Finnster

Thanks for the comments guys- I'd love to have more DCS guys check out my channel. Truthfully, I spend more time on Fs2020, but Man, I LOVE DCS. It's the best all around combat sim, period.

Pimax and Me. My rollercoaster affair with the Crystal. I guess I should start at the beginning. Once upon a time there was an old fart named Dave, (call sign, 'finn') who had an Oculus Rift. He liked the concept, but found the execution not quite up to the task for flight sims like DCS. The field of view was too small, the clarity and resolution too low, and the screen door effect? A cat could hang on it. BUT- it offered a tantalizing glimpse into what could be an amazing future. One magical day he noticed that HP had announced a next generation headset called the G2 that promised to fix a lot of his issues with VR and air combat. (or even just air tourism in VR). So he went to the web page to pre-order, only to find that... it was not available to pre-order for low life Canadians. Sigh. IF it had been available, the old finn would never have started looking for an alternative. He found one in a brand new headset on the cusp of release called the Pimax 8KX. The specs looked great. So... he pre-ordered that one. Thus started a two year journey to explore new worlds... er muck about with a somewhat cranky but amazing headset in VR. So, that's the background. I am that old finn. Older now. Wiser. Cynical? no not really. But definitely wiser. The 8kx blew my socks off, but it was definitely not an easy bit of kit to tune in. The initial setup was simple, but getting the image quality and clarity to where it should have been was a journey that took me to Reddit, to the Pimax community page and to Pimax tech support. With help from all corners, I eventually got it sorted to the point where it was very nearly exactly what I hoped for in Flight simulation. It took a year for the software and firmware to really mature, but after that the 8KX was problem free for me and a daily driver in fs2020, Il2 and of course, DCS. Still, I'd been keeping notes on things that I felt could have been done better and things that would improve the product. When Pimax asked community members to submit a wish list of features for the next Gen headsets, I was ready. I had been fairly vocal in the forum about the pros and the cons of the 8kx, and I took an evening to write up my wish list. As it turned out, many of the things I wished for were designed into the Crystal (and the 12k which is yet to come.) At the top of my list was user experience. I strongly argued that the 8KX was far too tricky for novice users and that had to be job one on the improvement list. I asked for auto IPD, Higher resolution and clarity, plug and play setup simplicity, a pass through mode (to allow simmes to see their keyboards when needed) and a slew of other things. Discussions in the forum went on for some time. In the meantime I'd setup a youtube channel to share my VR hobby. It grew at a glacial rate. It's still quite a small channel, but has grown a lot in the last three months. Why? Enter the Crystal. Pimax asked for volunteers to beta test the Crystal and I put my name down. 15 of us would be chosen from Europe and North America. The catch was that the headsets, while offered to us at a slight discount and with DMAS, would not be free. We would have to pay full price, basically, but were guaranteed a replacement of the beta (preproduction) headset with a final version at the end of testing. I was taken aback to be chosen. It meant I had to dip into my savings... gulp. But I took a deep breath and signed the NDA. Which, by the way, was only in effect for about the first month or two of testing. The Good, the Bad, and the Frustrating. Initial impressions The Good: 1.The day the Crystal arrived, I was delighted to find that for me, the setup was truly plug and play. This turned out not to be the case for everyone, certianly, but it was a good start for me. 2. The clarity of the headset was remarkable- astonishing really. And despite its weight I was able to play in it for a couple of hours at a time easily. 3. It came with a pair of controllers. I put them aside for later, as the only game I had that would use them was half life Alyx, and I thought I'd test first in the programs I knew. 4. Inside out tracking worked flawlessly for me from the start for flight simming. (not so much for other genres- see the 'bad' section. 5. I opted not to use the dmas option, instead testing the 'stock' audio speakers. In the first iteration of firmware and software, the sound was excellent, even in them. 6. Pimax Beta reps and tech support. This has been outstanding. Communication has been good, and Pimax's techs are top notch. The Bad: 1. The hand controllers had issues, and the inside out tracking really didn't work well with them. We expected this, and we knew going in that the hand controllers would be a work in progress. 2. Only one set of lenses- and the beta testers got PLASTIC ones. This was irritating, but in fairness, I must say that the plastic lenses proved to be very nearly as good as the glass ones that Pimax sent me a month or so later. (Like many of the first buyers, Pimax, facing a shortage of the glass lenses, supplied the plastic versions with a promise to update them later. 3. The Dang battery. At the start of testing, we expected to see 3 hours plus of play time on a single battery. I got around two hours. Hot swapping also proved a bit of a challenge. 