LucShep

The following is my opinion only, and based on recent experience of my own and of friends (dozens of systems built). So... take it for what it is, consider everybody's opinions. CPU: AMD AM5 is excelent, but you'll want the newest X3D chips from AMD, not the "regular" ones. The 7950X3D is a really great choice but, if this is purely for gaming and not for heavy production work (VMs, video encoding, rendering, etc), then you'll probably be better with the 7800X3D, because it has its benefits. The 7800X3D is the one most intended for gaming and is more affordable, has single CCD (so no latency problems) and performs at the top level while using far less power to run. Which, besides the electricity savings, also means it runs cooler, and therefore doesn't require more expensive exhotic cooling (a dual tower air-cooler will do really nice, such as the affordable Phantom Spirit 120 SE), so it allows to simplify things while delivering the best performance. A bit of a "win-win" scenario here. Motherboard: Don't overspend on the motherboard, thinking that the higher price ones must be so much better or so more reliable - far from the truth (this is not 2008). All manufacturers have now embraced this trend of building them with lots of fancy gimmicks (which most will never use!) and, with that, piling lots of useless crap just to creep prices towards the absurd and getting away with it (motherboards at $550+ ...hilarious!). There are absolutely excelent AM5 motherboards at much lower prices, with everything you'll ever need and more (robust VRMs, good onboard sound, loads of USB and storage ports, good layout, etc), and without spending money that, instead, should be canalized towards other components. For best examples, check the MSI MAG X670E Tomahawk WIFI, and the ASRock X670E Steel Legend. There are also two ASUS X670E motherboards at similar price but with the BS happening lately, I can not recommend them. RAM: 64GB of DDR5 RAM, yes that's excelent. But beware of speed and timings (latency), here it's worth spending. For AMD AM5 CPUs, go with DDR5 6000MHz CL30. I'd recommend one of these two DDR5 64GB kits from Gskill (these are the same but one has RGB 'bling-bling', the other hasn't): - GSKILL Trident Z5 Neo 64GB (2x32GB) DDR5-6000 CL30-40-40-96 1.40V - F5-6000J3040G32GX2-TZ5N (AMD EXPO) - GSKILL Trident Z5 Neo RGB 64GB (2x32GB) DDR5-6000 CL30-40-40-96 1.40V - F5-6000J3040G32GX2-TZ5NR (AMD EXPO) GPU (Graphics-card): If it's for VR and for DCS, I suggest to avoid the AMD RX7900 XTX and go instead for the RTX 4080, of which any model is good (so, buy with confidence). It's not that AMD GPUs are not good, it's just that Nvidia GPUs work better here (DCS VR), more performance, non fussy, far less issues (if any), and therefore Nvidia here is worth the (stupidly high) premium. Storage: NVMe 2TB is ideal, like you aimed at. AMD AM5 and respective motherboards already support NVMe Gen5 SSD, but I personally don't see yet the benefits for the higher price found on these. Therefore, and for now, I still recommend a NVMe Gen4 SSD. I value reliability and speed, therefore I'd always recommend the Samsung 980 Pro (still excelent). On same note, avoid the newer Samsung 990 models (RMAs gallore!). An alternative is the Corsair MP600 Force series if you find 2TB models at discounted prices - fast and durable, no difference in DCS or any other games. Avoid any cheaper model that is Dram-less, even if low prices are tempting (only single exception is the WD Black SN770, it's good considering price), especially if you're intending to use Windows and DCS in the same drive. PSU (Power Supply Unit): Get a ≥ 1000W top rated model from renowned manufacturer, "80+Gold" at the minimum, ATX 3.0 compliant and PCIe 5.0 ready. There are two that I got very impressed with, and they're not stupid expensive - the Bequiet! Pure Power 12M 1000W and the MSI MPG A1000G PCIE5. That said, if you decide to invest higher on a RTX4090 24GB graphics card (the current top dog!), and while these mentioned PSUs work just fine there as well, perhaps to consider a good 1200W or 1300W PSU wouldn't be a bad move (slight overkill but sure to last reliably, even be used on a following system). PC Case: This is more complicated to suggest because it depends on personal tastes and desires. Some like huge cases, others prefer medium sized cases. Some like "open bench" style, others may like fancy lightning fully-glass cases, and others like mesh based cases. I'm on the latter group. Messed with lots of them in recent times and, IMO, the best balance is found on the Lian Li LANCOOL III. Good build quality and layout, huge airflow, at a reasonable price.

