VR DCS pc requirements - newbie

[Ghostmaker]

Hello all firstly id like to say hello my names Arron from the UK, im new to pc's and DCS has got me hooked into wanting to start a pc build / setup

 

Ive puchased so far:

HP Reverb G2 Vr

Thrustmaster warthog Hotas

Im now lookibg at getting a pc built to run dcs at good rates without making me feel sick and without any stuttering in frames per second.

 

As a newbie i dont want to spens £4,000.00 on a pc however i want to get your help on a list of bits for a shop to build me a pc witjout going stupid. Ive attached a file of what ive been quoted after asking them to quote me to run dcs and hp reverb vr.

Look forward to your help

 

[Odey]

VR (digitalcombatsimulator.com)

[Ghostmaker]

36 minutes ago, Odey said:

VR (digitalcombatsimulator.com)

Cheers bud helpful info, but im wondering what kind of internals i need to make dcs smooth opperating as a newbie. Sorry if ive missed this in your link

 

Cheers

Arron

[Steel Jaw]

Advise 64gb ram, dcs tends to use over 32 and you want it as a kit.

Edited August 26, 2023 by Steel Jaw

[Qcumber]

3 hours ago, Ghostmaker said:

Ive attached a file of what ive been quoted after asking them to quote me to run dcs and hp reverb vr.

You should be able to some decent results with that setup but with some compromises in terms of game settings. It will take some time patience to optimise. There is plenty of advice and support on this forum. 

[Ghostmaker]

21 minutes ago, Qcumber said:

You should be able to some decent results with that setup but with some compromises in terms of game settings. It will take some time patience to optimise. There is plenty of advice and support on this forum. 

So if i went with that setup quoted would i be able to get a better graphix card to get better frame rates etc? To suit the vr

[WipeUout]

26 minutes ago, Ghostmaker said:

So if i went with that setup quoted would i be able to get a better graphix card to get better frame rates etc? To suit the vr

First thing is to manage your expectations.  VR is giving up quality of visual to get a more immersive experience.  You will be in the sim instead of looking at the sim but will lower quality visuals.  Remember that.

Get the most powerful GPU you can afford, this is critical and more important than getting the most powerful CPU.  Playing DCS in MT (Multi-threading) does not require the top CPU.  Your graphics card will be the bottleneck of your system in VR.  You have a good VR Headset with good resolution but there are a lot of pixels to render and it take a lot of power to run and maintain high FPS.  Compromise on RAM (32 vs 64), same for CPU and expensive overclocking mobos.  Get a 4080 or 4090 if you can.

[Qcumber]

2 hours ago, Ghostmaker said:

So if i went with that setup quoted would i be able to get a better graphix card to get better frame rates etc? To suit the vr

An rtx 4070 will give you acceptable results but it will be better with a 4080 or 4090.

The difficulty for me is cost vs performance. I got a 4070 for £580. At that time a 4080 was £1100 and £1400 for a 4090. I don't know if raw performance is as proportional in DCS as the benchmarks would suggest from other games.

For most of the situations I play (simple combat scenarios SP) I get a pretty steady 72 fps with a Pico 4 at 3120 x 3120 pixels. For heavier scenarios I use my rift s maxed out for a steady 40/80 fps.

 

Edited August 26, 2023 by Qcumber

[diego999]

3 hours ago, Steel Jaw said:

Advise 64gb ram, dcs tends to use over 32 and you want it as a kit.

 

This.

Syria map eats 25gb with you alone on the map. It goes downhill from there.

[Ghostmaker]

Blimey 25gb for just the map. Ok so if i ask them to change the spec in the quote to 64gb, go for a 4080 or a 4090 and keep the rest the same id be looking at a much better system

[kksnowbear]

If you change to a 4090, you'll require a 1000w power supply - at least per 3 of the biggest AIB manufacturers' recommendations for systems running their top-tier 4090 GPUs:

Some have attempted to insist an 850 is enough, but again that's not what the mfrs say, and it also doesn't stand up to educated academic scrutiny either.