4. Missing features. Again, we knew this going in, but Eye tracking, stand alone, and wireless were all still in development. I felt that was ok for beta testers, but I was bothered by the fact that our testing period would overlap the beginning of the Crystal's retail sales. I could see no good coming from this, and wished that Pimax would allow us to beta test every element, sign off on them and then start selling the Crystal. But that was not in the cards. The problem, as I see it, is that Pimax really is a visionary company. If a man's reach should exceed his grasp, then Pimax honours that by constantly reaching just a little higher and a little farther out to the cutting edge. And that's an edge that's hard to cling too. Development issues and delays served to fuel internet hate anew for Pimax. It was sad, but predictable. 5. Disturbing reports from other youtubers (reviewers, some of whom I respected greatly) reported issues with their Crystal review units. Set up problems galore. At first, I thought it had to be a few exceptions and mostly user error, but the instances kept cropping up. It became clear that quality assurance needed some upgrading. The Irritating: 1. Battery life. I spent dozens of hours testing alternative means of getting additional power to prolong battery life. I tried portable phone chargers -basically large batteries- and finally settled on a usb power hub that could supply additional power to the right side usb-c port on the headset. This essentially ended the problem for me. But there was concern that using that side port as a charge port might overcharge the battery. Still it worked, and worked well until pimax provided a better solution. The power USB hub that the Crystal plugged into, and which then provided a connection to the pc and extra power via a USB-B port. With this in place I started to see battery life of around 6-8 hours with the battery charging in place overnight. Stage 2 Active testing period. As we rolled on, we saw progress in bursts in the firmware and software. One issue would be fixed, (sound delay) but another would be introduced (horrible sound quality). Again, this is part of the beta process, and each iteration has given us more to test and report on. Eye tracking ( I was delayed testing this, because my beta headset's tracking hardware was faulty- Pimax RMA'D the headset as quicly as one can expect, but it still put me a month behind in testing it. Audio- when that last fix arrived- about the same time my new Crystal did (with dmas installed)the sound was magnificent. The hand controllers were replaced with better units (at no charge) Pimax sent us the power hubs, (free to all purchasers as well) and kept upgrading the firmware. For most of us, hand tracking improved tremendously. It's still not as good as base station tracked conrollers, but it's very good. And most recently, Stand alone mode appeared in the update and it seems to work very well indeed. It's not my kind of gaming, but in my brief testing so far, it's looking pretty good. Soon, we hope to test the base station face plate. (only slightly- ok WEEKS- later than Pimax's 'influencer Youtubers' who are already raving about it. Next month should see all the features working and unlocked for all users. At that point, I guess my beta testing work will be mostly done. I'm going to miss it. The tester's discord proved a pretty lively but safe place for discussion- with strong opinions and the occasionally venting moment. I learned a lot from the other beta testers- most of whom are far smarter than I. And it's been a roller coaster ride. Finding bugs, reporting bugs, getting tech support. I'm still filing reports on things that I think could be made easier for the user, but for the most part, given good quality assurance in the pre-shipping phase, I think Pimax has given us the best headset possible at that price for flight and driving sims. That it can be used for stand alone games and first person shooters is a bonus- but I think most buyers will want it first and foremost for simulation. My final great hope is that Pimax has learned from the mistakes they made launching the Crystal. I hope we see the 12k in reviwers hands only after each unit shipped has been thoroughly tested and quality checked. Pimax promised a lot with the Crystal, and now, they are delivering. I don't argue that it should have been ready sooner. I argue that it should have been held back until ready. But of course, I'm not a share holder, nor a board member or even employee of Pimax. I have no idea how they work or what kind of internal and external pressures they've dealt with along the way. I have been alternately disappointed (quality control) and delighted (tech support- supplying solutions like the power hub at no charge to the customer). I'd really like to not have those ups and downs next time around. For Pimax's sake, as much as anyone's. They do not deserve the hate they get on the internet, but they have definitely earned a bit of skepticism. For me, VR flight, especially in the Pimax Crystal has been soul saving. Some years back, following heart problems and surgery, I had to give up real life flying. For a long time, I couldn't even bear to fly in simulation as it was such a pale imitation of the real thing. Then VR came along. The oculus Rift fueled my imagination, but Pimax has fulfilled it. Nearly. I'm still looking towards the 12K. The resolution and clarity of the Crystal with almost human fields of view? That's for me. Still the Crystal's clarity and sound have made me shelve my 8KX. As good as it is, the Crystal is better. The resolution, the colurs, the blacks (flying at night) combine to make flight in the Crystal nothing short of astonishing. When I'm side slipping into final (usually because I screwed up the approach) I can almost feel the motion in my body. This is as close as I can get to real flight. But it's not likely as close as VR will bring us to it. I wonder what the next five years will bring? Look for me in VR down the road. I'll be the old fat guy with the silly grin on his face and some as yet unimagined headset on his Charley brown head.

