Dangerzone

I’m looking for ideas on mounting a FFB base to a chair. I don’t have the space for a full simpit, so my HOTAS is currently attached directly to an office chair. Since FFB bases are much heavier than regular sticks, I’m not sure chair-mounting is practical. I’d like to hear how others have set up their FFB bases in non-simpit setups (especially where gear is mounted to a chair).

Would be great to have the pilot synced too in MP. At present, you can walk around, but for everyone else on the server - the pilot remains stationary.

That was a real pleasant surprise. Definitely some unique cinematography in there that really made this stand out. Out of curiosity - did you do that 'all by yourself' , or did you have other players helping you to get the shots? Because if it was all by yourself using the track replay function - it takes the impressiveness to a whole new level! (But even if not - still outstanding. Nice work!) I can only imagine how many countless hours went in to making that!

Is Winwing software required to be running in order to use their peripherals? I've only had experience with VKB and Virpil. The beauty about both is that all settings are uploaded directly into the devices themselves, so there's no software that's needed - thus no incompatibilities. I was under the impression that Winwing operated the same - but maybe I'm wrong. Does Winwing require software to be running in order for it to work? Is that why there's a conflict? (Otherwise, if not - I'm very curious to know how winwing could create problems with DCS running as administrator if they have no software running at all - it should just be like any other generic device)? What's going on there?

I used to run it as administrator because many sources recommended it too. Later I was advised not to as it's no longer needed (and can now create issues), so I stopped - with no negative issues. It seems running DCS as admin was more of an old practice and as a common workaround to who knows what issues, and the current best practice is not to do so. (Really, it probably never should have been recommended in the first place.) Definitely give it a go. It may not fix it, but it would be good to do as a test, and also to start migrating that way anyway.

Distance in VR is something I don't think yet has been fully mastered. I certainly feel like distant things are closer and smaller than what they should be. I don't know if this is due to the way VR attempts to fool the brain, whether it's just my brain getting used to VR, or other factors. I did a little bit of searching on this. From what I could gather, the whole close seems good, distant seems less good could be due to Binocular cues getting weaker with distance, and that Monocular cues such as haze, scale and perceptive are harder to replicate with limited FOV and resolution. IPD / world scale settings can also have an impact. The one area I've always wondered is DCS's own IPD settings - which seems to make a big difference in the cockpit for the cockpit view, but has no perceivable difference for outside objects. But in the end, I've just accepted that VR is an emulation of an environment - does a good job at helping me to judge distance with things like formation, and gives me a more immersive experience, but that it's normal to feel like the 'world is smaller'.

Fair points you raise. The save game one I don't see happening. ED have made their save game feature, and it seems to have revealed that they're going with the same approach that other community contributors used with already mostly existing functionality - as opposed to redeveloping from the ground up the ability to save the actual state of the game. I have seen some campaign designers 'cheat' by having a separate mission that is post a certain event. (ie, post-refueling, to allow those who can't air to air refuel the ability to proceed from a certain point). That's the only way I see at present or in the foreseeable future that a campaign creator could possibly get around this particular issue - have a starting position that is closer to the action. It is of course a work-around and adds to the content creators workload, but I can't see another way. For me, I find it lacking immersion. I think that really has to do with the 'flow on' effect from one to another. How well you do in one mission doesn't change/affect another. Heatblur may have helped bridge a gap here with the F4 - how you treat it on a previous session impacts how it will be the following one for instance. But overall - I think this is where I suspect a lot of people are hanging out for the dynamic campaign engine instead - so it's unique and more immersive. But this conversation does raise a thought. How epic would the dynamic campaign engine be, if it was an engine for campaign designers. ie - instead of just being a 'go and play' - it was like the mission editor where campaign creators could actually use it as a tool to create their campaign, but the end result would be something dynamic and 'living'.

