Jump to content

[REPORTED]VR Performance OB 2.5.6


Gripen 4-1

Recommended Posts

Hi

 

We understand that it is a problem and I have shared the feedback with Kate and Matt in my weekly report.

 

We are working on remaining memory leaks, we also have FPS reports open for individual issues where we have found problems and we have a VR focused report open that we are working on regarding 2.5.5. vs 2.5.6.

 

I have included some of the graphs I have produced for our VR report,

 

F-18 free flight and F-5E free flight as comparisons between 2.5.5 and 2.5.6

 

When I have news I will share it with you all, we are planning an open beta update next week if tests go well.

 

Thanks

 

Thank you sir!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 719
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi Bignewy,

 

I attach 2 tracks I commented many times about infamous stuttering in 2.5.6, specially when using TGP in Caucasus terrain (when camera pass over the horizon), making it those planes completely unplayable in that terrain. Appart of other sort of FPS decreases related with few numbers of AI units.

 

This sort of stutter (TGP looking at Caucasus) doesn´t happens in PG terrain (also in 2.5.6) or 2.5.5 (all terrains), its quite specific from caucasus, seems related to some issue preloading in memory. In fact, I noticed that video memory used is considerably lower in 2.5.6 in comparison with 2.5.5 (maybe the not cached scenery could impact continuosly due constants loads-unloads???)

 

I hope the next week we´ll have those problems fixed in 2.5.6, at least, returning the same perferomance we have in 2.5.5 (not optimal, but at least playable with my high end PC in VR).

 

Thanks

A-10 TGP_Stutter.miz.trk

SU-25T TGP_Stutter.miz.trk


Edited by Gryzor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps I'm lucky with a reasonable card but I don't find DCS "unplayable". Nevertheless I've followed this thread because all VR fliers want more frames. I went to try some FPS tests and only got as far as recording 2D FPS from a running hot start at Kutaisi looking south. I was surprised at the variance in modules so I'll provide them. I rounded the numbers by eyeballing them, they fluctuate.

Jeff: 80 (75-85)

Harrier: 102

Tomcat: 102

Viper: 98

Mirage: 97

C-101CC: 120

A-10C: 95 (tried about 10 times and discovered the FPS take a lot longer to come up in the A-10C (55 at start sometimes))

Mig-15: 116

Fw190A-8: 109

Mig-21: 110

F-18: 102

This is using the stock default 2D forward view and not budging it. All on the north ramp facing the same direction. I picked Kutaisi because it's somewhat notorious.

I then did airborne flying tests up north of Mozdok with the best and worst performer:

 

A-10C: 120-135

C-101CC: 160

Remembering VR gets half of that at best, there's already significant module to module and location difference.

 

But the real takeaway is where you are looking and how much CPU is going on. The GPU, is unthrottled and mine runs at 99%. The CPU steps up from 3.30GHz to 4.45GHz reliably every time, this is in 2D on less screen real estate. Mid way through the tests my legs had warmed up, the fans were at full revs and I started to consider my hardware lifespan and the money it might cost to replace!

 

Given my GPU runs with no vsync for the test, the map view during the mission gave me 170-180 frames, that was the ceiling. The CPU however was still trying to push more with nothing in the mission. When I added units I expected frames to go down. Not so, a blip of a shudder when 16 planes began dogfighting and a ship and three sam sites began to get involved but the GPU was still gettting everything, and the only indication was the increase in CPU from the AI.

What is far more telling was where you 'look'. I started thinking there was no GPU issue, it's running as it should but I looked around the cockpits and the big changes occurred. Looking up into the blue sky I hit the F10 view cap of 180+ frames. Looking around certain places were eating frames unexpectedly. I always thought CPU bound and AI as the cause was the first limit, but there are more complex things going on with the terrain being the chief use of the frames. I provide no analysis, just the experience and data.

