All Activity

Running the Super with a 4090 without any performance problems. Neither I have any reliability problems. Switched from a G2 and the Super is worth every cent,

Debian 13 "Trixie" was released last weekend. It comes with Wine 10.0, which uses Wayland by default. I've updated the git repo to get rid of the now obsolete Xwayland. A pleasant surprise, presumably dating back to DCS 2.9.16, is a significant decrease in RAM usage that allows running Caucasus and Marianas with 8 GB of RAM. You can now operate a dedicated DCS server for as little as 8 €/month on, e.g., a CX32 Hetzner Cloud server, albeit with mediocre performance (my 100 unit benchmark mission will stall out the server).

I don't have mine yet, but I'm going Super Ultrawide 50PPD, and then early next year, I MIGHT buy the 57PPD optical engine only. Folks have said the 50PPD resolution is excellent, so for flight simming, I'm going for more FOV initially.

Thanks. The next Quest is unlikely to have eye tracking so I am not relying on that. I run my QP at a centre resolution of about 4800x4800 pixels. I know that seems extreme but I can get a steady 72 FPS using DLSS Quality with no ghosting. A very sharp and smooth image and my maximum VRAM is about 12gb. Based on that I should be able to run the Crystal Super with similar settings. I'm not in a rush to buy but the temptation is there. Which would be the better option: 57, 50 or Ultrawide?

Thanks man!

Resolution on distant object is insane! You see from my other post what headsets I have (or had earlier) and compare it to. But - I understand that the Quest Pro is a very special headset. Quest pro has 3.46 million pixels per eye. Pimax Crystal Super has 14.75 million pixels per eye. And a much bigger FOV. And a true wired Display port connection… But then again, I don’t have the Quest PRO…. A 327% pixel increase might not be noticeable for everyone Anyway, my Crystal Super is not buggy. If you think you will get a buggy headset, don’t buy it. It is expensive. That is correct. Also, one need the right hardware. I am not sure the 5080 is the answer with the amount of VRam it has. If you are happy with the Quest PRO - stay with until Meta announces their next headsets. They will probably be a good upgrade from what they have today- plus much cheaper than the Crystal Super - which is, I have to admit, a niche product.

I dont know anything about the quest 3. But it sounds like you found a reasonable setting with the old system and now you are using the same HMD on the new system but it doesn't look as good (washed out colors) Did you have any adjustments outside of whatever software the Q3 uses or DCS... for example NVIDIA control panel? maybe those are missing since the new computer Does the Q3 plug into the computer? are you using the same cable in the same type of port? The gamma was set in DCS? Does the HMD respond at all to the changes you make now to the Gamma slider? Gets brighter and darker but still washed out??

Check this post which should explain a few things. Good luck 007!

Observed in your track and reproduced in my own. Internal reports made. FACQ seems to work okay and will command STT on TUC's so i would reccomend using that for now or TWS until fixed. For future reference please make tracks in caucasus. That is the preferred map for the devs to use for debugging.

Hello all, I don't own the CH-47, but my graphics card is often its victim in MP servers (sorry, couldn't resist). I use VR. One of the problems I've been having is being subjected to excessively sized and overly-luminous light bloom orbs from the nav, beacon, and position lights. This happens in severe clear weather, so there is no reason to have any atmospheric light scattering effect. Also, besides being excessively sized, the relative size and luminosity of the orbs do not change to match increasing distance from the light source. Basically, the light remains the same absolute size and brightness on the screen regardless of distance. When you are 7 or 8 miles away, the red flashing beacon lights on the CH-47 look like a 2000lb GBU flash-bang grenades going off every second. The nav lights create a orb/bloom capable of hiding multiple Ch-47s behind it. These excessive light orb blooms have been a problem forever. However, It does not seem to be an impossible problem to solve, because the F18 had huge light orb blooms for years until they fixed them about a year or two ago. The carrier landing approach lights also had excessive light bloom which made the meatball unreadable. I think they made the IFOLS overlay to address the fact that the light orbs made reading the lights impossible. Regardless, they fixed the carrier lights for a short time and they became much more realistic, and completely usable. Unfortunately, they broke the IFOLS lighting again, so it's back to being a completely unreadable bloomy orbs that obscure the landing area once you're initially turning into the groove. Now that I think of it...while I say these light-orbs are a problem...I suspect they actually are more of a rendering decision instead of an actual technical problem that requires debugging. I recall that these light-orbs were actually described and defended as "correct as is" on the F18 for years before they actually fixed them, but I'm not sure if the developers were seeing what I was seeing through VR. In any case, the current orbs are as bad as they ever were on the F18 back in the old days.

