Dangerzone

Don't have an answer for you regarding the reasons, but if you want a quick check try the following: Navigate to your saved games folder. In there find the DCS or DCS.OPENBETA folder. Rename this to DCS.OLD. Then navigate to your DCS install's BIN directory and type in "dcs_update repair", and go through the repair process. Then boot up DCS. All your settings will be lost (don't worry - you have them saved in DCS.OLD). This is only a test to see IF this fixes the issue or not. If DCS runs fine, then you can close out, navigate to your saved games folder. You will have a new DCS or DCS.OPEN BETA folder. Delete it and then rename your DCS.OLD back to DCS or DCS.OPENBETA (whatever it was before). Re-run DCS. If it crashes again - you know the problem is with your settings or a mod. Fear not: If that happens, close DCS again, and rename DCS to DCS.OLD again. Then copy across only the things you really need (such as your config\input directory so you don't need to rebind all your things). Restart DCS and make sure it doesn't crash. Then one by one (if you want) re-install your mods until you find the culprit, or.. it otherwise just works fine without crashing. FWIW - I would recommend using OVGME or another mod manager to manage mods, as it's far easier just to uninstall the mods using this to do a repair, and then place them back after the repair. TL;DR - With DCS closed, rename the DCS folder in your saved games directory to DCS.OLD and try running DCS. If it fixes the problem, you know it's a setting you had. You can recover your settings by renaming DCS.OLD back to DCS again if you want, or managing individually (per above).

Yes - it could be flown with an X-Box controller (and some have) - however YMMV is a key factor in this. What they are satisfied with, or the time, skill, etc that they put into it may differ from you. It's a bit like air to air refueling. Some now say it's "easy" and enjoy it, while others say they can do it but it's still hard work, and they don't enjoy it, while others never master it no matter how much time they put into it. Personal ability, mindsets, and preferences is a key factor. The best solution IMO would be to take out the 2 week trial, and give it a go for yourself. That will take all the guesswork out. ED have very generously and wisely granted us the ability to try modules for 2 weeks to see whether we're happy with it - I'd suggest you take advantage of that opportunity. It'll give you the best idea compared to us randoms saying 'yes' or 'no'.

Just to let you know, this isn't the case. Mine is in my c:\users\<myname>\saved games folder, even when running in Admin mode. Thank you for the information regarding VoiceAttack / VAICOM. I tend to try avoiding installing games and game related installs in program files anyway, so it sounds like I'm already doing best practice. I haven't had the chance to test with 'run as administrator' turned off, but hopefully will get a chance this weekend. Security was my #1 consideration TBH - as not only DCS is running in admin, but I need discord (for PTT) to be admin when DCS is focused, and that's not ideal at all. The trend here certainly seems to be "Run as administrator" is not required - so that's definitely promising. Thanks for taking the time to reply.

Locked files in the saved games directory. I guess that happens if DCS is run 'in Admin' mode, but things liek voiceattack/vaicom aren't. For me - I had Skatezilla's launcher running 'as administrator' - so everything else followed suit. It sounds like it's no longer needed (or desired) anymore, so I might look at removing the 'run as administrator' from Skatezilla's launcher and see how things go - considering no one has replied here with a definitive answer as to why it is needed now.

Whoa! Shut the front door! Is this fair dinkum? I didn't realise that. This does indeed add a spanner into my logic. And to answer your question - I've never had a VR with eye tracking / DFR. I still wonder how much of an upgrade going from Reverb->Crystal Light will be, compared to Reverb-> Crystal (with DFR) and whether the upgrade is worth the $699, or whether I put that 'towards' a full Crystal. It's harder because, as you mentioned the Crystal has the battery, and the extra weight. It's kinda like they're missing the 'sweet spot' of the market. Given that they've also announced the upcoming Crystal Super later this year, it's unlikely that they're going to have another option, so unless a competitor comes out and fills that sweet spot, I have decisions to consider. Thanks again for enlightening me on the Reverb's pixel count.

Do you run DCS as administrator, or not? Just wondering what the advantages/disadvantages are, and what's the better/correct option, and why? I switched to "As Administrator" some time ago. I honestly forget why now. I do run Voice Attack, VAICOM, Tacview, SRS, and ScratchPad in WMR VR with OpenXR - and I think it was originally to solve an issue with one of those, but I honestly can't remember and don't know if it's a requirement anymore.

