LucShep

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.

Well, at least it's not a big problem at all, because those are okay (and positively rated in Tier lists). Just make sure they're the latest versions, ATX 3.0 & PCIe 5.0 ready (and 12VHPWR connector included). The Seasonic Focus GX 1000w is pretty good for the price, and I'd favor it over the other two. It's also very silent even with the fan ramping up. Nevermind about the silent mode (different fan curves with a button on its back) because you won't need it. The Thermaltake Toughpower GF A3 1050w and 1200w are also good for the price, but not as silent (agressive fan curve). There's the advantage here with the possibility of a 1200w selection. BTW, if it's so for the PSU, is there possible clearance issues (space limitations) inside the case for the GPU? If so, it's important to chose a GPU model according to that size limit.

Sure, but at low load the wattage pulled from the wall socket is so low (30W~60W?) that 1/2 a dozen % of efficiency loss there isn't anything of notice, and why it's never mentioned for a gaming desktop PC. Whereas at higher loads (like when gaming, more so in VR) is where it can make a bigger difference. I absolutely agree that looking at reviews (and PSU Tier ratings) is important, before pulling the trigger on a PSU. Also, we're starting from a principal that the PSU chosen here is to be a good quality model (otherwise no point recommending). The size difference between 1000W and 1200W is not really an issue for 99% of PSU models for gaming PC ATX cases. You'll find that many highly rated 1200W PSUs have similar, if not same size as the 1000W versions. When they aren't, it's usually less than 1.0 inch (2.5cm) longer in case size lenght.

That's true. The viability or possible future necessity of RT (and alternatives) is of no importance if there's no intention to use it to begin with. I too agree (to some extent) that it may not be a factor for GPU selection. And oh yes, just forget Path Tracing... pretty as it is, we're just not ready for it yet (maybe in a decade?!). But, and as much as I loathe Nvidia for bringing in closed/exclusive tech - and using it to justify a premium on their GPUs - the truth is they have been (albeit veeeery slooowly) making some noticeable strides in the tech. For example, one recent experience with Cyberpunk2077, using DLSS 3.7 Ray Reconstruction, on a friend's new PC, which did show great graphical improvements, compared to not using any of it, and very good performance. I certainly wasn't expecting it to make such a difference in visuals, versus not having any of that stuff. Of course YMMV but, got to say, for someone as myself who never gave a hoot about that, it left quite a good impression. This is something that AMD simply can't do at this point. Even if unrelated to DCS and VR, it's the kind of stuff that the OP may wish to check out at some point later on. And who knows if DCS (and other sims) gets any of this stuff at some point (we recently got DLSS). The point is not just higher maximum power of the PSU (sure, 1000W is plenty capable, though 1200W is better) but the higher efficiency of the PSU as well. It varies with what's running (CPU + GPU + RAM + storage + fans + non self powered peripherals) but I've recently seen plenty high-end gaming PCs working around (and over) ~600W during some intensive gaming sessions. Granted, they're not the norm (and a few were overclocked systems), but... The optimal efficiency for a power supply is typically achieved when it is operating at half (50%) of its maximum load rating. When the load further rises, the efficiency tends to be lower, and gradually sets to the lowest. Why does it even matter? Because the lower the efficiency, the more you're pulling from the wall socket to provide the PSU's output. A 1200W PSU price is usually just ~25,00€ more on average than a 1000W of same PSU model. That's a pretty good deal, I think. And totally worth it on the longer run.

About the PSU. Honestly, I'd pick a quality 80+ Gold (or better) 1200W ATX3.0+ PSU, instead of the 1000W. It may seem overkill now, but it isn't. The price difference is not so big, it's worth it in the longer term. Two that I like are the Bequiet! Pure Power 12M 1200W and the Corsair RM1200X SHIFT, for different reasons. - The Bequiet Pure Power 12M 1200W is awesome for the price, a great example of good quality without having to pay a fortune. - The Corsair RM1200X SHIFT is also good quality, and the peculiar "shifted layout" makes it great. It provides easier/faster building (or changes) due to much better access to the connections (which are put out at the side, instead of the back). It doesn't work with every ATX case (see reviews of this PSU) but it does work with most. Both are "Tier A" ranked PSUs (high-end in PSU tier lists, for example the one at Cultists) and are within your budget, at 200,00€ (+/-).