Yeah - that's what I'm beginning to learn - that I need to change my vocabulary in order to have clearer communication. I hardly play PvP. PvPvE at best, otherwise PvE and always considered that MP - so I can see that it's going to have benefits moving forward to eliminate MP out of my dictionary, and maybe instead use terms like Solo player, Multicrew Player, PvE Co-Cop player and of course PvP.

Actually - that's the reason I said MP, and not public servers, so I don't think it was missed. . Having seen so many people say they're SP only - I gathered that meant no servers at all, public or private. From many of the posts here, I think that's a fair representation too - given a lot of the issues seem to be time related to missions, etc. For instance - most of the missions (milsim, etc) that I've had experience with have been on locked down servers. (ie, not public). Interesting. For the sake of the conversation and clarity - I would treat co-op PvE as MP still, but given these two replies - it would seem prudent to use something other than just "MP" to describe the discussion, given that some people see MP more along the lines of just public servers, and not including the others. Thanks!

I’m hoping the DCE causes developers to face the same challenges that mission designers and server admins have dealt with, so these issues finally get higher priority and faster fixes. (Things like AI taxiing and airfield issues, pathfinding, overall AI improvements, better save/resume features, and enhancements to logistics (e.g., control over slots / dynamic spawns for FARPs), etc. I'm also hoping that it's customizable and flexible, letting players setup the iniitial battlefield to different scenarios instead of sticking to a rigid “one-size-fits-all” dynamic campaign. And I really hope it gives the immersion experience of being in an actual battle. Not just a sorty to go bomb this, but where there is an active battlefield where you can see the fight going on (especially for CAS) with other units, etc. Ultimately (and fantasizing now) - once it’s available for multiplayer, I'm hoping for great flexibility and control - supporting scripting (so we can implement CSAR, Better explosions, etc like we can with current missions) and have a game master mode to allow server administrators (or even SP players themselves) to adapt the battlefield to their preferences. All that aside - I think earlier this year ED announced that they're hoping to have DCE released sometime later this year. Has there been any updates since then? Confirmation that it's still on track for a release later this year?

Interesting to read the replies. Quite an eye opener for me actually (as mostly a MP person). As someone who I think sits in the middle (I prefer PvE, so "co-op" MP) I actually had other preconceived ideas as to why SP might be popular - but I see there's far more reasons than I first suspected. Thanks to all who replied.

I've read that most DCS players prefer Single Player. I've also seen many posts from people who tried Multiplayer but, for various reasons, decided it wasn't for them and stuck with Single Player. If that describes you, I’d like your input: What would make you consider joining a DCS multiplayer server? Or, what would a multiplayer server need (or avoid) for you to try it? For example: A PvE campaign where you only play with friends you choose. A community that carefully selects members to ensure maturity, or one that offers real human ATC 24/7. Servers that automatically match you with players of similar skill for fair PvP. Or do you simply prefer flying alone, with no interest in playing with others? I’m curious whether players avoid Multiplayer just because they prefer flying solo, or because a suitable Multiplayer environment doesn’t exist for them.

dd I'm with you. I don't use Google's authenticator. I have an issue with their terms and conditions. But you can use any 2FA authenticator. What devices are you using, and we can suggest a few for you if you want.

This is just weird. It never working from day 1... and then after a workaround was found, instead of fixing the issue properly - they block the workaround! Then official replies stopped with no further information about anything to do with this issue. What is going on internally at ED?!?

Thanks! Original post updated with this info!

