LucShep

Only now seen this It is a part of that "1%" that took them off the shelves these last days. Those people do not represent a significant percentage of the total gaming market. They just want you to think it is, so that you become a sheep and go along with that flock. The market is really that humongous (see Steam online numbers, at the many thousands at any given time) and then check again what's average hardware (Steam survey). It's not very common to see people shell out 900.00+ USD/EUR for a graphics card, it really isn't. It isn't egregious? Have you even tried to game on an "average" GPU, a low to mid range modern GPU? You have no idea do you? Try to build a few systems with them, and see how horrible most get to be with latest AAA game titles, and how (bad) they run with DCS. The most sold "average" graphics card is an RTX4060, which costs around 350.00€ in Europe... a friggin lowly 8GB 128-bit membus GPU that shouldn't even exhist at this point and, again, grossly overpriced. Yet, it sells because the common unaware gamer thinks "it's gotta be an NWEEEDEEA" and that's as far as they can go. And on that, I wonder if the 5060 is going to be another POS again.

The consoles no longer control half the market. At the start of the pandemic, maybe. But not since. The XBOX recorded its worst ever yearly console sales numbers in 2024 (see here) and, so far, 2025 doesn't look like it's going to be better. The Sony PS5Pro is a monumental failure, and overall PS5+PS5Pro sales numbers have been pretty weak lately. Both brands suffering due to high prices. Most people now have 4K TVs and, with that, have higher standards for gaming. Thing is, for that, they need to shell out for the faster models (SeriesX at ~600€, PS5Pro at ~800€), because even in consoles, the newest games don't run all that well on the cheaper XBOX/PS base models. It's not working. Traditionally, the user base of that market never expends that much. PC gaming has grown and now surpassed the console market, and even console+handheld combined: https://tech4gamers.com/pc-gaming-outpacing-consoles/ Well, yes and no. Personally, me neither. My collection of PC games is mostly comprised of older game titles. But then we've all seen great game developer houses come and deliver, only to go bankrupt years after (or be absorbed and diluted by a bigger brand). And it's a shame when that happens, leaving a "what if they didn't" nostalgia in the air. I go back from a time when games were far cheaper (and easier) to produce, and passion or "substance" (a bit like we still see with ED for DCS) was the #1 reason to work for (or getting into) that business. If the concern is only the bottom line and quick buck, that #1 reason gets lost. And if it's further worsen by higher hardware requirements that most can't keep with, then it's a whole market waiting to implode on itself - one company at a time, followed by another.

Precisely. And that's why this is a much bigger problem than most think. It's all intertwined with current and future games development. Take the recent Indiana Jones game, for instances. To have a Ray-Tracing capable GPU is a requirement to use it. Others will follow it. Did anyone stop to think how bad RT goes on an Nvidia 2060/2070/2080/3060/4060 (or equivalent AMD GPUs for that matter)? Not to mention how many don't have an RT capable GPU? Or then, the soon-to-become-ubiquitous UE5, which so many game developers are adopting lately. When it runs like crap in lower-tier and older GPUs (and reducing to lowest settings makes them look far worse than decade plus aged games). So, for people who want to still be a part of modern pc-gaming, it's getting to that point when there's the writting on the wall. And then feel forced to make the GPU upgrade that they were avoiding, because the one they got won't cut it very soon. Now, that's all normal, it was always like that. But then..... the prices. A bigger problem than games being held back because of them is, what if all those people simply can't afford that upgrade? Modern PC gaming (and with all the planned upcoming new titles and sequels), does it become an elite-like hobby? It can't sustain itself for too long like that.

Noone is contesting that, what you say makes sense. Just like saying the growing inflation or, even better, the reliance on the main (two) chip makers and their increasingly higher waffer pricing (TSMC mostly) is directly related to these high prices on GPUs, considerably more than years past. The thing here with GPU prices, and to make an analogy... What would you think if, all of a sudden, ED increased prices of any and all upcoming module to, say, 250$ or more, far higher than any past and current modules have been, because (I don't know, just imagining) "the new 3D software that we now have to use, to make these, is much more expensive" ? Would you accept that and swallow the pill? In this case, my firm guess is that 99% of the userbase would keep using what they already have and skip those, while the 1% elite would go for it just like they do for these overpriced GPUs, and everything else hardware or controllers. And same will happen with these GPUs - the gap between the "haves" and "have nots" will be further increased.