Foolish to spend that kind of $ on a high end system and then run the risk of starving it for power by trying to save $50.

Edited August 26, 2023 by kksnowbear

[Ghostmaker]

Yeah makes sense, how much did you guys spend on the gaming pc on its own? 

[kksnowbear]

For reference, on the PSU post I made above:

Gigabyte https://www.gigabyte.com/Graphics-Card/GV-N4090GAMING-OC-24GD-rev-10-11/sp#sp

Asus https://rog.asus.com/graphics-cards/graphics-cards/rog-strix/rog-strix-rtx4090-o24g-gaming-model/spec/

MSI https://www.msi.com/Graphics-Card/GeForce-RTX-4090-SUPRIM-24G/Specification

(As the fourth in the 'big four' GPU manufacturers - eVGA - dropped out of the business after their 30-series, that pretty much means the biggest three in the world).

[Steel Jaw]

1000 watt psu also a good idea for any 4000 series gpu!

[kksnowbear]

15 minutes ago, Ghostmaker said:

Yeah makes sense, how much did you guys spend on the gaming pc on its own? 

I might be able to come up with a figure...but it wouldn't be comparable to what you' d expect to pay for two reasons; one I build everything myself, and two I do this professionally so I don't usually pay the retail "going rate" for hardware.

FWIW The price you listed above didn't sound horrible, considering...but you have to be careful when ordering 'pre-built' machines as there are always ways in the BoM that they're shaving off costs.  For example, in your post above, you list an 850W Gold PSU, but what model and brand?  Same goes for the motherboard, RAM, GPU and M.2/NVMe drive.  Those things combined could make a *huge* difference in the final cost of a system, if they're using off-brand or bottom tier hardware.

Also, FWIW, I would agree with the comment above that you should probably skip the (more costly) over-clocking model motherboards, stick with reasonable brands but not top-end models.  Most of the features you really need are available in mid-range boards which can shave $100 off the price of a board alone.  I personally build more Asus systems than anything, but there are plenty of MSI and Gigabyte fans.  I think I'd go with Asus or MSI - my own personal preference, but based on a decades of first-hand experience.

I'm not sure about the 64G RAM vs 32 question TBH ...it does seem a lot of people say DCS eats up 32G rather quickly (depending, of course)...so if you can afford the extra cost, maybe consider 64G.

Edited August 26, 2023 by kksnowbear

[kksnowbear]

32 minutes ago, Steel Jaw said:

1000 watt psu also a good idea for any 4000 series gpu!

Not so sure I would agree with that TBH.  Even some models of 4090 from the same big three recommend 850W.

I have a Asus TUF 4090, and the most I've measured it drawing is ~650W and that's with a fairly heavy load.  Asus recommends 850W for this model.  I have a 1300W PSU, but there are other reasons for that beyond 'requirements' or even 'recommendations'.

However, there are reliable sources that indicate 4090s can 'spike' up to 700W, and very few meters of any type are going to "catch" this, especially if they're reading the line side of the PSU - which is practically *everyone*, unless they're doing professional work and have the (very expensive) equipment to measure with.  Certainly not 'wall-wart' Kill-A-Watt type meters, nor the software (or hardware display) on any battery backup/UPS/SPS or surge suppressor.

I don't know factually that this (the spiking) doesn't apply to other 40-series GPUs besides the 4090, but the card specs don't seem to indicate it would apply.  For example, even a 4080 has a TDP of 320w which is fully 130W *less* than a 4090, so it's hard to imagine that unit, even with 'spiking', drawing more than 500W (meaning an 850W PSU would almost certainly be adequate, provided it's a high-quality unit.  (Admittedly, I haven't studied this particularly and do not have the hardware, so I'm basing my perspective on general research and available data).

A 4070 has a TDP of 200W (and a 4060Ti just 160W) so a 1000W PSU would *definitely* be gross overkill, and thus unnecessarily expensive (unless the concern is more about efficiency, but this whole discussion changes substantially in that case).

