Eugel

Das ist einfach die Art und Weise wie DLSS funktioniert. Das ist der Preis den man für den Performance Boost zu bezahlen hat.

You mean the real life examples where A-10s were flying under the radar, blowing up sam sites while dogfighting enemy stealth fighters ? Sorry for the sarcasm, but I couldn´t resist...

Novelty ? Raytracing has been around for 40+ years. I ran raytracing demos on my Amiga 500 in the early 90s. All the "conventional" and "established" techniques you mentioned are just workarounds to get close to achieving the results of raytracing. And not because they are better or simpler, but because until very recently, computer hardware just couldn´t do it fast enough. We are just now entering a territory where hardware can do it in real time, so why settle for an inferior workaround ? Why bother developers with creating shadow maps, illumination maps, reflection maps that look maybe 80% as good as with raytracing, when you have the hardware to get the real deal automatically ? Yes, Cyberpunk is a great example, there are plenty of videos that compare graphics with and without RT, and there are plenty of static objects that just look more realistic. And it´s not just reflections and wet streets.

Not sure what your point is, then. You said it yourself, of course, most effects can be faked, that´s what video games have been doing for decades, but not faking it will always look better and more realistic, that´s what I wanted to point out with my comparison to movies. It doesn´t matter if an object is static or not or how many light sources there are. Raytracing will look more realistic. Raytracing is more than just eye-candy reflections you see in Cyberpunk. It replicates what light does in real life. There are hundreds of instances where that would be amazing in DCS.

Of course, no one "needs" raytracing. But there is good reason CGI effects for movies are done with raytracing. Even with a single light source, raytracing will look more realistic. Yes, I don´t see it worth it in DCS at the moment. And as I said, it may take 20 years, but I´m sure, the hardware will get there to implement raytracing on full scale.

Strictly speaking, Raytracing is useful for any kind of computer graphics as it is the most realistic form of rendering images. And there are plenty of instances where you´d see it in DCS (sunlight through clouds, illumination at airfields or cities, explosions illuminating their surroundings, searchlights from a helicopter, but also the simple rendering of textures on aircraft where you don´t need any fake shadow maps and stuff like that) It may take another 10 or 20 years or even more, but I´m sure, raytracing will come for any game.

How would the A-10 find and get a targeting lock on an enemy sam site from 13 nm without being shot at first ? Mavericks are not a good choice against sam sites. No one in their right mind would send an A-10 into an area defended by sams, trusting that chaffs/flares will protect the aircraft. That´s what HARMs are for.

What stealth ? And you can´t be serious about the A-10 hunting Sams ?! With what ? About all of the sam systems will outrange and outspot the A-10 Also dogfights ? Realistically, the A-10 will be blown out of the sky with missiles before any dogfights might begin. How many dogfights do you think an A-10 would find itself in in a real life scenario ? Hey, I love the A-10, it´s my favorite and most flown aircraft in DCS, but realistically, the battlefields it was built for don´t really exist anymore. Though one can´t deny the impact on morale of the ground troops a gun run of an A-10 has. But the efficiency is questionable.

Especially flight simulation games have always pushed computer hardware to their limit. The other big civilian flight sim does the same. I think it would be much more detrimental to the future of DCS if they stopped pushing further after version 2.5 or whatever. You wrote earlier that you have an i9 and an RTX 3090. So I really don´t understand your problem. But it´s also weird that you raise this point now. Of course not everyone is willing or able to keep up with new hardware. But just now they added DLSS support, which can give a considerable performance boost.

No. DLSS doesn´t make games look better, it´s the exact opposite ! It decreases picture quality to gain performance. And again no. DCS looks better on a 2k screen than it does on a 4K VR Headset. Because in VR, you are looking at the screens from like 5 cm distance and looking through a magnifying glass. You will see pixels ! And most likely you will have to reduce quality settings to be able to run in VR in the first place. So no, it definitely does not look better in VR. And someone else had better performance with 2.0, so should they have stopped at 2.0 ? Or 1.5 ? Increasing hardware requirements have been standard in PC gaming since PC gaming existed.