 

Hardware

CPU: i5 8600K @3.60 (no OC, air cooled), RTX Nvidia 2080S (only 8GB mem), RAM: 16GB, Drives: DCS is on an NVMe, C: on a SSD, VR: HP Reverb, Peripherals: lots of irrelevant stuff

 

DCS config (current 2.5.6)

System: T: high, TT: Low, CT: Low, W: High, VR: High, HB: Off, S: Flat Only, Res: 3840x21260, AR: 1.77, M: 1, RoCD: 1024 Every Frame, MSAA: Off, DoF: Off, LE: None, MB: Off, SSAA: Off, SSLR: Off, C/G: 1500, TV: 80%, PR:100000, CSD: 1, G: 2, AF: 8x, TOS: Flat, CGI: On, MFS:1.25, SG: 2, RD: Yes, Vsync: Off, FS: On.

VR: PD: 1.0

Mirrors: Off, WT: Off, Simulation settings for all else.

SteamVR:

· 90 MHz

· Per App (DCS): PD: 1.0

· MS: Always On

· Legacy Reprojection: Off

· SteamVR Developer mode:

· Disable Power Management applied

Additional Config

· VR shaders

· All shaders (not just fxo+metashaders, but terrain too) were blasted

· VR shader mod applied

· Drivers: 442.74 (3/19/2020)

· Nvidia Control Panel (acting up but iirc I did look ahead frames to 3)

 

Feel free to use these results and mission to provide actual data to the thread. There's a real shortage of quantative testing showing data in this thread, most of it is just using words like "unplayable".

The miz activates a bunch of AI after 30s, just so you know. Useful for before and after comparisons.

FPStest.miz

___________________________________________________________________________

SIMPLE SCENERY SAVING * SIMPLE GROUP SAVING * SIMPLE STATIC SAVING *

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BIGNEWY,

 

People are trying to help by posting specs and performance measurements and observations, but every one is different and I can't imagine that it is easy to compare and use this information.

 

I think it would really be worth ED's time to implement a basic benchmarking function into DCS.

 

Then everyone can perform the same controlled tests, making comparisons actually useful both for users tweaking options and for ED to collect performance data.

You can also record the system information and log all the important stats during the test.

Even if you just play back a reference track file with performance logging, it would be a good start and may help you solve the current performance issues.

 

If you make the results packageable then users can post their results in forum posts when there are issues (as they do now with track files), but you will have all the information you need in a standard format.

Maybe have an option to send the result directly to ED for gathering info from a wide range of sytem setups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Pikey, but I’m confused. Why are you quoting monitor fps in a VR thread? Why do you say VR is about half those? There is no direct relationship between the 2.

 

Sorry if I’m missing something obvious.

Intel i7 12700K · MSI Gaming X Trio RTX 4090 · ASUS ROG STRIX Z690-A Wi-Fi · MSI 32" MPG321UR QD · Samsung 970 500Gb M.2 NVMe · 2 x Samsung 850 Evo 1Tb · 2Tb HDD · 32Gb Corsair Vengance 3000MHz DDR4 · Windows 11 · Thrustmaster TPR Pedals · Tobii Eye Tracker 5 · Thrustmaster F/A-18 Hornet Grip · Virpil MongoosT-50CM3 Base · Virpil Throttle MT-50 CM3 · Virpil Alpha Prime Grip · Virpil Control Panel 2 · Thrustmaster F-16 MFDs · HTC Vive Pro 2 · Total Controls Multifunction Button Box

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BIGNEWY,

 

People are trying to help by posting specs and performance measurements and observations, but every one is different and I can't imagine that it is easy to compare and use this information.

 

I think it would really be worth ED's time to implement a basic benchmarking function into DCS.

 

Then everyone can perform the same controlled tests, making comparisons actually useful both for users tweaking options and for ED to collect performance data.

You can also record the system information and log all the important stats during the test.

Even if you just play back a reference track file with performance logging, it would be a good start and may help you solve the current performance issues.

 

If you make the results packageable then users can post their results in forum posts when there are issues (as they do now with track files), but you will have all the information you need in a standard format.

