LucShep

There, you made my point. "me me me me" The planet has a billions of people, and it had too then (I'm sure you noticed). Remember the popular "Arcade Rooms"? (you know, spaces filled with those gaming machine things, where you had to insert a coin to play the game?) Those were quite a thing for a long time, in the 80s and early 90s. PCs and consoles gradualy became big, also because they'd later present a kind of alternative to that too, right there at home for oneself, or in places where one could game with, or against, other people (the LAN parties/events). A multimedia system, one you could game on, was not a thing reserved for geeks only - those were the hardcore enthusiasts, not the majority of market by then already.

Well, that's for you, because you didn't care. It's like saying there was no TV before cable got to the mainstream, or there was no music before Spotify (or Napster/P2P file sharing! LOL) You have no idea what you missed (because you did miss a great time), and that's it. Millions of people were using computers in the 90s, gaming pretty heavily on it, and joining LAN parties/events (by the hundreds each) in their area every month by then.

1989/1990 was not the most graceful period for hardware prices, but you did have a broad second-hand market (I got a 386 system in 1991 for roughly 300$!). That was a severely inflated price for a 386 system. For that price it must have been a complete system that also included a VGA 256-color monitor, and printer, I suspect? Remember, computers at that time included everything - monitor, keyboard, mouse, etc. Often with printers thrown in the mix because "ah yes you need this too" - and people paid more than necessary. Try adding a high-end OLED monitor, keyboard and mouse and other peripherals, and the latest HP or Epson printer/scanner to your current system (which, looking at those listed specs, I seriously doubt was 2.000$ only, unless if some of those were used parts). See then how much it goes for. In late 1980s perhaps, but not in late 1990s to early 2000s. You actually had as much, if not more, competicion in hardware market, compared to today. You had four players in the GPU market alone - 3DFX, Matrox, Nvidia and ATI. At one point you had the 3DFX Voodoo3, the Matrox G400, the Riva TNT2 Ultra, and the ATI Rage 128. All trading blows in different aspects, with big benefits in pricing. It was never as bad as has been in recent years for GPUs . Intel dominated the CPU market with the Pentium I, II and III products but AMD had the K7 and K75 Athlons in 1999. Again, all trading blows for whatever market segment. Brand new graphics-cards and processors galore, same for motherboards, for the different segments of the market with varied range prices. Also, you usually didn't need fancy or exhotic aftermarket coolers, cases with loads of fans, or even ubber PSUs at that point, like you do need now for gaming. That only exhisted for the hardcore enthusiast or overclocker, not for gaming/sims. Obsolescence was severely quick, yes, but upgrade paths would been seen, a bit like today. Your average gaming PC build would play any new games released on the market for well over 18 months. The only real exception I recall was Falcon 4.0 - that was really harsh on hardware for years, like "Crysis" in its day (or maybe like DCS sometimes has been!). Also, there was a thing called "launch price", which was the highest you would see (inflated for early adopters onto the latest trend, of course). Prices on everything hardware would gradually decrease in following months. That was the norm, exactly because the competition and progress was fierce, and how the market persisted, which benefited all. For example, you could buy a brand new Pentium II and an Nvidia RIVA TNT2 Ultra for about a 2/3 of the launch price, just four months after their launch on the market, like I did. Same thing for motherboards, memory, or even CRT monitors. That was a benefit we don't have today, nearly a quarter of century later. How much is still that Intel i9 13900K or Nvidia RTX4090 launched a year ago? hmmm, right. Intel in the 2010s is actually proof of stagnation in hardware, for processors in this case. Because there simply was no competicion, progress was minimal - that's why those 22nm, 32nm and 14nm(+++...) Intel processors lasted for so long. That's really what a "dark age" in hardware is (and was). Something that has started to happen in the GPU market as well (with Nvidia domination). That said, I'm not sure how that system of yours would run DCS while "STILL playing everything at Max settings".... maybe at 30FPS? I had Intel Xeon W3690 OC@4.5Ghz, 24GB DDR3 1600 RAM, GTX1070 8GB, that's not a slow system in 2018, when DCS 2.5 got out. At times I could see it struggling, at 1080P. Max settings were definitely not usable.

