LucShep

The problem is that, if using VR for DCS, things are rendering the entire scene twice, once for each eye. Not sure how far Vulkan will help in the future - we'll see later, once it's in for DCS. What is realized is that DLSS is definitely not a decisive solution for VR, because ghosting issues occur, and the P.D. (or the resolution per eye) has to be increased to disguise the heavy blurriness - then losing any gains you'd otherwise obtain with it. If you consider that DCS is already utterly demanding on a screen (be it 1440P or 4K), now imagine rendering it twice.... Hence the brutality of PC specs overkill you often see with fellow DCS VR users for newer headsets (Pimax Crystal, Varjo Aero, Bigscreen, Quest 3 and Pro, Pico 4, etc).

You're not flying in VR... thats a completely different kettle of fish compared to 2D (i.e, with a monitor or TV panel). DCS in VR is waaaaaaay more demanding hardware wise, and more problematic optimization wise.

I agree with what @kksnowbear posted (some good advice there). The i9 9900K (or 9900KS or 9900KF) upgrade could be a mid/short term stop-gap solution, it's a direct replacement in Z370 motherboards (as is your case) with newest BIOS. Note that they're still in high demand, lots of people are deciding to upgrade their older 8th gen based systems with it - and it overclocks nicely to 5.0+GHz (all-core OC). I'd only get one from the used market (Ebay, etc) where it can be found around $250. The thing is, you mention VR and, especially with DCS, that is the harshest form of gamming/simming, for PC hardware, that you'll probably encounter. The i9 9900K, while still plenty good if using a 2D monitor or TV (at any resolution), doesn't really cut it for VR in DCS at a certain point. That said, not even the most potent/current hardware can solve all of DCS big optimization issues, especially in VR..... If VR is your goal, then in your case I'd vote for the CPU + Motherboard + DDR5 RAM upgrade, and keep (re-use) all of the remaining components you have (they're still great). Then sell that 8700K, motherboard and DDR4 RAM on the used market (Ebay, etc) or to a friend. In regards to the CPU+motherboard+RAM, I'd change your upgrade specs and go instead for something like this: CPU: Intel Core i7 14700K / KF (or Intel Core i7 13700K / KF as alternative) You definitely don't need the i9 14900K (way too hot, too inneficient), I'd even say to avoid it at any cost. The i7 14700K (or the i7 13700K as less expensive alternative) does sim/gaming exactly as good, with less heat and power consumption, and for less money as well. Motherboard: ASUS TUF Z790 Gaming PLUS WiFi (DDR5) If your motherboard "has to be an ASUS", then let me tell you that you don't need a ROG MAXIMUS Z790 HERO. The TUF Z790 Gaming PLUS WiFi (DDR5 version) is great and does the same job reliably, for half(!) the price. Please note - Z790 motherboards support newest Intel 14th gen, but require latest BIOS update for it. There's some new ASUS models not requiring it but are expensive. Memory (RAM): 64GB (2x 32GB) DDR5 6400 CL32 64GB (2x 32GB) is very recommended for DCS (it devours memory, as you may have noticed). For "speed/latency VS price", DDR5 6400 CL32 is the sweet spot for Intel 13th/14th gen. Similar price to DDR5 6000 CL30 and is better. A couple of examples: - https://www.gskill.com/product/165/374/1665644504/F5-6400J3239G32GX2-TZ5RK - https://www.gskill.com/product/165/377/1677726067/F5-6400J3239G32GX2-RS5K (note: I prefer GSkill memory kits, but other brands should also have it)

That's a good point but, the thing is, you got into the platform in the right foot, with the 2nd best in the line up (and a great chip btw). Now imagine that you only managed a 12600KF back at the time of launch (must have happened to someone). As good as that still is, wouldn't you feel better now knowing that you can put a 14700K or 14900K into your system later? That's a decent upgrade, with just a BIOS update, without having to change anything other than the thermal paste and probably the cooler (not even a new Windows install). Similar to the common "AMD superior life span" argument then, afterall. That was my point. What I still don't get with the whole "AMD AM4 platform long life span" that some people try to hold on like a flag... why does it even matter, if the initial products (and for years) were not even worth buying? For instances, take that example, R7 1700 to R7 5800... remember how bad Ryzen 1000 series were for gaming, and how hard techtubers tried to convince otherwise? ...barely able to keep up with a stock i7 3770K launched five years prior. The 2000 series were a bit better, as was the 3000 series again later, but they all suffered with infinity-fabric issues (poor performance, stuttering gallore). Those in that scenario, who bought the R7 1700 for gaming, got quite a few hair-pulling issues for over three years until, finally, upgrading to the first good line-up of AM4 CPUs (but last to be released for it), the 5000 series. Was the whole thing a worthy investment and experience? Wouldn't it have been better to enjoy all those "suck it up" years instead with the i7 8700K (awesome, stock or OC'ed), with zero issues of any kind, performance or otherwise, right from the start, from day one and for years, probably to this day? Platform life span is all good and great on paper, but in practice...? I believe instead that buying RIGHT the very first time makes up for any lack of platform continuity. Noone should ride on promises - much less on a platform which doesn't even work right with four sticks of RAM, featured on every expensive mobo they sell (a scam). If you get a gaming PC to enjoy yourself, and pay by the nose, then make sure you get what is proven to make you the happiest from the very first moment. Forget whatever hasn't even been launched yet.