Oh, I would love ground crews at air bases. As it is, they are very empty and lifeless. Hey, they could even introduce the "Freestyle Fridays" sendoff from the ground crews, that would be amazing. "Game Changer" - maybe not, but it would improve the immersion on the ground.

Well, you are increasing and decreasing the render resolution at the same time. Now of course, the DLSS algorithm is quite efficient, but that efficiency doesn´t come out of thin air. Basically, if you need to render 3 pixels, with DLSS you´ll only render 2, and the algorithm/AI will guess what the 3rd pixel might be. Sometimes it´s correct, sometimes it isn´t. This "guessing" takes less computing power than simply rendering that pixel in the first place. If you increase PD and run DLSS at the same time, you´ll get what the OP is describing: Little performance gain and some blurriness and ghosting. This is not a VR bug, it´s just the way DLSS works.

Well, on "quality" setting, I believe DLSS reduces the render resolution to 2/3 so basically the exact opposite of what you want to do in VR. So no surprise that it´s quite blurry.

That is very good advice, Chucks Guides also use the TM Warthog as an example how to setup the controls for each module.

Most of the time it´s a good idea to learn the aircraft that you are really interested in. So for example, as you have the Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS, it would be easiest to fly the A-10, because you don´t have to configure anything (maybe the pedals). With the A-10 all the buttons and axis are already correct in DCS and work out of the box. But then again, if you lean towards dogfights or generally aerial combat, that would be a bad place to start... Either way, you don´t need the TARGET software, you can directly configure everything from within DCS. Have you tried the ingame tutorials yet ?

It´s of course a bit subjective, but as already stated, Steam has faster download servers. Personally, I´m kind of paranoid when it comes to spreading around my credit card info, so I keep that to a minimum. I like the friends list and screenshot gallery that Steam offers. And because I use VR, I like the ability to switch from VR to non-VR from the Steam launcher. But when it comes to DCS itself, both versions are identical, there is no perfomance difference in any of the two versions. You can join all of the online servers from both versions.

I´d just like to add: I use DCS on Steam for years and have bought everything there. It´s not a "mistake", it´s just a choice. You miss out on the trial program and the miles if you stick to steam, but there are some advantages as well. But as Rudel_chw already wrote, it´s very easy to transfer your steam licences to the standalone version.

Ich hatte ja immer geglaubt dass die Phantom aus der Vietnam Era ein Einsitzer war. Hauptsächlich weil ich sie damals in "Flight of the Intruder" immer geflogen bin und da eben der zweite Platz nicht simuliert wurde. Das hat sich bei mir auch jahrelang hartnäckig gehalten.

Wow, I just flew a 90 minute sortie in the A-10 in VR, and the replay worked flawlessly. That never happened before, so this makes me really happy.

I think he´s referring to buying a kit with 2x32 GB Rams instead of adding one to your existing 32 GB. I did the latter with my system. I was able to get the same brand/model (same speed, same timings etc.) as I already had and it works without problems, but that´s not always guaranteed.

I have a similar system (same CPU but an RTX3090) and the upgrade from 32 to 64 GB was noticable on Syria. I got rid of micro stutters since the upgrade, but I can´t say that it made much difference on other maps or increased the FPS. I also play in VR.

Yeah, it doesn´t really make much sense to set PD to 1.5 and then run DLSS. Might as well leave PD at 1.0 and just run DLAA.

If you check the "Civil Plane" checkbox, it takes off 500 lbs. That might be the pylons, though they aren´t removed visually. Weirdly enough you can add or remove the 500 lbs. of water in the mission editor, but it doesn´t change the weight.

Das Schlimme daran ist: Ich habe meine erste HTC Vive in 2016 gekauft, und das Ding war damals praktisch Plug&Play. Steam VR starten, einmal den Raum einrichten, fertig. Man sollte eigentlich meinen, dass sich das 7 Jahre später nicht verschlechtern würde...

Ja, da steht es auch relativ am Anfang: "Multi-Threading must be enabled to enable DLSS." Ich hatte es aber auch übersehen...