Dangerzone
-
Posts
1992 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Dangerzone
-
-
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.
-
3
-
-
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.
-
2
-
1
-
-
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.
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, Ignition said:
To be fair this is a new 3rd party developer AND a new type module for DCS, paying so blindly is somewhat strange. And in the description of the aircraft doesn't explain the cargo mechanics and if the cargo mechanics are fixed after a year of introduction of the CH-47.
Plus for all other major games with pre order you have a glimpse of gameplay during the pre order phase.
Re the glimpse of gameplay - the dev mentioned above that there will be video's incoming, so you'll get the same with this it would seem.
As for the preorder being strange - I don't think so. The pre-order is a choice. The dev maybe could have chosen not to do it (I don't know the contract obligations with ED) - and not given an option and just had it available to buy at release. Well - we still have that option now to us anyway - we just have the additional choice of whether we want to buy it early for an additional discount. Personally - I'm not a huge person of pre-purchasing myself - but I'll never knock someone for making it a choice that I can ignore so it gives options for others who have a different mindset or priorities to me.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, jaapgrolleman said:
Especially the adjustable QuadViews is great for DCS, also worth trying the GPU upscaling mode (and sharpening).
Thanks for this.
How does the upscaling work with DCS? Is it even needed since we have DLSS?
In regards to the Quadviews - I've been waiting for this for some time to be native to Pimax. Does this work with the Crystal Light as a Fixed region in the center? And if so - is there a way to adjust the view left/right/up/down? (Either by app, or editing a config fiel)? At present from the video, it seems like you can only set % vertical and horizontal. For fixed users - it would be helpful if we could offset that as well - especially up/down.
-
2
-
-
8 hours ago, ThorBrasil said:
I'm betting on December with a good chance of moving into January. DCS always has to expect the worst.
I'm here deciding whether to buy the C-130J or Battlefield 6. Tough choice!No choice for me.
My DCS modules last me their lifetime. FPS games I get bored and put aside after a much shorter period. Plus - I have been waiting for this for some time! Can't wait to see how much it adds to what DCS can already do from a dynamic MP environment, not to mention what it will mean for the DCE - which IIRC was hinted to be released later this year as well?
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, scommander2 said:
Hi @VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants, I have posted the usage of the app, and no reply yet.
Yeah - but this one is specifically a question about it and VR - as such I'd like to see this thread remain (and not be merged) as it's dealing specifically with VR.
My (limited) understanding is that this isn't supposed to work for VR. Chatbot AI seems to confirm this (but now I'm doubting myself, since AI agrees with me, and I know how often AI lies to me).
-
1
-
-
This looks great. Does it break IC? Or is it possible to use in MP?
-
How does this work? From the video - it appears that this is more of a button clicker, with scroll options than an actual point mouse device?
In comparison - PointCtrl is calibrated so when you point your finger, you're pointing at the switches isn't it?
Or does this work the same? Can you calibrate it in the direction you're pointing, and can you move the mouse by changing your hand position?
-
On 7/25/2025 at 7:17 PM, Special K said:
This is what the closed beta is.
If it would not be easily accessible and servers would not show up, who should run that and who should play on it?
You are correct - this is close to what CB is. This would basically be a step between closed beta and the official release, to give those that don't have closed beta access opportunity and time to test and prepare for the official release (as I presume the closed beta testers currently have?).
The reason I advocate for making it harder to access - is to prevent a repeat of the past, where the open beta effectively became the main release. My suggestion still allows those who genuinely want to test to do so, since anyone setting up a server would need to share the IP directly to fellow testers by DM (e.g., advising of IP address of server). It would discourage server hosts from using the beta to attract players by being "first with the module," as these servers wouldn’t appear publicly—reducing the temptation to treat the beta as a production version and avoiding a repeat of what we saw previously with the Open Beta solution. And even if a few did - it would be the minority - thus being more like a real Beta version.
