LucShep

Yes, and you might have noticed that it also reads, and I quote, "it will take some time".....

Ok, so it's a non-K CPU and not a "Z" motherboard (no CPU overclocking, and locked down memory controller voltages). side note: the little i3 12100F may be "budget oriented" and not overclockable, but it carries a big stick... it's faster than the i7 7700K. The B660 motherboards have no limit on the max memory speed you can run, the problem is that you're using a non-K CPU, and the non-K CPUs have locked down memory controller voltages. So, whatever memory you get, don't feel tempted to later mess with the frequency speed (overclocking) of the RAM. Meaning, better stick with the XMP profile (it's specific for the installed memory kit), and do not mix the new memory with other memory sticks. The sweet spot for DDR4 memory speed on a B660 motherboard is 3600-4000. So, for that choice of 64GB memory kits you mentioned, it means you'll end up between DDR4-3600 CL18-22-22-42 versus DDR4-4000 CL18-22-22-42.... in this case, with the latter kit you get more speed (~11%) while keeping the very same latency, which is overall better. And for a 40$ USD price difference it makes it tempting (IMO). Both will be good and it's up to you, but I'd go with the better kit (F4-4000C18D-64GVK).

If I understand correctly, you seem to be using an Intel "K" processor (what CPU/Motherboard is it?). F4-3600C18D-64GVK and F43200C16D64GVK are very much alike, performance wise, with an Intel "K" processor. No real difference in gaming (including DCS). That 4000Mhz CL18 variant, is it F4-4000C18D-64GVK ?? 64GB 4000Mhz CL18 DDR4 kit for Intel "K" is certainly better than the other two kits you mention and, at 182$00 USD, definitely worth it (really good price!). I say go for it!

If you're choosing a RAM kit of DDR4, definitely go for 64GB total capacity. What are your PC specs? The choices for specs of the DDR4 RAM kit, such as speed and latency, will depend on the CPU, if it's Intel (and if it's a "K" model or not) or if it's AMD Ryzen (socket AM4). Intel "K" processors architecture design for DDR4 are more forgiving in regards to the latency aspect. The DDR4 kits of 64GB (2x 32GB) "mid-range priced" 3200 CL16 (16-18-18-36) or 3600 CL16 (16-18-18-38 or 16-19-19-39), more so if dual-rank design, are still the best value choice, as they've got good performance and are far less expensive than the "B-die" lower latency kits, and you won't feel much difference, if any at all. For example. For AMD AM4 Ryzen, and especially for Ryzen 3000 and Ryzen 5000, the DDR4 speed and latency balance is very important due to architecture design, and here you'll want to spend the extra for the lower latency "B-die" DDR4 kits aimed at AM4, such as 64GB (4x 16GB) 3600 CL14 (14-14-14-34) or 3600 CL16 (16-16-16-36). For example.

https://www.rshtech.com/collections/powered-usb-hubs-3 ....select "Language/Currency" and on "Plug Type" select according to your preference (i.e, US / UK / EU). All these models are also available on Amazon (US, UK, DE, FR, ES, IT, NL, etc).

This has been a long running problem for years now (started since 2.5 got out, and got worse with every new iteration), has been discussed, even documented. For example, here and here. Never fixed, it's a real problem caused by bad management in regards to textures in use, with unnecessarily heavy formats and/or resolution. Here's a possible solution, which ED and 3rd parties need to consider adopting in all of DCS content, ASAP: Fellow member @Taz1004 has put to practice what he and others (myself included) have been saying for years. His "DCS Optimized Textures" mod already brings considerable benefits (lower VRAM consumption, better performance)... with zero impact in image quality! Right now, this mod is definitely a "must have", and how it should have been from the start. But, unfortunately, it does not pass "Pure Texture" IC check in MP.

Download link works fine for me too (many thanks Taz!).

Just wondering... any plans to optimize textures (both external and cockpit) of the new F-15E module?

Now the counters for guns, flare and chaff are finally working. New version uploaded (see first post in this thread).

