Allard

I currently have an 5900x. Normally I would not consider such a small "upgrade" but these aren't normal times. But I am hesitant, I doubt the improvement is substantial.

I recently came across this article: AI Favors Nuclear Warfare in War Simulations, Raising Concerns So the only thing lacking is a company named "Skynet" and we have a problem. Sorry, there ís already company named Skynet it seems😨

I believe the board is custom made. I suggest you contact [email protected] for support on this. In my conversations with Chris he has always been very helpfull. He might be able to help troubleshoot the issue or getting a replacement board.

I use a 4TB 7400MB/s drive for MSFS and while it is measurably faster than my previous 3400MB/s drive I don't notice any difference regarding the in-sim performance. Perhaps the sim will start a bit quicker but it is marginally at best. I doubt an upgrade will make a noticable difference to the in-flight experience. SSD's tend to become quite a bit slower once they fill up beyond 75% so if that is the case buying a larger drive will have an positive effect, and you might as well buy the fastest drive your platform can support.

Space requirements depends a lot on your usage. On my PC, MSFS2020 is using up 3TB already. Since flightsims benefit from fast drives that 4TB drive M.2 is a sensible choice. You could even go for an 8TB drive instead of 2 M.2 drives. Six months ago that would be ridicilously expensive but I noticed that the price is scaled nicely.That would leave the other M.2 slot available for future expansion. These 2 SATA drives, if you have these drives already lying around it is not a problem but SATA is relatively slow so better suited for data or games that you don't use often.

It's the sacrifice for having part of the data like bing maps in the cloud. It requires everyone to use more or less the same version.

Perhaps if you browse for the exception code (0xc0000409) you might find a solution. I found a few threads that mention the "ucrtbase file" and they hint that it is a Windows issue. Xbox app keeps crashing : r/XboxGamePass You can at least try to let windows check for issues and repair those if needed. There are a few manuals but How to Repair Corrupted Windows System Files with the SFC and DISM Commands seems quite easy to follow.

IMHO, the only advantage that a gaming laptop has over a desktop is mobility. If you are going to use it with an external monitor all the time you will lose the only advantage. A true gaming laptop isn't even thát mobile. It is heavy, large and that performance eats up battery endurance.

Either one, we might never know. If one is trying hard enough it is possible to find a scenario where the fuel could be cut off accidentally but even then it is unlikely that it would not be noticed immediately. I mean, it would require that the notches between the two switch positions weren't there, or for both switches to be positioned halfway on top of these notches. Not impossible, but very unlikely. So either a pilot was very confused and switched those off when he was actually trying to do something else or it was done deliberately. I guess the investigation will concentrate on the background of those pilots.

That calculation is only valid when the extra monitor is also used in MSFS as an extra screen. The OP wants to use the extra monitor to display 2D applications and not the sim itself so the impact would be far less.

Only downside is that AIO usually last only 4-5 years since the cooling liqued will slowly evaporate. In most cases, you will be considering replacing the PC by then anyway so in practice it is hardly an issue.

While it is possible to move your OS partition on one drive to an another drive I'd recommend against it. It is a lot of work and unless you get it right it you will end up with a system that won't boot or worse you lost data in the process. And all that for just 300GB? Probably before this year is over you will notice that your 300GB OS partition is also at 90% capacity. I recommend to follow @G-RFRY's advice and just purchase a larger SSD. It is the easiest solution. If you insist on moving everything to that Nvme, the safest and often fastest method is to backup that entire Nvme drive, use third party software to clone the entire SSD to that Nvme and than move all the data from the back up back to your Nvme drive, and keep it as a single partition. This partitioning of drives is a thing of the past IMO. You will end up with one of the partitions being too small for comfort so you start moving things around or spent too much time shrinking and enlarging partitions to make things fit. If you have just one SSD, just keep it as a single partition. If you want to mentally separate stuff you can use folders or even the SUBST command to have a data folder appear as "D:" in your file manager.

The CPU has only a small impact on total power consumption when it is idle. Your RTX 3060 will also consume ~10W idle. Motherboards, harddrives, network adapters etc. also consume power. And then there is the PSU: these are less efficient when the system is drawing much less power than the PSU is targeted for.

AMD has released new drivers recently that detect a change in CPU and will reinstall the driver automatically to correct for the difference. I don't know whether you need to reinstall for those who still have the older driver. If one has multiple monitors, you can check if core parking works correctly by starting task manager and open the view with all the cpu cores. Then start flight simulator and keep it the active window. the Task monitor should only shpw activity on the first 8 cores. When you select task manager as the active window, all 16 cores should suddenly show some activity. Make MSFS your active window again and it should jump back to just 8 active cores. Since core parking only works when a game is the active window, everytime you switch from MSFS to a third-party app like LittleNavmap, or other tools you are using during your flight, core parking is switched off and then on again when you return to MSFS. I don't know if that will affect performance but it might.

9900X3D has fewer 3D cores than either 9800X3D or 9950X3D The 9800X3D has 8 (1x8) cores, all of which have access to the 3D V-cache. The 9900X3D has 12 (2x6) cores, halve of which (=6) have access to the 3D V-cache. The 9950X3D has 16 (2x8) cores, halve of which (=8) have access to the 3D V-cache. Since most games benefit from running on cores using the 3D cache, parking the cores without 3D cache will help performance but then the 9900X3D will have have fewer cores available than the cheaper 9800X3D. They might run a bit faster though. Since (flight)simulators compare badly to other type of games it is difficult to say what is the best option. My opinion is that the 9800X3D is the most sensible choice for most and the 9950X3D if you want to have the best of both worlds. The 9900X3D is the worst of both worlds but that is probably a bit unfair. If you use the PC for other things than just flightsim it might still be a good choice.