This is a tough one. Anyone running DCS in VR with a well tuned system for it can testify, there's nothing more immersive. The problem is getting it to run right, and unfortunately that's too common in DCS. I had a 4K 55'' curved screen (Samsung NU8500) with head-tracking, and that's the most immersive DCS experience I had.... with a 2D screen. It's no VR, not even close. 2D screen lacks (stereoscopic) depth and, no matter how good or big the screen is, it makes one feel detached in comparison (to VR). Yes, it provides a bigger level of detail, clarity and precision on things like textures, or objects at far distance, and the performance impact (being less) makes it easier to push higher quality graphics settings. It's simpler to tune, and a lot more practical to handle, even to start the game (+headtracking). But then it lacks all the amazing things that make VR so good. VR is one of those "it just makes sense" things and unbeatable for immersion, if all stars align for it. You're there. In the cockpit. Things like VFR, formation flying, landing, air refueling, even BFM, are easier and far more pleasurable in VR - it has to be experienced to understand how good it is. Size and distances, all the proportions are right, the perception and depth of everything, it just clicks naturally. Nothing comes close. I suspect not even those big "pro" domes. But sometimes the stars don't align - performance issues (much more demanding on harware), endless fidling with settings (for the right performance/quality balance), and it does require adaptation (motion sickness, eye straining, impression of looking through a scuba diving mask, etc)... So it isn't 100% right for everyone. One solution lacks what the other one has, and none is perfect. If you feel happier with DCS on your 2D monitor (or TV) with head-tracking, than with VR, that's fine (I fly both too). For some VR doesn't "click", or maybe it wasn't setup right. What I'd say to anyone who never tried it is, be happy with what you have, don't try DCS in VR with a well tuned system, because if you do.... you may go down a rabbit hole, like the old adage: "Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.”

Just wanted to show some appreciation and give my thanks to the Ugra Media team (and all those involved with the production/updates of this map). This last update for the Syria map has seen some remarkable improvements also in performance - what used to be the biggest drawback of this map. Soooo much better now!

Yep While readjusting the vfstextures I discovered that, afterall, there are more concerning issues. I suspect the culprit(s) is the Clipmaps and/or the terrain.cfg.lua, and both of those are non editable (encripted). Resuming..... "no go". Therefore, I'm suspending the textures mod I was experimenting with, as it only works from certain altitudes. (no difference once you get nearer to the ground.... it's still the overly saturated red/orange festival!) @Minsky I'd say to go ahead and release the edited ShadingOptions lua files that you modded, as at the moment it'll probably be as good as it can get.

Please keep the advice and opinions coming, this thread may help others looking for this kind of information. I did notice that even today the HP Reverb G1 is well recommended for PCVR (especially for sims) in other forums, Reddit, etc. It's said to be not "user friendly" for beginners but is an excelent bang for the buck (second-hand market). Some very good opinions, but also some concerning ones (fragile cable and problematic cable clip, heat issues, etc). Anyway, as there's nothing else as good for the same reasonable price (in the E.U.), I've bit the bullet and bought a Reverb G1 for 260€ on Ebay (30 days return if any problems). Supposedly in very good condition, has been tested and is complete, with original box, manual and everything. We'll see how it goes.

It is actually really cheap now, believe me. All DDR5 RAM below 7000Mhz is now at about half the price it was one year ago.

I linked expensive RAM? heh?? Where are you checking prices? Here's an even funnier thought then: 32GB of DDR5 8000 C38 is usually more expensive (~260$) than 64GB of DDR5 6400 C32 (~220$). Yes, your read it right. That's over double the price, and there's ZERO perceptible difference with DCS and other sims. ...but hey, it's your money, your call.

