Tektolnes

£1079 today. I'd be sorely tempted myself but buying a house in the next while so have to avoid the nice-to-have purchases or the missus might raise an eyebrow in my direction.

Yes the Mooney isn't totally broken by any means. Just stay away from a couple of things and it's fine. Can work around the altitude button bug with some key mappings on my stick.

Do devs not have access to some beta version where they can test their planes to make sure they work OK in upcoming releases? Or they do and Carenado just don't bother?

I was hoping that Asobo would roll the fixes provided by Carenado into the release today. I guess they didn't submit them on time to make the package so now we're stuck until who knows when.

Looks like the CTD when clicking on the altitude button is still present after the MS update today. Loaded the Mooney up in Tokyo, clicked on the button and kaput. I checked the content manager and says it's up to date and the version in the sim is now 1.1.1 when I think it was 1.1.0 previously? Pretty disappointing tbh.

The G9 has just gone on sale on Amazon for £890. Probably the best price you'll be able to get it at for a while.

Have a shop around during Black Friday for additional SSD at reduced prices. 500GB will fill up pretty quickly. The 2TB HDD that you have is fine for general storage but these days I wouldn't want to run games from it. The 3080 will run MSFS 2020 well. There is an open question about whether the 10GB will be enough down the line as more stuff gets added to the sim. My view would be that you could get the 3080 now and if it turns out it's not enough later you'll probably be able to sell it for a good % of what you paid for it and fund an upgrade. You can get some impressions of the G9 below. The G9 had a lot of quality control issues early on I believe but newer models have improved. You could check on reddit as well for more info on the G9: https://www.reddit.com/r/ultrawidemasterrace/

Yeah in same boat. I've got a 3800X and 2080ti right now running at 1440p so no massive hurry. I was thinking to go 5900X + 6800XT but now I'm not so sure. Like many others I think I'd like a 3080 with a bit more RAM just for the extras that Nvidia still has like RT and DLSS as well as a little better performance at 1440p and definitely better at 4k. Think I'll wait to see how things pan out over the next while.

Dino's release notes confirm that: Wwise sound configuration courtesy of Christophe de Bortoli (Erkin)

Are you adjusting your mixture? You have to lean it out as you climb.

If it's purely for gaming probably very little difference between the two. If you do any productivity work the 5800X would deliver some minor benefits. Maybe one other consideration is what GPU you plan to get. Pairing a new AMD CPU + new AMD GPU allows you to use the new Smart Access Memory functionality they've added which gives an overall boost though I don't know the size of this yet. I think bottom line if the additional 2 cores are important to you and you don't want to spend an extra $100 to get the 5900X then the 5800X can make sense over the 5600X. I don't think you'd go wrong with either the 10850K or 5800X as they'd deliver very comparable results so it's more a question about what you feel more comfortable with which seems to be the 10850K. Also it'll definitely be easier to get your hands on the 10850K this month. The 5800X is going to sell out fast initially.

It's a must have for me as a TrackIR user - without some form of VRR screen tearing will very visibly happen when looking about. G-Sync will stop screen tearing from 0MHz up to the monitor max refresh rate. If the FPS goes below 30 G-Sync kicks in with the Low Framerate Compensation functionality. Standrad Freesync doesn't have LFC but Freesync Premium and above does. For MSFS I think some people have said V-Sync is a bit buggy and causes stutters but I don't know for sure. But if you didn't have G-Sync or Freesync you could just switch that on to remove tearing. Caps you at 60fps max and there's some small input lag apparently but for MSFS that doesn't matter at all really.

If you're using G-Sync there's no need for you to have V-Sync switched on as G-Sync will stop tearing across the full G-Sync range without you having to get V-Sync to also stop tearing, limit the FPS to 60 max while also creating input lag. Technically to get the most out of G-Sync you should turn global Vsync on in the Nvidia Control Panel (NCP -> Manage 3D Settings -> Global Settings -> Vertical Sync set to ON). Make sure you always have Vsync switched off in-game. Then use Rivatuner to limit your max fps to say 3 less than the max refresh rate of your monitor. This makes sure you are always within your G-Sync range and don't get any tearing if you hit your maximum refresh rate and G-Sync turns on/off. For me though with the games I play and settings I use I don't get that near to my monitor max refresh rate of 144MHz so I don't bother and just leave G-Sync on and V-Sync off in game.

Yes. The PG279Q only supports G-Sync and full G-Sync only works with Nvidia cards. Assuming you want to use VRR your choice is either get an Nvidia card or get an AMD card and a new monitor that can support Freesync or Freesync + G-Sync compatible.

Move your head left and right fast. Your vision blurs as your brain temporarily blocks some visual processing. In normal vision our gaze leaps from detail to detail, resulting in rapid image motion across the retina. You're just so used to it you don't notice or think it strange. It looks a little weird in game at first as we're not used to seeing the effect when we pan our view in a game.

It just simulates how you would see it in real life if you quickly moved your head? I think we forget how bad our visual acuity gets when we make rapid head/eye movements as we're just so used to it in real life but games always remain perfectly sharp. When we move our eyes rapidly we in effect go very temporarily blind via the Saccadic Masking effect: Wikipedia: Saccadic masking, also known as (visual) saccadic suppression, is the phenomenon in visual perception where the brain selectively blocks visual processing during eye movements in such a way that neither the motion of the eye (and subsequent motion blur of the image) nor the gap in visual perception is noticeable to the viewer. The phenomenon was first described by Erdmann and Dodge in 1898,[1] when it was noticed during unrelated experiments that an observer could never see the motion of their own eyes. This can easily be duplicated by looking into a mirror, and looking from one eye to another. The eyes can never be observed in motion, yet an external observer clearly sees the motion of the eyes.

