShep

@kksnowbear dude, you're full of it. below is the original post, which is never altered on a quote made right after it. I took the "at all" from the first sentence. Because it could wrongly be interpreted that 4 sticks of RAM do not work "period", which they do. Just not as ideal, as you can with just 2 sticks. What other BS are you trying to invent next?

I did not edit the context or data in my posts. My initial post here says the same thing you and also the OP creator replied to. My second post - my reply to you - was a simple explanation why it's a bad idea to do it. To which I still stick with it. Beyond that I have no idea what you're on about (bullying?). But I do remember you editing posts well after the fact too (the NVME clusterfrak thread, for instances), shall I call you on BS then? Regarding your own results, if those are true at all, I sincerely think you got to a "luck of the draw" combo of some sort (without even knowing how or why), of some specific Hynix M-Die kit modules and motherboard (with certain BIOS version?) and stuck strictly and sacredly with it and took the chance to make business with it, because 64GB+ with 4 module kit at 6000 CL30 EXPO certainly isn't common (if not unheard of) with AM5. There. Simple and clear.

I'm so sorry.... I had "EXPOfor" and ammended that with a space..... pardon for my OCD. BTW, I'm curious... what's the BIOS version on those "three are B650E-F models, my own desktop is a B670E-F ROG Strix Gaming" ?

My edits are purely down to the fact that I have to rely on translators (english is not my native language) which, as you may know, usually can't interpret context of original content. Hence the various edits you see through many of my posts all across the forum. The data is the same as 1st time I posted, regardless of edits - keep the BS in your side please. My point remains the same. 6000 CL30 EXPO with 4 sticks in AM5 7000 series CPU is too much stress on the IMC. But of course, you can rely and send your build to @kksnowbear because the guy can do magic that, it seems, no one has been able to do. Not even RAM manufacturers (there is no 64GB, 96GB, or 128GB 4x modules kit at 6000 CL30 EXPO for a reason - IMC stress). Hey, I'm sure it'll be a "beast" of a system "rocking" those specs

I'll rephrase then. It will maybe run at AMD EXPO if that's below 5600Mhz CL40 speed/latency, which AFAIK is well below ideal (i.e, slower) for AMD 7000 series CPUs, ideal being 6000Mhz CL30. If you have found an AM5 motherboard that can run 4 sticks of 6000 CL30 (AMD EXPO) RAM at that ideal rated speed/latency, please inform which is one is that. Because I've build nearly a dozen of AM5 systems and none was able to do it. Same in HW forums I've been, noone has been able to do it. It's too much stress on the IMC.

AM5 does not play well with 4 sticks of RAM (one of the downsides of this platform). You should avoid it because, then, it almost surely will be unable to run the memory at EXPO profile (the XMP equivalent for AMD). So, better keep it at 2 sticks of RAM only for AM5. For 64GB on AM5, you should get a good 2x 32GB DDR5 6000 CL30 kit with AMD Expo profile. For example, among other kits, the GSKILL Flare X5 DDR5 64GB (2X 32GB) 6000 CL30 - F5-6000J3040G32GX2-FX5.

@Bucic you mentioned using an RTX 2070. HAGS is beneficial in a system where the game is leaning towards CPU limited, not GPU limited. For DCS 2.9x with an RTX 2070 you're a bit GPU limited, both in raw performance and on VRAM (even at 1080P with DLSS enabled in game). So, passing more work to the GPU then will not benefit things as desired. Hence why in your case it makes sense to disable HAGS (i.e, set as "OFF"). As for the Nvidia driver settings for DCS, it can depend on system hardware and personal preference. In any case, if interested, in this forum thread HERE I left my own settings, also some opinions on settings that, in my experience, can be detrimental or benefitial. Note that I use DCS mainly in VR, but use same Nvidia driver settings also for 2D screen (4K 60hz with S-Sync).

