DeltaMike

That's not the point (assuming there was one, that all went over my head, no doubt intentionally). One reasonable point might be, "3600 is so close to 3600X it's not worth spending the extra $50." Another reasonable point might be "you're way better off spending the extra $50 and take whatever AMD will give you, rather than spend $80 on a water cooler and $800 on a mobo and still wind up with much the same results." Both of those assertions are reasonable. Any talk of overclocking any Ryzen hoping to come out ahead in single core performance is not. See https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-5-3600-review,6287-11.html, see https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-ryzen-5-3600-review,26.html, see https://www.techspot.com/news/80912-amd-ryzen-3000-overclocking-youre-not-going-see.html

OK I guess, I still get stuttering on some MP servers. Just spent $300 on RAM trying to iron that out. I didn't set out to do an amd build, I was using Ryzen for CPU mining and just kept upgrading my rig one piece at a time. AMD is good that way. Building from scratch? I dunno. It's all about marginal cost. For me, the marginal cost of going with intel at this point would be a couple thousand bucks I guess. Highly doubt that would be worth it. But for a new build, the marginal cost might be only a couple hundred (if that) -- if it's that close I might have gone with Intel

Overclocking definitely helps multicore performance, at the expense of single core performance. Which is the opposite of what you want with DCS. By design. https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd/ryzen-7-3700x-overclocking-benchmarks-performance

Overclocking is irrelevant to DCS. So, don't do like I did and get a 2600 and hope you can overclock it to 2600X levels, doesn't work that way with Ryzen. Not for single core performance. Also keep in mind Ryzen has increased number of instructions per cycle, from what I can tell the 3600 should boost to the Intel equivalent of 4.5 and the 3600X, to 4.8 or so. I don't want to leave anything on the table in terms of single core performance and take some consolation that I saved some money on motherboard and cooler. (And spent it all, and then some, on RAM)

I've been using the overlay

I don't know that fc3 is the trend of the future. Consider c101 which is full fidelity yet still an excellent trainer. On sale for $30 it's a steal.

Yeah it's kinda blowing my mind. I don't fly Russian jets very often, I have been flying the A4 a lot lately on NTTR and it's kind of aggravating. It's got a nice radar altimeter. Fortunately. Just wondering the extent to which it's "baked into the cake" mod-wise. Reckon I'll take the F5 out for a spin today. Such a great module.

So, if you hop into say an F5 at Nellis, the altimeter will read something close to airfield altitude, and it's pretty much impossible to dial it down to QFE. That strikes me as realistic. On the other hand, if you hop into a the A4 mod, the altimeter reads zero and it's pretty much impossible to set it at QNH. I've noticed the same with the Russian FC3 aircraft. Doesn't seem realistic, or is it? I suppose you could calibrate it to do that but hmm.... not sure why I'd do that. Interestingly the MB-339 mod reads QNH right out of the box. Is there a software issue in there somewhere, or am I missing something? Before I go start pestering the A4 crew to fix it

Depends on what you're up too. No such thing as too much CPU for multiplayer. A 2000 series CPU is not optimal for DCS, didn't see any difference in performance between 1700 and 2600. 3600X was a definite step up however. Note, overclocking does not increase single core performance, you really need an "X" to get the most out of DCS. If money is an issue, get a decent B450 motherboard (~$100) and throw whatever el cheapo CPU you want on there, and upgrade to 3600x later. But don't skimp on memory. Whatever mobo you choose, go on the manufacturers website and find the best RAM you can afford that you know for a fact works with that mobo. 3200MHz at least. Definitely go for the 500GB SSD. Modules and maps are like pokemon. Gotta get em all. If money isn't an issue, go intel ;)

Re the stick: after a fair amount of use it doesn't feel as stiff Re the throttle: main thing is to loosen the set screw, takes some trial and error to get that just right. Needs to be just barely enough to keep it from moving on its own. That and some lube makes it work well enough for "government work"