Maybe have an option to send the result directly to ED for gathering info from a wide range of sytem setups.

 

Indeed, including a draw call counter. What's also the surest way is like a "huge" special mission which would test a bazillion of scenarios and would perhaps run overnight and some, but we can probably tone it down to some key scenarios, perhaps a quick version for cases like this with some key perf data relevant for users.

Combinations combinations combinations. DCS has so many systems, and depending on the mish-mash you're happen to be into you'll get different results even if you're on the same exact specs, you'll get different results if you use MAV or TGP for example, MAV is more expensive on GPU, that small detail would technically invalidate a test for example.

This would be beyond tracks, this has to be an actual component built for it specifically, running the scripted tests and more than just general tests but rather split by components to figure out their impact individually and be able to home down on culprits, automatically gathering perf data into report, calculating and giving you a % of difference versus another report that you took in another version (if that version supported this benchmarking at all). It could perhaps even be a separate utility outside DCS because for a more surer tests it should researt DCS and clear up standby memory before each new test so you can simulate the worst-case cold boot scenario for every test and that's should be the target, because standby memory is just a convenience IMO, but we've grown so used to it that we take it for granted, if it works nice on cold boot it should work even better after you've been playing for some time.

I might post a draft idea in a separate thread in the future, perhaps I may just make a draft mission that tests some limited things as proof of concept.

 

I got some nice clues up will post it today hopefully it helps ... there may be a common problem to this.

 

I should have been on hiatus by now, but after successfully putting in another 8GB of RAM finally, so much overdue, to get me to 32GB I just couldn't miss to not test it and the the month of free trials wouldn't let me go, it's great bug hunting opportunity on modules I never planned buying. Things I do for DCS :)


Edited by Worrazen

Modules: A-10C I/II, F/A-18C, Mig-21Bis, M-2000C, AJS-37, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, P-47, FC3, SC, CA, WW2AP, CE2. Terrains: NTTR, Normandy, Persian Gulf, Syria

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
BIGNEWY,

 

People are trying to help by posting specs and performance measurements and observations, but every one is different and I can't imagine that it is easy to compare and use this information.

 

I think it would really be worth ED's time to implement a basic benchmarking function into DCS.

 

Then everyone can perform the same controlled tests, making comparisons actually useful both for users tweaking options and for ED to collect performance data.

You can also record the system information and log all the important stats during the test.

Even if you just play back a reference track file with performance logging, it would be a good start and may help you solve the current performance issues.

 

If you make the results packageable then users can post their results in forum posts when there are issues (as they do now with track files), but you will have all the information you need in a standard format.

Maybe have an option to send the result directly to ED for gathering info from a wide range of sytem setups.

 

I agree it would be nice to have a benchmarking mission or track replay.

 

The tracks and data provided by users is very helpful the more detail we get the better, there are so many configurations out there it can be difficult sometimes to pin down a problem.

 

Thanks

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so one thing i spotted recently , on 2.5.6 (having turned off shadows, all of them and mirrors) frame rates are pretty good, what is unusual is the *lack* of blurring (double vision) you get... so in 2.5.5 (same set up no mirrors etal) you get some "double images" especially when "motion vector" is operating, running exactly the same scenarios in 2.5.6 rock solid single image all the way through..


Edited by speed-of-heat

SYSTEM SPECS: Hardware Intel Corei7-12700KF @ 5.1/5.3p & 3.8e GHz, 64Gb RAM, 4090 FE, Dell S2716DG, Virpil T50CM3 Throttle, WinWIng Orion 2 & F-16EX + MFG Crosswinds V2, Varjo Aero
SOFTWARE: Microsoft Windows 11, VoiceAttack & VAICOM PRO

1569924735_WildcardsBadgerFAASig.jpg.dbb8c2a337e37c2bfb12855f86d70fd5.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Pikey, but I’m confused. Why are you quoting monitor fps in a VR thread? Why do you say VR is about half those? There is no direct relationship between the 2.

