Dangerzone

Aah - so you're talking single player specific missions where you are hot started on the catapult? IDK, but if you turn off plane directors, does that revert to the old way, or have DCS changed this for all scenarios? Alternatively, does Left Ctrl+Alt+Shift+T hot-take you back to a parking bay so you're able to rearm from there as a workaround?

I thought height was the thickness of the fog (how thick it is from sea level to the top).

I'm really wrapped with the visuals I'm getting from the new fog physics. From taking off and landing on the carrier in thick conditions to a more medium fog on the countryside at dawn with the sun low on the horizon. Flying through Dubai at night with the fog layer as well, and buildings sticking out the top is real cool too. In VR - this is so much more immersive. Nice work ED! For now, I'm using manual mode until I can get more clarification/information on how the auto will work better and what parameters to put into it. The two things I'd love to see added are: An option to have the fog patchy, (so it's not a blanket through the whole map at the same AMSL altitude), and greater option with the base and height. Less restriction on the fog height / more options with base and height - so it can be done for inland/mountain areas. I'd love to lower the fog to less than 300ft too. (I've seen thick fog fog numerous times where I'm driving my car and the fog is literally at the height of my headlights at night. You can't see the road more than 100m ahead, but you can see clear in the distance above the layer. Spooky and ultra cool to wittness. I've also seen fog where the base is off the ground by a few meters - so there's a clear patch. I know technically this could be called 'cloud' - so it would be nice to be able to put in fog/cloud layers with no restriction on the base altitude). I'd be keen to know if these are already available in the 'automatic' mode as opposed to manual.

I don't know much about Vulcan itself - but my best guess is that ED are trying to do a migration within the current code - so that the same code is compatible between the two (as opposed to a complete re-write of DCS from ground up and a day-one changeover). If so - it would make sense that as they make changes to the current code to be Vulkan compatible, they could mess up the parts that interact with the current framework. If not - I don't understand why else things so many things are being broken and not fixed in a timely manner. Even so - I admit, this is compete hypothesis, but it's the only conclusion I can come up with that makes sense - besides the ED doesn't care option - and I'm working on being optimistic and giving ED the benefit of the doubt with this one. (Either that, or like a number of fish in Egypt, I'm living in denial).

I'm expecting this to remain until Vulkan is out. Actually - I'm hoping this will remain until Vulkan is out. The reason I say I'm hoping is because I'm hypothesizing the reason it's broken has to do with Vulkan development (or some big development behind the scenes) and that it's already identified as 'fixed' within Vulkan, but would take too much resources to try and fix with the current state of the development so it's left 'as is' for now. And the reason I hope that's the case, is that I don't want to consider the alternative - which is that ED just doesn't care that they broke this (and other functions) and that this is the new way of life from now. Perpetual unstable DCS with introduced bugs that once broken, won't be touched for many moons, and by the time it is, other bugs will be brought in. Considering this isn't the only thing that's been broken for some time, and that there are numerous things that were working, and have since been broken and remains for years - I would much rather hope and think that all these things that have been broken is due to a good reason / some practicality we're not aware of (such as it being fixed in the Vulkan builds already being worked on) - which means that there is a day is coming when not only are these things fixed, but we'll also get out of this hole where when things are broken, they're not looked at for years. If I'm wrong, and this is the new norm for DCS's future (especially with no stable release anymore), well, the future won't be looking bright. So here's me... hoping that's the reason.

Honestly, I'd prefer it NOT released today. If they found issues yesterday on the day it's supposed to be released, they've given one day for the dev's to diagnose and resolve the problem. Who knows how much time is left (if any) for the Closed Beta testers to test the latest release. Certainly doesn't seem like enough time. Twould be OK if this was an Open Beta release to push it through so quickly, but given this is a Stable Release updating - 24hrs (or less given the dev and build time) doesn't seem near long enough for thorough testing - CB'ers to get it up on their closed servers, run through their scripts, missions, etc - and take time to test in both single player, and multiplayer... Please ED - take as long as the Closed Beta testers need to test the final build before releasing. If that's another week - as much as I'm hanging out for this - I'd much prefer a stable release than a rushed build.

Various non-carrier planes with hooks can land on the carrier. I can confirm that the F16 and F4 also are capable of landing on the carrier in DCS with their hooks too. You won't get them to launch using the CAT's (although with light enough payload - going from the fantail to the bow you can get some planes airborne too depending on carrier speed and wind). But that depends on how hard you land, you may well have some undercarriage issues as well. So to confirm: Yes - they can land using the hook No - they can not takeoff using the Catapults Maybe - they can takeoff using the full length of the deck - depending on variables.