I'm sure you've done your homework and all the research. But there are a number of factors to think about beyond the price and performance. I'd weight ownership experience over anything else, honestly. It's still a lot of money invested in a single HW component. I'll start by the end, saying that both are absolutely excelent GPUs but, between the two (if I could afford it), I'd always chose the RTX4080S. For me there's only one advantage to the AMD RX7900XTX - price! That can be the decisive factor for some... Other than that, I really don't see any positives added to the big 24GB VRAM spec, to outweigh the cons and make it worthy over the RTX4080S (16GB but it's faster GDDR6X). AMD Radeon drivers have been good lately, but one thing can not be denied - NVidia is still far more capable, and it shows also in this aspect. Once you realize that the NVidia driver division on itself is nearly as big as the whole AMD company, it starts to make sense... The major deal breaker for me with the RX7900XTX is the ludicrously higher power consumption (some models go up to ~450W, versus the ~300W of the RTX4080S). Which translates to higher temperatures, in the core, in the memory and hotspot. This is a really, really important factor if you intend to play games at around (or above) the ~90% GPU usage for extended time periods, and expecting to use it for years on end (undervolting really becomes a must to avoid long term issues). A side note, the RTX4080/S has been reliable with the silly single NVidia's 12-Pin Power Connector, something one can not say about the RTX4090 24GB (which should use two!). Heck, even AMD themselves seem to have abandoned the design of RDNA3 (RX7000 series) because it actually didn't meet its performance expectations, resulting in the big core frequency power curve going out of control. The upcoming RDNA4 (RX8000 series) later this year will be a simple "refresh" with no high-end models (so, expected to be a downgrade, and it is telling), with RDNA5 (in late 2025?) being a completely new architecture to supposedly fight back. I really doubt the rasterization performance of the RX7900XTX is better than the RTX4080S (and in that possibility, at what temps and wattage?). If that much, the performance is on par - it's give or take depending on game title (if without RT). And if it's DCS, I think it's already a given that it still works better with NVidia, especially noticeable in VR. Once you also realize that the price difference may not be so big when already paying that much (around 1100,00€, depending on region), it's worth getting the one that should provide the higher compatibility -and least annoyances- in a much wider variety of use scenarios and games (NVidia better here), the better temps and power consumption, the better features (DLSS and RT in games is not uncommon now), and the better resale value. Weighing pros and cons, I think the RTX4080S is the better pick of the two. Doesn't mean that the RX7900XTX isn't a tremendously good GPU, because it is. But the RX7900XT 20GB now seems a better deal at 700,00€(ish), IMO. Lastly, and to finalize this wall of text ( lol).... we're at the end of this generation of 2022 GPUs. There is a new upcoming generation of GPUs to be released later this year. I know the upcoming RTX 5000 series -for your case maybe the RTX5080- is still a long way (very late summer, for the least) but perhaps it's worth waiting for?

Just speculation from my part but, having MCE enable, CEP disabled, and ICCmax at 511A(!!!) like these ASUS boards seem to be as "default" for a completely stock (non OC'ed) 13900 and 14900 K/KF/KS, seems too much a risk even without overclocking. You would have problems regardless, I think.

Yeah, I get you. If you can get the support, then sure get it. It's confusing and needn't be. There should be a friggin simple "SET THIS TO THAT" for people that are a little confused on all this. Some I suspect are even on a replacement 13900/14900 K/KF/KS already (like you are) and worrying that problems may arise again.

Nope, that's not enough. There are more BIOS settings that are not correct, need amendment. Load "Intel Baseline Profile" (then Save + Exit BIOS). After that (as optional), reboot and enter BIOS again, manually apply either 307A (Performance) or 400A (Extreme) in the ICCMax for 13900 and 14900 K/KF/KS (then Save + Exit BIOS). Check the video again at about 4:25, and there on.