So, those who would run / those intended for would be those who specifically want to do beta testing, and fix breaking changes before it's released to public. At present, there is no opportunity for those outside of closed beta to do this. Often, non-CB server operators and mission designers find out only at release what breaking changes there are. The amount of pressure this can put on people to have to provide fixes immediately can be significant. This would hopefully help to alleviate a lot of this. Of course an additional side benefit too would be that more bugs could potentially be flagged that slip by the CB team before it reaches production servers. (This is no dig at the CB team BTW - I genuinely appreciate and value what they do and the time they donate often to test each release before it gets to the rest of us - no doubt an often thankless task that is often overlooked by the community, and comments are mostly only made when something gets through - not for all the things that they have caught).
Maybe I'm out of line, or this is a bad idea for reasons I haven't seen. I understand that an Open Beta solution could bring in challenges. (Such as module release announcements - as ED in the past had basically used the OB release, not public release date of a module as it's official release - maybe in those occasional instances a OB is skipped - and only used for all the other updates?). I know I don't have all the answers here. I'm just advocating for some sort of discussion on potential solutions where we can change to assist those who are finding the current method difficult and discouraging which I'm concerned could lead to further burnout for content creators and server hosts. In the end, this comes out of a passion for wanting to see DCS be the best it can be, and reduce the amount of last minute rush some server operators and content creators need to do.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, boomer92688 said:
I have no problem with the changes in terms of security for the general DCS user. I have a HUGE problem with this being just dropped on all of us who run or help manage servers with no notice. This should have been a preview build weeks (preferably months) in advance for us to be able to make changes and be ready for. Instead we're stuck with our players going "why isn't the server updated" and we have to tell them "ED broke stuff again, we will get to it when we can."
I've previously suggested what I believe is a better solution: a true Open Beta—(implemented differently to before). Make it accessible only via command line, so only those with the tech knowledge of how to execute command lines, and also know the OB version number can install it. That way, it’s not used on production servers, and Open Beta versions don’t appear in the public server list—IP connect only. This would make it a genuine testing platform, not a general gameplay environment, and give us the time we need to adapt and see the upcoming changes and try them out. Sure - there will be some that push and opt to use it as a stable release, but it would be the minority. The previous OB didn't work because the majority used it as a stable release (and even ED recommended people use it for production in MP).
I really feel we need a proper Open Beta for everyone’s sake. Far too many issues are being discovered in these new so called stable releases within hours, forcing hotfixes. That’s bad for both ED developers, who get blindsided and must scramble to patch, and for us, who have to react to breaking changes without warning. Let alone the image that it's putting out there of ED's quality. Let an Open Beta run for a couple of weeks—(1) to give content creators time to adapt, and (2) to apply necessary hotfixes—before pushing a public stable.
Just a pity that ED seems to disagree that there's issues for the community by working this way and believe everything is fine as is. Nothing needs changing, with "no plans to consider...". While all along I see what I feared when open beta disappeared. That the new and improved stable release would eventually degenerate to being what Open Beta was all along - with no real practical alternatives for public server content creators (that aren't in the CB team anyway) to be proactive, and just have to be reactive and rush about to deal with bugs, problems, or breaking changes at the last minute.
-
4
-
-
3 hours ago, Mainstay said:
These lines are getting really annoying tbh fix it please Polychop
I've stopped flying the Kiowa as this just creates all sorts of eye strain for me. Unfortunately this doesn't appear to have been recognized officially as an issue - so I'm wondering if it's 'correct as is' and will receive no attention. That's a real pity - I had looked forward for years for this module, and would love to fly it more.
-
1
-
-
On 7/18/2025 at 6:38 PM, devnull said:
installed today the 590.26 previev to enable fluid motion which is now available as well for RTX40xx cards
in expectation that it will improove FPS in VR.
In VR -> no changes at all, like mentioned by speed-of-heat.Made some testing with screen 2d setup as well,
Fluid Motion enabled, experienced ~15-20 fps LESS in the same scene (quick mission, syria, free flight the first 30 seconds)For ME, after really QUICK tests, result will be better leave it off.
All maxed out in DCS launcher;
3440 x 1440
DLAA
!!NO DLSS!!
Specs:9800X3d
RTX 4080 @ ~ 3000 MHZWell, this whole time I've been disappointed that it's not aimed for VR - and after your update I realise that there's no point being disappointed - even the target audience is better off without it. Thanks for giving us those test result info!
