LucShep

Sure.... ah yes, on a 7-10 year old hardware system base, sure thing (riiiiiiiight! ) Let's all repeat that too to ourselves, we may start to believe in it too.... And start recommending different, older and far, faaaaaaar cheaper hardware on all these frequent and inumerous threads for hardware updates and new PCs.

Of course, it's easy to say the peasants are fine from the ivory tower...

You missed the point. No one is contesting that VR is more demanding than 2D. Of course it is and always will be. The point is the lack of vision and adjustments from DCS devs, ones that could have been used at anytime (for years now), to improve performance without compromising visual quality on both VR and 2D. All users would benefit, every single one. But, alas.. Following this and this into account, @Taz1004 already took a first step --> the proof is in the pudding

What? ...you know there's kind of an "industry standard" for this, right? Just like there is for audio and other content for games. Noone else is doing 8K and 4K 32-bit textures on everything, much less on normals and speculars. It's no wonder you see 14+ GB of VRAM consumed (and a heap of stuttering), and why you need upwards of an RTX3090 to have "ideal" performance. You have no idea what you're talking about. You'd be surprised to see the ammount of fellow DCS'ers who fly in that one, and vastly prefer it in VR exactly because of the better experience you can get in it for that particular aspect.

No, the problem is also the stubbornness of ED and 3rd party devs, ignoring the alerts of modders who point out faults in decisions taken for what is used in DCS. ....8K and 4K textures, not just in diffuse but also on bump and specular maps(!), and 32-bit when they should be 8-bit(?), or alpha-channels used when none is to be used. (and, really, someone needs to explain us why do missiles need 32-bit 8K and 4K textures (?!?). It's mind boggling!) ....shaders that could be lighter without any real impact on image quality. ...the new cloud system (since 2.7 was out) with the ammount of aliasing problems it has, and its heavy impact on performance (~25% on a mid-range GPU, over previous versions?), when the game engine doesn't really seem ready for it (too much sacrifice). And list goes on. You have the other WW2 sim capable of giving nearly double the performance, and it's graphically just as capable (amazing in VR). Even that other mod on the old late 90s sim that now supports VR, and it's surprising how it can do some things better, never even being made with VR in mind. And please don't tell me those are not as complex, because they too recreate very complex physics, 3D models, audio, shaders, terrains, scripts and missions/campaigns (even dynamic ones). It's also a matter of how you do and what you're doing with the content, and not just the game-engine.

YMMV but, I got to say, having enough system to run any sim/game in VR that I throw at it (w/ Reverb G1 headset), I find DCS 2.8 incredibly finicky to run VR, when it runs fine here in a 4K monitor/TV nearly maxxed out. The "other competitors sims" all run smooth and with no issues in VR, it's not even comparable. Seems to me VR is very neglected in DCS, and it is indeed a PITA to set it up and try to make it run well (to no avail), no matter if using MT or ST. Almost like DCS is just not meant for it (i.e, it works but not that great). In the end, after every combo and trick in the book, my only solution was to revert to an older DCS version (check my sig) and, finally, it works great in VR. Only then I could leave settings and testing alone and run it as expected, without fear of having yet another update borking things up again.

@kksnowbear that's a very good point, and I'd say that a used PC is mostly for someone who is accustomated to fiddling with PC components. Some awesome deals on used parts, but then it's not perfect (otherwise every single person would do it!). I go at it for myself and those close to me, and recommend it but... there's always that con - warranty, unknown "real" condition, etc. If it's someone not used to PC hardware, either get assistance from a known person/friend that is experienced and can be trusted to handle it for you, otherwise you better be sure the seller (the store/provider or person) can assist before and after selling it, to avoid frustration and very possible bitter moments.

Depends on price. Current used (second hand) prices on such components of that list are roughly like this, in a good scenario for individual components (on EBAY): CPU: Ryzen 9 5950X 16 cores, 32 threads ---- 360€ Graphics: ASUS RTX 3090 24GB TUF Gaming ---- 670€ Motherboard: ASUS ROG Strix X570-F Gaming ---- 220€ RAM: Corsair 64GB (2x32GB) DDR4 3600MHz CL18 Vengeance RGB PRO ---- 150€ SSD: Samsung 980 PRO M.2 NVMe SSD 2TB ---- 100€ TOTAL -- EUR 1500.00€ / USD $1578.00 / GBP £1300.00 You need to add some inflation on final price for a full working PC with those components, because it has to also have a good quality ~1000W PSU (100€+), a good spacious ventilated case (100€+), and a good CPU Cooler on it (100€~), and all has to be in very good condition. That, and Win 10/11 OS to be ready to game. That full working rig if somewhat close to EUR 1800.00€ / USD $1900.00 / GBP £1560.00 is a great second-hand PC purchase. Not overkill and definitely not too little - it's in the "goldilocks" zone for DCS - good performance on a 4K monitor (or TV) and eventually for VR as well (with adjusted settings). That said, it's DCS we're talking here with all its shenanigans... don't go in believing that it's guaranteed to be peachy, as hardware doesn't solve everything. Plus, we never know when DCS gets another performance hit in future (got worse in last few years). Meaning, what's great today, may not be so in just a couple of years time.