The clipped wing variant came about when Pilots in the Spit MK V first encountered the 190A with it's high level speed and incredible roll rate. The idea behind clipping the wing was to increase roll rate to help the Spitfire counter the FW. It was of limited utility, and once the MKIX came along- an airplane that could outclimb, out turn, and run with, the 190, clipped wing variants became even rarer.

yes... but it's less of an issue in low wing planes than high wing. Still even a slight wind can require you to hold a bit of aileron into it and as alway, keep busy on the rudder pedals.

II have posted a video comparing the behaviour I experience in DCS to that in Aces High. I think you all will find it pretty fair minded. It's a bit long, (even having two minutes of me flying to an airport edited out), and a bit verbose, but I hope you'll see what I'm talking about. AND what I love about DCS. Sorry the resolution is so low. DCS looks fantastic on my Pimax 8kx, and this video can't do it justice. edited twice.. once to add the video and once to correct a silly spelling issue. Here's the URL:

Hi Catseye This extreme behaviour at very low speed is one of the issues I was talking about. If there is no wind, as you come to a stop with throttle set to low or minimum, there is no reason for the airplane to suddenly head into the woods. Here's what I've found helps. As you come into land, keep your feet moving on the rudder pedals. As soon as you get the tail down, start applying the brake in gentle 'bumps'. As you slow keep your feet reacting SLIGHTLY to the motion left or right. Don't get heavy handed. In truth, once the spit's tail is down and you are slowing on a straight line, there really is no earthly reason other than a sudden heavy gust of wind for your airplane to veer at low speed. The first control to become effective in flight, and the last to lose effectiveness is the rudder. In real life, once you're so slow that the rudder has no effect, you should be pretty much stopped.

Ok.. that's all quite interesting. Thank you for a well reasoned and logical reply. Still, I think it's eminently possible to provide more of a visual effect in terms of the stall buffet tho'. I just posted a video on my youtube channel comparing the snap roll and buffet behaviours (hey! alliteration!) of the Spit IX in DCS and Aces High III. I think you'll find my comments on DCS balanced and fair. There IS a lot I love about DCS and the Spit model. But I think Aces High handles snap rolls and the stall buffet better.

So... how much time to you have in real airplanes? I understand the frustration of developing expertise that suddenly is no longer required, but wouldn't you rather have realistic flight? DCS does some things very well. I think it hits most of the climb and speed numbers, and once trimmed it flies ok. It's just the missing elements (stall buffet and snap roll) that, along with the strange landing behaviours, that frustrate me.

HOw about using test flight reports from the RAF. Or my own experience with stalls, spins and stall buffets. Using the language of science is an absurd argument. We know the stall numbers; we know the characteristics of the airplane in the stall. DCS doesn't match those characteristics. Take a number and try again. I do realize that. I owned a tail dragger and was checked out on two others. How about you? Stop justifying bullshit by calling people who point it out whiners. Ch fighter stick, CH throttle, CH pedals. Work fine. I AM building an Authentikit spitfire stick. I'm hoping the longer travel of the stick on all axis will translate into smoother flight in DCS. But I seriously doubt it will apply a stall buffet or a snap roll where none is modelled.

Wait. the pilot reports you DON"T like are not reliable, but the entirely anecdotal evidence you provide is? I have literally hundreds of pages of test flight data, acceptance trial reports, and pilot operating handbooks for the Spitfire. None of it agrees with your description of landing performance being 'normal'. Get one of the guys who flew the spitfire to try the one in DCS. If he tells you it's normal then, I'll be flabbergasted. By the way, I didn't say I had trouble flying the spit in DCS, I said it was wrong, and not much fun. I stand by both comments.

I'm running an I9900 with 32 megs of ram and an MSI Nvidia 3090. In VR I get between 56 and 75FPS. I've tried every curve recommended in this forum and on youtube. The Spitfire IX would have to get a better FM just to be less wrong.