Understood, that's reasonable. Congrats on the upgrade. BTW, regardless of VRAM limits - and unless you're an "online-only-DCS-warrior" - I strongly suggest to give Taz's Optimized Textures mod a go. There's no visual difference and over 3GB(!) of VRAM savings, much smoother on any system (a "must" IMO).

Ouch... no bueno then. RTX4070Ti it is, if brand new GPU then. I know you're not into used GPUs but, still, at least take a quick look at the RTX2080Ti 11GB that are available on the used market. Yes, it's an older model but still excelent for 1440P, well constructed whatever version (so long as it isn't a Dell or single-fan model) as it was Nvidia's flagship from 3rd quarter 2018 to 3rd quarter 2020. Slightly bit faster than the RTX3070 8GB (and more VRAM, at 11GB), used ones can be found at $550 CAD or best offer (on Ebay, for example) and they're coming down on price.

If you're going to invest in a new GPU, and if it's for the mid to long term, I agree that you should get the best performance you can get. It's worth paying a bit more in the end and feel the bigger satisfaction once in the sim. If you do not want to upgrade PSU (i.e, keeping the Corsair RMX 750W), then the RTX4070Ti is the best choice you can fit there, more so since you mention DCS is your main sim/game of choice (Nvidia biased). Performance wise, it's 20% to 25% faster in general than the RTX4070, depending on game, option details and resolution, which is quite a bit of difference (see here). That said, if you feel adventurous with AMD choices, there are (older) RX6800XT 16GB selling a bit cheaper these days, and the (newer) RX 7900XT 16GB as well...

That's definitely pushing it. I see you're investing a good deal on this, please don't ruin it. Let me rephrase it... you should NOT use a single PCIe cable for any GPU that runs more than 225W! (never, ever!) Up to 225W total GPU power is OK - - - (150W of single PCIe cable from PSU + 75W of motherboard PCI slot). Any more than that and you'll be at pure mercy of luck, because a single PCIe cable is rated at 150W, at most. In the scenario that you suggest, with the GPU drawing 285W, then that means 210W(+) going through the single PCIe cable. That's definitely beyond its capabilities! You can guess the rest... *imminente kaput* The Corsair RMX 750W is a good PSU and wil handle any RTX4070Ti just fine, but you really need two separate PCIe cables (from the PSU) to plug into the 12 pin connector (with the adapter cable 2x PCIe 8-pin that is included). And notice - it's not only for that particular model, it's for all RTX4070Ti. They all draw more than 225W. That Corsair RMX 750W PSU comes with two PCIe cables, so you have the second PCIe cable that you need. In case you don't have (broke it, or gave it, or lost it, whatever) you can get a PCIe cable replacement for your Corsair modular PSU from Amazon ($15,00 CAD): https://www.amazon.ca/OwlTree-Braided-Splitter-Adapter-23-6inch/dp/B099W6CS3C/ref=sr_1_15?crid=OVYF87VKWJGA&keywords=corsair%2Brmx%2Bpcie%2Bcable&qid=1682040023&sprefix=corsair%2Brmx%2Bpcie%2Bcable%2Caps%2C150&sr=8-15&th=1 If you're going to do it, do it right.