Your CPU temps at 80 and above... is that during gaming? If so, that's quite hot. I don't think going AIO water cooling will improve things much, not with a 240AIO or 280AIO, at high cost and quite a bit of fiddling. Instead, I'd ensure some things are done, and try a few others, it can improve substantially to lower temps (~10ºC I'd wager). I'll go in parts, not knowing if you already covered these: Get an Anti-Bending Buckle for LGA1700. This is pretty much a requirement in my experience with Intel 12th, 13th and 14th gen i7 an i9 processors, and it's worth the time (not complicated, watch the videos). The stock ILM in Z790 and Z690 motherboards doesn't ensure the best connection between the cooler's coldlplate and processor, unfortunately. And this thing solves that problem. You get better temperatures, as it should have been from the start. Not sure you've updated your motherboard BIOS, as there's been the recent "Intel Baseline Profile" implementation, but it should also help. There may be BIOS settings still worth amending, even after updating to latest BIOS. So, supposing that you have the very latest BIOS.... Load "Intel Baseline Profile", then Save + Exit BIOS. And after that (as optional), reboot and enter BIOS again, manually apply 307A in the ICCMax, then Save + Exit BIOS. "Why?" ....check this video, especially at about 4:25 and there on. That's for the 13900 and 14900 K/KF/KS, but for the 13700K/KF it should be 307A (not more) in ICCMax. AFAIK, the Noctua NH-D15S has only one fan, sandwiched between the two heatsink towers. If so, one good hack solution would be a nice second PWM fan attached to the front of that cooler, to make it work in tandem with the other one already there. Basically making it work like a regular NH-D15. You may need some zip-ties, as I doubt you have the metal clips for the extra fan. And also a "Y" fan splitter to get that second fan connected with the one already there, feeding both from same fan header on the motherboard. It's a 10 minute job at most. As for what PWM fan, get a good 120mm one with high static pressure meant for heatsinks and radiators. I suggest Arctic P12 MAX (for me, the very best 120mm fan for the price), or two of them if substituting the one there in your cooler as well. If solution #3 doesn't look appealing and you just want a new CPU cooler, well.... maybe get a Thermalright Phantom Spirit 120 SE ? It's just £30.00 and it's really good, right at the top with the very best air coolers, even matching 240AIOs.

YMMV but, for me, there are some things I still always do on a gaming system, doesn't matter if it's on Win10 or Win11: Disabling HAGS. For most systems its actually best left OFF (disabled), unless the CPU is considerably weaker than the GPU (not true on most gaming systems). Enabling 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. But it introduces other possible issues, such as stuttering and hitching. 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. 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 laptops and office PCs. Disabling it can 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. Using a performance power plan in Windows (enabling it before lauching the game, reverting to "Balanced" after exiting it), such as the Ultimate Performance Power Plan. While peak performance won't be all that improved, it can benefit things once in game. If using less than 64GB of RAM (48GB, 32GB, or less), setting the pagefile fixed to at least 32GB (32768 in both initial and max size) and set on the fastest drive. It helps tremendously with games that use lots of VRAM (like DCS) sometimes exceeding its limits, then also possibly exhausting the RAM. It's then assisted by pagefile (aka virtual memory).

That's actually not too bad at all for the adapter, though how good the PSVR2 headset really is on PC for sims remains to be seen. What seems appealing (IMO) is the sheer ammount of (what seem to be) barely used units at affordable prices, in the regular market places for second hand products, so it may be a good way for people to get into PC VR without spending a small fortune.

I think the motherboard is the one HW part worth a thorough research, because it's the foundation for everything in the system, also for possible future upgrades. Among others on the interweb, here's one good article for AM5 B650/B650E motherboards: https://www.techspot.com/review/2699-amd-b650-motherboards/ Relying solely on random user reviews at PCpartpicker is not really useful, but thats just my opinion. BTW, better not rely on the "oh it supports 7000X3D series processors right out of the box" comments you'll see, because that's never guaranteed to be so. All manufacturers made BIOS revisions for optimal performance with 7000X3D series processors at a later point. Meaning, you'll always need to ensure the BIOS is updated for the 7800X3D, regardless of AM5 motherboard. That's not a bad motherboard at all, on the contrary. My only issues with it are, 1) the PCIe 5 support is only for one single NVMe Gen5, not for the main PCIe slot (which upcoming GPUs from NVIDIA and AMD will use then benefit from) and, 2) that it's yet another budget oriented motherboard from Gigabyte, which (from experience) all tend to suffer from coil whine. I suggested those three "E" suffix AM5 ATX motherboards (B650E) not just because of the full PCIe 5 support (so, PCIe main slot and NVMe Gen5), but also for slightly better quality than the "non E" motherboards. They are (especially the ASUS ROG Strix B650E-F Gaming WiFi) as good as it gets for the money, IMO. I'll leave yet another motherboard suggestion - not a cheaper one but worth a look, as it's a good and solid X670E (and found around 260$): MSI MAG X670E TOMAHAWK WIFI It has everything one should need, including full PCIe 5 support and nice VRMs, and it too has a solution to update BIOS even without a CPU in it (MSI's M-Flash).