Reece, I think you're right- that's one way to land it. I've managed to stall it into a 3point, to do a wheel landing and then lower the tail and taxi normally, and 'fly it on to a pseudo 3 point'. In all cases, rudder alone is not enough. You have to pump that brake quickly and often. But the landings are silly hard. My luscombe had a reputation as a tricky taildragger, and it was, but only in a really strong gusty cross wind. Even then, brakes weren't the answer. Rudder control was. IF the plane starts to veer off, trying to get it back with opposite brake won't work, because chances are that wheel is in the air anyway! I preferred wheel landings in a cross wind. All landings are silly hard in the spitfire, and it flies in a manner that is both clumsy and twichy. Here's a nice summary of flying ... and LANDING... a spitfire in real life: Flying the Spitfire - with Mike Potter The Supermarine Spitfire: has there ever been a more universally admired airplane in the history of flight? Perhaps I reveal a personal bias – after all, I was born in London in 1944 and the Brits’ love for that plucky little fighter may well have been programmed in my DNA – but I think everyone feels a surge of excitement when they approach a Spitfire, especially an airworthy one throwing off the smell of fresh glycol, hydraulic fluid and engine oil. Forgive more superlatives, but I can not think of another man made object which is so elegantly beautiful in form, and so deadly in function. The remarkable talent of R.J. Mitchell, the Spitfire’s brilliant young creator, shines through. First impression from visitors is almost always, “It’s so small!” The Spitfire actually has, within an inch or two, the same overall dimensions as its bulky American cousin, the Mustang, but its slender fuselage and curvy elliptical wings tapering to nothing at the tips, certainly make it appear small and almost delicate. Even the slim, tightly cowled engine belies the 1720 HP it can give you. This is truly a wolf in sheep’s clothing and only the four bladed thirteen foot diameter propeller hints at the raw power in this little airplane. Step up on the wing, ease yourself in the seat and you will find the cockpit snug in a most comforting way. There is room enough to move your hands and feet, but no more. You will feel not that you are sitting in an airplane, but that you have “put it on” like your well worn leather flight jacket. Next, you might notice how simple the airplane is; no complex systems to manage, minimum information displayed. There is logic to this. Once airborne, there is nothing to do but fly and fight. The airplane will take care of itself. Starting is typical Merlin. Manually prime with the Ki-gas pump – too little and it won’t start; too much and you will have an exhaust stack fire, much to the entertainment of onlookers, but guaranteed to raise your own pulse rate. Once the engine is running, I like to remember the words of my colleague, Rob Erdos: “Once you start a Merlin, your IQ drops by one half.” So the checklist, securely strapped to my left leg, becomes my best friend. Taxi with great care. The pneumatic brakes, applied with a bicycle-like brake lever at the top of the stick, are feather light and very effective. Since the Spitfire is extremely light on the tail – only 7 inches separates its centre of gravity from the main wheels, compared to nearly 50 inches on a Mustang – she is just waiting to give the unwary a very expensive trip to Hoffmann Propeller for a new prop. After standard run up and pre take off checks, you are lined up and ready to go. You have just had your last look at the runway since the Spitfire’s long nose gives you no visibility ahead and, with the tail low take-off that the Spitfire requires to ensure prop clearance, that is not going to change on the roll. Ease the power in sloooowly. It is not visible to the spectators, but that big propeller will give some remarkable asymmetric forces on the take off roll and, with a max power take-off, you will need full right deflection of both aileron and rudder to keep it straight. Keep the tail low and it will fly off uneventfully. Yes, the gear retraction is a bit clunky and you do need to change hands to do it, but that’s part of the Spitfire’s personality and it won’t get you into any trouble. Now you are ready to experience the magic. Controls are so light and responsive that the airplane seems to go where you want just by wishing it. (Did I really move that stick?) It casts your mind back to that feeling that you were “putting it on” like a jacket. I have never felt so seamlessly integrated with an airplane before. Surprisingly the controls are not harmonized. Stick forces for aileron are closer to being normal, but the elevator forces are extraordinarily light and demand the gentlest touch. And, like all fighters of this era, you need your two feet as well as your hands to fly or she will skid and slip all over the sky. Considering all the power and performance packed into this little airplane, the stall characteristics are benign. With flaps and gear down and the weights we fly at today, stall speed is less than 60 knots. There is lots of warning, little tendency for a wing drop, and recovery is routine and immediate. The only challenges on landing are poor forward visibility and the need to be pretty comfortable with three-point landing technique. A gently curving approach to the runway threshold will solve the visibility problem. (And, by the way, all those World War II Spitfire veterans were taught that way and will expect to see it.) Over the fence at 90 knots and a last look speed of 80 knots and you will be well set up. Take a good look at the cross wind as you come short final and program your mind for how much side slip you want to feed in on the flare, because it is not easy to judge the drift once that long nose starts to come up. Flare to a tail low or three point attitude, remembering again how light and responsive the elevator is, and enjoy the arrival. It may jiggle around a bit on that ridiculously narrow undercarriage, but there is no mean streak in this airplane. Although the tail wheel is free castoring, the big rudder is very effective as long as you are reasonable fast with your feet. Oh, and easy, very easy, on the brakes. (italics and bold print mine- finnster) At this point it is worth a moment’s thought for the Spitfire’s arch rival in the sky – Messerschmitt’s Bf109. When our Spitfire pilot disengaged from a fight and headed home, his thoughts might easily turn to a beer with his buddies in the pilot’s mess. The 109 pilot, on the other hand, must have still been giving some serious thought to getting on the ground safely. While the Spit is such a pussycat, it is estimated that about one third of all 109’s built were destroyed in take off and landing accidents with major loss of life. It is reputed to be a very difficult airplane to land. (my observation- the opposite is true in DCS. It's absurd). Taxi to the ramp (or to “dispersal” if you still have your head back to the 1940’s) but waste no time since, on a warm day, that glycol will heat up to the red line in a very short time. The shut down is normal, then pause for a moment to remind yourself what a privilege it is to fly one of the most beautiful and important aircraft ever designed. And, finally, take a moment to reflect on the remarkable story of R. J. Mitchell. Mitchell started his design of the Spitfire in 1934. Although a young man, still in his thirties, he had been diagnosed with terminal cancer the year before. But Mitchell never allowed his illness to keep him from this vital work. After the first flight of the Spitfire prototype in March 1936, Mitchell lived barely a year. When he died one Spitfire, the prototype, was flying; 20,333 were to follow. He died knowing that he had created a good airplane but having no idea that, within a few years, his Spitfire would change the course of history. R. J. Mitchell, with the extraordinary Spitfire he created, is an inspiration to us seventy years after his death. Michael Potter , Vintage Wings of Canada Photo: Peter Handley. Photo of R.J. Mitchell: Vickers