Firstly, I have already rethought of what DCS is previously. I had to in order to "maintain my passion and support" because what I wanted to achieve wasn't going to be possible to do with the level of support and focus on quality testing that ED is providing, which nearly brought me to the brink of walking away from DCS completely - until I lowered my expectations and change my thought on what DCS is... so I'm definitely open to re-thinking of what DCS is. While I share a number (or honestly - most of the concerns raised) - I do believe DCS was meant to be a combat flight simulator. That's always been the goal. While there are definitely issues, I strongly disagree with the proposition that it's because DCS was never meant to be a simulator. I think the problems that have occurred are from many angles. Some self inflicted, and others external. IDK how many developers and staff have been pulled away from DCS due to wars and conflicts going on at the moment, but it wouldn't surprise me if both COVID and the war has had a significant impact on ED that has reduced the amount of resources they have at their disposal. By how much, and what factor it impacts, only ED themselves would really know - we can only speculate. I think ED is also partly a victim of their own success. DCS has grown - significant in different areas that ED have tried to introduce into DCS - and as a result, I think we might be in a period of time where there's more than they can handle at the moment. ie: Seeing Combined Arms neglected as they focus on other areas - DCS really has become quite big from a development and maintain point of view. The more functionality and modules, the more to maintain everytime a change is made. IDK where this leads to - but I'm darn glad that DCS still exists and is being maintained, even if not to a standard I would like. I can of course sit back as an armchair critic, and say what I would love to see change, which at the top of my list would include putting more focus onto Quality, Stability, and content creator support. I would love to see issues and bugs that they introduce with a new patch that wasn't there previously be treated as the highest priority - so we all had a reliable and stable platform, from the individual player, right through to content creators, but but it's easy for me to say when I don't have to balance the budget, pay the bills, or deal with who knows what challenges they face and what they need to meet in order to keep DCS viable within the limitation of the resources that they have. That's not saying that I don't think there's areas where ED could have significant improvement in (I obviously do). However, calling DCS as 'simulator simulator', and that the 'software is the game' as though it's a puzzle to try and solve to get it working is really more hyperbole. If it comes down to taking DCS as it currently is, or not having DCS at all - I'm going to try and focus on the things I can be grateful for more than the things I'm disappointed in. I think that's the only way really to actually appreciate DCS. We'll always find things that we don't like (and yes - in DCS's case we probably don't have to search too far ) - but even with those - DCS is still an incredible and amazing product that I am so grateful for. In the end, 2 people can have the exact same experience with DCS, one being frusturated, and the other grateful depending on where they focus more. I've done enough living being frusturated - I'm trying to see what the other side is like with the glass half full instead.

Offline might help, but my observations when I've used it before Pimax still tries to 'phone home' on a number of different endpoints (well, at least does for me - I rolled back to an older version that's in the 20's when I experience issues, and haven't updated since). I'd be very keen to know if this has been 'fixed' so offline is truly offline with zero internet connectivity, or whether it still goes online with numerous communications in offline mode. Are you able to confirm?

No reason to have it in the autoexec.cfg file if that's the case. I wasn't aware of the buttons, and/or are just using an ever growing list of things to try and check when I hit performance issues, and this was on it. I'll amend the original post. Thanks fort he heads up.

Do you have a youtube video link. Also - unfortunately your specs/signature doesn't show up for me. Not sure what's wrong with the forum, or my settings. Is there anything in particular that you're referring to that should be added to this list?

My gut feeling is that it's intentional. I suspect this is one of those 'too hard basket' issues that would take a lot of work to resolve for an issue that they don't consider significant enough to warrant the time - and engaging with customers regarding this issue is riskier and exposes more than keeping silent. FWIW - I think the better option (only if this is true and it's never going to be dealt with), is what @P3CFE recommended - the ability to disable contrails completely. I think they're formed automatically depending on altitude, temperature, and some other factors (??) but for those who don't have the time to mess around trying to find the magic combination but find this a significant issue - it would be nice to just disable them completely. Personally I'd prefer to see it fixed, but I get the impression that DCS is a mounumous beast now and there must be so many different wish lists and things to work on that some will sadly never see the light of day, so I'm trying to manage my expectations accordingly. And no contrails is far better than "warping" contrails that don't match the rest of the airspace. So hint to ED: Even if you 'sneak' something in as a setting for the autoexec.cfg file that allows disabling of contrails and have it leaked through one of your acquaintances if you really don't want to engage customers regarding this issue would be an option.

I don't use the DCS FPS Limiter. I've been using rivatuner instead. Finer adjustments (ie, not jumping by 5fps) , and I can make changes to it if needed in realtime without having to close mission.