Yes, the GPU prices are still crazy. I'd also be unsure about spending my hard earned (I decided on a used GPU and got lucky). RX7900XTX and VR.... I'd say going through all the pages on this topic at AMD forums, conclusions seem pretty biased towards a "NOPE": https://community.amd.com/t5/graphics/7900xtx-low-performance-in-steamvr-and-vr-in-general/m-p/567391/ When it comes to graphics-cards, this game is incredibly biased towards Nvidia. Going by my own experience, and across the forums from other users experiences, that much is certain. For DCS, given a "AMD vs Nvidia" with two direct competitors of same segment (similar general performance), AMD is always a bit slower and more problematic at higher resolutions (VR and 4K). Seen it with RX5700XT versus RTX2070, with the RX6800XT vs RTX3080, with the RX6900XT vs RTX3090, and lately with the RX7900XTX vs RTX4080. I'd blame AMD drivers, but it could be simple as DCS devs mostly using Nvidia (maybe both things!). Regardless, Nvidia is always the better solution here. Yes prices are outrageous, and the Nvidia tax is stupid. But peace of mind and satisfaction have its cost, it seems.

Absolutely, without any doubts, go for the GPU upgrade. Nvidia RTX4080 over AMD RX6900XT will be indefinitely more powerful of an upgrade, than the 5800X3D would ever be over your i5 11600K. The simple fact that you're jumping onto an Nvidia GPU driver based system alone (versus AMD) will make a noticeable difference (for the better) specifically with DCS and VR. The fact that the RTX4080 is much, much faster than the RX6900XT will make that even more (much more!) noticeable. Unless you have money to burn, and at this point, I would not invest in a dead platform, like the 5800X3D (AM4 socket) is. Perhaps not even the new 7800X3D (AM5 socket), considering that you have an overclockable 11th gen "K" processor. That i5 11600K of yours is no slouch, at all. It's still a great CPU. If you haven't already, make use of it as the product that it is - it's overclockable! IT'S FREE! Presuming that you have a Z590 motherboard and any decent cooler(?), overclocking that i5 11600K to an "all-core overclock" (so with Turbo disabled) to make all cores work at once to a determined clock (say, 4.9 GHz at 1.3v), close to what the single/double thread Turbo clock would do, can be a more effective way of extracting performance from it, regardless of use case. At no cost. With temps and voltages in check. Plenty tutorials on the internet if in doubt. On a side note, and pardon the rant, I've lost count of posts in these last three or four years, where I see people buy "K" Intel CPUs, only to see them doing a costly upgrade to a newer platform all over again just two years later (Intel or AMD), without even having tried an overclock in that CPU they already had in the first place(?!?)... I find it puzzling, to say the least! Will it run hotter and consume more power? Yes, but not much more than before if you don't go extreme. Will it break or degrade it after a few months? No, not even over a decade after, if you don't go extreme. It's totally worth it IMHO. Overclocking an Intel "K" processor can be something that may allow an even more satisfying and prolongued use of it, untill its user finally decides to upgrade to a newer platform - maybe not even to the current new CPUs, but the following ones in the future (as of today, unreleased Intel "K" 14th gen and AM5 CPUs, etc).

It's somewhat of an old app. Try changing its executable properties, running it "as administrator", maybe also with either Win7 or Win8 compatibility.

Right now DCS is at its initial stage of MT implementation. It is expected to be using more cores along the way, as its development continues. But I doubt it'll fully tax 8 cores and 16 threads of a CPU in the foreseable future, if ever. And yes, it's a pity that there's noone in the mainstream PC tech community (reviewers, etc) who cares about DCS. It may look to them as an oddball niche product but many of its users are PC tech enthusiasts (sometimes by necessity! LOL).

I'm reopening the CGTC mod thread, as I accidentally deleted the original thread, thanks to some new odd forum options (I thought I was deleting the pop-up!!)... Someone decided to put an option for bugs related questions in the Mods section...?? ("mark as solution"...huh??) Lost all of the older posts because of it! Anyways, new thread is up. Enjoy the mod.