...the less I like it. I can land it- I've even done some wheel landings. But the flight model itself is... not what I'd hoped for. There are three main issues. First: it's way too twichy. I've never flown an airplane (even a Christen Eagle) that was as twitchy as the DCS Spitfire. Even when trimmed out, it's like riding a unicycle on the head of a pin stuck in the deck of a rolling sailboat. Secondly: I can find no way to make it snap roll. Thirdly: There is never any buffet before the stall (which you really need in a sim as there is no sense of motion in the 'seat of your pants'. In real life, the Spitfire gave lots of warning as your AOA and airspeed got close to a stall condition. The Spit would buffet, and remarkably, in the buffet the ailerons remained effective up to the stall itself. Fourthly: well, don't even get started on it's behaviour on landing. Drunken sailors wander less. A normal landing should be no flaps in the spit. Wheel landings should be routine. Both are possible, but they're never routine. I believe that part of the problem lies in the joystick and rudder calibration in the game. Gaming joysticks, like my CH fighter stick, have much shorter throws in all four directions than do the sticks in real airplanes. I think this may be one of the core issues for DCS and the Spitty. I've fought with stick settings for weeks and literally dozens of hours trying to find some combination of axis settings that might make the spit more well... like a spit. I give up. It's not that I can't fly the airplane effectively in DCS, it's that it's just so unlike my experience in real airplanes. Now I am building an authentikit spitfire stick for sim play. It has a much longer throw in all directions than my CH fighter stick, and when I have it working, I will revisit the Spitfire. A good friend I used to fly with (aerobatics pilot on Team Rayban back in the day) flew a Spitfire in England two years ago. He said it was an absolute joy. He did his entire routine with a grin on his face. By his account the spitfire practically read his mind and flew like it was on rails. This is not the case for me in DCS, and is the primary reason that I'm not playing online on any of the servers. I CAN fly it effectively, but wow... I had more fun driving grain trucks on the farm. And that's a darn shame, because the cockpit model, the instruments and the way all the systems work in DCS is remarkable! It's just the flying part that isn't so good. Unfortunately, that's kind of the important part. Any hope for a revision to the flight model?

That looks really cool! I'll grab it. THanks Lange_666

Hi guys, I installed the open beta, but I can't get it to launch. My regular version of DCS is on my "C" drive partition, but it is low on space, so I installed the beta DCS on my "D" drive partition. Seemed to install ok. But it fails to load. It sort of stalls, and just hangs after a bit. I'm going to have another go at figuring it out and will try to provide a better description of the fail. Are there any common issues? I couldn't find a forum for 'beta' discussions. Sorry!