It's all a matter of budget... Looking at your system specs in sig, and as I see it, you're looking at a whole new system or close to it. New CPU (+ cooler), motherboard, GPU, a 1000W(+) PSU, possibly new RAM (64GB) as well. Maybe another NVME, and new PC case.... You could upgrade just the CPU (and possibly motherboard) but then the rest of your system may become a noticeable bottleneck. Upgrade to a considerably more powerful GPU.... the rest will become a bottleneck. And so on... (you get the picture) Might as well set a maximum budget, and how long you're willing to wait. Then it's a case of studying the possible options. Remember, later this year (end of summer?) you'll have new CPUs and Motherboards from both AMD (Zen 5) and Intel (15th gen). And also new GPUs from Nvidia (50 series). Any of the "mid range" new parts later this year are expected to be close to the current "high range", at a lower cost. And current parts should also decrease in price by then, with the new gen substitutes getting all the attention. Also, there's always the used market (a better solution than most will admit).

The list is good, but if I was building it I would change a few things (all debatable points). PC Case As good as the Fractal Torrent is, I find it overhyped. I don't get why pay more for it, with less expensive alternatives that are so good (IMO), like the LianLi Lancool 216 for example. The version with RGB controller (for the rainbow puke) is found under 120$, and under 100$ for the version without it. Either way, available in white or black. Power Supply The Corsair RMX1000 is good but AFAIK it's not equipped with the 12+4pin connector (12VHPWR) for Nvidia's RTX4000 GPUs - avoid the spaghetti with cable adapters. I'd pick an "80+Gold" (or better) ATX 3.0 compliant and PCIe 5.0 ready PSU, with native PCIe 12+4pin connector, and one positively reviewed and rated in PSU tier lists. A few examples that are good alternatives and similarly priced (and in no particular order): Be Quiet! Straight Power 12 1000W MSI MAG A1000GL PCIE5 Seasonic Focus GX-1000 ATX 3.0 Thermaltake Toughpower GF3 1000W Gold TT PE Motherboard You picked a MicroATX motherboard, but building a system on ATX mid-tower case. Not sure if for some particular reason(?) but, for the AM5 motherboard, I'd pick something better, and in ATX format to go with a case fit for it. The ASROCK B650E PG Riptide WiFi (190$) and ASROCK B650E Steel Legend WiFi (200$) are better ASROCK alternatives for little more money (good VRMs, more USB ports). My prefered choice would probably be the ASUS ROG Strix B650E-F Gaming WiFi. I know ASUS hasn't been under the best light but it's an excelent motherboard for 250$. Good VRMs, four PCIe expansion slots, three M.2 slots, ten USB 3.2 ports (with a further eight USB 2.0 ports), four SATA ports, and also much better Audio. Storage I see you picked two Samsung 980PRO 2TB. Excelent choice for the main (system) drive. But, for the second drive meant for extra storage, and in case that you wish to shave a little the final price, consider instead the WD Black SN770 2 TB. It's a bit less expensive (135$), very fast and reliable, and being DRAM-less won't make any difference whatsoever for a second (or third, etc) separate extra storage drive, for whatever sims/games and whatnot. Regarding the CPU cooler and RAM. I have a TR Peerless Assassin 120SE (excelent cooler!). No problem with that RAM, since you're just using two sticks of memory - the slot closest to the cooler isn't populated. But, I'd still recommend lower profile memory, and that particular GSKILL kit that @Aapje recommends (see his post above) is an excelent choice to pair with the AMD 7800X3D. Lastly, the Windows OS. I hope you're not buying a Windows installation disc because that's an unnecessary expense. Get a USB3.0 flash drive with 8GB+ and use the Windows Media Creation Tool, on your current PC, so that later you can install Windows 64-bit (Win10 or Win11, your pick) from that flash drive, on that PC that you're building. Here's a tutorial: https://www.tenforums.com/tutorials/2376-create-bootable-usb-flash-drive-install-windows-10-a.html Then just get the key code for the Windows version of your preference, and use that to register your Windows afterwards. Plenty good websites selling legitimate keys for Win10 Pro and Win11 Pro, for less than 4$(!!). For example: Windows 10 Pro OEM Key: https://pixelcodes.com/product/os-10-pro-oem/ Windows 11 Pro OEM Key: https://pixelcodes.com/product/os-11-pro-oem-key/