1 . If it's defaulting to 4800Mhz then it's definitely holding back a bit of performance, that's for sure. Is it 4 sticks or 2 sticks of RAM? Is it an Intel XMP kit or an AMD EXPO kit ? What happens when you you load XMP in the BIOS and save/reboot? Has the BIOS been updated for latest version? Try this anyway: 2. Fuggedaboutit. While DDR5 8000 is excelent, it's not worth paying for at the moment (pretty €xp€n$iv€!!), not for DCS or any others sims (no perceptible difference). DDR5 6000 is great performance and, if the issues you mention get solved, you''re good to go. If not, if the problem persists and you end up hunting another RAM kit, I'd suggest taking a look at a 64GB (2x32GB) or 96GB (2x48GB) 6400 CL32 kit from Gskill. Some months back, any of the following kits presented the best performance/price balance for Intel 12th and 13th gen: 64GB (2x32GB) 6400 CL32 https://www.gskill.com/product/165/377/1677726067/F5-6400J3239G32GX2-RS5K https://www.gskill.com/product/165/374/1665644504/F5-6400J3239G32GX2-TZ5RK https://www.gskill.com/product/165/374/1665644571/F5-6400J3239G32GX2-TZ5RS 96GB (2x48GB) 6400 CL32 https://www.gskill.com/product/165/377/1684287813/F5-6400J3239F48GX2-RS5K https://www.gskill.com/product/165/374/1681113538/F5-6400J3239F48GX2-TZ5RK https://www.gskill.com/product/165/374/1681113476/F5-6400J3239F48GX2-TZ5RS The 64GB kits may be found at prices starting from 210$, and the 96GB kits at around 360$.

Thanks for the advice, please keep it coming guys. Got to say, I'm a little surprised noone recommending the used Reverb G2 v1/v2.... are they really that prone to issues?

I'll start by saying that my use case for VR will be flight-sims (DCS primarily, but not only), maybe some ocasional sim-racing. Nothing more. This will be more like a "let's see if I can get into it" purchase and, therefore, investing above a certain budget is completely out of question (400€ maximum). I'm well aware, through a close friend (has Oculus Rift-S, which I already tested DCS with), that the tweaking is a constant, in pursuit of a performance/quality holy grail. I'm not scared of that at all (no problem, I'm used to it) but I don't want to get into something that, in the end, just doesn't work okay (performance wise, bugs/issues wise, or comfort wise), and then all this was for nothing. My PC specs are bellow on my sig. I currently run DCS at 4K resolution (on 43'' inch screen, with head-tracking) at fairly high settings. I got it well tweaked, satisfied at the moment (but now wanna dive into VR!!). Now, took some reading, here and out there, watched videos (etc), it seems that I've got four choices for the VR Headset: Pico 4 (brand new) - 400€ Quest 2 (brand new... or used with extras?) - 350€ Reverb G1 (used, no warranty) - there is none below 250€ Reverb G2 (used, no warranty) - over 350€ for G2 v1, over 500€ for G2 v2. ......any other equivalent VR headset recommendation(s) for 400€ maximum that I don't know about? NOTE: I'm in the E.U. (1€ = 1.10$USD = 0.85£) where the price on these things gets inflated like a balloon. I know this will be remarkably different for those in other countries/continents. I read that the Reverb G1 and G2 are the only ones on my list with a DisplayPort cable (PCVR dedicated), so no compression (better clarity) and a bit less stress in the system as there's no processing part of encoding and decoding. I know as well about the very tiny sweet spot and restricted FOV, though the image does seem the most praised of all I listed? (Reverb G2) The problem with the HP Reverb (G1 or G2) is that I can't buy them new, and even the 2nd hand prices are too high for a two+ year VR headset (be it G1 or G2, or any other for that matter). Plus, I read about a lot of problems with cables on the Reverb G1 and the Reverb G2 v1 as well (seems okay in the G2 v2 model of 2021, it seems?), replacements being zero on the G1, and prohibitive on the G2. Regardless, the Reverb G2 seem the most recommended. ....even if used? That said, might as well buy a brand new out of the box PICO4 or QUEST 2 for that money and, with that, the guarantee that all is fine and well (plus warranty, etc). ...or is it? Then, again... these are "Standalone VR", they don't use Display Port cable, but a USB instead (WiFi is "meh" at my place) and, with that compression story, the image quality is generally worse and performance is a bit impacted, because of all that encoding and decoding processing. I also read that the QUEST2 is utterly uncomfortable, requires extras on top of the initial purchase (Elite strap, etc) and image comparos show some problems with colors. The PICO4 seems the most capable all around for the money (for my budget) but I also read that it's a no-go for the ubber system it requires for a good experience. errrrrr hmmmmm I'd like to request your assistance, read your opinions and experiences with any of these (or with all, if you went through them all already!), or other VR headsets that you can recommend for my budget (400€). Or even if I should go for it at all.... Sorry for the wall of text, and many thanks in advance for any help.