AFAIK, it's always based in the MSRP (US) claimed by the manufacturer (Nvidia, AMD, Intel) plus taxes of the specific Country. And no, hype goes away and stock gets finally sorted, but prices usually remain, bar any surprises (such as discounts and price fixes by the manufacturer). Take the 4000-series of Nvidia, for instances, they've maintained their price (actually increased again recently) across the two(+) years they've been sold here.

Noone sells GPUs close to MSRP in Europe since the pandemic, when prices went crazy and never got back to normal. The Dollar-to-Euro difference also has to do with it. You may have the odd (bad) example of the lowest spec variant of a certain GPU model, which may sell closer to MSRP, but that's never anywhere near what you see Nvidia claiming for FE models, not even close.

AFAIK, GPU manufacturers usually don't sell directly to countries outside North America (USA) and Eastern Asia. I can't speak for other Continents, but in Europe (specifically in the E.U.) there's mandatory taxes (VAT) from 17% to 27% (depending on country) on the base price of product, and then there are also import taxes (paid in customs, product held until that's paid) for some of these products if brought abroad, which can be pretty heavy. You may now understand why some of us have been so vocal in protest, about the demanding nature of DCS, and where some of the problems are and/or how the problems could be fixed. There's a lot of people who love the game to a point that they feel impelled to invest what they shouldn't, when that could be somewhat fixed for all - if ED gave optimizations priority #1 and the "real" requirements became lower. It would benefit everybody, DCS users and ED as well. But, instead, we see this growing necessity of hardware upgrades to reach a certain desired quality point, when the prices for that become outside the realm of "feasable". Blame is on the GPU manufacturers and expectations of users, of course, but it is as it is and it's not that good.

Holy.......! Here in Portugal the few ones were imediately sold (like, in seconds). There are a couple of models on search engine that we can still try to get from a certain store in Spain, but then I'm not so sure about stock. And then prices are still..... HEH! null

Well, that is quite good. But then there's quite good and FREE (and speaking of BSG....). https://diaspora.hard-light.net/ Made by people who really care and ask for nothing in trade. HOTAS + Head-Tracking ready too.

And on another note (), for those into this, here's Buildzoid's ramblings on the RTX5080 PCBs of AIB models: (spoilers: it's not all rosy here either --- TDLW: conclusions at 1:06:41 time in the video)

Hey, it's part of the tradition!

That means absolutely jack sh!t for the end customer if, all of a sudden, the GPUs become forgotten on the shelves.... We've seen before that they can decrease the prices on a whim, when nobody was buying the 4080 and the "Super" versions came out with a +200,00$ discounted price. They're obviously stil sending the clay to the wall to see if it sticks now. It's all a matter of seeing who bites the bait and keeps their plan going, until the next gen comes along, when all this milking gets repeated.

You're thinking over the previous generation. As others into this subject, I'm thinking over other generations before. For instances, the RTX 3080 was a variant of the very same GA102 as the 3090. As had been the case previously, when the 2080Ti (the class the current xx80 became) had the same TU102 of the Titan RTX (the class/model that the xx90 became). They can do it, they just don't want to. For obvious reasons. (*$ !catching! $*) The 4080 was no longer based on the "xx2" top chip used on the 4090 (AD102), it was AD103 (higher numbers reserved for lower tier models), as was the 4070Ti-Super. And they're doing the same for the RTX5000 series, the 5090 being GB202 and the 5080 being a lower spec GB203, again, as is the 5070Ti. I hope that makes sense. It's no surprise the gap between 4090 and 4080 was so big, and now even bigger between the 5090 and 5080. The 5080Ti 20GB or 24GB (with a variant of the GB202) just isn't out yet, but we all know they have it on their sleeve, if the current "dumb down" plan they went for, since the 4000 series, does backfire now (and hopefully it does)...

