LucShep

Trick? ...no trick. Took the relevant .DDS files from VectorDataAsset*season packages of older DCS 2.56. Then photoshop magic to patiently (re)match them to the new CGTC textures.

Yep, that's it. DCS 2.5 used the previous official Caucasus textures (last seen in 2.56) and, although those were generally problematic (colors and brightness wise), not all was bad on them. Particularly the current airport ground textures, seen since DCS 2.7 and in latest 2.8, weren't (IMO) really an improvement over the old ones, unfortunately. So, I brought back those much older airport ground textures from 2.56 and modified them, to fit the new CGTC textures. Maybe pictures speak better than words, I hope this makes sense. List goes and it varies for other airports but, for example, here's Batumi airport: CGTC (WIP) - Spring CGTC (WIP) - Summer CGTC (WIP) - Autumn CGTC (WIP) - Winter Real life (summer?)

That's exactly what's been taking most time, and one of the "bugs" that made me withdraw the mod for now. The pockets of dark green areas mess up what otherwise is nearly perfect, considering the severe limitations with a single main ground texture (repeating ad infinitum, everywhere!). That, and the black "veins and dots" (maybe what you call rivers?) are the immersion breakers. I've been trying to disguise and erase those areas and, while it'll never be perfect, I think I can improve it a lot and maintain the original variety and flow. It's getting there. Not sure this is illustrative enough to show the changes I'm doing (which disguise part of the repetition pattern) but, see below. At the left is the old original, at the right is the modified (WIP):

Alright, it's pretty much concluded. Too many changes to list. From the top of my head... pretty much all textures were redone (again, argh!) with readjusted colors, and better matching. The old 2.5 airport terrain textures are back (much nicer) restored and matched, and hangar covers matching the terrain. Some adjustments in the trees, nicely matching the terrain for each season, and including barks and normals from "Taz Better Trees" (better definition and optimization). And there are all new ShadingOptions (not just gamma values changes) for the Caucasus map, which complement all changes very nicely. Currently testing the "LOW" terrain textures (lower resolution/detail version), always included with the mod and meant for those of you unable to run them at "HIGH". These are not "half sized batch converted", each single one is downsized and sharpened a little, to keep detail (quite the task). Below are two quick screenshots taken while testing the "LOW" terrain textures, Summer season set at 10.30 AM, near Tsatskhvi:

See if the following mod helps (if not already in use):

Agree on all accounts. I'm a bit surprised with the results on that video but, yes, it could be the recording interfering and giving advantage to the 12900K(?).

Thanks for the comment. I'm currently going through all of it. Lots of changes, some additions but bug fixes mostly. Most textures are to be kept, especially ones from Starway (Spring/Summer/Autumn) and PicksKing (Winter), those ground textures are still unrivaled, IMO. Regarding the trees, I'm going to include the tree barks and the normals from "Taz Better Trees" (with his permission) but with my own tree textures, because this odd mix adds definition and better optimization, while providing the best match to the terrain textures of CGTC, color wise and for all seasons. Of course, people can always use that mod from Taz separately if they prefer, that won't change. I'm not sure I can fix the tower red lights of default Caucasus, but I agree that it's quite a bit "unnatural" in low light. I'll have a look.

I hope someone can answer your specific question of performance differencial in VR for DCS between those two processors (I sure can't). Yes, you can disable the E-cores in the Bios, to make the P-cores do all the work. But you don't really have to (article in TPU). And yes, you're technically right that the extra 400MHz of Turbo clock may play a tiny role, in the heaviest of all scenarios requiring specific CPU brute (clock) force. But those will not be a regularity. The thing is, the CPU architecture and the surrounding components (RAM speed/latency and NVMe drive file transfers) play far more of a role than Turbo clock speeds ever will. Turbo clocks are "the best scenario". Not the constant. (and why "all-core" overclocks can be nice, IMO) Once you get into these Intel 13th gen processors (use Windows 11 for it), with DDR5 6400Mhz CL32 memory (or better) and NVMe gen4 drives, the jump in performance will be tremendous over your 10th gen 10700K (I got one too) - imediately felt, guaranteed. Especially with that monster RTX4090(!) which will be the driving force of most of your VR experience. Not the "Turbo clock numbers". If the extra 400Mhz Turbo clock (not meaningful, IMHO) are something that will keep popping inside your head, then by all means, man - get the i9 13900K. After all the effort and investment, it's not nice to later feel some regret and that ongoing "what if I had.....?"