Is this being released as EA, or full release? I thought the pricing on EA is discounted? (Not pre release price but still closer to it than full price?) Have you heard any different, because you’re scenario seems to expect it not to go to EA price but full price immediately on release? Historically, pre-release have been 30%, and EA 20% discounted. Seems to me that’s fair. An extra ~ $6usd savings for those who know they want it regardless and buy, and ~ $6 extra for those who wait until after release but still buy EA. $6 difference for insurance/security for those who want public reviews doesn’t seem unreasonable to me, ( or $6 savings for those who show support by pre-ordering seems pretty reasonable). Personally, I’ve never understood preorder on a digital product that doesn’t have limited stock, and would prefer to pay $6 for the insurance, but I also don’t think it’s not unreasonable for those who invest and commit early to get that extra bit of a savings. I’ll always advocate for choice. I think the way it’s been released couldn’t be better… unless there’s something you know that I don’t, such as this being released with no EA? If so, please let me know.

I think you're right. I found Quadviews Fixed Foveated Rendering quite helpful back when I was running the HP Reverb. However it gives a lot more control and adjustments than the new Pimax feature. For the PCL - we would need the ability to offset the horizontal and vertical area. (Moreso the vertical area) like the QFVR app. I do like that Pimax is moving forward in trying to incorporate more natively into their system, saving us having additional separate process inbetween DCS and the headset, but at the same time it needs to be of benefit. I'm guessing this is solely focused on improving the super. I'm still on a version in the .20's (Can't remember exactly which). I've been waiting to upgrade for both features, and a stable version - but so far, reading in the following, it seems people are still rolling back. I guess if there's no new features that are going to help, and mine is working as is - I won't risk breaking it. I was contemplating taking the risk in trying to update if there was going to be any significant reward, but for now it sounds like there's no reward for the PCL.

I'm not saying that the night sky doesn't have room for improvements, but I've flown plenty of hours at night across remote areas, and I can attest that I've never seen a sky like the on in the OP's post. Moonless nights tend to be black - and it can be difficult at times to determine if the dot on the horizon is a lone farmhouse, or a star in the sky. Full moon nights are different, give a clear horizon, and surprisingly a lot to see as well on the ground (tree's structures, etc). But the OP image is a long exposure capture, that takes in a lot more eye than the human eye see's - and bringing something like that into DCS would be in the lines of being more unrealistic than closer to realism. Yes - stars can be more visible at the higher altitudes, but still nothing like a long exposure photograph. Saying that - a very rare occasional meteor/shooting star would be kinda cool, and I agree with the city light glow. Not sure though how much extra processing this would add to DCS - and if some - I'd be happy for it to wait until Vulkan is done.

SD and TB. I'm with you on expectations with the dynamic campaign engine. I think history with new new Mission Generator, the save game feature (which honestly, I think some of the 3rd party stuff has served better, and for many years already), the more recent inclusion of Dynamic ally created FARP spawn options (that still have issues), to name a few - I'm actually preparing for the DCE to be something that I probably won't be touching for quite some time after release and still be using 3rd party solutions (like SRS vs the internal radio function). I really hope I'm wrong. But likewise, I'm aware it would be unfair to put these prior experiences on a new 3rd party dev. This is ASC's moment to shine. I think of other 3rd party companies that have raised the bar (HB, and Urga), and see no reason why the C130 couldn't be released with a similar raise in the bar. in some ways it's interesting to see posts about "I won't buy another 3rd party module after the RB incident" - where I find myself exactly the opposite - I have higher expectations from 3rd parties with what will be delivered. I guess in fairness - in part - they only have their own modules to maintain and ED has a lot more going on. Re the C130 - I'm already dreaming of the options available in MP missions that it could be used (as I'm expecting to be using it there, and planning accordingly. I'm certainly not going to be leaving it up to the DCE to be the provider of purpose and opportunity for the C130), so contemplating what else can be done by myself and the community to make this thrive.