 

Sorry if I’m missing something obvious.

 

+1


YouTube Channel


Update: MSI Z790 Tomahawk, i9 13900k, DDR5 64GB 640 MHz, MSI 4090 Gaming X Trio, 970 EVO Plus 1TB SSD NVMe M.2 and 4 more, HOTAS TM Warthog, Meta Quest Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Pikey, but I’m confused. Why are you quoting monitor fps in a VR thread? Why do you say VR is about half those? There is no direct relationship between the 2.

 

Sorry if I’m missing something obvious.

 

 

Correct, VR was my next step, but it has a CPU and graphics overhead. So the 2D is your "never will be exceeded numbers" and it's always been at maximum half of those numbers, there is a relationship, it's just not as simple as "/2" but it is useful for working out what you might achieve in VR and where issues arrrive before you add the complexity of VR on top of the configuration. And it's very much close to /2 for me, I can say that I can see where my 45FPS comes from in single player, and how I get less once you add it to MP. If you see less than 90 FPS you know you will begining to see less optimal numbers. Additionally, there is a Multiplayer overhead for some unknown reason, probably due to pushing the network cards offloading to the CPU as well. Your optimisation must start from the 2D, because it's the same scene being rendered twice and the simpler that is, the more overhead room you have for VR. Of course, its not the same, but most folks using VR will know how much it eats and have loaded up in 2D to tinker with settings. And I will do the next step, but I began here and it took so long to do the basic data to compare against, I thought I'd share early, as well as a personal reference.

 

Also +1 for a standardised benchmark tool or even scene/mission. Even without a "tool" per se, just the process to be followed could be settled on for now.

___________________________________________________________________________

SIMPLE SCENERY SAVING * SIMPLE GROUP SAVING * SIMPLE STATIC SAVING *

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK on to the VR stuff, brought ahead slightly rushed, I narrowed down the modules I looked at to the top and bottom performers and took screenshots of the in game FPS, the Nvidia overlay and FPSvr tool.

 

 

Same mission. The FPS results are broadly in line with the way 2D presented, except the Hornet fell down a bit in relation to the top and bottom performing modules. I believe there is a change in performance when switching module, that is most likely to do with textureloading/memory, so take that into account. However the data still shows the 2D>3D relationship and gives a very good idea of

 

1. The VR overhead

2. Module differences (significant for VR users)

3. Direction of view and link to terrain

4. Something new - CPU frametime on look direction

 

 

 

The 2D and 3D FPS timings showed relationships on module performance. Just looking at the best performing and worst (best being C-101 and worst was JF-17, with Hornet middleground and A-10 being lowish)

 

C-101 2D: 120FPS, VR: 52

Frametimes both in the yellow. The data point I have great interest in is the sideways look (the picture attached looking right the 45FPS top right) Something I cannot explain is the CPU frametime peaking and going up. Why? Returns to normal when looking forward. A difference of 5.5ms 16ms framtime compared to 21ms. Same plane, it was faithfully repeating this and all planes did.

 

JF-17 2D: 80, VR: 36

GPU frametime is now in the red, 25ms for the majority of the time, thats 6ms higher than the C-101 or if you like percentages, FORTY PERCENT difference. Why? GPU went down when looking sideways, CPU went up to nearly 26ms. Why?

 

 

There's only two things I know for sure from this. Modules are very much in play with the VR differences and both CPU and GPU interact with looking in certain directions.

 

Points that aren't easy to absolutely say for certian, but GPU appeared to be much higher on planes with complex instrumentation when looking ahead.

 

I'll get back to work proper, but have a look at doing this properly this evening. At the very least I discovered which modules perform better in VR.