Just posting some stuff that is not DCS specific but still worth sharing (or so I hope). Before anything, and for those willing to go ahead and try this for themselves, I'll assume you already know what Is Resizable BAR on a GPU, and also that you have it already enabled, in your motherboard BIOS and in your NVIDIA 30 or 40 series graphics card. If you don't know if Resizable Bar (rBAR) is enabled, nor how to enable it, then I suggest to search for guides on that, there's plenty around for this delicate process. Here's one among many others: youtube.com/watch?v=FUO_8bykkc4 So, I've been using Resizable BAR (rBAR) for a long time now, but never felt too sure that it's making a real difference with games. That was until recently, when I found out that, for NVIDIA 30 and 40 series GPUs, for it to work it should be "forced". And better if with aproppriate settings. After that, I find there's a noticeable difference with plenty games, some run impressively smoother now (Ghost of Tsushima, for example). To force and adjust rBAR settings, you'll need a third party app, called Nvidia Profile Inspector: https://github.com/Orbmu2k/nvidiaProfileInspector For those unfamiliar with this fantastic app, it opens access to more Nvidia driver settings than those found in the Nvidia Control Panel. With it, we can adjust a lot of settings, individually (per game title) or globally (for all profiles), as prefered. So, opening Nvidia Profile Inspector... If you wish to adjust settings of the Global profile (so, for all game profiles) click the "house icon" (represents "Home" or "Main profile"). Its settings will then be listed. If you wish to adjust settings individually for one game title only, then search for it in the "Profiles" (top left). You can manually scroll to locate the game title of your choice. Or you can use the search box and type the game title name to be located - example: for DCS, type"Digital Combat Simulator" (without comas). Once with the profile of your choice open, scroll down through the settings, to the "Common" section. There you'll find the three rBAR settings. These are the rBAR settings that, so far, I found best for my own GPU and games: rBAR feature - - - - - - Enabled rBAR options - - - - - - 0x00000001 rBAR size limit - - - - - 0x0000000100000000 On this last "rBAR size limit" setting, some important notes. These are the limits available: 0x000000000C800000 = 200MB VRAM 0x0000000012C00000 = 300MB VRAM 0x0000000040000000 = 1GB VRAM 0x0000000060000000 = 1.5GB VRAM (default Nvidia value for most games?) 0x0000000080000000 = 2GB VRAM 0x0000000100000000 = 4GB VRAM 0x0000000200000000 = 8GB VRAM 0x0000000280000000 = 10GB VRAM It seems NVIDIA goes with 1.5GB for most game titles(?). Theoretically, only the last 4 requests of 256MB are said to be remembered. So, theoretically, more than 1GB for games is unnecessary. The 1GB limit is also the highest recommended value for GPUs with smaller amounts of VRAM (8GB or less) because, more than that, there is a very strong chance that VRAM overflow will happen, making things worse (the GPU may have to erase the VRAM, any benefits are lost). But there are game titles that can benefit if you set a larger rBAR size limit, if you have available VRAM. I have set the rBAR size limit to 4GB, as that seems plenty and I have a GPU with a lot of VRAM (using an RTX 3090 24GB). Of course, YMMV. Feel free to play with different rBAR settings.