Yep, you're good. The 12+4 pin ATX 12VHPWR connector is rated for up to 600W of power draw. The adapter cable from 3x PCIe 8-pin is rated for up to 450W of power draw. Each PCIe 8-pin connector is rated for up to 150W of power draw. The motherboard's PCIe slot (where you plug the GPU) is rated for up to 75W of power draw. Your RTX4080 at stock speeds/clocks will not surpass 375W consumption, even when ran at its maximum performance (and that's including spikes). If later on you decide to go hardcore and overclock it, push it to its limits, then yes it'll pull a LOT more Watts but, even then, it won't surpass 450W (that's including spikes) because of that GPU's board max power limit. Which means that whichever way you're ok. Relax and enjoy it.

If DCS and VR are a serious part of your free time, consider GPUs with at least 16GB of VRAM, with preference for Nvidia models. The RTX4080 16GB is almost the perfect option, the problem is the crazy high prices - maybe why so many still end up deciding between a used RTX3090 or a new RTX4070Ti. The RTX3090 may be older, eat more watts and run hotter, but it has double the VRAM (24GB vs 12GB) which is GDDR6X (=pretty expensive) and also double the memory bus size (384-bit vs 192-bit) when compared to the RTX4070Ti. I won't even consider the RTX4070 here because it isn't on the same picture. More VRAM is very important for DCS, as it can and will use upwards of 14GB of VRAM with certain maps and modules when combined. For example, F-14A/B launching from carrier and then over Syria, high settings at 4K resolution, VRAM can and will hit 14GB+ at some point (note: not allocated, used!). More memory bus size is also very important for DCS, because it's the rate at which data can be read from or stored, like a maximum theoretical bandwidth (like more lanes dedicated for traffic, the greater the flow). It's important especially at higher resolutions and with bigger data in use (such as the many enormous textures of DCS!). So, those are very important aspects for higher resolutions (4K and VR) and makes the RTX3090 the stronger product of the two for DCS, also for longer term, even if it only supports up to DLSS 2.x (RTX4070Ti supports newest DLSS 3.x). As said on some other thread, DCS doesn't support DLSS. When and if it does (it's unknown what version will be supported), it's not like version 2.x isn't good enough... so the DLSS part here is a moot point. Both RTX3090 and RTX4070Ti are absolutely horrible value if brand new from the store. But you can get an RTX3090 used (2nd hand) in mint condition these days for less than half of the (outrageous) prices that they try to sell them new. None of that is happening with used RTX4070Ti. All of which makes the RTX3090 far more appealing, and a better investment IMO. Even if it's an older model launched well over two years ago, and even if it's one bought as 2nd hand product. One thing that should be added is that the RTX3090 requires at least a quality 850W+ PSU, whereas you might get away with just 700W+ if with a RTX4070Ti. That said, the RTX3090 really appreciates undervolting, which is easy and a "must do" for anyone using one (see forum thread here).