CGTC is an alternative package to improve the looks of the Caucasus map of DCS World, with extensively overhauled ground textures. It modifies everything texture related to the Caucasus terrain. From ground, mountain, rocks, to fields, trees, towns, airport terrain textures (and matching hangars), etc. It also modifies the gamma, palette and overall colors of the Caucasus, through readjusted ingame files (there are no Reshades here). It just doesn't modify the water or buildings/houses, as I see no need. It covers both the "High" and "Low" textures, so that it can be used also by those with older/slower GPUs, as well as those struggling with VR requirements. Latest 2.84.1 version of CGTC (release 21/May/2023) represents the biggest update to the mod since the initial release, with many improvements, additions and bug fixes. I don't find bugs with this mod but, if you find any, feel free to report them in this thread. DCS is constantly updated and it may break something in this mod at some point. At this point, the "CGTC project" is to be considered concluded. But then who knows about tomorrow... ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ - This mod was tested and made compatible with DCS 2.84 (but should be compatible with later versions) and does work with older versions as well (from 2.5 and up). - No performance impact as all of the texture replacements have similar format and size as stock defaults, and both "High" and "Low" terrain texture packages are included. - With no other mod dependencies, just install over vanilla (default) Caucasus map of DCS and off you go. - As usual with this type of mod, for Multiplayer it's only usable on servers with “Pure textures” disabled (in the integrity check). ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CGTC (v2.84.1) download: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3321589/ I've included a "READ ME" in .PDF format (also available HERE) with all the necessary info: mod description, installation notes with suggested settings, credits/thanks, etc. Please take a moment to read it before using the mod or posting, as it should clear the most common doubts. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Also, as optional, you have two different options for the Caucasus' Shading Options, which slightly alter overall tones: - Modified based (CGTC uses this one by default) - Original based If you ever wish to change this, 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. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ And now for the mandatory screenshots... Enjoy it!

The i5 13600KF (if Intel) and 5800X3D (if AMD) are still, IMO, the best solutions for a DCS system that is made on a somewhat limited budget. They're very comparable, but specifically with DCS there should be a performance benefit with the 5800X3D due to the 3D V-Cache (also single CCD, like the new 7800X3D), though I suspect an overclocked i5 13600KF overcomes any disadvantage... Note that the AMD 5800X3D and its AM4 motherboards (B550, X570) uses DDR4 memory. The i5 13600KF also has DDR4 versions of the same suggested Z790 motherboards (MSI Z790 Tomahawk DDR4, for example). One benefit here would be for those coming from older systems that use DDR4 - you can reuse that memory then (even more convenient if you already were using a 64GB kit). With that said, I still think DDR5 is the future, and investing in older dead end solutions/platforms should not be a longer term plan. AMD RX6800 ("non-XT") should be great for a 1080P monitor, and quite good for 1440P (though how good I'm not sure). In this case, for that GPU, then a CPU like AMD Ryzen 7 5700X (B550 - DDR4) or Intel 13400F (B760 - DDR4 or DDR5) would be great solutions, also less expensive, with respective affordable motherboards and 64GB memory kits, IMO.

I unpack (unzip) the downloaded files. Both the Core and Liveries have many files that replace very big original ones in the DCS installation. If you're using OVGME, and therefore automatically making backups during mod installation, it will take a while (sometimes even seem as it's stopped and not responding). All you need is patience. It's making backups at same time it is replacing all these files, very heavy work on the drive(s) during this operation, and not as fast as with most other mods.