I haven't tried latest OB update in MP yet, but with previous one (2.8.6.41363) yes it seems something is broken. With it, I was getting over 16GB of VRAM (used, not allocated) in PG map with simple quick missions online (that I hosted for a friend), whereas before It'd never go above ~11GB. And on 4YA Caucasus MP servers at some point it maxxed out the 24GB(!) of my RTX3090. If it's memory leak or something else I don't know, but it is unacceptable. For now, and in my recent experience, the quickest solution was: 1) go instead to latest Stable release and avoid the OB version of DCS. 2) install Taz's Optimized Textures (this one is a must have) and also Shadows Reduced Impact. The thing is, it's something that even on Stable release is very far from ideal (problem exhists, just less pronounced), and involves the textures of everything, not just terrain. ED and 3rd parties really need to rethink the textures sizing and formats, for the VRAM budget. It has been completely out of control for too long. Before someone jumps in defending ED, saying that it's not a big deal and that there are Textures settings, let me tell you that it doesn't solve this long standing problem. Decreasing HIGH to LOW settings on Textures, can only partially work on "TERRAIN TEXTURES" (because there are separate Lower resolution textures for the Maps). The problem is on the other "TEXTURES" setting (the one that affects everything which isn't terrain), as it does not work to solve the problem. This one merely adjusts Mip level (basically downscaling information, and a blurry mess in image quality). Be it at "Medium" or "Low", the full texture files will still be loaded into VRAM and, if not enough, will be stored in swap files and RAM. And the problem will still remain. Meaning, the current solution in DCS for the textures does not work, and needs to be rethinked and changed entirely. This is not something new. As said in other threads, ED should take this and this into account, test, re-test, and realize it themselves. It's as urgent as MT and any other performance solution.

I'd usually agree with everyone else, that choosing a GPU should be done depending on the system in which it'll be installed. But, how things have been lately, looking at the prices for GPUs that are "fairly decent for DCS" (and no drastic discounts expected anytime soon), and also knowing that newer GPUs to replace these are more than a year away, I'd say instead to buy the best/fastest (and with the most VRAM) GPU that you can get for your budget regardless. Be it brand new, or even 2nd hand (if you have no problem with that). IMO it's not good if budgeting and buying "just enough" if, within a year of DCS updates, it later becomes a bit slow again, then feeling pressed to repeat the upgrade...

Why are those with "no authentic cockpits and systems" not a sim. Or if lacking head-tracking? Makes no sense to compare/criticize what it doesn't have, because it couldn't have. There was no head-tracking in 1998. It's not in the context, be it of the concept or the production period. That is your perception only, knowing what came after, decades later. Imagine if a realistic "sense-of-suffering" plug-in for flight sims gets invented in the future (please don't!).... "DCS back then had fake effects for G-effects and blackouts, doesn't even cross the line into being a sim." Now, isn't DCS a sim? (it certainly is) ......and wouldn't it still be a sim in such future then? (yes, it would) Titles like EF2000, for example. Incredible sim and rendition of such a recent aircraft (impossible today) and its missions (dynamic campaigns as well), featuring detailed terrain of the Baltic region with naturally irregular topography, and clouds. You could look around the lovely cockpit (with working MFDs) at this point. It even supported early VR tech. Jane's AH-64D Longbow had a great flight model for a helicopter sim (again, for its time). The weapons had realistic operational ranges and limits, and had relevant aspects of the electronics systems in it. That thing was friggin bonkers! Falcon 4.0 was revolutionary. The graphics, the sound, the whole mechanics and dynamic missions/campaigns, the crazy realism and complexity. The manual book was thicker than law-school literature. It was no joke, still isn't. LOMAC didn't have 6-DoF (I recalll it would only appear later), but using 3-DoF head tracking with it was absolutely impressive. It pretty much became the reference. Those things had to be experienced in their day. Every major release was felt like "this is as real as it gets!" Don't get me wrong, I've been (and am) completely enamored with DCS, all the way since BS1 and WH. But since these two it's been a slow burn (a nice one, nonetheless!).

