Qiou87

The cores are identical so its only down to clock speed, given that core count is no factor in DCS. I've seen reports of 5950X boosting over 5,0GHz, while the 5600X seems to top out at 4,8GHz. Those 5% are all you are going to see, which seems like a steep premium for such a small difference. But I agree, if price is no question, you might as well get the best performing chip. I am just used to thinking more in terms of value proposition, to each his own. In my case it is better to save budget for the GPU, as this is the limiting factor in VR especially if you start cranking up that supersampling. In all the measurements I've made my older 2600X almost never limits my 2070 Super, so I have no doubt about a newer Ryzen 5000 chip being able to cope with all these new GPUs. In the end it will boil down to availability as well for those looking to build a system now (which, IMHO, is not the right time given the high prices and limited availabilities of CPUs/GPUs).

My friends and I ran into massive performance issues in MP using F10 on the Syria map (not all are using VR). So you would not be alone here. I personnally avoid it as much as I can. Oculus Debugging Tools offers some kind of view of your frametime, so you are able to view what is limiting. The idea to extract to csv and open in Excel is to make a more in-depth analysis, sort the frametimes to see the spikes... I also save multiple sessions I record to see if a patch improves my performance, or if a tweak/modification to the settings has a positive impact. This way I can just go back to a previous recording and see actual measurements, not just estimate. However I want to point out that you have a solid system, mine is clearly inferior, but I get steady FPS even in MP just by having worked on the settings (PD in Oculus @1.4, nothing ingame, and adjusted settings like you can see on many different guides for VR). IMHO MP servers, especially heavily loaded ones, tend to make the CPU work more but the GPU works the same as in SP (at least in my experience and based on my measurements). But with a 10850K you should be higher than 20fps...

"AMD drivers" is one of those lame cliches that just won't die. There are some problems like at 5700XT launch, but they are mostly good, come out as regularly and reliably as the nVidia ones, and the interface is actually much nicer without having to give all your personal info to nVidia with GeForce Experience. I know, it is optional, but for example without it you don't even get auto-update of drivers. I use to run an AMD GPU, switched to nVidia, both have been good but I miss the AMD drivers if you can believe it... I am just so amazed how the internet community forgives nVidia in 2sec when a specific driver release is bugged, but when AMD has an issue we hear about it for years. There are only 2 GPU vendors, it's not enough competition as it is, why reduce your choices even more based on hearsay? As for the CPU side I'm not sure why you are considering the Ryzen 9 for DCS? The game mostly uses one core heavily, I don't see the point in having 10 or 12 cores. You should get exactly the same performance, up to 1-2% based on turbo clock speeds, from a Ryzen 5 or 7 of the same generation. With some advantages like lower power consumption, so less heat in your system, remembering that those new GPUs (especially RTX3080/90 and RX6800XT) are outrageously power-hungry and will pose significant challenges to cool down. And will also make your gaming area incomfortably hot during the summer... And drivers don't come into play for the CPU, Windows takes care about it, it's not like you are going to update your CPU/Mobo driver every month for a certain game release. Install and forget about it, therefore you should just pick the part that has the best performance in your budget. I've used both vendors over the years and never noticed any difference outside of pure system and gaming performance.

I'd start by running Oculus Debug Tools and especially the performance profiler. Take a 10min recording of your CPU frametime and GPU frametime when gaming in this server. You can handily export to csv and make a graph in Excel to see which one is the culprit limiting your FPS... Lower frametime = better performance, so the limiting factor is the one posting higher frametimes.

Thanks for posting that update here, where was it originally? Great to see this kind of commitment to a full release, DCS has too many early access modules as it stands.

That's quite a detailed and thorough analysis, thanks for that. I have been playing a bit with Oculus debug tools to map my frametimes in repeatable scenarios and try to find out what I can improve for VR, while I was looking for the best compromise in supersampling between readability and smoothness. I found that in most cases, the frametime I get is around 10-15ms from the CPU (in SP) and 18-25ms from the GPU. Based on this, I thought that I should update my GPU first (RTX 2070 SUPER) and only worry about the CPU later (Ryzen 5 2600X). I currently get a very decent experience, using SS x1.4 in the Rift S, my game is mostly smooth (except some airports in Syria and Supercarrier) with decent details, but I want to push SS a bit more (my cockpit is readable, but only just). However your post seem to indicate the opposite (CPU is more important than GPU), which surprises me. My understanding was that the GPU takes ~20ms to calculate the frames as it is, so as long as the CPU is done before that, it is not bottlenecking. I would like to understand more about this reasoning, mostly because I am always happy to learn about PC hardware, but also to spend my money in the most efficient way. :smartass:

This system of "reservation" is not ideal if we are honest ; it means some planes coming out in 2030 (considering the extremely long lead times for a single plane module) are already "reserved", and if a new 3rd party comes and wants to start this plane right away, they have to ask for permission. But anyway, I thank you for the informative answer. Nothing like a well-organized speculation thread, right? :) At least the F-117 has one mission it can do in DCS (as opposed to V-22), although you forget the second mission it has: "catch me if you can", a fun game for two to 50 players where one guy plays the mouse in a F-117 and all the other players are cats, trying to detect and catch the mouse. SA-3 is banned from this game for obvious reasons.:megalol:

Anyone could catch me up on why the F-117 is not a likely candidate? I certainly wasn't there for the whole 75 pages of discussion, but to me, it seems to fit most of the criteria, like the V22 and F-111, but without multicrew and with actual combat use (vs. the V22, which would be useless in DCS right now). Actually it would be awesome if the OP contained the list of possible aircraft, and why they are not considered "the one" based on evidence we have. Would save a lot of repeat I guess.

I mean we did get an official teaser video with Wags flying the Hind. That's more than a lot of other "WIP" modules, we actually saw it fly. :) I do agree that some news would be nice, maybe just an update on their progress report. I just hope the dev team is doing well with what is happening (Belarus + COVID...), I am sure it will be a great module. Until then we also have to contain excitement and remain patient...

I couldn't replicate any performance increase with this patch (in VR, Rift S). Tested both, made frametime CPU/GPU measurements doing the same thing on 2 different maps, and the results in stable and open beta line up. Might see a little bit less frametime spikes (stutters) from the GPU, but it could just be a coincidence. However I did see improvements to the shadows (no more flickering), good job with that. I guess benefits from this patch vary depending on personal hardware and settings.

I think it has been heavily teased, and at some point ED said they were going to work on it once Hind was released (Q1 2021 as I understand from Mr. Pearson's last interview). But yes, Apache is out due to being already teased, it wouldn't be a surprise.

Could you post some screenshots for those of us sticking with stable? :helpsmilie: Based on the patch notes it seems to be an ED problem, not a Ugra problem. it was said this map is using the latest map SDK and tech, so maybe they needed to work on that side and not on the map itself. In any case, if it is better, that is great news indeed, this map deserves to look as good from altitude as it does down low.

Didn't say I did. It's just that everyone was so sure, in the last few posts, that we were looking at a western plane just because Russian full fidelity is out of the question. I wanted to shed some light on other possibilities and ask "what if". I find it funny to see so many requests for modern Russian planes, and comparatively few for the Chinese - albeit some are copies or even direct russian jets built under licence, China has a large industry for aviation and a huge budget for defence compared to Russia, so it makes for an interesting proposition as "red air" for the US jets already in DCS.

Just wondering, as GR put "Module X" in the future Red Air category, what if it wasn't a western plane? If we exclude Russian, that does leave Chinese planes. I am curious what the chances would be to get a modern one in full fidelity, like J-10 ou J-15? Don't know how "mind melting" it would be, but I guess a 4th gen red air with Fox3 can be considered as such.

Already announced by Magnitude 3 and shown last year at VFAT. Although a very sexy plane, I don't think it fits, especially since WW2 DCS is still pretty niche within the DCS community. Next guess! Once you leave out the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. Right? :lol: Something with stealth would definitely be a huge step forward for DCS as a whole. It would push the boundaries of every module's radar system, how RCS is taken into account, how IRST is used to identify targets when radar is not returning anything, etc. It is possible (like you say, Typhoon's coming, so why not)...

The problem is that there are so many different Block 50s. As they say: first delivery 1991, ours is ca. 2007, and this is on the LM website today (2020). They are probably speaking about the jet and its capabilities today. One example: they say the radar is APG-68 V9, whereas (according to Wags' post in this section) ours has APG-68 V5. Another one: Harpoon (not available to us). There is not a fixed set of characteristics for a Block 50, it has been upgraded year after year. Maybe ours in 2007 didn't have the same engine management system to allow for such rapid changes from idle to AB?