947047018_2020-03-2611_50_22-DigitalCombatSimulator.thumb.jpg.a517e1f1dc5f3a10d184270515fb7a29.jpg

2116160997_2020-03-2611_52_06-DigitalCombatSimulator.thumb.png.08bea91e698af01c9a7406341215159e.png

1920037757_2020-03-2611_53_11-DigitalCombatSimulator.thumb.png.efae62fd8c03449cd117c57c3ec17023.png

164783069_2020-03-2611_54_35-DigitalCombatSimulator.thumb.png.8a880d180c3fa8303b29dfe0f4d32234.png

329977250_2020-03-2611_56_28-DigitalCombatSimulator.thumb.png.92a869cf7fcc9a1267c8be45fd5f7703.png

1436478267_2020-03-2611_58_07-DigitalCombatSimulator.thumb.png.3006d193cf61e782a6105ddda5e739e0.png

___________________________________________________________________________

SIMPLE SCENERY SAVING * SIMPLE GROUP SAVING * SIMPLE STATIC SAVING *

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was in MP yesterday flying F14 in several crowded servers with bellow setup and good ping.

When taxiing, it was stutter fest out front windscreen but out side windows it was butter smooth.

As long as I kept my eyes to the side I could taxi. Not sure if this helps but throwing it out there.

Regards

I9 (5Ghz turbo)2080ti 64Gb 3200 ram. 3 drives. A sata 2tb storage and 2 M.2 drives. 1 is 1tb, 1 is 500gb.

Valve Index, Virpil t50 cm2 stick, t50 base and v3 throttle w mini stick. MFG crosswind pedals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think it would really be worth ED's time to implement a basic benchmarking function into DCS.

 

 

I agree !

 

See my post here

DCS World Time Demo Benchmarking Tool

 

Happy Simming,

Monnie


Edited by MonnieRock

Rack Rig: Rosewill RSV-L4000 | Koolance ERM-3K3UC | Xeon E5-1680 v2 @ 4.9ghz w/EK Monoblock | Asus Rampage IV Black Edition | 64GB 2133mhz | SLI TitanXP w/ EK Waterblocks | 2x Samsung 970 EVO Plus 1TB | Seasonic 1000w Titanium | Windows 10 Pro 64bit | TM Warthog HOTAS w/40cm Extension | MFG Crosswind Rudders | Obutto R3volution | HP Reverb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi

 

We understand that it is a problem and I have shared the feedback with Kate and Matt in my weekly report.

 

We are working on remaining memory leaks, we also have FPS reports open for individual issues where we have found problems and we have a VR focused report open that we are working on regarding 2.5.5. vs 2.5.6.

 

I have included some of the graphs I have produced for our VR report,

 

F-18 free flight and F-5E free flight as comparisons between 2.5.5 and 2.5.6

 

When I have news I will share it with you all, we are planning an open beta update next week if tests go well.

 

Thanks

 

OOOh, I am really looking forward to this. :thumbup:

 

Thank you @BIGNEWY

i7-8700K / 32GB RAM @3000 / 1TB M.2 SSD / Asus RTX 2080 Ti OC

VR- Gamer: Valve Index

Flight Gear: Thrustmaster HOTAS Warthog / Thrustmaster TPR / 3x Thrustmaster MFD / Jetseat

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I flew in PG, used Viggen to fire AKAN gun at a tank.

Frames in VR went down to 1 frame per second (or even lower).

 

Nearly crashed my airplane, but intentionally pulled my stick slightly, since I knew that inputs were still handled by the sim. After my computer "woke up" again (having 45 frames again), I was in a 90° climb just over the target. Nice.

Visit https://www.viggen.training
...Viggen... what more can you ask for?

my computer:
AMD Ryzen 5600G | NVIDIA GTX 1080 Ti OC 11GB | 32 GB 3200 MHz DDR4 DUAL | SSD 980 256 GB SYS + SSD 2TB DCS | TM Warthog Stick + Throttle + TPR | Rift CV1

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are planning an open beta update next week if tests go well

 

Unfortunately we’ve heard these type of responses before, when critical fixes have taken several months to materialise. It gives people a sense of hope so people continue to hang around (That’s taking essential critical fixes separately from improvements - i.e., think of the promised 50% VR performance increase a while ago....)

