trevoC

What doesn't happen IRL is my head continuing to move while my site line is restricted. Considering that this has never happened to me in any of the DCS modules (I own all but 4) I can only conclude (possibly in error) that our setups are very different and this effects some but not others.

I agree 100. ffb is essential (iRacing is my best example of this, don't have ffb in DCS as I have winwing) I couldn't drive without ffb in iRacing... I'd literally crash going from ffb to non-ffb. On the other hand, I found out the hard way that once the gimmick of motion platforms wear off they are actually annoying (in driving anyway) as when it jolts you left and right it induces movement in the wheel that you did not want. I could not drive competitively with a motion platform and instead have gone with 6 shakers (one on each tire or corner of virtual car and one under seat and one on back of seat) Other than VR itself, ffb was the biggest immersion adder. Although it didn't add more immersion than VR it arguably is more important in racing sims. Really want ffb in DCS.

you can't restrict head movement and allow VR users to properly move around the cockpit and see gauges. It doesn't work. IMO, if you don't want to stick your head out of the aircraft, don't stick your head out of the aircraft. I can't think of a single time in 4 years of VR gaming that I've had my head clip outside the aircraft unless I did it on purpose. On the other hand. Games that restrict your movement prevent you from being able to move your head in a way that seems natural (e.g. to see a strange fuel gauge on the floor or behind you) without causing issues and many times preventing you from seeing it at all. Worse it creates weird clipping and jumping issues that are more immersion breaking than the top of your head being able to clip outside without you noticing it. Also, your head in VR when it hits a barrier stops moving even if you continue moving which is extremely immersion breaking when your head movements stop matching your in game movements. I can't imagine anyone who's ever experienced a "virtual box" for their head in any game wanting this feature implemented and can only guess that it seems good on paper but you haven't experienced it. It is the most frustrating thing I've ever experienced in VR, enough to not want to play that game, especially when it makes it impossible to interact with certain switches or gauges. You probably clip the aircraft (top of your head for instance) all the time without realizing it. You may look down and left and twist around in 6dof to see a switch in a WWii fighter and not realize that the top of your head is clipping some component in the model. If we limit this, you can no longer properly interact with that switch and the head movement doesnt match etc.... Its just awful IMO.

Its faster by a smidge on vCache. Ran above test without gains. Thought maybe the higher frequency cores might do better than the vCache for DCS. I was wrong. In raw performance the vCache was at least 2.5% faster or more depending on the scenario (never less than 2.5% more) which is actually more than 2.5% if you consider the vCache cores are slower to start so they more than make up for their slower clock speeds.

oh ok... "faster processing" is dependent on whether or not the software can take advantage of the vCache which not all software can so it can be confusing. right now (I've tested all scenarios... both CCDs independently, both with parking enabled and both with parking disabled... all cores available). At the end of the day, just leave the PC alone to do what it does. That is the fastest scenario which is nice because it requires no messing about. DCS with MT is not faster when disabling parking and allowing all 16 cores to be available according to all my tests on an x3D and all other things being equal would not be faster on a non x3D chip like the 7950x as I ran the test on only CCD2 (without vCache) which would emulate a 7950x (half the cores) but DCS doesn't use the extra cores anyway as it is not a true multi-threaded application.

No, the faster CCD is worse than the vCache CCD in all my tests by a few percentage points (around 2% slower if I remember correctly). Honestly though, its very insignificant. That being said, the moral is just let the pc do its thing. These are all fake videos for views. Many of them were posted before even review units were released.

I agree (re workarounds) as I've mentioned earlier. Even though MT looks like a mess (if you are watching cores park and un-park) it seems to be running on the cache cores (at least the main thread does) as my frame rates indicate the same performance as ST which parks nicely. My conclusion was the same... don't set affinity, don't disable CCD's, don't disable parking in registry, just let it be. It looks a mess but seems to be working. My cores jump around like.. some smart and funny analogy about something that jumps around a lot.

Now the "unfairness" lies in monitor size. 1080p on a 20" vs 1080p on a 50" Lets stick to rendering the environment as close to reality as possible and let the cards fall where they may. The only methods of easier detection that I would support is improvements in the sim itself (like HDR) that would in turn help improve this. I think the first problem is that people don't realize how difficult it is to spot aircraft moving at speed in the sky IRL in the first place. Its why we have systems that prevent mid-air collisions. Because a passenger jet can sneak up on you. If pilots have trouble seeing passenger jets that they are close enough to hit, why are we trying to improve the visibility of an f-16 at 12 miles?

Agreed, sort of. Not necessarily favor better hardware for the sake of better hardware, but just be realistic and the purchase of better hardware will garner you advantages. I knew what you meant though, just making it clear. Creating some type of "fair" system for aircraft viewing distances is the equivalent of capping my frame rates to 20 fps because my 4090 gives me an advantage over another user. Thats insane. I view any type of balance of power for "fairness" just as insane, especially when you have to create a system that makes it less realistic to do so. This isn't competitive COD. Its meant to be a simulator. If you want fair, play chess. (not directed at you SharpeXB, just a comment)

even 1 pixel is too big. It garners an advantage for those running lower resolutions. Imagine (exaggerated for effect) a 50" screen running at 720p... apple sized pixels... you can see a fighter as soon as it appears. On the flip side if you are running super high res 8k, you can't even see a single pixel. This makes those who are playing competitively who are running a lower res monitor have an advantage. On the flip side if you just render aircraft at proper distances, those with higher resolution monitors in theory have an advantage, but I believe its the better system as although a single pixel on a low res monitor is less pixels than 4 pixels on a monitor with double the res, if the monitors are the same size the viewable aircraft is the same size. But then of course those running larger monitors have an advantage over those running smaller monitors. There is NO SOLUTION as long as players are buying different hardware. Its the whole idea behind homologation in motorsports for instance. There is no way around this unless you have standard hardware which would be ridiculous. Like everything else in this world (including all games as you can gain an advantage with buying better hardware), people can gain an advantage with purchasing better hardware. IMO, eff FAIR. Make the sim realistic (no sprites, proper render distance and they appear when they appear). If you are focused on some advantage for MP, then go nuts. I'm focused on a realistic experience and know that as in real life, some advantages will exist for some.

Best for whom? Thats the problem.

Agreed

Its not a possible task to make this infinitely fair. One method begets the next and no method will be all-encompassing. You are just going to have to live with that fact.

MT isn't a magic bullet. In an instant action or campaign with few units you may see little to now improvement. (4.5% on the track I use with Huey on Marianas) That being said 10-40% (22.5% average) on a map with lots of units (plazma torture track) If you are not seeing MT improvements its most likely because you are not flying scenarios that take advantage of the seperation. The real trouble DCS experienced before MT was getting your sim dialed into lets say 45 fps and then playing a mission where a bunch of units spawn and bring your rig to its knees. In MT, you won't get more than 45 fps (whatever your baseline before was, 45 is just an arbitrary number for this example) but when tons of units spawn instead of bringing DCS to slide show town, it will potentially maintain 45 or only drop to 35 for example. MT is not a magic bullet for more frames but more a fix for when you would dive to slide show territory.

You couldn't have possibly expected an actual 2 week release for this.... Personally I'm not expecting a 2023 release for this. I'm just as excited but the trailer just means that ED will develop it, not that its about to drop.