You're totally correct that Intel Z790 is a dead end, while AMD AM5 isn't. About Intel's chipset platforms life span, as side note and pardon my rant, people often extrapolate things and it has been overblown (IMO). Example, the Intel Z690 motherboards. Across different manufacturers and all price-segments, most of these support now (with a BIOS update) three generations of Intel chips - 12th, 13th and 14th gen. So, someone who bought an i5 12600K and a Z690 motherboard in 2021, is able to upgrade over two and a half years later to, say, the new i9 14900K, as a direct CPU swap with a simple BIOS update (so, just like with AMD AM4 respective CPUs). And this backward/forward compatibility has happened with every Intel "Z" chipset for years now: Z170 (2016) and Z270 (2017) both support 6th and 7th gen Z370 (2017) and Z390 (2018) both support 8th and 9th gen. Z490 (2020) and Z590 (2021) both support 10th and 11th gen. Z690 (2021) and Z790 (2022) both support 12th, 13th and 14th gen. You won't see any mention of this from any techtuber/influencer or website, because it goes against the recent narrative and agenda, too controversial for some minds. Then the profitable "niceties" and connections from that other side could end, and the AMDrones (the fanboys, like football hooligans) would flood the gates to harass/cancel you and your platform, and/or poison the comments section till the end of days, like always. And so, along with marketing and herd mentality, things go as they go...

You're fine. That system will be friggin awesome, you'll see. Personally, I consider the i7 13700K (and 14700K) as a better choice than the AMD 7800X3D, regardless of platform obsolescence. It's pretty much as good for gaming (difference in the single % digits), while being much, much stronger in multi-threaded workload. It's by far a better all-rounder, even if the power-consumption is far worse, when compared. Don't get me wrong, the AMD 7800X3D is awesome, but then it's a one-trick-pony that not every game appreciates, not to mention MT applications. BTW, something to consider at some point if you feel you can handle it (an optional, not a necessity) and if expecting to use that Intel 13th gen chip at full workloads for long extended periods - replace the ILM with a contact frame, for better contact between cooler and processor (around 8ºC gains on max temps). Thelmalright's Anti-Bending Buckle is a good one and it's at a cheap price.

I'd change that Ryzen 9 7950X to a Ryzen 7 7800X3D. It's a stronger gaming CPU (with 3D V-cache and single CCD) which also DCS seems to prefer. I'd also change that AMD RX7900XTX to an Nvidia RTX4080 16GB (if budget doesn't allow for an RTX 4090 24GB). Not that there is something very wrong with AMD GPUs but, if you're going VR (Reverb G2) and with DCS, Nvidia just seems to work better, it ensures peace of mind. I don't see mention for the PSU. Make sure to get a good 1000W+ ATX3.0 PSU. My vote goes for either: - the Bequiet! Pure Power 12M 1200W because of the overall quality for the price, excelent in that aspect. - the Corsair RM1200X SHIFT also good quality for the price, but it's the "shifted layout" for the connections (at the side, instead of the back, which is very practical) that makes it so appealing. Though it will depend on choice of PC case (with some it may not work well). For the 2TB NVMe, Kingston Renegade is okay, but too pricey for what it is. I'd go with either the Samsung 990 Pro (if with latest firmware), or Samsung 980 Pro, or WD SN850X, or Corsair MP600 Pro XT, whichever the least expensive. These are all excelent and proven NVMEs.