Some good thoughts there Peedee. There's no doubt that the CL is a great headset for it's price point, and as a direct replacement for the HP - however I think there's more factors to consider. To answer your question, I run my hardware at 1:1 resolution. Here's my understanding of the situation - please anyone point out if I'm wrong with this, as I'm not convinced my own logic is sound at this point in time and appreciate correction. HP Reverb is 2160x2160 per eye. That's 9,331,200 pixels for both eyes and at 90fps makes 839,808,000 pixels rendered per second. The Crystal Light is 2880x2880 per eye. That's 16,588,800 pixels for both eyes. At 72fps that makes 1,194,393,600 pixels rendered per second - an extra 40% of rendering compared to the HP Reverb - and that at the reduced refresh rate/fps (of 72 vs 90) 40% extra is a lot, which is why I've always been of the impression that having headsets of this resolution makes DFR mandatory, not optional. Not having DFR at those resolutions seems like too much compromise: Having to reduce frames / refresh rate Having to reduce graphic settings Having to use fixed foveated rendering, and only having full clarity in the center. Having to reduce resolution I agree with your statement that lowering the resolution will still give a better picture than the G2. but I'm thinking of not just the G2 comparison. I think 2 questions should be considered together: How much of a better picture would I be getting compared to the G2 with the same GPU workload, and How much worse of a picture would I be getting compared to having the same GPU workload load, but with DFR. For instance, the CL might be 25% better than the G2 which sounds nice - until one considers that having DFR might be 200% better than the G2. The other consideration at play is what's more economical long term. How will sticking with a 4090 and getting the Pimax Crystal with DFR compare both image wise, and cost wise to going with the Crystal Light, and upgrading to the 5090 or whatever hardware is needed to run an equivalent experience. (Or will it even). From my perspective, I bought a 4090 to solve all my performance problems (ignorant me ), and one lesson I've learned is that we're not going to fix issues just by 'throwing more grunt' at it. I need to start thinking smarter as well - which is where I think DFR is a significant contributor. But I guess none of that will be known really until after the headset is in the wild and we have a number of reviews. The plus side of course is the price. The light is a very affordable headset and will no doubt reach a lot of the general market, but then I question "will it really?". It will be interesting to see how having a more affordable headset works when a premium GPU is still required to run it. I just personally wish they had a model that was 50% or so more expensive with DFR - that would have been an instant-buy for me, but as it is now - it's going to be a wait and see I think. The only other thing that would make me buy this now instead of waiting is if Pimax actually announced that a DFR upgrade would be coming to it in the future. As for fixed foveated rendering - I'm guessing that's what we have now anyway - with OpenXR tools, so I don't get how 2.0 can fix things better - since it's still a fixed render and there's cost when not looking straight ahead. I'll be very interested to see what reviews make of this - whether there is something better to it, or it's just marketing hype.

It doesn't bother those others because (and correct me if I'm wrong) - the resolution is less all-round to start with. My concern would be that native resolution with no foveated rendering is going to be a GPU hog, so yeah - I may have to pay premium price for a premium headset. Apart from that - I love the idea of a much improved Reverb G2 - plus with Windows giving the middle finger to all it's WMR users, the timing of it's release is excellent. This is where I struggle to buy the Crystal TBH. The fact that it's not designed for PCVR only - and has the battery, and other things that I simply don't want. Paying premium price for a VR headset but then not getting something dedicated to PCVR I struggled with. It might be best for me to wait for the Crystal Super instead. That DFR is probably going to save more $$$'s on having to get a GPU to render for everything - and since I already have a 4090 - it may save me having to upgrade to the 5090 when it's released which could be a cash saver. Thanks for the info on what local dimming is too! Exactly - and even then, you probably will need to reduce it anyway - given the extra pixels in that headset over the Reverb. I use the Reverb with the 4090 - and that's one of the key reasons I don't want a headset with extra resolution without DFR. With DLSS, I've finally got to a place where I can tweak the settings to a level to maintain 90fps. I don't want to spend lots of money and 'go backwards' struggling with FPS's again. TL;DR: Don't get me wrong - this is very good news for a budget VR headset or HP Reverb Replacement. Just personally - I would have been very keen to pay extra to have DFR due to the overhead the resolution will put even on my 4090.

Given no one's officially replied, my guess is that maybe all it is, is that the main release last week, and the first hotfix before this one shared the same network protocol version - which allowed cross-version play on multiplayer servers which may have caused issues, so they've incremented the version number on this one. (Complete guess, but I doubt in a hotfix it's significant improvements, nor will you need firewall rules changed).