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, FlintMcgee said:
I think DCS should add a feature that allows players to see how many hours they've spent in DCS World. This could encourage many users to switch from the Steam Edition to the Standalone version. I know several people who use the Steam Edition solely to track their playtime, so adding this feature to the Standalone version would be a great improvement.
Additionally, as far as I know, the Logbook only tracks Singleplayer time, which could also use some reworking. Perhaps a simpler user interface and some other enhancements would make it more useful.
A log book that tracks hours in different airframes would be great. It's kinda sounds like something a pilot would have IRL.
-
33 minutes ago, Nascar said:
I'd like to benchmark before an upgrade. FpsVR shows in the headset but not on the monitor. I'm recording the desktop with OBS. Any tips?
You could use DCS's built in FPS counter instead. (Right CTRL+PauseBreak IIRC) This shows both in VR, and on the 2D screen. I have no idea how you would get FPSVR itself onto the monitor sorry.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:
it's holding up several planned features
I remember hearing something about this, but I've forgotten. Are you able to list what those planned features are again?
Also - as far as the date of implementation goes - I would hazard a guess we're still talking years. I could imagine both COVID, and then the Ukraine/Russian war would have had a pretty big hit. The DCE (which was 'definitely not 5 years' more than 5 years ago) is probably telling of just how difficult and things have changed with progress over the past 5 years. Many companies didn't survive, and others struggle to survive with the difficult times that have been brought on this decade. I honestly expect this to have an impact on the DCS/Vulkan timeframe. I would love to eat my hat, and see Vulkcan released sooner rather than later - but my expectations are definitely otherwise.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Ladan said:
I just thought to let y'all know. It works fine in single player, but multiplayer doesn't. At least, not all the time.
Is this by any chance what you're experiencing?
-
20 minutes ago, Slippa said:
Imagine the time and effort needed to implement a sea state setting?
What makes you think that it would require much time? At present, they have a changing sea state. Just that it’s set directly by the wind. All that’s needed basically speaking is an option to set it separately to the wind setting.
While I agree with you with the other stuff, with this we’re not exactly asking for a new feature, but more just an alternative way to set an already existing feature. As such, I don’t see any performance issues with it, or significant development required either. If anything, I suspect it’d be one of those relatively simple things to implement that gives another showpiece to show the evolution of DCS. Decent return on investment really.
-
5
-
-
On 7/1/2025 at 3:10 AM, Honez said:
Hey guys — I need to jump in here and voice my thoughts on this.
It seems like a lot of folks are getting hung up on the physics of the ocean and trying to explain how the real ocean works. Honestly — I don’t think anyone is asking for an accurate ocean wave simulator here.
As a mission builder, the feedback I get from my crew is simple: they want cool-looking seas for immersion, without having to crank wind speeds up to ridiculous, unflyable levels just to get decent wave visuals. And I 100% agree with them.
DCS already did a great job giving us a set of cloud presets that look awesome without forcing mission builders to match them with dangerous, gameplay-breaking weather. For example — I can drop in a big thunderstorm from the cloud library, and it doesn't require me to set hurricane-force winds to match. It’s about visual storytelling and immersion.
So to the DCS dev team: please don’t waste time coding realistic ocean physics, currents, and all that. Just give us a visual sea state picker — like the cloud presets — so we can set the look of the water to fit our mission atmosphere.
It’s a game. It’s about fun, immersion, and giving mission builders more creative tools — not turning DCS into a naval hydrodynamics lab.
While I completely agree with you - the reason that (I at least) gave realistic information on how the ocean works is to justify exactly what you're asking for actually far more matches realism in this instance than what DCS has setup. I agree that the best option is independent swell height and direction - regardless of whether it's realistic or not. I love the way they've done the fog. Auto and manual modes - so hopefully they're interested in enhancing the experience with the sea swell too. I wasn't too interested in that other simulator, but after seeing the 'benchmark' that they did with the ocean sea state - it reminded me of this thread and how DCS is falling behind significantly in this area.
But as for thunderstorms - how do you get those? The new cloud presets - I couldn't see any thunderstorms at all? We have rain, but that's it. Are you using the clouds mod to get it, or is there something I'm missing?