Edited August 26, 2023 by kksnowbear

[Ghostmaker]

33 minutes ago, kksnowbear said:

Not so sure I would agree with that TBH.  Even some models of 4090 from the same big three recommend 850W.

I have a Asus TUF 4090, and the most I've measured it drawing is ~650W and that's with a fairly heavy load.  Asus recommends 850W for this model.  I have a 1300W PSU, but there are other reasons for that beyond 'requirements' or even 'recommendations'.

However, there are reliable sources that indicate 4090s can 'spike' up to 700W, and very few meters of any type are going to "catch" this, especially if they're reading the line side of the PSU - which is practically *everyone*, unless they're doing professional work and have the (very expensive) equipment to measure with.  Certainly not 'wall-wart' Kill-A-Watt type meters, nor the software (or hardware display) on any battery backup/UPS/SPS or surge suppressor.

I don't know factually that this (the spiking) doesn't apply to other 40-series GPUs besides the 4090, but the card specs don't seem to indicate it would apply.  For example, even a 4080 has a TDP of 320w which is fully 130W *less* than a 4090, so it's hard to imagine that unit, even with 'spiking', drawing more than 500W (meaning an 850W PSU would almost certainly be adequate, provided it's a high-quality unit.  (Admittedly, I haven't studied this particularly and do not have the hardware, so I'm basing my perspective on general research and available data).

A 4070 has a TDP of 200W (and a 4060Ti just 160W) so a 1000W PSU would *definitely* be gross overkill, and thus unnecessarily expensive (unless the concern is more about efficiency, but this whole discussion changes substantially in that case).

 

 

Ive just sent an email to the shop to see what make and models of these items on the quote are as you stated, you close to birmingam UK and fancy building me a pc lol

[kksnowbear]

I'd love to, honestly....

However, considering that I'm on the "other side of the pond", I'm afraid it wouldn't be very practical 

[Ghostmaker]

Haha thats a stone throw away ill even collect it haha

[kksnowbear]

Oh, ok...in that case lol

[Ghostmaker]

Haha, i really want to get this pc sorted so i can get on dcs, the kit in the quote... when they reply with the kit they will be using ill post it up on here and let me know your thoughts. 1400 quid isnt alot to be fair. A different gaming shop told me i need to spen at least £4,000.00 which put me off for starting up

[kksnowbear]

Yeah, see that should illustrate what a huge difference can be made depending on exact hardware etc...

But I would agree 1400 is fairly conservative (without actually studying the matter, and no real details, mind). That said, however, 1400 GBP is around 1700 USD if I'm looking at it correctly (though you guys pay a lot in taxes as I understand it...my sales tax here is 6%) . 1700usd is not outrageous for a good system but it does depend a lot on the specifics.

If you're really interested in top notch performance you may wind up a bit lot closer to 4000 lol

But for sure, let's see what the list says.

Edited August 26, 2023 by kksnowbear

[Ghostmaker]

Yeah im guessing i wont hear back until tuesday as tomorrows bank holiday. Ideally i want the cockpit to be sharp realistic and goof frames per second, and clouding and ground to be realistic but im guessing i can adjust settings to suit no matter what?

[kksnowbear]

Well...

You can turn settings down - but there would be a limit to how much detail you're willing to sacrifice.

You can turn settings up - but then (of course) frame rate will vary in inverse proportion...and there will also be a limit (in FPS) you're willing to tolerate.

Trade-off, same as it ever was

"Good" frame rate means different things in different circumstances...some people are willing to accept lower frame rates simply because they aren't interested in paying for the (stupid expensive) high-end GPUs.  (As a 4090 owner, I gotta say, they're right!!! hahaha)

Some people already *have* stupid expensive GPUs and still would welcome higher frame rates lol...(this is probably the arrangement that leads to a 4000GBP price tag)

So, what is 'good' for you? 45...75...90...?