True, but was still a great sim for that time. Look at what came just two years later, in 1991..... And two years later, in 1993.... And other two years later, in 1995.... And another two years later, in 1997... And also in 1997................ the familiarity is undeniable And a year after, in 1998..... And, of course, couldn't be without this one, launched in 2003 The progress and variety in that decade is admirable, you must admit. And there are so many more flight sim titles (and more vids) that one could fill here. The whole 1990s to early 2000s were such a good time for sims, so much nostalgia looking at those.

Nope, I was playing it on a used 386 PC (or was it 486? ...can't recall) bought second hand for $300 or so at the time (1991, I think?). Remember, the fast pace of computers progress also meant that there were stores buying older computers, and re-selling complete machines second hand (receipt, warranty and all) at a fraction of their cost when bought new at their launch. People were constantly upgrading, so a pretty nice recycle of PCs happened all around. Those stores pretty much stop exhisting in the late 1990s, at least in my area. Also "the last years hardware" was much, much cheaper to buy than today (that was the price of constant progress! hehe) and that would do just fine for quite sometime still, regardless of the constant leaps that were, indeed, a lot more pronounced then. Albeit becoming older PCs much sooner than nowadays, a lot could still do the purposes for sim/games, such as those from Microprose, all relevant in the period (Strike Eagle II was launched for DOS in 1989, two years before I first ran it). Having experienced all things PC for more than three decades, I think we had that part a bit better those days (okay, we now have EBAY and etc, but not same thing) and also a lot worse in others (such as fast obsolescence).

I tend to look at these "the gold age has passed" (get off my lawn!!) and "no no no no it's toodaaay!!!" (pffff... boomer!!) type of threads, and can see both sides. Both are right, in their own way. On one hand, we now have the most detailed, most beautiful and immersive flight sims ever, and controllers for them as well. But the whole complexity and related cost.... When I got on the PC (after a youth with the Spectrum 48K and 128K), I remember craving for more "serious, realistic stuff", and it was racing and flight sims that'd fill my joy. I remember many hours with the old StrikeEagle II & III, Falcon 3, all the Jane's stuff, Warbirds online, and the original IL-2 Sturmovik (among so many others), back in the day. Some were more demanding than others, and there were a lot more great titles than those, but we didn't have to pay an arm and a leg just to get the propper hardware for them, which is the norm these days. Ah yes, and a fun fact.... LOMAC ran utterly bad, by far the worst of the bunch!! schh The evolution these days of both hardware and gaming-software does not even compare to what we had then. It was like "OMG THOSE GRAPHICS!!" or "OMG YOU CAN DO THAT NOW??" every single year with every new launch. That, and the early modding scene - that was so revolutionary for PC games, when the internet finally became universal. Of course, all that crossed also with the "oh noes... now I need to upgrade, again!" LOL And still... the cost. Do the inflation conversion math as much as you want on harware prices, but there is no way you can convince yourself that a decently good CPU, MOBO, RAM, GPU and PSU had the prices then that we pay today. Your average gaming PC (of the "normal" kind, not ubber enthusiast stuff that also exhisted) would run anything and everything, and was far more affordable then. Remember, we could adjust up or down the screen resolution and refresh (good old CRT monitors made it better in that aspect). Complete obsolescence in just 18 months? For sure, that was the not so good part of hardware, but that also created a much bigger sense of evolution and "leaps ahead" in what was being done with games and hardware. It was like everything was moving so fast. I recall looking at the original Saitek X36F stick and X35T throttle, as well as the good old CH stuff (the first propper HOTAS I can recall as available for PC) and we telling ourselves "I want one but, oh dear, these are a bit expensive now, aren't they?" (at $100+, the later much revered MS Sidewinder FFB 1 & 2 was a little more expensive). Yet, such combos were great for the period and we didn't feel we needed $800+ HOTAS to be happy, like we do these days. I totally get why so many feel like the whole 90's to early 00's were considered the "Golden Age" of flight sims. It's because the novelty and discovery (and creativity?) feelings with sims and related tech were far, far more intense in that constant roller coaster of releases. Don't get me wrong, it's not like things are not progressing and evolving (they are), but we no longer have those "constant leaps ahead". It's not even close. I like what we have now here with DCS, but it's impossible to forget how good we also had it back then, no matter how archaic it all seems now. To us in the veteran side, or to them in the youngster side.