NO! I want to keep it Basically with HMCS s SOI, the SPI when moved by the HAT, moves relative to the HMCS view area, rather than relative to the position on the Ground. So I can slew the SPI with the hat to the left, at the exact same time move my head to the right, and the SPI will move with my head to the right. Using this quirk I can, for example, move the SPI 180 degrees from my 9 o'clock to my 3 o'clock in less than a second. Nate

Hey! Check my FAQ: Q3: Will the new core assets conflict with the Currenthill mod pack assets? A3: No. All new core assets have unique names and will therefore not conflict with the Currenthill mod pack assets.

The question is, is the 5 minutes time limit (It's more like just over 4 minutes from my tests) a total time for that flight, or 5 minutes at a time. If so, some direction on how long we need to wait to go back into WEP to reset the timer would be nice. From testing going into and out of WEP MAPs and adding up the time, it's a total of 5 minutes in the short term and the engine loses significant power and will seize if you do not back it off. I tried using WEP for 4 minutes and then going to low power cruise for about 10 minutes. Then back into WEP. It lasted another 4 minutes and I got the low water light just before the engine losing power. Hopefully this is just a simplified modeling step because it seems solely tied to MAP and time. I have not even tested if landing and refueling resets the timer. If it does not, then it's even more artificial. But, with the WEP-Cruise-WEP test, it seem like it does slowly reset.

I downloaded it today, approx. 2,1GB. Worked at 1st attempt and installation succeeded also with no issues. It must be an issue on your side.

I do not think so, from experience in Pimax 8kx with 160deg horizontal. As you do not see outside of HMD sweet spots, it is hard to just turn your head enough. Except with swivel chair, and maybe hand rudder (no pedals) - if that suits you.

Angling the mirrors does not change the reflection angle. That's the problem. It just makes them appear to be thinner or wider. It is definitely broken.

Thanks a lot man! Is the fix up?

I have been trying for days to download this mod and it keeps timing out 1/4 into the download. Are there any other ways outside of github to download this mod?

Awesome thank you very much for the infos. Very excited for this module

Can you be a little more exact please ?

Ответа не будет. Будет вопрос. Может, сначала посмотреть ливреи Ту-95МС от интегрированного СН, прежде чем пылить почем зря?

I don’t get to spend much time with dcs so I consider myself a novice. what is it and what’s it for?

These excessive light orb blooms have been a problem forever. However, It does not seem to be an impossible problems to solve, because the F18 had huge light orb blooms for years until they fixed them about a year or two ago. The carrier landing approach lights also had excessive light bloom which made the meatball unreadable. I think they made the IFOLS overlay to address the fact that the light orbs made reading the lights impossible. Regardless, they fixed the carrier lights for a short time and they became much more realistic, and completely usable. Unfortunately, they broke the IFOLS lighting again, so it's back to being a completely unreadable bloomy orbs that obscure the landing area once you're initially turning into the groove. The problem with the light-orb bloom effect is that the size of the orb remains the same absolute size on the screen, regardless of how far away you are from the light source...it does not scale down relative to the apparent size of plane/ship. Currently the worst offender is the CH-47. When you are 7 or 8 miles away, the red flashing beacon lights look light a 2000lb GBU flash-bang grenade. The nav lights create a orb/bloom capable of hiding multiple Ch-47s behind it. I'm not saying that the fix should be to properly scale the hazy light-orb with distance...the real answer is to get rid of the light-orb bloom completely. It's not realistic for most atmospheric conditions, and even when the human eye would see a hazy light blooming around a nav light (for example in foggy conditions), their luminosity would be attenuated by the the fog as distance increases. As far as blooms around the IFOLS lighting, perhaps if the ship is in a marine fog layer, maybe I could imagine the light blooming as badly as they do right now in clear atmospheric conditions in-game. But I don't think that's enough of a reason to keep the light bloom effect, when it makes absolutely everything else very unrealistic. It's horrible. Is this only a problem with VR?

OH58D_User_Guide.pdf Here you go.