It's getting old and no longer top of the line, but the i9 9900K is still good for DCS at 4K resolution. It's noticeably faster than your i5 8600K and I think it's a reasonable upgrade, but only worth going for if it's $200 or less (used units, on Ebay and etc). It'd be a simple direct swap on your Z370-A motherboard, after updating to latest BIOS. That said, some things worth concern there, I'll try to break it in parts: If you decide to get the i9 9900K, be sure to get the right version. There are four versions of the i9 9900K that you'll notice if buying used: - i9 9900K -- the regular version with onboard GPU (not a requirement, you have your RTX3080) and the most commonly found around. - i9 9900KF -- same as a regular 9900K just without onboard GPU (requires a dedicated GPU, which you have). Great choice for a gaming system and usually cheaper. - i9 9900KS -- a higher binned special edition, pre-overclocked to 5.0Ghz (all-core) from factory. Good, but people ask a big premium for it, and runs hot. - i9 9900K "ES" -- the cheaper "engineering sample" versions (lower binned, lower clock) which are much slower - this version is not worth it, do NOT buy. The i9 9900K needs a good cooler, though nothing out of the ordinary. If you haven't got a good cooler, then I highly recommend the Thermalright PS 120 SE, at $35 it's simply unbeatable. It matches performance of the Noctua NH-D15 (and even 280 AIO coolers) at a fraction of the price. It also allows for decent overclocking on an i9 9900K (think all-core 4.8Ghz). Unbeliveable cooler for such a low price. The RTX3080 you have is still a really good GPU, just limited by its 10 or 12 GB VRAM (depending on version) and that, with the 32GB of RAM you have, is borderline for a smooth experience with DCS. Depending on map and module, a stutter free experience is not ensured - regardless of whatever CPU upgrade you make. In your case, setting the pagefile fixed to 32GB (so, equals to 32768 in both initial and max size) and to your fastest drive, is pretty much required for DCS (try it, please). It is so because DCS at 4K resolution can consume the VRAM of any GPU beyond 12GB+ quite quickly and, once that's exhausted, it then feeds from the RAM and also pagefile (aka virtual memory). While this helps a lot with VRAM limitations of a GPU, it is much slower and why some stuttering or hitching can (and will) still occur. ........you may now understand why people feel compelled to upgrade, to a 16GB(+) VRAM high-end GPU and also to 64GB (and even 96GB) of the fastest RAM that their system can run, just for DCS - it's a "brute force solution", through overkill specs, to circumvent ugly optimization issues, even after the recent implementation of DLSS and FSR. At this point, one might as well upgrade to a whole brand new system.... Yes, it gets very expensive, unfortunately. A fellow member (@CL30) went similar path recently (from i5 9600K, to a used i9 9900K) but he had 64GB of RAM already, and went from RTX2080Ti to a used RTX3090.

Sorry all for going off-topic. Fine. We're just very different then, I guess. I don't find it okay (ethically or otherwise) to see a commercial product, based around a single warbird, being initially announced/teased to a whole community of enthusiasts, and then still see it being teased as a "WIP" after nearly SEVEN YEARS. It's just wrong, sorry. "HEY MAN, IT'S ON COMA... ERRR... KINDA.... NOT DEAD THOUGH!! ...OKAAY??" It may be normal in the modding world (complexities, man power and "real life issues" are so often naively underestimated) but in the commercial arena it's quite different, in my experience. But hey... it's DCS man! The "vaporware" term, used for it earlier in this thread, seems fairly apt. "" To me, anyway.

The same one for any other piece of content in any entertainment media - and hence why teasers are carefully measured (and usually avoided) in this medium, only exposed when the time is correct. Any piece of teaser in DCS is thrown too easily IMO, knowing that it will take imeasurable time (huge times) to acomplish, if it ever gets to see the light.

Welp, then we can conclude that WW2 will remain the unfortunately unwanted stepchild. I don't think quantity vs quality is what I was refering to - I guess that one flew over your head. Maybe at some point you could do the favor of stepping down from your high horse, and try the peasantly inferior competitor products -with a seriously critical look- and then compare. If you don't even seem to get what we've been posting about here, then unfortunately I don't think it's worth the time pointing out to problems that you keep ignoring and dismiss. It's as I said before in this thread - for me DCS is for jets (be it CW or modern era) and that's it. For WW2 warbirds, no way for me - for that there's that other one (and another coming).