Beware the long-winded post... Image quality and size (bigger resolution and size = more real estate) is important, as you'll soon find out. You need to know first how firm is the stand in your sim-rig, and how much weight it can securely withstand. I presume there won't be any problems but, make sure it's up for the task of keeping the big screen secure. A 43'' monitor or TV is (+/-) around 9kg (19,8 lbs) in weight. A 48'' to 50'' monitor or TV is (+/-) around 17kg (37,4 lbs) in weight. Then, and as for size, it'll depend on the distance between the screen and yourself, and what you feel comfortable and most satisfied with. For a single screen sim-rig, the 48'' or 50'' size screen is very popular these days. My personal experience, I used a bigger 55'' curved screen (Samsung NU8500) at about 1.1m (3.6 ft) distance from my face and, while I was constantly in awe of it (was absolutely fantastic), I could never adapt to the size, just way too big for me. One year after using it, I sold it and went for a 43'' flat screen at about 72cm (2.36 ft) distance from my face, and I'm happy. I'd strongly recommend going no less than 43'', and to also consider the 48'' or 50'' screen size. There are very good 43'' monitors (such as the LG Aorus FV43U) but I absolutely recommend 4K TVs for sim-rigs, it can't just be any model. Still, and digging into the subject of 4K TV's and their specs for PC gaming, you'll find that some aspects are "horses for courses", it can be personal. Take the screen refresh-rate, for instances. Anything that is fluid (like DCS and other flight sims), and not the absurdly frantic pace of esport games, you don't need high refresh gaming monitors at all. Personally, I've tested heaps of ubber gaming monitors (and TVs) and I still find that 60Hz is perfect for DCS. But I can also understand some people wanting a high refresh panel (120Hz or higher), perhaps because that's what they got used to. Next the panel type. I'll tell you right away that, once you see an OLED panel in its full glory, it's hard to forget the perfect image and motion quality (LG C2 OLED and every other of its 42'' and 48'' monitor and TV derivatives out there). The problem is the known permanent burn-in issues with constant static images in the mid-to-long term, which do occur even if babying it (it's real and still an issue with newest models, a royal PITA). Unfortunately, and at such high prices, that's the deal breaker for most people. Until that's fully corrected, it's why the tech will never become truly mainstream, remaining a niche product. Be aware and investigate these issues before investing in an OLED screen, or you may regret it later. I'll recommend instead the next best alternatives, the Samsung QN90B and Samsung QN90C, either 43'' or 50'' screen size. These are 4K QLED, 144Hz VA panels, and VRR if with HDMI 2.1 cable, both AMD FreeSync and Nvidia G-Sync supported. They look and work fantastic, also with a gaming PC. These are probably the best 4K TVs also for a high-end sim-rig because there's pratically nothing missing to OLED (even if directly compared) and with none of its drawbacks (no burn-in issues with static images). Beautiful image and motion, and no issues whatsoever. Of course, these are flagship models and they also come at a price, but worth it if you have the budget. Other great alternatives are perhaps the Sony X85J and Sony X85K at either 43'' or 50'' screen size, which are 4K LED, 120Hz VA panels, and have VRR if with HDMI 2.1 cable (after a quick firmware update in the case of the X85J) with Nvidia G-Sync support, but no AMD FreeSync. They're sold at lower prices and likewise excelent options. Finally, "the tearing issues" concerns and the absense of VRR (Variable Refresh Rate) on the more affordable 4K TVs.... Mine does not have VRR and I don't really miss it, because one can always use Scanline-Sync (tutorial here). This is a not so known method, with which one uses V-Sync OFF with no tearing whatsoever. (note - following the tutorial and for this to work in DCS, "Optimal Performance" and "Fast-Sync" in Nvidia Control Panel should also be set, different to what's indicated there) The only drawback with Scanline-Sync is, you first need to ensure that the FPS in the game are always same or higher than the native refresh rate of the screen (now you know why affordable 4K 60Hz TVs are popular). If that's ensured, then with Scanline-Sync there's no tearing, never, ever. It locks framerate to native refresh-rate, smooth as butter. In that aspect, with Scanline-Sync it's same as with V-Sync ON, but with all the practical benefits of V-Sync OFF (imediate controller inputs, less GPU usage, etc), i.e, perfect.

"I heard a Cessna ask for a readout of its ground speed. ’90 knots’ Center replied. Moments later,a Twin Beech required the same. ‘120 knots,’ Center answered. We weren’t the only ones proud of our ground speed that day…as almost instantly an F-18 smugly transmitted, ‘Ah, Center, Dusty 52 requests ground speed readout.’ There was a slight pause, then the response, ‘620 knots on the ground, Dusty.’ Another silent pause. As I was thinking to myself how ripe a situation this was, I heard a familiar click of a radio transmission coming from my back-seater. It was at that precise moment I realized Walt and I had become a real crew, for we were both thinking in unison. ‘Center, Aspen 20, you got a ground speed readout for us?’ There was a longer than normal pause … ‘Aspen, I show 1,942 knots.’ No further inquiries were heard on that frequency.” RIP Brian Shul

Reflections in canopy glass exhist, but it's the execution and consistency of the effect that becomes important in the sim. These vary from module to module, and sometimes it hurts the immersion more than it helps. My opinion is that, starting with the first DCS 2.7 OB (about two years ago), the introduction of these new reflections was a step back on some modules, but on others it's fine. It's the inconsistency in the execution that makes it quite negative on some modules. I wouldn't say DCS 2.56 was perfect, but I'd say it was better in this aspect of reflections. It wasn't a problem then on any module (that I can recall), and maybe it should have stayed that way.