It makes no sense to buy an i9 12900K at this point, when the i7 13700K is faster (stronger IPC, i.e, more punch clock for clock). In regards to AMD, there are advantages and some disadvantages. I'll focus mainly on the newly released AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D as it is the better choice for a gaming system. It performs at the top while using far less power to run. Which, besides the electricity savings, also means it runs cooler, and therefore doesn't require more expensive cooling, like the Intel i7 and i9 rivals do require (and also their Ryzen 9 7900X3D and 7950X3D family members). While the AMD 7800X3D has lower clocks, and not as strong IPC, it does balance (and fully counter that) with the 3D V-Cache and the single CCD (so no latency problems here). Many games - including DCS - enjoy the benefits of 3D V-Cache, which is is a packaging technology that stacks additional layers of cache on top of a CPU. Yes, the downside here is you can't have it with the higher clocks that you see in other concorrent CPUs but, as said, there are more benefits with 3D V-Cache and single CCD. Another plus with the 7800X3D, is the fact that AMD wants to support AM5 ahead, like they did before with AM4. Which means that, in the future, you're likely able to purchase the next best CPU from AMD then and, with a bios update, use it on such system, again. The only disadvantages that I see with the AMD 7800X3D are: 1) The low availability and high market price ($550+), which is not really same as the initial MSRP rumours (wasn't it supposed to be $450?), simply because it is the most sought. 2) It "only" has 8 cores and 16 threads (8c/16t). It's a gaming processor, not for heavy production (VMs, video encoding, rendering, etc) or a workstation. Meaning, if this PC you're building will also be heavily used for that and your life depends on it, you'll be better with an AMD 7950X3D (16c/32t) or Intel i7 13700K (16c/24t). So, is the new AMD 7800X3D the best choice right now for a top gaming system? Yes, it is. But it is not the "end all, be all", like most initially painted these AMD X3D chips... You see, there's also this elephant in the room called Intel i5 13600KF... The i5 13600KF (14c/20t) at $280, paired with a MSI Z790 Tomahawk DDR5 motherboard ($250) and a RAM kit of 64GB (2x 32) DDR5 6400 CL32 ($300) is a modern combo that packs a really heavy punch for 99% of simmers, for not a whole lot of money. Not inexpensive, but far less expensive to build. I seriously doubt you can tell a difference (for DCS or MSFS) with this combo against a vastly more expensive i9 13900K fancy setup. Plus, it can also be overclocked... Yes, Intel 13th gen is a dead platform (no continuation, as usual), which is, no doubt, a downside. But, let's imagine for a minute that your budget is restricted and set, and getting that i5 13600KF combo would allow you to get a better graphics card, say, an RTX4080, whereas getting a higher end system with AMD 7800X3D or 7950X3D (or Intel i7 13700K, or i9 13900K) wouldn't let you go that far, because that would blow your budget... then I would certainly pick the former without any regrets.

Many thanks Taz! And, holy cow, this is no joke. The savings on file sizes are friggin enormous and there's no visual difference. The VRAM usage savings are very substancial, as are the improvements on drive space and game files access (faster loading times and less stuttering). Makes me wonder what the heck has ED been doing all this time, when it should have been like this from the start. I hope ED is looking at this mod/thread and seriously thinking about adopting (and compensating!) your work. I will not run DCS without this mod now, period.

Nice one Taz! Just what the doctor ordered. Me thinks this will turn out as the quintessential mod for DCS...

We all know DCS is a monster devouring hardware resources but, that is beyond my scope and intention. It would make DCS a late 1990s flight sim, graphics wise. Terrain Object Shadows OFF option is already provided, and should provide relief for better performance, I think?

Sure, no problem. Though the benefits of this mod are with terrain object shadows set at "Default".

It really depends on the DCS mission and, of course, the PC hardware in use. May be a really small difference with quick missions, but should definitely see noticeable gains (smoother action) in busy missions and/or with lots of shadowcasting objects around you.

Thanks for the feedback, appreciated. I'm a bit puzzled as I tested this, also with a fellow DCS user, with a plethora of modules, terrains, different day times and scenarios for quite a while before releasing this, and haven't seen any bugs. Granted, I don't have all modules and no longer fly helicopters, there could be something happening that I just haven't noticed. In anycase, I made some very minor changes and have updated the mod (to v2.1). Perhaps redownload latest version of the mod and retest?

