darkman222

I also had "blackouts". But playing in VR. Especially when holding my head still for air to air refueling. I never figured out how to fix it. Could be a placebo, but I never had it again when Tacview was uninstalled. So every time I knew there was AAR involved I uninstalled Tacview. You might want to give it a try as well. At least if it helps it would have been an easy fix for now.

I did the same test again. This time for INS drift in altitude. Flew 600 nm in one direction and back. Total travel distance 1200 nm. I had a Bedford truck at the runway end with a waypoint co-located. When I came back and landed the INS drift in altitude was (considering the height of a Bedford Truck) in about 30 ft higher than the waypoint was when I took off. So the INS drift in altitude is also well in the allowable limits and negligible. What I still cant figure out is while the INS dift in all axis seems to be in the limits, how is it possible to create the impression that the waypoint is off more than in the limits of 300 ft on the ground plane when approaching in a shallow angle. As seen two posts earlier.

Yeah, that referred to my bug report I did on this topic in the bug section as no moderator was commenting here. I ran my test scenario again. Take off, 3 bags, fly in one direction for 600nm then come back. Center building and the barracks around with a distance of 250 feet. null In general the INS drift looks like in the mentioned allowable limits. 300 ft plus minus. When coming in from altitude. So the lat / long deviation is good. What I am wondering is if the INS drift is also the same amount in altitude. If I do the approach to the waypoint from a shallow angle it looks like a drift of 600 ft in the exact same session. But I am pretty sure if you would elimiate the INS drift in altitude you would end up again with the allowable drift of 300 ft. Whats happening now is that a drift of 300 feet in lat long + a drift in altitude of 300ft adds up to a perceived drift of 600 ft in total, when coming in low. If I would elimitate the drift in altitude here you would end up with a drift of 300 ft from the center building, is what I illustrate here. Instead of having an offset on the ground plane first and then in height too, it would make more sense if the 300 ft offset would be in a radius around the waypoint. But just wild guessing here on my end why we get that picture from a shallow angle. So one question remains, is the allowable drift of 300ft equally happening in all axis. Also in altitude?

As you can see the sniper pod and the DTC is still developed. If you track the progress between updates on the DTC you can estimate how long it will take. Also a big thing are the RWR Handoff PRF Tones. I cant wait until the F16s RWR does not sound like a gameboy any more. Enough stuff still about to come, I'd say.

Mainz Finthen Airfield was also a Helicopter airfield in CW. Located between Frankfurt and Spangahlem in west Germany. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flugplatz_Mainz-Finthen#/media/Datei:Aerial_image_of_the_Mainz-Finthen_airfield.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flugplatz_Mainz-Finthen From the Wiki Article: As part of their commitment to NATO, US Armed forces returned to the Mainz area and took over the airfield, which was renamed Finthen Army Airfield. As a result of the establishment of the United States Air Force (USAF) in 1947, the Army could use the airfield for helicopters, light LSO and observation aircraft only.

Yes please!

Yeah I already tried it. Although I could use process lasso to improve performance with my previous Intel PC it does not help with my recent AMD PC. The best performance is without process lasso actually. What I am running into now is also the one core bumping up to 100% usage (Core 0) . Not sure how that affects performance too.

I have an Airfix model kit of it, the one with the hot shots paint scheme. if you need a blueprint of it, let me know. But your model is already past that stage, where you need blueprints. Good work so far!

Having switched to an AMD 9950X3D I had a perfect stutter free playback until the DCS 2.9.16.10523 terrain engine update came out. I have periodic stutters now. Not severe but immersion breaking in VR. Using fpsVR I realized that it might be related to the CPU frame usage graph showing periodic spikes on the cores that are non v-cache x3d cores. Aka the ones that are not meant DCS or games to be run on. This was not the case before DCS 2.9.16 came out. These high CPU usage spikes sometimes seem to transfer over to the x3d cores then disappear. I am experimenting with process lasso to tie DCS to the X3D cores only. Seems to help, but still investigating. In the image I marked the x3d processors where DCS should run on. System is a AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D, MSI X870 Gaming Plus, RTX 4090 In the video on the left side of the comparison you see the recent DCS version and how the CPU spikes appear and disappear. DXdiag and log attached dcs.log DxDiag.txt