For DCS at 4K resolution, it really depends on the map and aircraft module... If you're solely using FC3 aircraft modules on Caucasus map only (the lightest content available, least demanding on resources), then an RTX4070 12GB or RTX3080 10/12 GB will manage 4K quite well, at high settings with DCS 2.8. No problem there, all good, even VR is doable. But then if you're using the much higher detail modules (F-14A/B, AH-64D, etc) with any of newer maps (Sinai, Syria, S.A., etc), then the problems can and will start, being far more demanding on resources. Here, at 4K, you'll certainly exhaust the VRAM of those mentioned GPUs (VRAM load/consumption can surpass 14GB quite often), and the performance hit will also require some (re)adjusted settings. DCS is a friggin monster, with many optimization issues (textures are notoriously overkill, well known and documented), and don't even think for a second that the upcoming DLSS (for Nvidia RTX GPUs) and the presumed FSR to be implemented later (for actually all GPUs) will aliviate the VRAM load/consumption issues (it won't), as that is a totally different subject - upscaling atempts to improve performance (framerate, gpu usage, etc) - DCS really requires direct intervention on the textures (size, formats, count, etc). So, as of today, it pays up, in the imediate and longer term as well, to get a stronger GPU than those two mentioned, with 16GB (or better). It's not funny to spend $600+ on a GPU only to find a VRAM hard limit on it (hello st-t-t-tuttering!). Another example, an RTX4070Ti has great performance, but then has "only" 12GB of VRAM...

Congrats, nice one on the CPU! Regarding the RTX3080Ti, they're a bit overpriced compared to an RTX3080 "non Ti" (10 or 12GB) and just 10% difference in performance, which makes the latter a better buy. I'm obviously talking about 2nd hand market (Ebay, etc). Perhaps consider to make the leap to the RTX3090 24GB, it's still well worth it IMO (at about $680 on 2nd hand market). Whichever the case, make sure you have a good PSU for these RTX 3080 / 3090 GPUs (800W+ recommended). Also consider undervolting it if getting one (simple tutorial here) as that basically means ~100W less consumption for same performance.

I'd like to say that Jester is one of the many reasons why the F-14 is (also) my favorite aircraft in DCS. I find the compromise HB found for it is very close to perfect for 99% of the F-14 A/B moments, and users of the module. Yes, there is the odd silly comment by Jester that I'd rather live without, but I solved that for myself by "blanking" the audio files that I prefer not to listen to (though it does require going painfully through all the dozens of audio files, to see which is which...). In that note, I'd like to request a simple thing to HB, so that in future this can be done easily by any user who is looking to "tone down" the ocasional silly nature of Jester. Please make a separate folder inside "Mods\aircraft\F14\Sounds\Jester" purposely placed with all the comical tone and silly remarks of Jester inside it. This way, one can go straight to the point, look for those audio files and more easily move them (all or just some) somewhere else, or replace with blanks (whatever). Then this whole story of the "grown up Jester" can be easily solved for the most part.

Ah sorry, didn't notice. That should be awesome as well.

Beyerdynamic 990 Pro I'd usually recommend the Beyerdynamic DT990Pro or the Sennheiser HD599SE, with a separate mic attached. But then you mention "Wireless with Mic would be ideal", and these would mean two lose cables around you.... So, for your needs, I'd probably recommend the ΗyperX Cloud Alpha Wireless (around 190$) or the Logitech G PRO X Wireless Gaming (around 220$). Both are excelent wireless headphones (with built in mic) for the price, good sound and comfort