If it's between those two, and productivity is not of concern.... Then I'd certainly save the money and go straight to for the i7 13700K. Because you've defeated the purpose of the i9 13900K right there. If you're an enthusiast ("gotta have the very best") and money is no object, then sure why not, go for the i9 13900K. I'd also say same thing for motherboards - you also don't need the ubber expensive most top-of-the-line Z790 model version of any manufacturer. In stock form, what you get with the (over a third) more expensive i9 13900K is the 400Mhz higher turbo clock, and eight more E-cores (which are not good for gaming). Haven't yet digged into overclocking process and results of these two, so can't tell wether OC'ing has a perceived advantage that makes one the far better choice vs the other. In my experience, in practice you wont be able to tell a single difference between one and the other with whichever sim/game, at 4k or with VR or whatever. But, of course, the very last unperceived milimetrics in OSD charts (and ownership pride) can often speak louder and make you feel more comfortable... Both run fairly hot, so get a decent 360AIO. The 420AIOs are better but not necessary at all in stock form, though it can be nice to have if you're an enthusiast with PC case and budget permitting it.

Nonsense, it's the exact same for both of them, Intel and AMD. They draw a line in the sand, likely to reduce legal liability. Overclocking is not covered under any manufacturers warranty. Both Intel XMP and AMD EXPO are classified as overclocking, so memory overclocking would fall under that same umbrella, both by Intel and AMD. It's no different from one to another, and goes regardless of RMA questionary. Don't believe me? Ask both Intel and AMD customer support about it. For so many years, the factory ("OC") profiles of every RAM manufacturer sit in a grey area, where, in practice, both CPU and motherboard manufacturers, more often than not, turn a blind eye and ignore it. Because they know the mem kits are designed, thoroughly tested, sold and meant to run with such profiles, without any issues, with their own CPUs and motherboards. Yet, there is no written "asterisc" that dismisses Intel XMP or AMD EXPO once and for all (as should be) for the warranty void issues. This is the problem.

heh...?

Indeed, excelent work as always by the GN Team. I just feel manufacturers are borderline scamming the customers/users. Realizing how motherboards got increasingly ubber expensive (double the price compared to older iterations) and yet, bugs aside, they still lack protections. With Intel, I recall dozens of systems built where I'd need to lock the vCore, and especially the VCCIO and VCCSA, to "normal" levels, as some motherboards would have those placed at sky high values once XMP was loaded, not just with "load optimized defaults" (and temps going crazy). Most users would be unaware of this, it's just not right. Now it's bugs with AM5 motherboards... I think I'll refrain from recommending an AM5 system (X3D mostly) to friends and customers until this is fixed. Feels like a friggin "early acess game"! Meanwhile, how are you guys countering this issue? Any good "safe" solutions so far?

It must be so recently then. Igor Wallosek was one among the very few reviewers and tech jornalists (back in the time when Tom's Hardware was a thing we could trust) who told it like it really is.

So it still happens after nearly 4 years?? (had the same issue back in 2019 with the RX5700XT!) M$ updates and AMD Adrenalin drivers conflicting, man I'm so friggin glad I'm out of that constant pain. I wish all the best for you guys having to put up with this issue, it is a PITA.

From Igorlab's website (still one of the most rock solid sources of info on PC tech): https://www.igorslab.de/en/neues-asus-am5-bios-beinhaltet-einen-unerlaesslichen-mechanismus-um-schaeden-an-amd-ryzen-7000-cpus-zu-vermeiden/ quoting: "The creator of the Hydra tool for AMD Ryzen CPU tuning and optimization recently made a shocking revelation. He claims that AMD and board partners knew about a CPU power supply issue before Ryzen processors were launched in 2017. Despite this, AMD asked board partners to keep it a secret. The problem is that the voltage supplied to the Ryzen processors is not constant. As a result, the CPUs do not run stably and often crash or are unstable. The only solution that the Hydra tool creator has found is to overclock the CPU to stabilize the voltage supply. The revelation that AMD and board partners knew about this problem before the processors hit the market is very worrying. Customers who purchased Ryzen CPUs may have received inferior product performance and may have paid for problems and inconveniences that could have been avoided. It’s unclear why AMD decided to keep the problem a secret. However, it is possible that the company feared that revealing the problem would lead to a loss of customer confidence. However, AMD is feverishly working on a solution to the problem."