Yes. Technically it does not matter if I have 2.5 ms of CPU frame time now or much more. But having headroom is a good thing for sure, and you can see in the frame time Graph in the comparison that it just does not stay below 11 ms it goes above it. And its not only just a spike. Its like 2 seconds or sometimes even more of just immersion breaking stuttering. I think that the architecture of the AMD processor is much more suited for DCS. Also bad things like DCS processes being calculated by the slower non X3D part of the processor or core parking issues seem to be sorted out by the most recent generation of AMD processors. I can highly recommend to switch to AMD if someone considers a new PC or even if you are the lucky ones that have their decision already taken by a faulty i9 processor that killed itself. In my case its more likely that the mainboard killed itself, but lets see what Intel and Asus Tech Support will tell...

I could not use the same track because my previous Intel PC just died without a warning. But its from a recording from DCS dogfighters. From days with comparable amount of users online. But I can say for sure, with the intel it has been like around 8 ms CPU frame time occasionally breaking the 11 ms barrier, creating VR stutters. And with the AMD the CPU frame time NEVER goes higher than 4ms. Most of the time 2.5 ms. Same on other servers or huge SP missions. The difference is massive even without a technical perfect comparison.

@iceman06I just tried your track file in 2d without any issues. I also tried it in VR which immidiately shows if something tanks performance. But even in VR its a smooth ride. See my CPU frame time graph from fpsVR. Only minimal CPU frame time spikes. Which wont cause any issue. I would not see any relation to the F16 radar altimeter. Must be a coincidence. Coming from an Intel switching to AMD I must say that Intel processors have a vey small L3 cache compared to AMD. I switched to AMD a week ago and the CPU frame time is now half compared to with the Intel. Dont take it personal but a 5 year old PC in the configuration you are using is not considered top tier for DCS. You can eliminate the radar altimeter causing issues with the same test on the caucasus map on the borders of the modelled area, where there is not much geometry to render. In your track file I would suspect the airfield, houses etc geometry being loaded and unloaded to cause the stutters. Probably use the DCS low graphics preset and replay your track file with that and see how it performs. That way you can reduce the workload of geometry and textures being loaded and unloaded as possible cause of the sutters.

I was wondering if the Mainz-Finthen Army Airfield will be added to the Germany CW map. It should be already modelled in the current phase. Although it is a small airflied it was used in CW by the US Army as a helicopter base. I hope you can bring this airfield to DCS too. See its Wiki Article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flugplatz_Mainz-Finthen

Alright. Thanks again for all the useful hints. For everybody who interested in the outcome. Here are the system specs of both systems. Note that the Intel system always was running around 8ms to 9 ms CPU frame time. Also see the yellow spikes in fpsVR on the CPU frame time graph that go up to 12 ms or more. This creates the annoying stutter in VR. In comparison the AMD system I have now stays well below 4ms CPU frame time most of the time. It even goes down to 2.5 ms. Which the Intel sytem never managed. Over all the money was well spent. No long lasting stutters. There are some micro stutters from time and again. But I dont see them on the CPU or GPU graph. But in general its a real smooth ride now using the Varjo Aero. ******************************************* ********************************************************************************************* *********************************************************************************************

Its the exact same configuration. i9 13900KS replaced by Ryzen 9950x3D together with a RTX 4090 and the Varjo Aero. DCS settings set to VR-preset. 90 Hz was no problem before either. But the CPU occupation was higher in general. Now I barely get any CPU frame time spikes. Its like night and day. From what I read about the differences of the two CPUs it could be that the huge L3 cache of the Ryzen makes a big difference in my setup.

Thanks for all the useful hints here. I went with Ryzen 9950X3D. The system is running now. And wow. On servers where I had around 6ms CPU frame times, spiking up to 12ms even up to 19ms with the Intel -> On these servers I now have between 2,5 ms to 4 ms. No spikes at all, no more stutters. I will try to give you guys a better comparison looking into my stutters video archieve. I cant compare directly any more as the Intel system is dead. But its a huge improvement!