I find those 11 pages from a reputable source (HWbusters) covering all relevant aspects for a PSU test do qualify it as a review, sorry. I know JohnnyGuru is/was considered the go to for PSU reviews, but there are other veterans in the area as well... Understood, I too wouldn't feel all that confident knowing what happened. That said, it was with initial v1.0. The newer 1.1 versions seem fine (JayZTwoCents made a video about it), at least looking at their Reddit. But, as said, I don't have any experience with it. I see people mentioning the Corsair GPU Power Bridge and the Thermal Grizzly WireView GPU as well, may be better alternatives. Again, I have no experience with those.

That looks good. I'm not sure on some of those parts you list, but nothing against - it's for not knowing some of those products. Some things I choose for personal preferences, so take the following with a large pinch of salt... Regarding the PSU: I don't know that specific one, other than from one review, but seems OK (and 10 years warranty!), though potentially noisy in operation. Personally, my current favorite "80+ Gold 1200W" ATX3.0 PSUs are the Bequiet! Pure Power 12M 1200W and the Corsair RM1200X SHIFT, each for different reasons. - The Bequiet Pure Power 12M 1200W is now my "go to" for such systems (like yours) simply because I haven't found anything as good for the price (~£190 MSRP, but you may find it well below that). It's an example that you don't have to pay a fortune to have good quality (you may have noticed so many 1200W PSUs are way over £300,00!). - The Corsair RM1200X SHIFT is not exactly inexpensive (~£220,00) but the "shifted layout" for the connections (which are put out at the side, instead of the back) have sped up that part of the job for me so well, when building a system, that it surprised me. Very practical, also when it comes to add or remove PSU cables later (which is usually a PITA!). Really interesting novel aproach, though its validity will depend on choice of PC Case (with some it may not work well!). Good quality overall, IMO. Regarding the CPU cooler: Similarly, I'm not accustomated with Lian Li AIOs, I confess to stick with "what works". I really like the Arctic Freezer II 360 (RGB or not). Outstanding performance, and excelent pricing. Some may say the tubing is kind of rigid, or that it lacks "bling", but then that's me. LOL I like the simplicity, which makes it also non-fussy to work on. And the overall high quality (and zero issues to this day on every single one I helped with) makes the AC Frezzer II AIOs the ones I always go for. Regarding the storage: I find the storage parts missing from your list, are you going to use an exhisting NVME? if you aren't, then treat yourself with a good 2TB one (or two, if budget allows), that system will appreciate it. You'll notice the raving about the Crucial T700, but you don't need PCIe Gen 5, at all. PCIe Gen 4 exceeds any heavy gaming demands, and is more affordable now too. Samsung 990 Pro (if with latest firmware in place!), Samsung 980 Pro, WD SN850X, Corsair MP600 Pro XT, these are all great NVMEs that are often recommended for the best reasons - high speed, very snappy and great reliabilty. From these mentioned, get the 2TB version you find at the cheapest price. And if you end up looking for a second NVME just to install games, the WD SN770 is an awesome "cheap" option. Yes, it's RAMless (so not the best choice if using as a single NVME) but it's faaaast and ideal for this purpose. EDIT: Forgot this part you asked about... That's a bit of controversial subject, heh? The clip can make anyone nervous because you need to make sure it's really plugged all the way in. And yet, you'll find yourself every month carefully making sure it's still like that. Maybe someone here using an RTX4090 can help you better.... From personal experience, I find that if you mount the GPU vertically (with a vertical mount), the issue seems less of a concern (no issues with GPU cables against the side panel/window). But then that may not be a choice/preference (which is understandable). I haven't tried any yet, but there is very good feedback from people using CableMod angled adapters (v1.1 or newest), available at 180º or 90º (and up or down) angles. It works with the GPU plug-cable from the PSU: https://store.cablemod.com/12vhpwr-angled-adapter/ Here's a video explaining it with some good details:

Well, pre-build systems have their use. They're meant for people who don't know any better and/or don't have the time or patience to learn or do it, or want to rely on maintenance/warranty for it as a whole, passing responsability to others. Therefore they end up paying more, and for things that are never the best balanced, because those systems are usually a conglomerate of parts that get to be the best deal (highest margin) for who's selling it while also providing a service to the customer. It works, otherwise it woudn't be a business... but it'll never be as good as a system built with every single chosen part to work with others as a unit, on purpose, for the individual's specific needs and budget. I prefer the idea of building the very best possible system within a set budget with selected parts, many years doing it for me and friends (and their friends). While it sucks to troubleshoot things (and handle an RMA) by yourself if something goes wrong, it's still worth it in my opinion. But that's me, not everybody likes that. Still, I'd recommend getting your own system from the group up, with parts that you select, specifically, one by one.