I think the comment(s) above suggesting you get the best GPU you can afford are very good advice.  VR is exceptionally demanding of graphics performance, and it seems like only the more recent GPUs are getting people up to the kind of performance that most seem to want.  Sucky part is that these high-end GPUs are usually sinfully expensive

The AMD AM5 platform is a good choice, because you can hopefully get reasonable performance now, and then later on (assuming a decent motherboard) have room to upgrade - likely that any AM5 board will accommodate processors all the up to the 7950X3D, but other features on the board will vary.  AMD has committed to future socket compatibility as well, so you should be set for quite some time - your budget will dictate whether to invest now in a board that supports PCIe Gen5 (though I rather suspect this is one area where that quote you have includes a lower-end spec unit to save cost)...you can consider that further once you see the list's details.

Incidentally - for my own edification, if you please - can you comment on the taxes I mentioned?  For example, of that 1400 quote, how much is actual equipment cost and how much is because of taxes?  I'm just wondering how much difference it's going to make if we were to try comparing prices I might see here to what you'll be looking at there.  I don't think a currency converter takes that into account.

As an example, a $1700 retail system "all in" (taxes included) would mean I paid essentially 1603 for the actual hardware and 97 in tax.  I'm not knowledgeable as to how your taxes would work out exactly, but if you pay considerably more of the 1400 for taxes, it leaves proportionally less for the actual hardware - which obviously affects the component options.  SO perhaps you'd be good enough to elaborate on that.

As far as the list goes, Tuesday it is What I might honestly expect is something like this:

Lower-tier AM5 motherboard, ASRock brand, probably B650 chipset (lowest of the four types).  ASRock is very common in 'pre-built' systems, and it's among the areas they save cost.

Off-brand PSU (not sure of brands available there in the UK but online sources can usually tell what's what).  Another area where prebuilts usually try to save cost.

Lower-tier GPU manufacturer (i.e. not Asus, MSI, Gigabyte - though again I'm not informed as to brands where you are).  Some examples I put at the lower end (just my own opinion) might be ASRock, PNY, Zotac, or Palit.

Off-brand M.2/NVMe drive (i.e., not Samsung, WD, etc)

Possibly lower-end RAM, probably lower speed and higher CAS rate.

What the prebuilts typically do is cite popular, well-known component details like "32G RAM" (without saying who made it, the speed or CAS level); a "4070" GPU (no manufacturer name or model); an "850W Gold" PSU (no mfr name/model number).  Even among high-end manufacturers, they might make two or three different models of 4090 GPU, or several models of 850W PSUs - and the features of these different levels of components can vary a lot.

It's not a lost point that the list in the quote not only doesn't specify a brand or model of the motherboard, but also doesn't identify which chipset - and that can vary the cost (and features) by hundreds of dollars.  Seriously.

Here in the states, Alienware is seriously among the worst of these pre-built brands.  It's a well-known name.  But if I look at those systems from a background of 40 years' experience and formal training, they cut corners as I've outlined, yet are looked upon by uninformed buyers as top-end systems.  IMO, they aren't, really.

I'm not saying it's immoral or illegal mind you, but what these places do is assume that anyone who's paying them to build it really doesn't know that much about specs etc, and that leaves a lot of room for cutting cost.  I can honestly say that, when I've compared offers like those by looking at the details, it's common to find the areas I described above are where they're making money.

Anyone who's preference is to have someone build a system for them (and there's nothing wrong with that) needs to pay attention to these details, and insist on getting specifics about the components being used.

Anyhow, we shall see I suppose   Happy "Summer Bank Holiday"

Edited August 27, 2023 by kksnowbear

[Ghostmaker]

The tax over here is 20% on all goods, no brands were mentioned in that quote however they said they buy the bits in to build the pc so not sure if there good or cheap parts, i havnt told them that im a newbie to pc's so they may be good parts but you will be able to tell me. 

With regards to the internet conection to the pc, does it need to be hard wired conection? Were on fibre here.... however i have a 6m x 3m man cave in the garden with mains from the house. Ive been made aware that i need a connection bit would a netgear wifi boosted connected to the mains with a network cable linking them then the other netgear booster in the man cave with a network cable from this to the pc work? Apparently they use the mains cable as an internet link. Failing this im going to pay to get a hard wired cable installed