Thanks for the explanation about the 9900x3d. Makes sense why nobody talks about it. I found this video of a spanish speaking youtuber. He is testing the 9950x3D and the 9800x3D in Vr in this video. Unfortunatey he seemed to have bottlenecked his test with the GPU. He has a lot of setting to high. I thought the RTX 5090 would handle it. But he has a CPU frame time chart in the end, which shows that the 9950x3d gives some kind of improvement to the CPU frame time. Here is the video at 6:00 min: Or see this screenshot:

Thanks for the opinions. So the money I will spend is not the main consideration. Improving stutters is. Seems like abandoning Intel and going AMD is the way. From the youtube tests people do with the 9800x3d vs the 9950x3d the fps gain is minor. But the tests are done in 1080p resolution. Which tends to reduce the advantage of a fast CPU. We also have the 9900x3d nobody seems to talk about for unkown reasons.

Thanks guys. Would you say, with the AMD, I will see improvements in CPU frame time aka CPU bottleneck stutters compared to the Intel CPU?

Since my PC died yesterday, I am thinking of switching to AMD coming from Intel. I had the i9 13900KS before. Using VR ( Aero and now the MeganeX) together with a RTX 4090. Depending on the DCS online server or complex single player missions I had severe stutters due to long CPU frame times 12 to 19 ms = CPU bottleneck. As I need a replacement PC soon, I dont want to dig too deep and too long. So the basic questions are: 1) If I compare the single thread rating here: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/5684vs6549/Intel-i9-14900KF-vs-AMD-Ryzen-9-9950X3D both CPU seem to have pretty much the same performance. BUT the L3 cache is much higher for AMD with 128 MB (Intel only 36 MB) will this potentially give less stutters in VR? Also the clock speed is 1,1 Ghz faster on the AMD. 2) Is there any issues running a RTX 4090 (upgrading to RTX 5090 later) on an AMD system for VR (Aero and MeganeX) use? Thanks in advance for the quick help!

Reproduction: -SP mission. One house in the middle, first ring of houses 250 ft, second ring of houses 500ft. STP in the exact middle on the middle house. Make sure its altitude sits on ground level. -F16 with three bags, hot start, so everything is set up correctly -fly for 2h in any direction, and return and check the waypoint that should be in the exact middle -check INS drift after 2 hours = 400 ft -refuel, repeat: INS drift after 4 hours = 1000 ft -refuel, repeat: INS drift after 6 hours = 1300 ft This was the maximum INS drift I could measure. If you fly around the STP you can bring it to match better due to paralax. I suspect a higher drift in altitude to contribute to the big visible offset. Track attached. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/vb32dm3o09bztxvyvjiry/ins-drift-6-hours.trk?rlkey=50p1ixlfl17rg6b536zremeit&st=7hm9nemo&dl=0

You have the MeganeX also? And your lighthouse setup works? How far are the light houses from your seat?

Thanks. Well that gives about + 15 fps. But the low resolution area is barely noticeable. Maybe I just play with higher foveation. The only thing that still stands out is the bad tracking behavior. I can see it especially when the game is paused. It often likes to fade to grey screen, when tracking is lost which is even more annoying.

No, where would I set it? In DCS there is only the quadviews option. OpenXR toolkit crashes DCS when jumping in the jet. Where can I set foveated rendering?

I got my lens inserts / presciption lenses now too. Sharpness is perfect now. Astigmatism was not my primary problem. It was my farsightedness due to age-sight. If you are farsighted you need lens inserts. The custom diopter, you can set manually could not compensate. Now the view is perfectly clear and high res. For german or european users I can recommend https://vroptiker.de/ they did a great job. Now the only thing that bothers me is that the MeganeX likes to lose tracking. I had a base station in front and one to the side behind me. Obviously the one behind me had to come in front of me too. The lighthouse sits on a tripod for further testing. But still the tracking gets lost time and again, which bothers me. Will investigate further. And well, now I really need a RTX 5090 no way to run DCS stutter free with the lowest settings possible and full native resolution. at 4084x4084 pixels. fpsVR clearly shows that the GPU is often around 95%