-
1
-
-
It matters for AAR, formation flying and any close flying as well as videography where it occurs. It’s immersive breaking for pilots flying close to others, and looks shoddy in videos too.
Plus, it doesn’t matter if it’s sort of long- the effect is still the same at the causation point- where it extends from the plane.
Honestly, I would prefer no wing tip vortices while refueling than seeing this.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, Panny said:
OK so when opening Pimax Play, device settings, and then games, you have the option to set render quality. Basically this is how many pixels the GPU has to render. So with OG Crystal that's 2880x2880 for each eye. So with render quality at high - the headset is asking for a pixel for each, meaning 16,128,000 need to be rendered. However, by using Tallymouse's Quadviews Companion tool we can adjust that. So for the foveated area I have 170% (so let's say that covers 1/3 of what has to be rendered by the GPU), that section alone is now asking for 8,225,280. However, I have set the peripheral resolution to 15%, which covers the remaining 2/3 of my view, I need to render 1,596,672 there, making a total count of 9,821,952 that have to be rendered in my headset.
null
Before when I had render quality set to medium, the headset asks for fewer pixels to be rendered than what the headset actually has, at 75% - so by default it is asking 12,096,000. I used to have foveate resolution at 200%, and peripheral at 30% to make up for this. Foveated asked for 7,983,360, while peripheral resulted in 2,431,296, for a grand total of 10,414,656.
So ironically with my new settings my pixel count is slightly lower, but because the base resolution the headset is asking for is the same, it feels clearer.
Why my stutters largely disappeared changing from medium to high - I have no idea. The GPU workload according to MSI afterburner is largely the same.
null
Hmm... does this mean there's less overhead / CPU working within the Pimax app, because there's a 1:1 relationship with the image resolution it's being sent and what it has to display? Is it possible that part of the issue is double-CPU work. QVFR is using the CPU to change upscale/downscale, but then Pimax is also using the CPU to upscale/downscale, and by reducing Pimax out of the equasion, things run much more efficient on the CPU as a result, even though the resolution setting in Pimax is higher?
-
13 hours ago, j9murphy said:
Thanks, I was hoping there was another solution for seeing frame rate in the HMD itself since it had been a while since I had tried to do that, guess not:(
Sorry - not sure what you mean. Both of these should show you the frame in the HMD itself. OpenXR Toolkit will only show you frames in the HMD, whereas the DCS one shows both in and outside.
If you're not seeing the DCS one in your HMD - maybe open up in 2D, get it - then move it to the centre of the screen, close DCS and open up in VR. It's possible that it may be outside the rendering bounds on your HMD.
-
Set unit fuel API would be great. It could allow for more than just AAR, as well as having the benefit of putting an end to these requests that would benefit both sides, and hopefully be a simple thing to implement in comparison to anything else. It would also help campaign makers who currently accommodate both players who can AAR and those who can’t with a very simple solution.
-
1 hour ago, av8orDave said:
Thanks for the reply, and I do trust and believe the team is working on it. The reason for my negativity is that this process has been what I would say is really, really long. The link below is from 2021, and estimated implementation of Q3 of that year.
Take note of the small things. BN said that they're working "towards" it. It sounds like it's less down the progress path than I first anticipated. I recall when DLSS was being worked "on" and they were actively testing it... it featured in one of the "20xx and beyond" video's as small text down the bottom. Then we knew that it was "soon".
Dynamic Campaign engine has been worked towards (and is now being worked on) for... 10 years IIRC? So I understand you're negativity - however I would see it more as just been realistic than negative. DCS is a huge and complicated program, and these tasks are not something that are measured in days, weeks, months, or even in some cases years.
The best way to avoid disappointment is to understand that these are things that will come eventually - but yes - we could be talking in measurements of half decades for progress, so just alter your expectations accordingly. 
I would expect that when it's within a year or so of release, we'll see a video by DCS with a small text down the bottom "Filmed using Vulkan" or similar. Untill I see that - I don't hold my breath.
-
1
-
Video review before pre-order ends?
in DCS: C-130J
Posted · Edited by Dangerzone
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.