You, me and so many others (I'd say a significant part of those flying single player?). Let me introduce you to something that, although very far from perfect, can and will assist in making your own missions a lot, lot faster: DCS BRIEFING ROOM official website: https://akaagar.github.io/briefing-room-for-dcs/ ED Forum thread:

The thing is, the F-86F Sabre sees fairly decent numbers on CW servers, and is far more popular than the MiG-15Bis there. People manage to use the Sabre's ancient AIM-9Bs to good effect - it presents itself as the better "underdog" alternative choice (between those two) in such scenario. The MiG-17 with K13 missiles would be really interesting and a lot of fun also there. The MiG-19P hasn't seen popularity in DCS not because the real aircraft itself isn't interesting or capable in a CW setting/scenario. It has to do with the noticeably lower quality of that module, compared to the few other (and better made) "red" CW aircraft modules that you have in DCS. Yeeaah! That can't come soon enough. I'm sure there are many users who have been patiently waiting through the years, for such an aircraft line-up to exhist in DCS. I don't hate the modern stuff and setting but, in my experience, DCS is far more interesting (and feasable to produce content) in a CW setting, 20th century Asian, African and Middle-East type of conflict based scenarios.

I left a couple of links in the post you quoted. I'll quote the relevant bits from them: https://urrib2000.narod.ru/EqMiG17-e.html https://www.laahs.com/the-cuban-migs/

Yes, only modified versions of the "F" could use the K-13 (R-3/R-3S) but, even if the odd example, it would still be valid to have K-13 missiles in this DCS module. AFAIK, Cuba never received the MiG-17 (Fresco A), only the MiG-17AS (in 1964), which were multi-role and characterized for being produced "from factory" to also be capable of shooting air-to-air missiles. Were those the post-1975 Angolan MiG-17 (Fresco A) or MiG-17F also flown by Cubans? (Angola was assisted by the USSR, Cuba and East Germany) - https://urrib2000.narod.ru/EqMiG17-e.html - https://www.laahs.com/the-cuban-migs About the R-3(C) and its further updated R-3S version, while they were not simply "re-labeled" AIM-9B, the reverse engineering is blatant and aknowledged. - https://en.missilery.info/missile/r3c

Yes, and it's a fair point. Let me be clear, I'll support whatever decision by the devs, regardless of my opinion in the matter. That said... I think depriving this module of air-to-air missiles is not the best solution. It's of importance for how the module would be used and enjoyed. It's understood that only modified "F" versions would be able to use the K-13 (R-3/R-3S) but surely it happened at some point (conversions or "upgrades"), air-to-air missiles were not restricted to other versions such as the AS or PM. As someone who wants this module to succeed (in its quality, and its subsequent popularity), I feel a bit concerned it might make curious people look at the DCS MiG-17F module like it's "just a hot-rodded MiG-15 with radar gun-sight, same limited A-A functionality" and dismiss it, which is not fair either to the module or its creators. Complete and accurate documentation is certainly a usual requirement for the foundation of any DCS modules systems but, sometimes, some liberties should be allowed (and always are somewhere in the creation of any module, but I digress), to make the aircraft believable enough for what it is supposed and expected to do. Should the early K-13 (R-3 and later R-3S) "Atoll" missile lock and launch systems applied on the MiG-17F, be like an iteration of what's in the F-86 module? (being mostly developed over a reverse engineered AIM-9B) ....or, instead, of what's in the MiG-19P module? I really don't know that far. My guess is the devs are in the know and have already been well into this but, perhaps the best idea is to dig into the K-13 full story, as it may lead to how it all came down to be, how it was initially used in the MiG-17 models (including the "F"?), also in the forces or conflicts where the aircraft was involved? Unfortunately that may lead into a rabbit hole of books and documentation (of which I confess having none atm). Some very quick search examples from the interweb may give some pointers for that: - https://en.missilery.info/missile/r3c - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-13_(missile)

LEDs always OFF in the Logitech software is a requirement, to avoid any issues. Better make sure as well to connect it through a self-powered USB HUB. Do the following for both the stick and throttle: My X-56 throttle has jittering in throtle and rotaries, as usual per Saitek products (also had them in X-52 Pro) but I solved that with Joystick Gremlin, following this tutorial:

These will sell like hotcakes, I bet! I suspect the STECS MINI PLUS (or STANDARD) will probably become one of the standard throttles of recommendation for a nice HOTAS combo. Nicely done, VKB!