Something going on with the prices in the places where you're checking them. Where are you located? The 7800X3D should be found at 500€ (+/-) and the 7950X (non X3D) should be found at 640€ (+/-). The 7800X3D is a CPU with 8 cores and 16 threads, single CCD. The 7950X (non X3D) is a CPU with 16 cores and 32 threads, dual CCD. The 7950X has double the cores/threads, it is far better for productivity (200%+ better in rendering, for example), while being excelent for gaming too. But it doesn't have the 3D V-cache of the 7800X3D, which is what makes this one that bit better with games (10% to 20% better, depending on game). Arctic Liquid Freezer II are excelent AIOs (actually my favorites). For the 7800X3D, you don't need realy need more than the 240 version of it. For the 7950 (non X3D), you should better go with either the 280 or 360 versions of it. You also have the 7950X3D (16c/32t) but that one is quite a bit more expensive (800€) and runs a little hotter - 360 or 420 AIO is definitely a better solution here. So, yeah, you have to think about what is more important for you, for the given prices and your total budget. I have a RTX3090 24GB and it's excelent (more so after doing undervolting on it). But, I have to say, the RTX4080 16GB is the superior GPU here. The RTX4080 has new architecture, is stronger in performance (~25% faster than RTX3090 at 4K and VR) and runs cooler. It also consumes less wattage (over 60W difference) and has better support too (being recent, and over two years newer). The 16GB of VRAM are plenty, even for DCS - and in the unlikely event that it isn't, this is a solution. I'd only recommend an RTX3090 if buying used (and if in mint condition at 800€ or less) - if so, then it is really worth it! But if brand new at 1500€, absolutely not. If buying new, for sure the RTX4080 16GB is the one to get.

That could be the problem, yes. Make sure to use the standoffs (and the screws) provided with the case. Put those where the holes of your the motherboard align, remove those that do not align (if there's any) because those would touch electronic components (and where there's electricity current going!). Some PC cases come with a standoff adapter (a small plug) to screw/unscrew those standoffs - the ones to be used should be placed (tighten) firmly. If you got no standoff adapter, then use some pliers. Other standoffs and screws from other cases may work, but those provided are the ones tested and guaranteed to work with that case, so that there's no motherboard warping, and nothing made of metal touching any sensitive part of the motherboard. When placing the motherboard on the standoffs, all corners and areas where there are standoffs, everything must sit flat. Only then the screws are placed, one by one, and tight very gently - when the screwdriver stops, it's done. Never, ever, tight them hard (i.e, do not overtight them), it's not designed for that. Wrong position on standoffs, board warping, as well as overtighten screws on the motherboard, can provoke issues such as small shortages (unexpected shutdowns, unable to boot/reboot, issues on the I/O causing peripherals to not work correctly or at all, etc), and even damage the layers of the motherboard due to excessive pressure on them (the "board" PCB itself, where all the circuits are, is made of layers of material). Here's one among many other videos on YT about this "motherboard into case" subject - relevant part starts from second 54:

Let's separate thing first. 1) DCS World, even with the latest MT introduction, is not using all cores/threads that most CPUs have today. In this initial stage, it only uses the equivalent of 3 to 5 cores/threads in total, at most (with 1 core/thread fully used and alternating work between other cores/threads), at least from what I've noticed. It'll eventually get to use more with its development, for sure. So, at this point, you still need a CPU that has really strong single core performance (the so called IPC, "Instructions Per Clock", the potency of each core alone). The i7-4820K is not "really bad" by any means, but it is vastly outdated - even budget CPUs have surpassed it in this aspect. The fact that you see just 40% of CPU utilization is partially explained, and it doesn't mean that it's not working as fast as it can. What it does mean is, that the game can not extract more performance from that CPU, within all of those ~40% of usage that it can take from it. If you put, say, an i5 13600KF, and run DCS (same mission and all) the CPU utilization will not grow but, with the much higher IPC, its "punch" will be vastly bigger, making quick work of what yours may struggle with, and frames will go much higher. This will also allow the GPU to work more freely (as it too always depends on what the CPU is doing), which also explains what happens in that scenario example. 2) DCS World is, yes, far from being well optimized. But one thing that people often forget is that it uses a lot of scripts and real time calculations (avionics, physics, weapons systems, AI, aerodynamics, weather, etc, etc), a lot of really huge textures, a lot of ultra detailed 3D models, a lot of Shader effects, and huge terrains with all of those running and happening all at same time. On top of that, also many big sound files triggered all at once. Sometimes cutting back some detail would be better, and optimizations would be very welcome (and are required). But the unescapable fact is this - a lot is happening at same time, far beyond (way, waaay beyond) any other "normal" PC game. And that will never change for what this sim/game aims to achieve. All of that demands a lot and takes it toll, not just in CPU and GPU, but also on RAM and SSD data swap, these too need to do it fast - speed, bandwidth, latencies and caches all play a role here as well. All need to be as good as possible, so that none component drags the others behind. Something is the bottleneck at any time, no matter how good a PC can be. And, well, sometimes I think not even a NASA computer would be enough (for example, think very busy missions in populated online servers).... RX6600 is not overkill for the i7 4820K. The truth is, that GPU is also not that great for DCS (good for 1080P resolution with dialed in settings, but not much more). I wouldn't recommend it, you'd be much better instead with an Nvidia RTX3060Ti or AMD RX6700XT (at most, with that system). That said, I wouldn't invest any further on that system. If DCS is a large part of your free time and you consider flight-simming as a hobby, maybe it's time to think about a total system upgrade.

The mod has a lot of small issues that I need to adress. I'll disable it temporarily then post once all is updated.

Okay man, you do you.

Yeah. A suggestion would be to keep it all on the same thread - you already had opened a thread regarding your new PC.

Over 25 years around PC components, I recall buying at least 16 GPUs for my own rigs. Of those, only 3 were bought new. The rest was bought used or refurbished (6 on Ebay, including the latest one, an EVGA RTX3090 FTW Ultra). Same thing for motherboards, processors and RAM. And my motorcycles as well, now that I think of it! Never a problem, be it in the process or with the product (I've just noticed, a set of those used GPUs, CPUs, Motherboards and RAM are over 10 years old now and still in use). I've also sold GPUs and other PC components, mostly through local market (OLX). In my experience, not too dissimilar to buying on Amazon (of which I'm also a happy customer). Just do your enquiries about the product and shipment with the seller through PM on Ebay (it stays registered) and do not buy on impulse - everything he/she says (or doesn't answer) can be used against him/her if things go wrong, and he/she knows it (AFAIK it's made clear in their EULA). Again, using Paypal for payment medium and resorting to its services, as well to Ebay's (to honor their "Money Back Guarantee") in case there are any issues, usually solves 99% of the problems - if the seller doesn't take responsability (which they usually do, knowing the headaches they'll have with the two entities). These exhist and function (by laws inclusively) and are not gimmicks. It's not the open air markets selling snake oil.

Yeah, it's really a matter of transfer and realocation of same parts. Take an afternoon and do it slowly, take pictures along the way on parts, cables and connectors that might seem confusing. Get a friend or two (and a few beers) to assist if possible. You learn a lot during the process. Worst scenario, pick the case and go to a PC store that can 1) sell you the new case and 2) transfer all the stuff into it from the old one. Dang, a CM Elite 431... the very same components inside will feel much newer and faster on a new case!

CM Elite 431, that's an upgrade you can't escape. That PC case is outdated, space, layout and airflow wise. Doesn't matter what GPU you get, old or new, mid or high end, you really need to upgrade that case ASAP. For all that is sacred, please don't let that crappy old case be the limit factor of the GPU acquisition. Plenty modern quality PC Cases with good space, layout and airflow, at or below $100 USD. For example, the Phanteks Eclipse G360A, the Fractal Design Meshify C and the NZXT H5 Flow.