Thanks for the clarification. Presently it seems we've had numerous things that can muck up a cat launch (JBD's staying up, director not acknowledging your there, etc) - so I'm hoping that your assumption is right and the catapult is independent to the plane directors , lest there's more variables that could mess up the launchers. Guess we'll know soon enough. Update expected to be released today...

I thought it was said that ignoring the plane directors would create problems and possibly break things. Have you got information or heard somewhere where the cat launch is independent to the plane directors so we still have an option to launch even if something happens that break the plane directors? I'm hoping this is the case, but I don't recall seeing anything.

Yes - going to 160% in the centre for me and 5% on the outer edges improved not only the FPS but the image as well significantly. That steppiness (or jitters, or stutters - it has a few names ) is common to DCS - and I think it may actually be CPU, not GPU related. I managed to get rid of it for a while there. Can't remember exactly what I did, but I was chasing CPU stuff, not GPU stuff. Disabling hotplug, using Process Lasso, changes in the BIOS to disable energy efficient stuff, disabled core parking (I think the core parking might have been it, but can't say for sure),

You're probably best to start a new post in the wishlist section in order for your request to be seen.

With quadviews (and that's the key) - I've been able to outperform my reverb on the 4090. I don't fully know the black magic at play - but stunning visuals, and 90fps is definitely achievable at altitude. The Pimax also has a 72hz/fps option as well - and I've come to use that for now. Just gives me a bit more elbowroom with CPU bound settings (as I'm CPU, not GPU bound with the Pimax Crystal thanks to Quadviews). Coming from a G2 as well - you'll only notice enhancements with Quadviews. Yes - quadviews 'softens' the margins, but even with that, from the reverb with such a small sweet spot - the Pimax with Quadviews is still an upgrade.

It's fixed foviated rendering with Quadviews for PCL. The difference it made for me was huge. However, it did take a bit to get working. You can confirm if it's working by opening up Quadviews companion, ticking the "Focus View" checkbox down the bottom, apply the changes, then launch DCS. (This needs to be done before launching DCS). The focus view will create a black border so you see only what will be sharp. The black area will be the less rendered area, but the black just makes it stand out so you can confirm for sure that it's definitely working for you first. Once you've confirmed it's working, you can untick the focus view and go back to 'normal operation'. I know OpenToolkit can interfere with it, so it might be worth uninstalling OXRTK and re-installing Quadviews plus Quadviews companion, and then enabling it. For me, since having this installed, I've never had any GPU rendering issues again. I think my card runs about 60% usage. I could up it, but my primary problem now is being bottlenecked by the CPU. Yes - it's a pain to get up and running, but once working the difference is night and day.

Are you running Quadviews. I couldn't get 90fps with my 4090 until I went to Quadviews and things have been fantastic ever since. To confirm Quadviews is working, use quadviews companion and set the boundary box, load DCS and make sure that DCS is only showing in a square view. If this isn't happening, then Quadviews isn't active.

If it's not working in the sdame way draconus' is - try disconnecting from the internet and launching instead with no internet connection and see if that makes any difference. I'm not sure if it will, but if I recall correctly, a while ago I I had a similar issue (purchased modules weren't available) and launching with no internet connection gave me the 2 days and 23hr window message instead. I'm not sure though if that was because the activation servers were available, or if it's when they went through that period where they lost all the accounts data on their activation server, so it may be a different situation, but still worth a try.

I think generally speaking, those who have the CL and have it working as advertised are quite happy with it. Some (like me) went through some teething issues, but are happy now. Those that have had ongoing quality issues trying to sort things out that will have the negative feedback (and rightly so) - so it really is a YMMV. I'd be looking into what return options you have available. Looking at that video, it seems as though Pimax are having a 'trial period' of their headsets. If this is true, and they offer a full refund, you could purchase the headset. If you get one with Quality issues, you could possibly return it and get your money back. That's something you'd need to clarify first to make sure that is the case, but if it is - then there may be reduced risk. Also - there's 2 things that Pimax did right IMO that I really appreciate. Both the lenses, and the cable are replaceable. (The 2 items at most risk of damage that will make the headset unusable IMO), which means better future roofing than some other's out there.