 

 

This has already been going on for months! These performance issues should be towards the top of the list of priorities (crashes taking top priority)


Edited by Elnocho3

PC spec: i9 9900KS @ 5.1ghz, 32GB RAM, 2 TB NVME M2, RTX 3090

Peripherals: TM Warthog, Saitek Pro Flight Pedals, Rift S, Custom UFC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly, as reported in the Patch notes thread, there is no improvement - for me at least - in VR fps performance in today's patch.

Fingers crossed this will be resolved soon.

Intel i7 12700K · MSI Gaming X Trio RTX 4090 · ASUS ROG STRIX Z690-A Wi-Fi · MSI 32" MPG321UR QD · Samsung 970 500Gb M.2 NVMe · 2 x Samsung 850 Evo 1Tb · 2Tb HDD · 32Gb Corsair Vengance 3000MHz DDR4 · Windows 11 · Thrustmaster TPR Pedals · Tobii Eye Tracker 5 · Thrustmaster F/A-18 Hornet Grip · Virpil MongoosT-50CM3 Base · Virpil Throttle MT-50 CM3 · Virpil Alpha Prime Grip · Virpil Control Panel 2 · Thrustmaster F-16 MFDs · HTC Vive Pro 2 · Total Controls Multifunction Button Box

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if anything i would say marginally worse, particularly around other jets on the carrier

SYSTEM SPECS: Hardware Intel Corei7-12700KF @ 5.1/5.3p & 3.8e GHz, 64Gb RAM, 4090 FE, Dell S2716DG, Virpil T50CM3 Throttle, WinWIng Orion 2 & F-16EX + MFG Crosswinds V2, Varjo Aero
SOFTWARE: Microsoft Windows 11, VoiceAttack & VAICOM PRO

1569924735_WildcardsBadgerFAASig.jpg.dbb8c2a337e37c2bfb12855f86d70fd5.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My initial thoughts are the same, definitely worse.

Intel i7 12700K · MSI Gaming X Trio RTX 4090 · ASUS ROG STRIX Z690-A Wi-Fi · MSI 32" MPG321UR QD · Samsung 970 500Gb M.2 NVMe · 2 x Samsung 850 Evo 1Tb · 2Tb HDD · 32Gb Corsair Vengance 3000MHz DDR4 · Windows 11 · Thrustmaster TPR Pedals · Tobii Eye Tracker 5 · Thrustmaster F/A-18 Hornet Grip · Virpil MongoosT-50CM3 Base · Virpil Throttle MT-50 CM3 · Virpil Alpha Prime Grip · Virpil Control Panel 2 · Thrustmaster F-16 MFDs · HTC Vive Pro 2 · Total Controls Multifunction Button Box

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

As mentioned in the patch notes performance work is ongoing.

 

I saw a slight increase myself.

 

Try with shadows off and let me know if you see any difference.

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shadows off is marginally better than not same with mirrors but that was also true of the last patch... overall even with shadows and mirrors off we still seem to be using more GPU and CPU with more "Red" spikes on the frametimes

 

and its still way worse than 2.5.5, but i expected that because of the patch notes

SYSTEM SPECS: Hardware Intel Corei7-12700KF @ 5.1/5.3p & 3.8e GHz, 64Gb RAM, 4090 FE, Dell S2716DG, Virpil T50CM3 Throttle, WinWIng Orion 2 & F-16EX + MFG Crosswinds V2, Varjo Aero
SOFTWARE: Microsoft Windows 11, VoiceAttack & VAICOM PRO

1569924735_WildcardsBadgerFAASig.jpg.dbb8c2a337e37c2bfb12855f86d70fd5.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
shadows off is marginally better than not same with mirrors but that was also true of the last patch... overall even with shadows and mirrors off we still seem to be using more GPU and CPU with more "Red" spikes on the frametimes

 

and its still way worse than 2.5.5, but i expected that because of the patch notes

 

Yes agreed, and the team are looking into it still and making adjustments internally.

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...