Are you using this purely for gaming? If yes maybe go with the 3300X rather than the 2600X? It's got 2 less cores than the 2600X but it delivers better gaming performance generally. It also has a slightly higher clock/boost speed which might help with MSFS. One option could be: 3300X £114 B450 £65 GTX 1660S £220 16GB RAM £65 Total £464

A 9900K would typically out-perform the AMD 3000 series due to its higher single core clock speed. Flight sims have always been this way. For MSFS the gap is larger at 1080p and 1440p (about 10%) and is more or less gone by 4k. The 3950X wouldn't be the best choice for pure gaming as it's really a productivity + gaming chip. Won't be much difference between a 3950X and a 3700X when it comes to gaming alone and sometimes all those extra cores on the 3950X are a hindrance for gaming. Unless you're a heavy productivity user I wouldn't even have considered the 3950X previously. Also if you're buying a new system and undecided between Intel and AMD wait for the 5000 series to hit the market and see how that handles MSFS. Based on some of the numbers we're seeing for single core test results it should be competitive with the top current Intel chips but we'll need to see independent reviews and how they run MSFS.

There's not a whole lot of data out there right now but single core results for the 5800X show a decent gain over the 10900K e.g. with the CPU-Z benchmark there's an 11% gain. The 10900K does better in multi-core tests though as it has 2 additional cores. But I'm waiting to see what we actually get once independent reviewers get their hands on it. The price for the 5800X and 10900K are more or less the same - the 5800X is maybe $30 cheaper but Intel can easily drop a bit to match. The 5900X will be about $70 more than the 10900K and seems to be about 15-20% better in single core and 15% in multi-core but I'm taking all those numbers with a large pinch of salt for now. The 3000 series certainly didn't have much OC headroom. While I could get a decent all core OC which gave me good synthetic test results for stable gaming on my 3800X I found it was best to just switch on Precision Boost Overdrive and call it a day. Guess we'll have to wait and see for the 5000 series. I can see there's some tests out there where the 5900X had it's boost lifted from 4.8GHz to 4.95GHz so I think that could be the most that could be expected but we'll see. I think the days of AMD competing on lower prices in the CPU range are more or less over so they won't be cheaper than the Intel equivalents. Going to be a straight choice on performance. I'm not massively pushed about having the absolute best CPU so if AMD are offering CPUs that either match or exceed the 10900K then that's plenty good for me. I can get a 5900X and 6800XT for $1200 and that's me set for a few years I reckon.

Gsync has been superior though you've had to pay a premium for it when it came to getting a monitor. Freesync quality was more variable and originally I don't think it had the Low Framerate Compensation that Gsync offered which extends the frame rate window that the syncing operates in. LFC is good for flight sims I think as we often struggle for framerates with everything cranked up. If you want LFC with Freesync you need to make sure the monitor supports either Freesync Premium or Freesync Premium Pro if you also want to support HDR with Freesync. AMD summarises the differences below: FreeSync™ Certified Tear free Low latency FreeSync™ Premium Certified At least 120 Hz at minimum FHD resolution Low framerate compensation Low latency FreeSync™ Premium Pro (previously known as FreeSync 2 HDR) Meticulous color and luminance certification HDR capabilities and game support At least 120 Hz at minimum FHD resolution Low framerate compensation Low latency with SDR or HDR So if for example you had a monitor that supported FreeSync Premium (not Pro) and you also wanted to play with HDR on then you wouldn't be able to have VRR on - you'd have to choose one or the other. With GSync you have 3 standards: I think with Gsync (non Ultimate) you can have both VRR and HDR on but the HDR won't look as good obviously as Gsync Ultimate. If it was a straight choice of standard Freesync or standard Gsync I'd go with Gsync. But with the option now of Freesync Premium & Pro I think they're both pretty similar so it boils down to having to weigh up what GPU you want, what monitor you want, whether HDR is important to you or not, your budget as obviously monitors that have either Freesync Premium Pro or Gsync Ultimate are going to cost more, etc. With the RDNA 2 reveal yesterday I'm definitely thinking about getting the 6800XT. I've also been thinking about getting an ultrawide monitor for a while now but I'll need to shop around as, for me, having HDR support would be a nice-to-have so I'll need to see what options there are for Freesync Premium Pro before I can make a decision on the 6800XT.

If you use SKIF is there any negative impact on your ability to alt-tab in and out a lot? I'm constantly doing that so can't have any issues with that functionality.

Seems fine? They're just saying that if the product won't install from the marketplace then that's out of their hands as it's MS that controls the marketplace installs.

I use the Meg Unify and find it a good board. Having a chipset fan doesn't bother me at all personally. The Unify has 3 M.2 slots and good VRM - you can check results on Gamers Nexus where they do a review of the MSI Tomahawk. That being said you're probably not going to be overclocking the 5900X much is my guess as lately AMD are delivering chips that are more or less maxed out when it comes to overclocking headroom. All in all don't think you'd go wrong with either board though. The Asus board should be top notch too and at $80 more it maybe could be worth waiting for given that it's going to be the newest design and has passive cooling. I'd probably want to wait for some independent reviews to come out before pulling the trigger on it though.

Don't think 1.0.5 is up in github yet but you can get it here: https://pms50.com/fs2020/gns530/pms50-gns530.zip

It's a less demanding way to get really quite close to the original image quality. Works well for those whose systems might be struggling trying to hit the resolution running at 100%. Nothing odd about it at all.