Unfortunately neither upgrade in solo will help you a whole lot. Both GPU + CPU upgrade (and respective motherboard, of course) would be recommended, because, if buying just the i7 13700K, as good as it really is, you'll be severely GPU limited (the RTX2070S is now limited for DCS in 1440P resolution). On the other hand, just upgrading the GPU will create a CPU bottleneck by the outdated i5 9600K. If you're limited by a 500$ budget (+/-) and if buying new, then I'd say to wait for Black Friday (end of November) and grab a discount deal on the RTX4070 12GB, for a GPU upgrade. They'll be there for sure. And then also overclock that i5 9600K CPU, to extract more performance from it. You may also consider the used hardware route (2nd hand and left over parts), to upgrade the CPU and/or GPU. Plenty deals to look on EBAY and other online markets. For the CPU upgrade, an Intel i9 9900K (8 cores, 16 threads) is a direct swap/replacement over your i5 9600K on your motherboard. It's an excelent CPU upgrade over yours, and can be had at about 190$, if you look around. For the GPU upgrade, an RTX3080 10GB or 12GB (similar performance to the RTX4070 12GB) is an excelent upgrade I'd recommend in your case. Reputable brand/models can now be had at about 380$, if you look around. Avoid buying any RTX 3000 series GPU below the RTX3080 10GB. Do not buy the RTX3070Ti 8GB unless it's one of those rare deals at ~270$ on the used market (and if a triple-fan model of reputable brand) because, in comparison, it's much, much slower and a bad purchase at this point.

Perhaps this can help, try this mod: DCS_Shaders_-_SIMPLEX_2.8X_v1.0

Yes, that is correct. I'm very sorry if I created expectations but, right now, it's impossible to acomplish. As said on that thread, while readjusting the vfstextures I discovered that, afterall, there are more concerning issues, namely with (I'm 99% sure) the Clipmaps and/or the Terrain.CFG.lua, and both of those are non editable (encripted). What happens is that, with the experimental textures it only works from certain altitudes, no difference once you get nearer to the ground, and it's still the same ugly saturated red/orange tones.... To resume, it would be a lot of trouble to acomplish nothing.

Intel is far more "memory agnostic" when it comes to RAM (if compared to AMD Ryzen), especially from 6th gen up to 11th gen. On these, DDR4 3200 CL16 is still considered excelent, no perceptible difference from DDR4 3200 CL14 - even if with an RTX4090 - certainly not with DCS. As said above, what you'll imediately notice with the bigger capacity RAM (64GB instead of 32GB), doing complex missions and MP in DCS, is that it feels a lot smoother, and most stuttering issues are gone (MT issues with VR aside, those are a different story), even if with no difference in framerate. The bottleneck by the limited (lower) memory capacity is no longer there, as the bits that are expected to be worked by the fast RAM speeds now are always so, and no longer swapped onto the system page file on disk (much slower even if that's on an NVME, and what causes stuttering when things get complicated on RAM capacity limited systems). In this specific case, it's all benefits, and no downsides.

Yep. That and Taz's Optimized Textures (which became essential for DCS) should be incorporated.

Sorry @JesterIsDead only now noticed your post. I don't have an Oculus VR headset, so can't specify best solution for you. I use HP Reverb G1 Pro (WMR headset). I use SteamVR and that's what DCS 2.5.6 opens by default. But one can run it instead with OpenXR (also with OpenXR Tools), if prefered. For that, this mod will do the trick. You can use a mod-manager (such as OvGME) to install it into DCS 2.5.6. Or you can manually install it, by entering that mod's folder structure, copy all files inside its "Bin" folder, then paste them into the folder with same name in DCS 2.5.6 (i.e, where the game executable is) and overwrite files when prompted (better backup original files first).

That path is a good alternative, or an atempt to circumvent an issue with something that should be harshly contested and not accepted by paying customers. If people are expected to buy 2000€ GPUs (RTX4090! lol) and/or upgrade (again!) perfectly capable systems just for an "enjoyable VR experience", then something is definitely wrong with this game/sim. Luckily there are older versions of DCS to revert to. Otherwise, I'd definitely be abandoning and jumping ship, straight onto the next best competitors.

I can run DCS 2.8 at 4K high settings in my 2D screen and, yes, it looks awesome. But can no longer go back to it after using VR. The immersion with VR is simply too good, and there is no replacement for that. I do have a major problem with VR in DCS that I can not make 2.8 MT run smooth, even after lots of tinkering and using every trick in the book, micro-stuttering is always present. Using 2.8 ST the stuttering issues are almost gone, but then it runs so poor that settings have to be drastically decreased, to a point where it looks downright ugly. The problem got even worse after one of the 2.8 OB updates (in last May, I think?), and hasn't improved since. Yes, we all know enjoyable VR in DCS is not cheap (etc, yata yata) but it should never be like this. It just got silly, ridiculous really. My solution was to revert back to an older DCS release (version 2.5.6, in my sig) for VR. It's like a dream if compared. Now VR in DCS looks absolutely stunning and runs really smooth. I can use higher settings, plus custom shaders and mods to it make look and run even better. No dreaded stuttering, performance is great. On top of that, I can even run my Reverb G1 Pro at 150% res., so it's at a point where I find it ideal. Honestly, I don't care about losing the new clouds, or recent and upcoming modules (whatever), if all I invested in can finally be used the way I intended it in the first place. I'll try newest versions again when Vulkan is finally released and VR with MT issues are gone (had enough of this BS) but, until then, I'm well served. I definitely recommend trying that before you decide abandoning VR for DCS.