Remember that 4080 12GB which Nvidia "unlaunched" at the last minute (which became the 4070Ti), right after the general raging of the public? Well, it could be that they pulled a similar trick on us again - successfully this time - and the 5080 that we're seeing should've actually been the 5070Ti.... One among other videos which you'll see soon on youtube about this:

Only now noticed this posted, and well noted. Nvidia will quickly recover (already is), because it seems DEEPSEEK (open source AI software, which is all the rage now) has all its users running for any ≥16GB VRAM GPU that fits the application. Meaning, regardless of a possible failure of RTX5000 series in the gaming market, it'll be a sucess in this area, which will (unfortunately) also push for high prices. The problem now for PC gamers (and includes DCS users who want to get ≥16GB VRAM GPUs) is not only brand new units but also second-hand units, will probably become scarce and also with inflated prices..... It could be the "2020 mining craze" all over again! lol

DCS with a keyboard+mouse? I commend you, really. You've decided to invest time and effort into an already very challenging sim/game, and then made it as hard as possible for you. Seriously, I get why people don't want to get a HOTAS+Pedals setup (money and space complications, or DCS being used just as occasional/casual game, among other reasons). But something like the Logitech Extreme 3D Pro Joystick is just $35 (thirty five dollars?!?) and it will be a whole universe of improvement over what you're used to. For such little money it may satisfy so much, probably make you feel so much more invested into combat-flight-sims, that the investment on a HOTAS feels right at some point. https://www.logitechg.com/en-us/products/space/extreme-3d-pro-joystick.html

No no no no.... you're all wrong.... what we need is the Sopwith Camel !!!!!1111oneoneone Plenty documentation and no geopolitical issues... Just imagine the engine soundtrack, cockpit textures, and the wing cables flexing effects....!

huh.... so what's this then? You wrote that just yesterday. So, which is which? You don't use VR (IIRC?). And with that top system, why buy the 5090 then? hmmmmmmm contraditory fishy comments there... You definitely don't need it. If you want to blow that money, then make some donations to ED - perhaps it'll help with more manpower, to bring us more performance/bug fixes (and less need for expensive hardware)......

A fun fact..... AMD RX 7900XTX and 7900XT are already getting increased prices (look'em up), right after the disapointing Nvidia RTX5080 reviews gone out.

It will surely help, for any 8GB, 10GB and 12GB GPU. And that's why, in my opinion, it should be mandatory as default content, but ED won't do it. The super heavy 4K and 8K resolution 32-bit textures should instead be made as a free DLC optional (and separated, for each purchased module).

As expected, the RTX5080 is even more underwhelming when compared to previous gen competitors... RTX5080 review (same as youtube's HUB, but in written format): https://www.techspot.com/review/2947-nvidia-geforce-rtx-5080/ Quoting: "Sure, the 5080 was, on average, 11% faster – so at least we hit double digits – but that's still quite underwhelming for a next-gen GPU. Compared to the original RTX 4080, it's only 14% faster, and when stacked against AMD's nearest competitor, it offers just an 8% gain over the 7900 XTX." ...and if you think that the expected "real" price increase (forget MSRP, it won't happen in practice) is far higher than the very small performance improvement, when compared to the current RTX4080S, it starts to look like this might be the worst release for an Nvidia GPU series since the early 2000s maligned FX-5000 series.

What they should do instead is store the textures in uncompressed packages, like most games do. That way they're "tidy" as desired and access/loading is not halted by decompression. But still, that would just solve one among many of the optimization issues (VRAM utilization by overkill texture size and formats, bad CPU utilization, Weather/Clouds system that can be utterly demanding, Explosions and Weapon effects that bork performance, avionics/electronics hitting resources like the cookie-monster, spaghetti code, etc etc). As said, it's everything, the whole I/O operation, it's "complicated", to say the least. Vulkan may alleviate things, but how much it'll do is unknown.