In your case, and if you already have 64GB RAM, then I'd just drop a Ryzen 5800X3D (£290, it's a direct swap) and update BIOS of motherboard (if not done already, that is), then get the fastest badest GPU that you can manage to afford. That'd be still a darn good system for years to come.

Bit of a side note but, gotta love the HP Reverb G1 and G2. These have (or rather, had, as they're discontinued) decent audio and microphone built in the VR headset. Can't understand these new ultra expensive headsets not having any of it, even requiring separate lighthouse(s).

FWIW, the 7200 CL34 and 7600 CL38 kits are the most sought speed/latency for newest Intel "K" chips, but there are none with 64GB capacity that I know of. Between 6400 CL32 and 6800 CL34 there is not a big difference (marginal in practice, I'd say) so you can go whichever kit of the two gets to be the cheapest. Just avoid going any less than 6400 CL32 with newest Intel "K" chips - the faster DDR5 will make a more noticeable difference than the "i9 vs i7" ever would.

Hey, no problem. I just wanted to chime in as you mentioned some concerns of "overkill / underkill" (which is a factor), and too often one pays too much for no real benefit. BTW, I edited my previous post, left my opinion on the DDR5 memory too. That'll be a kick arse system.

That looks good (RTX4090 24GB yes, definitely!) but I'll leave my two cents... EDIT: for the DDR5 memory, and for Intel 13th and 14th gen, go instead for a 64GB kit (2x 32GB) of 6400Mhz CL32 or 6800Mhz CL34, it's better and not overly expensive. For example: 6400 CL32: https://www.gskill.com/product/165/377/1677726067/F5-6400J3239G32GX2-RS5K 6800 CL34: https://www.gskill.com/product/165/377/1684291548/F5-6800J3445G32GX2-RS5K (I like GSkill memory kits, but other brands like Corsair should also have it) OK, so about the processor. I sincerely never understood why people go for the i9 instead of the i7.... bragging rights or a "need to have the bestest"? It makes even less sense now with 14th gen, which is a very disapointing refresh of 13th gen (3% gains?!), itself a refresh of 12th gen. The difference between i9 and i7 is imperceptible in gaming/simming (DCS included, I'm sure), both having the same 8 P-Cores - the stronger important ones for gaming. The i9 14900K has 16 E-Cores, the i7 14700K has 12 E-Cores (these are the slower "Economy" ones, which matter very little for gaming). The i9 14900K has a higher boost clock (a meager 100Mhz higher turbo-clock) than the i7 14700K, and a slight higher ammount of L2 (+4MB) and L3 (+3MB) Caches. The thing is, for gaming/simming, you can't really notice the difference in practice, as hard as you may try. More over, the i9 14900K runs so ridiculously hot and power hungry, that it now requires a good 420 AIO to run an intensive all-core workload (reported at ~370W?!?). That's silly. The i7 14700K (and its 14700KF version) performs like an i9 13900K (Intel's best just weeks ago) and for a more affordable price - it just makes a lot more sense, IMO. Honestly, I'd probably even get the previous i7 13700K / KF (if under £350) as it's basically the i7 14700K just with 8 E-Cores (insteaf of 12), pair it with a good mid-range Z790 motherboard (~£250), save a lot of money (and likely heat!) in the process, while not noticing any difference in performance. Even better with "Black Friday promos" soon. Or instead, go the AMD AM5 platform route, with Ryzen 7800X3D processor, mid-range B650E/X670E motherboard, and a 64GB DDR5 6000 CL30 memory kit meant for it.

A talented community member managed to insert the relevant functions (ones that are modeled for key bindings) of each FC3 aircraft, also the free Su-25T, and made it all work interactively (with mouse clicking) in each aircraft's cockpit. The FC3 interactive cockpits mod on the author's page: https://redk0d.gumroad.com/l/fvkodo A couple of videos demonstrating the earlier (older) versions of this mod: There's also a forum thread here about it:

Agreed, VR in DCS 2.8 or 2.9 is not a good experience with any gen2 headset if you're not rocking a RTX3080 or equivalent with a top 6+ core CPU and 32GB+ RAM (and preferentially better, even then it's not all rosy). With that said, and instead of geting in debt by upgrading a PC (or to just quit the idea of VR alone), maybe try DCS 2.56 (check my sig), not the newest DCS versions. Albeit unable to run the newest modules or terrains, with it you're looking at something like 2/3 of the hardware impact when compared (far better performance, especially in VR!). Even more so with older systems, it can be the difference between having a super nice fulfilling experience, or having a very uncomfortable and disapointing one...