That's a tremendously dismissive response. And close to what I think might be the problem also from the developers. If you've read through this thread, as has been with others, the problem goes far beyond the "more modules", although more is very welcome (that too is a part of the problem). You don't have, never had, the same sort of problems in DCS with jets, be it modern or CW era ones, that you have with the old Warbirds. So no, it's not comparable to "the same situation with start DCS World about modern content some years ago". Like, at all. OK OK we get it... It takes a long time to make big complex maps. And it takes many years to make new complicated warbirds (funny enough, more than it did for the real life counterparts, it seems!). Maybe to fix first what is there already would be easier and would have been more productive, no? How about... fixing the AI aircraft, which (last time I checked) don't seem to care about engine management (WEP all the way)? fixing silly ultra accurate AAA, as currently it ruins ground attack and makes missions and campaigns pretty much unplayable? making different versions of planes that we already have, so that Allies vs Axis can match correctly, as they were in the specific period? making free Assets packs, so that all can use them, as it should have been from the start? making the battlefield look period correct, with the massive conflict that WW2 was (entire divisions should be there), instead of dead, dull and lifeless scenarios with a handful of units? Make what is there worth buying for all those who have been in the fence for so many years (and going instead to the competitors), and for those who already bought it. Then these sort of complaints will disappear, and the sales numbers will increase along with popularity, and users satisfaction. Otherwise, it's just semi-functional incoherent content locked in a tiny niche, inside another niche, that will most likely be ignored. As it is, with or without the PTO, F6F or F4U, doesn't matter, it's still a pass for me.

@Silver_Dragon you made your point(s), but cross that with the concerns expressed in this thread. Presenting facts with WIP and promises of upcoming content with no release date whatsoever doesn't excuse nor fix the problems expressed. I also understand the "damned if you do and damned if you don't" as @BIGNEWY explains, but the current aproach for DCS WW2, as this thread (and others) suggest, is just not going well .

Then why tease people with stuff that will be many, many years away? I've been around DCS since the years of LOMAC, through FC2, BS and Warthog, and never understood this philosophy introduced with DCS post May/2012. It's awful practice, IMHO. To announce things when they're close to be presented is the correct aproach all across the gaming industry, niche simulation genres included. Otherwise, everything is potentially vaporware and frankly easy to not take it seriously. I receive the notifications from ED every friday, also aware of the Roadmap. And, of course, it's impossible to miss the "NEXT YEAR AND BEYOND" videos, as was M3's "New Year Update" (F4U Corsair) back in 2017......

"Drama", really? Excuse me but, please amuse my curiosity - can you explain how is nearly seven years of development, for one single WW2 aircraft, with nothing more than notes and screenshots WIP released, not the true definition of "glacial pace" ? I'm genuinely curious to read/hear what is a "normal" dev-time period for one warbird in DCS, in your opinion? And, heck, don't even get me started on the Kiowa or the Fulcrum, it might pop a vein in my wee brain...

Sure? O yes, M3 working has a no sense... You know what, he has a point. And one that is valid, not an exaggeration. You see, the F4U Corsair development was announced by M3 in December 2017(!!). Well over six years later we're still in the phase of the odd and vague WIP screenshots and notes (?!?).... If that doesn't ring alarm bells, I don't know what does. Cool. But, looking at the glacial pace of other aircraft development (F4U example I just gave), it begs the question ---- "when?" Oh boy.... I hope my grandchildren will be able to run it, because I really start to doubt that it'll be out in our lifetime.

Have to agree with most of the first paragraph. Just my opinion, but I see these announcements with aircraft and maps for the Pacific War period of WW2, and I get the feeling that devs are eating more that they can chew. Plus, I too don't understand why the F6F instead of the P-38 (??). And yes, there's that promissing WW2 Pacific combat flight-sim coming that I too tend to believe will be released (good or bad) before we see PTO in DCS, considering the extremely slow pace the development has have here. Instead, I think more period correct (free?) assets, updates and more matching modules to potencialize and complete what is already there in DCS WW2 would have been better, to make it more consistent and coherent (it's anything but). Again, just my opinion. Now, for the correct conflict time period Vietnam and Korean maps and respective aircraft, that's a different matter altogether. I honestly don't think there's PC hardware potent enough yet (no matter the cost) for DCS to run thick forested terrains such as those, in VR - we'd need a completely new game engine IMO (maybe with Vulkan)....

Thermaltake says the View37 has the GPU length limitation at 410mm (note: without front fan!). Better take a tape-measure and see the real lenght yourself, I say.