Gutted that there's no eyetracking in it. That's a dealbreaker for me! What is 'local dimming'?

I get your disappointment. The most detailed map yet made soon to be released, and no carrier ops. (I too am a carrier lover). I guess the options that are available to us are either: Use other maps for carrier ops, and just enjoy Afghanistan for something different. Be unrealistic and use the lake for carrier ops if we still want carrier operations. Wait until DCS "World" is released as a full globe and then do carrier based ops from Persia. Put our focus on Kola, Australia, or other maps being released that cater for carrier ops. In the end, DCS's limitations combined with the geographic attributes of Afghanistan doesn't make it an option for this map at this time, and I don't think that's going to change anytime soon™, so we either accept this and work with what we have - or get upset about things we can't change. The serenity prayer comes to mind with this one - especially the serenity to accept the things we can't change and the wisdom to know when that's the case.

ED haven't released the DCE because it's not ready yet. ED's financial state doesn't make a function or module more releasable, and I'm sure they're currently working at it. From my perspective, the benefit of the DCE being introduced isn't just the income they get from current customers who may upgrade to it - it's the potential attraction to a lot of other yet-to-be customers that may be attracted to DCS once it's released. But again, you can't release a product until it's actually ready for release so financial benefit or not - it will be released when they have it at a releasable stage. There is something very attractive about 'advancing' through a dynamic scenario than just playing individual skirmish missions. IDK - but I suspect they may be both finding it far more difficult to develop than they first anticipated, and also the possible rapid enhancement of certain technology such as AI and the potential it could bring for dynamic campaigns may also be pushing some things back as they may be considering implementing this ever-changing technology as well. Given that another flight sim that's currently 'back in development' that already has a DCE that people admire from years ago is being worked on again - ED have competition, so I figure they're not just working on 'another DCE' to give similar features, but they're probably exploring a far more advanced DCE to stand out. Another factor I suspect they could also be hitting are the same issues that us large mission designers / server admins face as well, which is performance issues with lots of units. If this is an issue for their DCE, then this would need to be addressed first before their DCE comes out. If these guesses are true, DCS may need Vulkan to be out, and multi-threading to be complete for AI, physics and server coding, before DCE can be finalized. As much as I hate to say it - I'm not expecting the DCE for another 4-5 years, and am planning my expectations accordingly. I do hope I'm wrong though, but in some ways when I consider what may need to be done first, I also do hope I'm right (and it's not later than 5 years).

Could ED please consider having a secondary authentication server for multiplayers that DCS attempts to connect to if the primary server goes down? Even if it's a server that's only updated on a weekly basis - it would be really handy to have a fallback server for DCS to automatically go to if the primary server is down so multiplayer users are able to continue to use DCS. Thanks for considering DZ

Thanks BN, Seems people that were already in Multiplayer servers are OK, only new people trying to connect (for now). I unfortunately know this as I was in with a bunch of mates, but got hit with the AH64->FA/18 CTD bug (forgetting to disconnect/reconnect to the server), and when restarting DCS got bit by the authentication servers being down, whereas they're all still in enjoying the fight.

Is anyone else having issues again. Last thread discussing this has been locked - but I've just started having issues again. Also looks like digitalcombatsimulator.com is also down too.

The single DCS version is only new, I'm sure it will take some time to iron out the wrinkles, or to figure out where it best settles with the release cycle. I don't think it's just BigNewy's opinion - as I'm sure he doesn't have enough pull in ED to make the exec's, and dev's drop 2 versions for 1 all by himself. It's obvious that ED corporately have decided that 1 release is good for the community. My personal opinion is that the best option for me is 2 releases. One being a Open BETA... for testing purposes only. Very handy for server admins, mission editors, scripters, and those who genuinely want to be involved in the testing process to give constructive feedback, with the other being a Stable release version - for actual gameplay. However the community over the years has proven that it can't work this way - because as soon as there's a beta version available - most want to jump to using this as their primary production version, which inhibits the ability for a Beta version to be used primarily for testing, and has ED split between trying to maintain 2 releases for actual public production. Given that my preferred option seems impossible to have in this climate, the single DCS version does indeed seem to be the next best option, and I'm willing to give ED some time to see how things settle before making further judgement. The current version of DCS seems to be pretty good too for the most part. Good performance improvements, etc. I'm actually more keen on new features and modules than just another patch cycle - but since there's been no announcements, so I suspect that the next patch won't give us new features, but just more tweaks, fixes and enhancements. I'm glad that they are taking the time to get it right, and not quite sure what the urgency is that people are waiting for with this patch. ED may cop some flack for delaying a release by a week, but I bet it's far less flack than if they make a release that has gameplay affecting bugs.