If you mean the ability to have people who don't own a module sit in (read only player slot as to say) a seat so you can take them for a "fly around" so they can see DCS, and have a 'ride along'? If so - I get the idea, but also think it's probably more work for the dev's than they'll potentially see return on investment. With something like that, I'd expect a very small player base would probably use it. It would also require them to download and install the entire module (which would mean making changes to the licensing and registered modules to allow for a 3rd option which is installed, and usable, but only as read only - no inputs). While this could be possible, I doubt that ED would see the return on investment for the work put in. Don't get me wrong, for me, as a DCS user, to be able to go in second seat on someone else who's flying a module I don't own - especially for video work would be fantastic. But I think it's a niche feature that won't get too much coverage. Especially since there's already a 2 week trial, so people can use this to 'have a try', and if they want to use it more frequently - they have the option of just buying the module on a second account.

I second this. This is what I had to do in order to fly the amount of aircraft I do - make things as common as possible. You can load your control assignments into a graphic, and put it on your kneeboard so you have something to refer to in VR if you need to as well. Sometimes it can be easier to learn certain functions of an aircraft out of VR, and then transition to VR once you have the muscle memory. My personal preference would be for both. To switch dynamically between VR and 2D. I just think of programming the CNI in the chinook, and other tasks where it would be nice to do the pre-flight stuff in 2D, but then switch to VR for the actual flight. VR also doesn't work with Airboss, and CA can be a bit flaky too - so that would be also nice to be able to toggle between the two. Unfortunately I don't think that's ever going to be a think in DCS from what I've seen previously mentioned, but one can always dream.

You won't get an ETA. You'll get an announcement when it's pending release, and that's it. ED already made a mistake by saying "Not 5 years" 5 years ago, and I think they're learning from their mistakes not to put time frames or expectations on anything anymore - so don't ever expect to see an ETA, just an announcement when it is pending.

My expectations are for various terrain, and images of in-dev aircraft, such as the Corsair, C130, etc. My hope is to see things like thunderstorms, and other weather systems, and maybe animated ground crew. (They've done/doing the carrier plane directors - so maybe they'll give a sneak peak of something happening at ground bases). I'd also like to see new animation with ground vehicles and personel such as suppression of infantry units running and diving for cover for greater immersion in things like the TEDAC on the AH64. Also napalm in preparation for Vietnam. My unrealistic dream would be to see greater animation such as special forces repelling from helo's, infantry embarking/disembarking into Chinook, infantry doing idle things in the back of helo's while flying, and more of that 'battlefield' type experience. Bow spray coming over ships bows in rough weather, and large swells in calm environments would be sweet too. (As we know that the swells are currently directly related to the immediate wind conditions, but IRL swells can be quite separate to immediate weather patterns as they can form thousands of kilometers away and take longer to travel). All in all though -I hope for one thing that will surprise me and get me excited about a new feature. Really, the most of what we see in 2025 will be things that can't be visualized. (Many more bug fixes, better AI, more API options for mission designers, etc).

You don't need to use the VKB software. One of the fantastic things I love about VKB and Virpil is that the software is used to flash changes to the device. Once done - the settings are device side (so you can change computers and use exactly the same profile on another computer without VKB Software running in the background). It's fantastic. As for setting the stick up right - there is no right or wrong way - as the stick isn't a true FA18 replica stick, so it really comes down to how you want to set it up. I know I have my stick setup very differently to others and even have the TDC on the stick, as opposed to the throttle, and use a modifier for the paddle so that I can use the paddle axis for breaking (without the modifier), etc - so you probably don't want to see my profile. My reasoning is that I fly multiple aircraft I am to setup my stick to be as common as possible functionality wise between the aircraft I fly, so it really comes down to personal preference. If you want it setup similar to a FA18, I'd suggest looking at a FA18 stick's assignment, and trying to replicate as close as you can. Here's a link that shows a FA18 stick setup if you want to replicate as close to reality: Hope this helps DZ

Agreed. That's why I directed you to that thread in regards to the offline side of things, to keep things separate and easier to follow/address. Re it being 2 months ago - I didn't realise that much time had passed. I've just pinged Calvin on that thread for a followup.

Hi Calvin, Just following up on how you went with this? Cheers DZ

Was reported here: Calvin is going to chat to the Devs to address it.

And for that I am extremely grateful. If it was left solely up to the ticketing system / I think many people's experience would be much worse. Very grateful there are other ways of connecting with staff like yourself, and the effort you put in to chasing up matters internally that has no doubt escalated numerous issues that otherwise would have been a different experience to many. Thank you.