Careful with ASUS settings after Bios update (which is recommended to do), check the video below. Remains to be seen which other manufacturers are not following Intel's chart memo....

I echoe similar feelings here, though in my case I simply decided to not invest in the content. I own pretty much every WW2 sim/game title that has been released in the last 25 years (some of which received amazing mods by the community), some of which I used for years on end. I got very interested at a certain point but, even after testing the content, it hasn't convinced me. As much as I like DCS, in the end I simply enjoy better the WW2 content that's out there. I just prefer to use DCS for Cold-War and Modern era combat jets, and related conflicts. And that's it. Granted, WW2 DCS is a different product if compared to the rest, more in-depth in regards to the airplanes intricacies, with a steep(er) learning curve. And when you get a warbird that "clicks" with you, it really clicks. I'm convinced it's this which makes people (who bought content for it) persist on it. But the business model, the steep hardware requirements and performance unoptimization, the lack of matching content for the specific period, the utterly glacial pace on updates and bug-fixes, and a somewhat broken community, it all contributes to make WW2 in DCS incoherent and make less sense, when the competitors out there provide not only a lot more consistency and context to particular WW2 segments, era and theme, they can (quite frankly) also provide a better overall experience (once again, IMHO).

As the saying goes... "We risk all in being too greedy." For years (since Intel 8th gen, I believe) that the manufacturers were left loose by Intel with their own crazy "Multi Core Enhancements" - and then adopting such as "defaults" on each of their motherboards. 12th gen "Alder Lake" was a great release, and back to form for Intel. Then followed by 13th gen "Raptor Lake", which was already stupid in regards to power consumption. 14th gen being just a "Raptor Lake" refresh shouldn't have happened at all (only released because Meteor Lake wasn't desktop worthy). If we then add to the fact that the chips are getting more complex, sensitive and power hungrier with every new release, and with BIOS updates insanely more frequent as well, it's then no surprise that this horse manure happens, with Intel and AMD as well. Fortunately, this is fairly easy to correct (and then to forget?), but it's an alarming issue regardless. Makes one wonder how smooth things will go - or what shenanigans will occur - with AMD Zen5 and Intel 15th gen releases sometime later this year.

That's humongous for a single map. Looks like a lot of textures packaged, and possibly of really large sizes - meaning, some concern on how's the VRAM usage. And possible stuttering issues over densed populated areas and forests (not VR friendly, I expect).

Ditto here.

Heh I just think the F16C looks feminine, fragile and petite. For automotive equivalent, it's like the hairdresser's Miata in such company... Have to say, the F-15 Eagle is another very striking aircraft and a thing of beauty.

F-14 Tomcat is, IMHO, the most beautiful Jet Aircraft ever created. The proportions, the lines, the details, it's just... ...perfect. It's one of those man created objects that can well be considered a work of art, even if that never was the purpose. Like the Supermarine Spitfire (WW2 warbird propeller aircraft) long before it, you simply can not ignore its "machine-beauty" appeal. The original 80s T.G. movie and arcade video game (Afterburner!) may have brought it to cult status but, IMO, even without all that it would always be absolutely striking. To me, it's the equivalent to a Ducati 916 or a Ferrari Testarossa (or maybe an F40, but not a 250 GTO - there's no equivalent to that in aviation, IMO) All of these are icons and reflections of their own respective time period but, regardless, with a timeless and unparalleled beautiful design.

heh funny indeed! ....congratulations, I guess? I've seen it break (twice!) during livestreams on twitch. A friend here broke the "far antler" just by accidentaly touching it with the arm while reaching for the curtain (would be hilarious if not for his misfortune), not even duct-tape could save it. How that flimsy fragile thing goes through QC to be on sale is beyond belief, IMO. And it was through that same friend that I got to know about the DelanClip (to replace that broken TrackClip Pro). The built quality and robustness is not even comparable (far better made, like a tank in comparison), makes a joke of it. Nearly same thing goes for the old Trackhat Clip that I got about a decade ago. Not proud of it but, mine has been dropped on floor and even stepped over countless times by accident, and still going flawlessly. It's a shame that the UTC is no longer being developed, that too was a phenomenal alternative.