Go into your game installation folder (note: not the user saves folder!) By default it is "C:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta" (or DCS World). It may be a different path for you if you changed the installation location, of if using Steam version. Then go into the "BIN" folder. (note: not the "Bin MT" folder!) Once in the "BIN" folder, create a new text file. (if you right mouse-click somewhere in the folder, the option will show) For the sake of practicality, just call this text file "REVERT_TO_2.8OB" (without the commas). Now open this new text file (typically with Notepad) and then type (or copy/paste) the following: DCS_updater.exe update 2.8.8.43704@openbeta Save and close. Now you need to change this text file extension, from "txt" to "bat". Of course, for this you must have the option in Windows to show file extensions. As to say, your new file should then be called "REVERT_TO_2.8OB.bat" With the text command and the file extension changed to .bat, now all you need is to double-click on this new file ("REVERT_TO_2.8OB.bat" ). The process of reverting that 2.9OB installation into the last version of 2.8OB will start. Same as it happens with any DCS update, just in reverse in this case. Lastly, if you wish to experiment with different older versions (OpenBeta or Stable), you got their IDs on the left column of this page: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/

Don't do it, it's not worth it. If it was for work/production tasks, sure, but such gains won't be noticed in DCS or any other sims/games. It will also result in higher temps and power consumption (besides the hefty cost of investment). A newer CPU architecture will make all the difference, not the higher core count or very small bump on clocks. I'm in a somewhat similar situation, though I'm not in a rush (overclocking helps). In any case, with a restricted budget and after considering every option, getting a new CPU + Motherboard and keeping the DDR4 64GB memory looks like the better path. Right now, these seem the best "least expensive" options, with respective estimated prices: Intel i7 14600KF ---------------------- 330€ / $348 / £287 MSI PRO Z790-A WiFi DDR4 ---------- 217€ / $229 / £189 (note: requires updated BIOS for 14th gen) TOTAL => 547€ / $577 / £475 Intel i7 13600KF ---------------------- 305€ / $322/ £265 MSI PRO Z790-A WiFi DDR4 ---------- 217€ / $229 / £189 TOTAL => 522€ / $551 / £453 Intel i7 12700KF ---------------------- 305€ / $322/ £265 MSI PRO Z790-A WiFi DDR4 ---------- 217€ / $229 / £189 TOTAL => 522€ / $551 / £453 Intel i7 12700KF ---------------------- 305€ / $322/ £265 MSI Z690-A PRO DDR4 --------------- 181€ / $191 / £157 TOTAL => 486€ / $513 / £422 AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D -------------------- 305€ / $322/ £265 MSI MAG B550 TOMAHAWK MAX WI-FI ---- 183€ / $193 / £159 (note: works "right out of the box" but should be updated to newest Agesa BIOS anyway) TOTAL => 488€ / $515 / £424 Not sure what CPU cooler you're using but, if you need one for these listed CPU sockets, there's a bunch of great options under £40 - such as the Thermalright Phantom Spirit. Lastly, lookout for "black friday" promotions during this month of November, see how these prices go down (not sure if substantially or not). There are also used (or "open box" as new) items being sold on Ebay at lower prices than those I've indicated.

I had an RTX3060Ti 8GB for sometime last year, of which all the in-depth reviews show overall performance being the same as with the RTX4060Ti. Mine was used on 4K extensively and worked "okay" with most games, but not with DCS. The bigger differences on the newer RTX4060Ti (when compared to the RTX3060Ti) are the lower power consumption, the obvious bigger VRAM ammount but with half the Memory Bus (128 bit only) and much lower memory bandwidth. So, the problem with the 4060Ti is not the VRAM (of which 16GB is plenty), it's the limited capabilities of the model itself at higher resolutions with demanding games, and the limited mem Bus and bandwidth. An RTX4060Ti can run DCS@4K but it will be choking and hitting a wall in various fronts way too often (GPU usage at 95%~100%, the huge textures of DCS on that Mem Bus, etc). Yes, there's DLSS now in DCS but that isn't its saving grace. At the end of they day, it's a good 1440P GPU but not really meant for 4K, certainly not for DCS. I know many frown upon the thought of a used GPU, but you'd be much better with a used RTX3080 10GB or 12GB, because it's a much stronger chip, capable at 4K. There's plenty on EBAY now around 380,00 €UR / $400,00 USD / £330,00 GBP, some even negotiable, from top level sellers. And if it has to be brand new, then, IMO, either RTX4070 12GB (if Nvidia) or RX7800XT 16GB (if AMD) is what I'd consider the minimum for DCS at 4K resolution (2D, not VR). Anything less capable than these, and you'll be spending on a GPU that 1) will force you on potato-mode graphics and 2) make you want to replace it sooner than desireable.