Oh, if it was just the CPU utilization issue... It's the whole I/O operation, it's... "complicated", to say the least. VRAM on the GPU, for instances. Try running DCS (in VR or in 4K) with an F-4E Phantom II, or F-14A/B Tomcat, or AH-64D Apache, or CH-47F Chinook, or Mi-24P Hind (and wait for the upcoming MiG-29A and the Typhoon, should be nice for this...) in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Kola, or South-Atlantic maps (among other maps). Check the used VRAM (used, not allocated) - seeing over 16GB VRAM hasn't been uncommon for sometime now (and hence why RTX X090 GPUs are so highly sought for DCS). DCS swaps a lot. Most of the textures are stored in compressed .ZIP format. The bigger the texture size, the longer DCS will take to extract it from the .ZIP file and then swap. Now, go check the ammount and size of the textures that are used, and how many, in the Core files, in the Maps, and especially in the Modules? And notice, it doesn't only do that on the modules you own. For example, I don't have the F-4E but if I'm on MP and someone else joins with an F-4E, at that very moment I have to load all of his 4K DXT5 32-bit textures. And so on for other modules I don't own (etc etc). When the VRAM limit of the GPU is hit (and on any 8GB or 12GB GPU it will be hit in MP), it then goes to consume your Swapfile/Pagefile if there isn't enough RAM (when that can easily go to 40GB usage on its own, if in MP). And neither RAM (best case, even with fastest DDR5 available) or Swapfile/Pagefile (worst case, no matter how fast the NVME) will be anywhere near the speed of dedicated VRAM on the GPU. *stutters gallore* And why this is such a big problem with DCS. And, again, considering that most of the DCS userbase is very unlikely to be with 16GB+ VRAM (RTX X090 24GB) GPUs and 64GB of RAM, the stuttering complaints are pretty aknowledged and recognized across the board... It gets very expensive very quickly, just to "disguise" the problem with hardware. So, the CPU utilization is really just one issue among many. And BTW, before anyone plays the "just reduce the texture size in options" card, that doesn't help entirely, because the Core and Modules don't have separated "low" and "high" textures (only the Maps have them), the whole texture (every single one) will have to be extracted from the .ZIP file even before being resized and then swapped. And to make it even nicer (lol) the resizing according to the texture quality you chose in options is done through a MIP of (each of) the DDS files, which is bad quality and results in a horrible blurry texture image.... Really, DCS is an amazing simulation experience. But there's a whole lot of things so friggin wrong with it, and it goes beyond any outrageously priced top hardware that you may throw at it. LOL "the mind boggles"

These are the very best prices I can find for a brand new RTX4090 in my country (now check its MSRP again?). Half of them will say "out of stock, will notify etc" when you add the product to basket. And then through Amazon(ES) is even more ridiculous. What do you think will happen with the RTX 5000 series, stock and price, particularly with the 5090?

A four year+ used RTX3090 is worth no more than 550,00~650,00 Euros through private seller these days. I can risk the selling, but then I don't think it's worth the bother because.... Even with that money credited back, I'm not going to bank close to 3000,00 Euros (if not more?), which is what the RTX5090 (aka RTX4090Ti lol) is expected to cost in Europe. That's just stupid for one GPU. It could have Jensen's jacket and signature on it included, for all I care! ...I could buy, I don't know, another motorcycle for that money, FFS. The RTX4090 has also increased in price lately (retailers trying to milk people who run for those last units in stock!) to even more stupid prices than before. And, sure as heck, I'm not going to gamble on a used 4090 with the current particular scamming issues on them. And, for sure, I'm not going to upgrade to an RTX5080 that is basically just an "RTX4080Ti" (wait for the reviews, it'll be worse than it has been with the 5090), with less VRAM and not really so much faster than my RTX3090 to make it worth the 1700,00+ Euros price, that I see rumoured to be tagged on them in Europe.