Not sure if this has been mentioned, but one tip is when first taking off - try hovering out of ground effect. Note the power that's required to maintain that hover OGE. This is the power that will be required when you come back into a hover OGE. (Or conversely if you plan on hovering in ground effect, do the same). That way, before the helicopter settles, you'll know what power setting you need to be on in order to stop it settling.

Here's the discord link to their channel: https://discord.gg/gErkQa5x You can download it direct from https://github.com/Penecruz/VAICOMPRO-Community/releases/tag/v2.9.3.0 You'll first need Voice Attack though. (VAICOM uses voice attack). VAICOM is free, but Voice Attack costs $10USD. Either https://voiceattack.com/purchase.aspx if you are happy to buy direct, or if you're a steam buyer, you can get via steam at https://store.steampowered.com/app/583010/VoiceAttack/ It's worth watching a few youtube video's on VAICOM first to see what you can do with VAICOM. Even voice attack by itself is fantastic for DCS - to be able to give voice commands, but VAICOM adds to the immersion with radio calls, etc without having to bring up the menu. Alternatively, you could download VAICOM and possibly just use the chatter.wav files that come with it for resources, but honestly - I think you'd be doing yourself a disservice by not using VAICOM to it's full potential. (Although that's probably a subject for another thread and getting a little off topic now)

Have you tried VAICOM? In addition to the very immersive voice commands that can be given - I believe they also have chatter functionality built in. If you haven't checked it out, it might be worth a look.

It sounds like it's more than that. Some people notice no loss of clarity. Some notice very little, and others seem to have things smudged beyond readability. I've just watched a video on youtube, and it seems that resolution can have a big impact on how much DLSS affects clarity. Maybe it's those with lower res headsets that are seeing it very blury. What sort of headset are you running?

Thanks. We're both running NVIDIA and Windows 11. The main difference is the VR headsets. I'm on a HP Reverb through OpenXR and WMR. It would be good to get some information from others having it as well to see if we can narrow down to whether this could potentially be related to Quest users.

@tribbin - while you wait for ED to investigate and potentially patch this issue, a workaround may be to run a stand-alone server instance of DCS on one of your computers. (This could also potentially give performance benefits to you as well, as your client DCS would be focusing only on you, and the server instance and threads would be serving the 'server' side).

Sometimes it just takes one person to get you to think outside the box. Reducing the desktop resolution would work if I end up having any performance issues, so that takes my fear away now from getting a higher res monitor. HP don't have their own software. They use WMR, so I'm bound by that (at least until I upgrade. Still looking at my options. The Pimax looks promising, but the price tag is just out of reach for now)...

Definitely sounds like a bug. I'd suggest posting the tracks here and maybe tagging in Bignewy or nineline to make them aware of this bug, and your reproducable track files.

I don't think there's a direct way to do this in DCS, but there may be a few 'hacks' that might work for you. One option that would allow not just gentle turns, but also formation aerobatics, etc would be a ghost replay. But this was requested back in 2012, and subsequent times since, but has not gained any traction: As for the alternative or hack options - some of these may be worth trying: 1) Setup the flight you wish to fly with to do a racetrack orbit between 2 waypoints. It could be that racetrack orbits are more gentler than actual waypoint turns. 2) If racetrack orbits are no good - setup a KC-135 tanker to do a racetrack orbit while in 'tanking' mode instead and fly off it's wing. Not as good as a F14 - but might work for practise, or 3) Setup a KC-135 tanker for tanking in a racetrack orbit pattern, and then set some F14's to escort the tanker. If the tanker flies in gentle turns - then the F14's may follow. 4) Setup waypoints in 2 or 5 degree turns instead, and space them out evenly until you get the AI to fly a smooth and gentle turn right through to 80 degrees. (This would be a last resort and desperate option - but could work - that's untried It could be that new settings have been introduced I'm unaware of to limit the bank angles on AI aircraft with WP commands, but if so I haven't come across them yet. No doubt someone will correct me if that's the case.