** UPDATED TO WORK WITH NEWEST DCS OPEN BETA (WITH MULTI-THREADING) ** - Better performance with hardly any shadow quality loss - Works perfect with both screens/monitors and VR - No slower loading of missions of any kind - Made for DCS 2.8 but also works with DCS 2.9 (both MT an ST, Open Beta or Stable) - Not IC compliant for Multiplayer (only with servers which allow mods!) Shadows Reduced Impact (v2.11) download: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3329503/ ______ NOTES AND DESCRIPTION __________________________________ This is a modification that alters values of shadow cascade(s) for better performance. In practice, what happens when using this mod is the terrain shadows (outside-cockpit) being drawn as far as before, but with overall performance improved with quite small visual difference trade-off. The other benefit is that, at the same time, the inside-cockpit shadows maintain high quality in all settings (4096x4096 pixel shadows, though even that can be changed if really desired). ______ INSTALLATION ______________________________________________ This mod replaces one file found in the game installation folder (same paths and structure as you see in the mod). A mod manager (such as OvGME) is recommended, because it's the quickest way to install and uninstall mods in the game. If instead you prefer to install this mod manually, there are some very simple instructions in the "READ_ME" provided with the downloaded file. After installing this mod, and for the game system options/settings to use for shadows, I suggest to put them just like in the image I attach with this mod. It's merely a suggestion, feel free to use those shadow settings as you see fit. Please remember that if updating or repairing DCS, then the SHADOWS.LUA file will be reset, and you'll need to reinstall this mod again to use it. ______ EDITING THE MOD __________________________________________ If you need to further improve performance (but at cost of shadowmap quality), you can edit the SHADOWS.LUA file with any text editor and change the size value of shadowmap. I left some notes about this subject in the "READ_ME" file. Feel free to experiment - remember to always backup your files! ______ CREDITS AND THANKS _____________________________________ - To KEGETYS for the original mod this was based on. - To the people at E.D., as there are original files modified for the purpose of this mod. ______ CHANGELOG ________________________________________________ v2.11 -- minor corrections in cascade(s) v2.0 -- changes for compatibility with DCS 2.8 OB featuring MultiThreading v1.0 -- initial release based on older Kegetys mod

I've now updated the mod to work with latest DCS Open Beta (with Multi-Threading), as well as older 2.7 and 2.5 versions.

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. More VRAM is very important. For example, F-14A/B launching from carrier and then over Syria, high settings at 4K resolution, VRAM can hit 14GB+ (note: not allocated, used). More memory bus size is also very important, 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, 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 anyway and, when and if it does, it's not like version 2.x isn't good enough... so the DLSS part here is a moot point. Yes, brand new from the store, both GPUs are absolutely horrible value. But you can get an RTX3090 used (2nd hand) in mint condition these days for nearly half of the (outrageous) prices that they try to sell them new. None of that is happening with used RTX4070Ti (at least AFAIK). All of which makes the RTX3090 more appealing, and a better investment IMO. Even if it's been over two years since its launch, 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).

Nonsense. If you worry about some sort of blurry image and large pixels coming from a 27'', then don't because it's really fine. That monitor has an excelent IPS panel. More over, it has been among the top 3 contenders in its class, which have been: - SAMSUNG Odyssey G7 Series C32G75T 32'' 1440P (2560x1440, 16:9 format), 240Hz, 1ms, G-Sync and FreeSync compatible, Curved (1000R) - ASUS ROG Swift PG329Q 32'' 1440P (2560x1440, 16:9 format), IPS, 175Hz (Supports 144Hz), 1ms, G-Sync compatible, non-curved. - GIGABYTE M32Q 32" 1440P (2560x1440, 16:9 format) IPS, 165Hz, 0.8ms (MPRT), 94% DCI-P3, HDR Ready, FreeSync compatible, non-curved. If you want a very good 32'' monitor with 1440P native resolution, you can't do any wrong with that M32Q. EDIT: the usual monitor settings adjustments and calibrations should definitely be tried once you get it (if not totally happy), as per usual with any PC monitor or even a TV. They all tend to be "so-so" calibrated from factory (and why sometimes impressions vary from user to user).

Absolutely, the Gigabyte M32Q is an excelent monitor and 5'' inches larger screen will surely be noticed, bigger imersion. Go for it.