GTR2 with the Power&Glory mod imediately springs to my mind. Was in the dev team and ran that sweet lovely thing for nearly 8 years straight, but then a variety of things were ocurring in my life and it ran its course. I suppose I could reinstall it (like so many other games) but, it's just one of those things I prefer to leave in memories, like a good read from an old book years back.

DCS may be a bit too "hardcore", daunting and complicated for a begginer with zero experience on the genre. If he's completely new to flight sims, I really think he'd be better starting with something "arcadey" like War Thunder or Project Wingman. Then, when he gets interested on something more advanced (like DCS is) the aproach will be much easier. If he prefers the gamepad, the XBOX based ones are universally the best and easiest to setup for the PC. If he hasn't got one, the PowerA Enhanced Wired is an excelent solution, it's cheap (30 bucks and change) and it's plug-n-play. If he wants to insist on DCS World (and good on him if so) the simpler modules, like the free Su-25T and the FC3 modules, are perfectly doable with a gamepad. Tuuvas got that part covered: That said, I'd definitely recommend a cheap, simple and basic joystick over a gamepad. The Logitech Extreme 3D Pro (30 bucks and change) is awesome for a beginner. And on this one, there are Logitech drivers but you don't really need them for Win10/11, it's plug-n-play.

Yep, the clouds are big graphical resource hog. It's nothing really new, it has been so since their first iteration in version 2.7. I can only suppose the calculations, the diverse textures, their formations and the shadows casted from them, are causing the impact. They can account to as much as 25% GPU usage with my RTX3090, from "Nothing" to "Overcast" (1 to 7), more so if set to anything above "Standard" quality. I always set them at "Low" quality for VR, and also tend to edit the missions (for SP) to change the clouds setting in ME at "High Scattered 1" (then save and exit).

I get both views, of ones that complain about the pricing and of those who complain about the complainers. On one hand, one has to consider the brutal investment on resources, docs and research and workforce, to produce a DCS module. Quality is excelent in most of them, and that has got to cost, no doubt. One thing that I'm trully grateful for is that ED has the trial period, for us to test modules. And, of course, the discount sales periods. Otherwise, I would have never been able to get all the modules that I enjoy and cherish so much. But the point (the other hand) that the OP and a few other of you seem to be missing is, that a large part of the user base does not only use DCS. Or understanding the level of sacrifice people might be making (or not) just to keep up performance, which for quite some years has not improved (doubt me? ...then try a version dated two year plus -prior to 2.7- in VR and tell me I'm wrong. Pllease). I understand there are a small percentage that only uses DCS and there's nothing else in their "gaming life". Good for you if so. I'm sure I'm not alone saying that I also enjoy other flight-sims beyond DCS, and get myself around other genres of PC gaming (racing-sims, mil-sims, RPG, RTS, Action Adventure, etc). Those cost money too, to acquire or to add more content. I had to wait and save for two years to get a GPU that could actually run DCS as it should be. Two friggin years later a second-hand GPU at nearly the price of national mininum wage (and starts to feel that it soon may not be enough). And a better stick and throtle - again second-hand. I tried VR and that was my bane (like a drug, should have never tried it) as there and then I decided I had to get one (a decent one... again second-hand!). I had to add another 32GB to my system, because of DCS and none other sim/game in current exhistence (none that I know of, or own - and got quite a few) requires this much RAM. So yeah. Money doesn't grow on trees, but there's more than one way to skin a cat. I do fine with second-hand stuff, so long as it's good and serves its purposes (and mine). I can live with that. But please don't insult the intelligence of your fellow members with populism rubish like "a much older system with a 1080Ti can run DCS just fine, even in VR" , when the truth is the only way such a system would be running 2.8 in VR is in utter-potato mode, while pretending that there is no st-t-t-t-tuttering. And if so, in all fairness, you'd certainly better be running 2.56 or earlier versions to make that feel right, for yourself as well. Otherwise (in 2nd half of 2023, for 2.8+ versions) you're either ignorant or fooling yourself by keeping standards (even) lower just to keep going with the flow. Yes modules are expensive, rightly or not is another matter. Either way, people have a right to complain about the modules cost, if maintaining the whole thing going (which should be improving dramatically performance wise, and isn't!) every year and/or for the next one is already expensive enough. You don't get it? Well... maybe you should try to put yourself in other people's shoes then.