Hi there, you're in the wrong section of the forums, the correct one for FC3 aircraft modules is: https://forum.dcs.world/forum/102-dcs-flaming-cliffs-3/ Now, as for the F-15C training missions, those don't exhist in the module itself but community members have done them (a mod that you install). It's pretty much a "must have" for a new user with the F-15C module: N22YF's F-15C Training Missions: On a side note, you may also realize the same happens with the A-10A - it also does not come with training missions, but community members built them, again a mod that you install. In this case (may also interest), it's a "must have" for a new user with the A-10A module: CFrag's A-10A Flight School (Training Missions): You'll also notice that the Flamming Cliffs 3 aircraft don't have "clickable cockpits" (no interactive cockpit with mouse) but a community member made that also work for them. If it interests you, have a look: My advice for any newcomer is to take your time, don't rush it. Go through the training lessons if you can, as they're absolutely worth it to be accustomated and understand the aircraft capabilities, also its limitations. Once you feel you can perform, and the Quick Missions become too easy/basic, it's time to tackle the more advanced missions and campaigns (part of the content of FC3), or others made by the community that you can download (available here). Or join others in multiplayer servers.

Yep, exactly the same here, with Reverb G1 Pro. MSAA (x2 or x4), PD 1.0 in game, and 100% upto 150% resolution on HMD (be it with SteamVR or OpenXR, +Motion Smoothing locked) still provides best picture quality and performance balance for me, by a country mile. And your last sentence there says it all. DLSS is pointless here.

AFAIK, multi gpu (SLI / Crossfire) stopped working when version 2.7 got out in 2021, was it not? (last version where that was working was 2.56, I think) DLSS is now available in latest OB 2.9, but it seems FSR will soon be also supported, so AMD GPU users may have a similar trick to mess with for better performance.

Thoroughly tested 2.9 in VR, with a plethora of different settings and combinations (DLAA, TAA, DLSS Quality + Sharpening, etc) and I'm far from impressed, quite the opposite. 2.9 works mighty fine on a 2D screen @4K resolution indeed (can testify) but not in VR, in my opinion. In VR, it still can't hold a candle to the older DCS 2.56, modded and equipped with a "shaders mix" (based on Kegetys + Mustang) for VR, which still does both performance and image quality shockingly better. It's still the utterly foggy atmostphere image (haze) in 2.9, still far too heavy even with MSAA x2 (forget MSAA x4, which I do use in 2.56 no problems) and DLAA or TAA is a blurry mess, big ghosting trails on aircraft and etc. Trying DLSS is like brushing a layer of vaseline in the lenses (though that was expected, it's not intended for VR but for monitors). Using sharpness does disguise some of the blurriness but then its effect makes the image look like a cartoon (very poor image quality on VR). Total immersion breaking. And while the stuttering of MT in VR has been largely improved, it's still present. Quite the disapointment to be honest. I just wish you guys could see it like I do, and take your own conclusions, like I just did. It's a world of difference in VR. It's back to DCS 2.56 with absolutely no regrets (like a dream in comparison), while awaiting for DCS 3.0 (w/Vulkan + further updates/fixes) and now not even sure on that one...

That's excelent, go for it. As for recommendations of PC case and PSU... For the PSU, and for that build, I'd get a ~1200W top rated model from renowned manufacturer, ATX 3.0 compliant and PCIe 5.0 ready, and "80+Gold" (higher standard like "80+Platinum" is even better but quite more expensive - law of diminishing returns apply). There's plenty to chose. One that I got well impressed with, and it's not stupid expensive, is the Bequiet! Pure Power 12M 1200W (edit: found a review here). As for the PC case, it's more complicated to suggest, because it depends on personal tastes and desires. Some like huge cases, others prefer smaller medium sized cases. Some like "open bench" style, while others prefer "enclosed boxes" even with sound proof material. Some like ultra basic, while others like more gimmicky. Some may like fancy lighting fully-glass cases, and others like mesh based cases. I'm on this latter group. Messed with lots of them and, for me, best balance is found in the Lian Li LANCOOL III. Good build quality, layout and features, huge airflow, nice looking, and a reasonable price.