Multicore performance isn't going to help with DCS, and don't count on overclocking to improve single core performance. Consider X models. Shop carefully for RAM, it doesn't have to be the most expensive but it needs to be the highest speed that will work with your MB (up to a point, see https://www.wepc.com/reviews/best-ram-for-ryzen-3000/ for example. Make sure what you have your eye on works with your MB) Advantage for DCS is, you can "get there" -- or at least get close -- without the hassle and expense of overclocking. That saves you some money on cooling system and MB (which is kind of cool, if you're a connoisseur of cheap motherboards). There's an upgrade path. That said, I don't know that I would go AMD if I were building a machine from scratch just for DCS, I had other reasons to favor AMD

Thrustmaster T16000 deserves a look. Joystick is very accurate, has the same innards as the warthog. Throttle works well with the F18, has all the right buttons and the mini-joystick is nice. It has some downsides. Wish the stick had another hat switch, you can make it work with a function button. The twist z-axis breaks (no problem if you get the pedals). You need to lube the throttle. People don't like the pedals much but they are good enough for jets. But, it's hard to beat for the price.

PSA: You might need to manually update to 2.5.5.36986. Instructions here

Exactly. Thanks Santi that does clarify things. But, point being, what Jackbauer said. My experience is, if the contact is really detected by your radar it locks right up no sweat. For me anyway.

Right this minute I find the biggest problem locking a/a targets is phantom returns, the hafu makes it look like you have radar contact but you don't. Hover over the target in ltws, if you get altitude info it'll lock right up. If you don't, I don't care what the hafu says, he's not on radar

Good find! I'll try it without the tower

Thanks NineLine. First pass: I've been releasing in straight and level flight, 15-20K feet. Kinda close the gimbal limit, maybe that's it? Second pass: But here, I'm closer, in a dive, gimbal is closer to center. Same thing Interestingly Tacview is scoring a solid hit every time. ETA: @Ramsay: yeah I was outside of 8mi on both releases, went back and tried at 6mi and 4mi, the latter about 4000' AGL, same result AGM65E_TPOD_NTTR.trk

Has anyone had trouble with laser mav accuracy when lasing with the targeting pod? My missiles seem go be going a couple hundred yards long. This is on NTTR with targets at ~4700 feet elevation. Firing from 5-10mi LGB's are hitting long, too, about the same distance. I have a waypoint on top of the targets, which I have set to ground level, also tried setting it to sea level which didn't make any difference. If it's just me, that's OK I'll keep working it. But, I'm not having any trouble getting the mavs to lock, arm, fire and explode. Consistently, on the same spot. It's just the wrong spot.

Oh yea that's true with external views too. You can tell if your wingman is looking at you. Or if he's just ignoring you, which is what mine usually does.

Have you tried stress testing the GPU using some kinda benchmark? I don't know if superposition can really stress that GPU, but something like that... I see your GPU temps are good but I wonder if a component isn't overheating and failing I don't know about DCS but back in my mining days it wasn't uncommon to have to RMA a dud here and there, some manufacturers more than others >: / That said, I've heard of people with really high end GPU's have to really load em up to keep them running, PD at 2.0 or more. Might be worth a try, see if that makes it better or worse at least

And then an F18 shoots you down 10 miles from base.