Thank you @aceviper and @KCOOL. If you mean using the CGTC mod with Taz Optimized Textures mod, then by all means, use them. There's no conflict/problem with CGTC. (I use them too, a "must have" IMO). If you mean adopting similar solutions of those into this mod, well hmmm... not sure how to make it short for you. So, all DCS maps have a few negatives with the format/size of textures too, fortunately not as bad as with the Core and Liveries (much better situation with Maps). The Caucasus textures are all 8Bit DDS, and not the huge and problematic 32bit DDS (which Taz successfully rectified with the mod I mentioned). But, for example, there are still too many DXT5 DDS format textures that could be DXT1 DDS (these are half the file size!), and there's the odd texture that could be smaller too. Which means, yes, some textures that could be 2 to 4 times lighter in file size. The problem is, the way that they're packaged. I don't think anyone has found a way (yet) to change/force a different technique to the texture ZIP packages in Maps (no such problem with aircraft related packages). For certain textures and respective ZIP packages, if you change size and/or format (to DXT1 and/or half size, for example), once repackaged and combined, it breaks the rendering of all related textures (fully black textures instead). If it wasn't for this, yeah, I'd have optimized things better already. I believe it was in the old CGTC thread that I once swapped posts about it with Taz (he was still experimenting with tree related files back then), I'm sure he's aware of the issue. If he ever gets to a practical solution (I haven't), I'm all for it and would certainly adopt the method for CGTC, that's for sure.

@Taz1004thank you for keeping this precious mod updated!

No problem. But the links from the URLs are working fine here. Make sure you're downloading the latest 2.84.1 version (refresh page please), and not the 2.84 version that was up earlier today (that has now been deactivated).

OK, corrected version now available (CGTC 2.84.1). See first post of this thread. - - - If desired, you have two different options for the Caucasus' Shading Options, which slightly alter overall tones: 1. Modified based (CGTC uses this one by default) 2. Original based With the mod installed, go to the main DCS folder and then into "...\Mods\terrains\Caucasus\shadingOptions\CGTC - shading options selection". Use the respective file as of your preference.

Thanks for the feedback. Notice that the "darker tone" aspect was always on purpose since the start of this mod (years ago). Now, the grey film filter thing, that was not intended. I must have had wrong files or maybe settings for shading options. I'll have a look, as I'm also findind that it can be a bit too much at times. EDIT: found the culprits, there are indeed wrong files.. (meant for testing, not release) I'll be uploading a corrected version later today.

CGTC now updated and released - check the first post in this thread for details.

hey regardless, it's still a forum...

You're right that this is a thread about a map/landscape feature in a modding forum, but the grass (as is) that we have in DCS is one of those things that is imediately perceived as a compromise. While he's a bit blunt, it's impossible to disagree with DD_Fenrir. In times when people are buying high-end computers just to keep up with ever increasing DCS demands (GPU, CPU, RAM and SSD file swap, etc), to ask about minor features that will affect performance is a bit ridiculous. And grass, of all things! It's a bit like complaining why aren't there 16K/8K textures for ground terrain and aicraft liveries, when in truth the current 4K/2K textures are already pushing over 12GB of VRAM usage in game (way beyond what any good mid-to-high range GPU can do)... Maybe someone can come up with a modification that does not bork performance but, looking at the grass structure, it looks to me like what we have is the best possible compromise for now.

Soon™

It's been a long time now that I also get the same feeling described here "where does the orange and red tones come from?" I could be wrong, and maybe even a bit ot a sacrilege saying it but, I remember being very impressed and liking the original release of Nevada a whole lot more (DCS 2.0 if memory serves me well?). The more pale colors and tones being far more realistic, IMO. It's something I'd like to try sometime soon for a mod. Some kind of "Nevada restoration", if the term serves here.

Both VKB and Virpil are, of course, very good. Especially with more than one base, grips, extensions and parts to choose from, you're able to get a flight stick to your own desires. Virpil has also the outstanding MongoosT-50CM3 throttle. But, bang for the buck (and unless if hardcore user) for a HOTAS combo, I find it hard to justify anything beyond the WinWing Orion 2 HOTAS and the TM Warthog HOTAS.