I could be wrong but I believe it is using slightly older technology compared to the newer maps. Lighting, especially at night, is not as appealing to me. Terrain is not as detailed (I mean the mesh). From high up it is fine, but down low it is nothing special. It compares quite well to the Caucasus. PG is superior to me because the cities are larger and with higher detail buildings, night lighting is also nicer (though the lack of torches is baffling, as they are the most distinctive things I remember when flying over the gulf IRL), and the overall area is just more usable for DCS (large sea area, interesting AO for actual conflicts). However both get obliterated to me by Syria in terms of low-altitude details. The terrain variety is also great, meaning there are many areas you can fly for fun, find a valley to dive into, etc. compared to the other two. High-altitude detail needs work but its an EA map, so there is hope. But I am having immense fun in the F-5E in Syria.

I might have misunderstood or misremembered. My understanding was, at some point, he said the Mosquito was coming before end of 2020, and Hind in Q1. But you might be correct, I am not 100% sure.

As for maps: - Nevada is the least interesting of the bunch. Mostly agressor/Red flag campaigns available. Visually the least appealing of the DLC maps. - Gulf: nicer looking but still a lot of desert. Some DLC campaigns available, nice for carrier ops as well. - Syria: awesome-looking at lower altitude, perfect for CAS with A10C and helicopters. Since it is a new map, not a lot of content is available, but it can be used with missions like FBO/TTI/etc. that generate tasks using scripts, or in multiplayer, or with DCS Liberation (which, if you haven't checked it out, you definitely should: it is a dynamic campaign engine). If you want to "graduate" from FC3 planes, the F-5E-3 is a very nice module. And it is really cool to fly.

"Unlimited fuel" is not the same as having a simplified AAR. Unlimited fuel means you can take off with 500lbs of fuel, no drop tanks and just ordinance, and still fly for 2 hours. Using "unlimited fuel" is not removing just a little bit of realism, like an easier AAR system would, it is removing a lot. You can fly in AB all the time, fly low to the ground... Anything becomes possible. Easier AAR just means you don't have to know how to keep steady for 10min behind a tanker, that is not the same league of "simplification".

You assume a lot of things. Not everyone learns at the same rate. I tried and never managed to not get frustrated with AAR. When I grab the basket, staying at the same speed exactly as the tanker is not as easy. And then that idiot decides to make a turn without notifying. I actually manage to grab it, but holding on is clearly not as easy to me and my meager skills. Doesn't mean I should just go back to fly Ace Combat. And I prefer to spend the time I have to play practising more fun skills. To each his own. Clearly this is something which is recognized, as recent campaigns (like Raven One, or Serpent's head) have an easy AAR option. Here the OP is only asking for something included in the game, like auto-start or easy coms. I agree with Rhinozherous: why argue against something that you personally wouldn't use, but might help others?

There are options in the game to simplify some things. Having something like "grab the basket = you get your plane refueled", instead of having to stay attached for 5-10min, would probably be possible and a nice friendly option. Not everyone has hours to spend on training for something like AAR, it doesn't mean they should just forget about it altogether. It would also be a nice way to build up your skill ; if you know all you have to do is grab the basket and you're done, you will probably do more trips to the tanker in regular missions when one is available. In turn, these trips will make you more comfortable behind it, and at some point you might feel like disabling the assistance and going for realistic AAR. But if this assistance doesn't exist, you'll probably not even bother to try and just hit an airport to refuel instead, never building up said skill.

Thank you Bailey. Though it probably isn't much in terms of story, at least that's a way to progress in the game with the plane, learn stuff and get a sense of accomplishment (I need that carrot at the end of the stick). That's the info I was looking for, and the P51 looks set to be my first warbird. I got scared yesterday reading about complex engine management in its sub-forum, but then I took the TF-51 out for a spin in Syria, and it was just too much fun.

This plane is just pure fun. I have flown the 16/18 for a while and just thought, let’s fire up that F5 and go for a ride in Through the Inferno. And I actually had a blast, dropped some bombs, fired some rockets, busted my gear like an idiot...and did all of that with a huge smile on my face. That plane is a gem to fly.