Well a) put the cash into your HOTAS. b) if you're not in VR, there is no advantage, just go for the keyboard. c) In general, and especially in VR, it's helpful to map the following keyboard commands -- comm menu -- Kneeboard functions (show, scroll, mark) -- Pop up windows (eg chat, SRS, controls) -- VR center -- Throttle on/off idle -- External lights on/off -- Bogey dope -- Certain carrier functions (esp cat hookup) -- Bit test switch (Hornet) -- ESC -- Gear, flaps, hook (a little awkward to mouse this on approach and maintain stable flight) -- Refueling probe -- F10 view (and F1 to return to cockpit) On FC3 aircraft it's also helpful to map position/collision lights, taxi/landing lights, HUD brightness or color, and stuff you need to deal with SRS in VR (eg changing channels or frequencies) You will use the HOTAS for a lot of these things. You'll reserve a hat switch for comms, various ways of doing that. Gear and flaps are typically mapped to buttons or switches on the base. Etc. But eventually you're gonna run out of buttons, especially if you're in VR, especially if you're flying FC3 aircraft. At that point, your options are: -- keyboard in the lap -- USB numpad (glue beads to the keys to help you work by feel) -- Button box -- Voice attack -- Mouse or trackpad with programmable buttons Some functions (VR zoom, VR center, ESC) are mapped to VR controllers, but the controllers aren't programmable and end of the day they are a little clunky to use Regarding the mouse, you're grabbing for that thing a lot, you get muscle memory real quick and there are certain things you'll use a lot with your hand on the mouse, comms obviously but also kneeboard, chat window, VR center, and (with FC3 aircraft) SRS controls A lot of it is just trying to reduce thrashing around when it counts, especially during approach and climbout, approach to the tanker, etc. TBH if you're flying solo it's really hard to beat Voice Attack, I got out of the habit cuz my squad just can't wrap their heads around SRS, and while some of the commands are not intrusive (I'm supposed to say "wheels up" anyway) it does tend to jam the channel and irritate my wingmen. That said, check out the combination of Voice Attack and Vaicom (note the spelling). You can say things like "Wheels up," "Extend probe," "Ready pre-contact," and "Laser on." Pretty slick. Programmable mice aren't necessarily expensive, you don't need the mac daddy and I would definitely fund a HOTAS before I'd splurge on a $100 mouse. Just for DCS. (Me, I have my paw on that mouse all night long, I just wanted a nice mouse.)

I will say, tilt it back and put monstertech chair mounts on it, and it does a passable imitation of the F16 seat, which is good cuz of all the G forces and all. DCS wears me out! Yikes!!! Reminds me of a dental chair. Talk about taking a missile in the face! There you are, that didn't hurt, did it?

Not hard to defeat if you can see it. You can out turn it or out run it but you have to see it first. Throws off a bunch of smoke but that takes a little getting used to, it coasts in for the kill so you kinda have to extrapolate. I usually put it on the beam, pop it out of gate, flare, count to four and pull hard. So. Don't be staring at your radar display, look outside.

Can't beat the C101 as a trainer, among other things your instructor can hop into the back seat. Gotta pay for that one, and you won't get much if any use game-play wise once you're done with training. Even so, it seems to be gaining a lot of traction at the DCS Academy. Likewise you'll get limited use out of F86, MIG15 and F5 unless you're really interested in early Cold War aviation I personally find the SU25 irritating, I can't stand the thing, but the price is right, and it does have SEAD capability that can be put to use on some servers. There are two free mods worth looking at. MB-339 is getting a lot of props from instructors, I have downloaded it but haven't tried it yet. Also check out the A4 mod, absolute blast to fly and I like it in VR a lot. Both have bugs, I've heard gripes about the clickable cockpit in the MB339, and the A4 has this annoying habit of blowing up from time to time. Although it's carrier-capable, that's been a real challenge for the developers, wait till you have a full fidelity module to start carrier training. But, net of everything, it's probably safe to say you get WAY more than you pay for with either one. (Don't forget, mods go in the saved games folder) The F15 is probably the worst trainer I have in my portfolio. Believe me, you are going to have to unlearn some bad habits if you go that route at this point. My suggestion would be to download the A4 for pounding the pattern, BFM maneuvers and visual bombing runs, and general tear-assing around. Once you're trained up, I'd look at a full fidelity module. Which one depends on maturity of the module when you're ready to buy, and where your interests lie (strike? air superiority? carrier ops?) and whether you want to do MP or campaigns. If you're only going to buy one module, it'll be hard to beat the F18. F16 will likely have an edge if you're more interested in AA combat than carrier ops. You should probably also look at the F14, it's truly an aviator's aircraft, a very complete and polished module, and it's the dominant air superiority fighter in the game, by a wide margin. Given the seriousness with which you're approaching your training, you would likely be a truly frightening F14 pilot. Watch for sales and pick up PG, FC3, NTTR, and combined arms when the price is right (in that order). ETA: Just took the MB-339 out for a spin. Cool jet, I like the instrument layout better than the A4. Doesn't have an AOA indexer. Quicker and more fun to fly than the C101. Not as much fun as the A4, but nothing is that fun. Clickable cockpit is working just fine for me, I don't know what people are griping about. The installer is a one-click operation. Also am pleased to report it goes cross country almost as well as the F18. Highly recommended.