Dangerzone

Hi Calvin, Thanks for your reply. What data transfers are you referring to in regards to data-transfers failing? I would have thought offline mode means no data transfers occurring. Things I've noticed: Offline mode still attempts to communicate just as much as Online mode. (Including trying to access the Pimax store). The software shouldn't have any need or be attempting any outbound communication at all while in offline mode. Among other things, this raises security concerns. When disconnected from the internet completely, the software doesn't display graphics correctly. It's as though the graphics are being loaded each time from a website. Did you end up having a chat to the team, and get a response back from them? Thanks Adam.

We don't necessarily know how trivial the bug is. Since merging to MT and ongoing development, numerous event bugs have been broken - some well over a year. It may be that fixing these is more complicated than first thought, and that it's affecting/breaking more systems than we're aware of. It would make sense if some of the events are broken, that could potentially break the scoring as well as this could very well be triggered by events. This isn't to say that this shouldn't have been dealt with by now - Bugs should be getting addressed over new features (IMO). There's nothing worse than having a game that used to work now not function, or be able to work because of bugs where focus is on future features without those bugs being seen to promptly, just to address that it may not be as trivial as one first thinks. I'd personally like to see the next patch brought out to be 100% focused on bug fixing and performance building. No new features - just fix the bugs that have been around for too long.

As for having the map show the area with the runway markings, etc - besides a mod, I think this would need to be done by the devs. The good news though is that the Dev's are very active when it comes to updating Syria - it's the best map by far in DCS - so there's hopefully a good chance that they will be able to accommodate this into the map natively. I think it's a great suggestion and hope the Dev's take this on board! As for now - if you place a FARP there (or invisible FARP) along with the 4 units required for a FARP to run, you can land a plane along the road, taxi up to the FARP and you will have the options available to you (rearm, refuel, etc) - so you can have it functional, but the dividers down the road will make things very difficult. Edit: hmm... does scenery remove also remove divides and powerpoles from Roads? If so - a small script could be all that's needed to make this quite usable as is - without the road textures being changed.

After you turn off MT - close, and then reopen Skatezilla. This tends to save the setting so that MT remains off. If you leave Skatezilla open, and just allow it to close when you shutdown your PC - it doesn't seem to save the setting, so MT will be selected again when you first start up. (At least it seemed to be that way for me).

Hi Calvin, Just wondering if the team ever got back to you on this one? Cheers DZ

I don't think that this is something that should be an issue. There's a number of things that are unrealistic in DCS - but are optional, and done for practicality and for player enjoyment. I wouldn't have a problem with the player being able to control it. Especially if it's the easiest way to implement it (as opposed to AI) and it means the difference of us having it implemented, or being on a 'wish list' list that never see's the light of day. In fact, I'd prefer player controlling it even if AI was to be implemented at least until AI is at a level where it does so effectively and without bugs.

I agree that screenshots and promotional material should reflect the actual state of the product. (Real screenshots available to the users now, or at the time of release). However - in saying that - I'm kinda hoping that what is provided is a real screenshot, of behind the scenes development that is currently waiting on Vulkan to be released before it can be delivered to the end user. I get that maybe lips need to be sealed under NDA's, or until there's official confirmation that it can be released. This isn't to excuse that the screenshot should be reflective of what's available now - but just hoping that there is something more to this than meets the eye we're not aware of yet.

I would have loved it in DCS too. Especially for practicing aerobatics on my own, etc. However I realize this is a niche market, and after 11 years of this request being not even looked at or considered by ED, and how long it took for tracks to be looked at (and even then still having some issues) if I want to do this sort of stuff and keep my sanity - I need to go to another simulator. It'd be nice to have in DCS - but I doubt it's ever going to be introduced in DCS.

Thank you so much Maximov for responding to this thread and letting us now that it's now reported and in the system! Very much appreciated!

I think mine was around 10 weeks IIRC - but that was just before the were released and things were flat out for them.

That video is a great starting point - but I have found that tweaking Quadviews to my needs is even better. (Running 160% in foviated, and 5% in the borders with a 10% margin area, and I have also increased the vertical size. Quadviews was a miracle generator for me. I tried the FFR in Pimax software but couldn't get DCS to run without being limited by GPU until I used Quadviews. I don't know what it does - black magic or something -but for me at least, my GPU runs cool at the moment in DCS. My biggest issues are being CPU liimited by a long way (with a 13900KF processor).

Possible shadow from satellite imagery that has been used for the ground texture?

It's not a bug, it's a feature. Exclusive Parking area. Keeps those pesky F16's and there rabble pilots out of us FA18 hornets exclusive parking area. Kinda like an officers mess.

I didn't think of that, but that may be the better option moving forward. Seems like these bug report threads are hit and miss as to which ones get read. Please let us know how you get on.

Mine might be a bit more basic - but would still make a nice difference for us mission designers and server hosters: Setting that can toggle "Dynamic Spawn" setting on FARPS via LUA Code and triggers. (Especially for dynamically created FARPS during gameplay). Please - with this finally being in arms reach - for the love of begging - PLEASE Plane directors on Supercarrier to be finished. (Really looking forward to seeing this) New and improved ATC Towering CU's and Thunderstorms in weather. (As seen on one of ED's video's from a couple of years ago now?) More focus/ resources directed towards bug-fixing for long-time outstanding bugs. (A few more beta testers added to the mix wouldn't hurt either - particularly focusing especially those who have equipment/do scripting/have reported issues they've gotten straight away after releases that other CB's have missed) I'd suggest CFRAG should be considered. Obviously F4 Corsair, C130, Vulkan, DCE, greater MT integration, etc as well, but decided to focus on the unsung features that would make some great difference.

Aaah - is this why I can see a bunch of other stars in my peripheral with Quadviews that I can't see in the centre while flying at night. I mean, I know in reality peripheral see's lower light more than the center of the eyes naturally - but VR did seem to pop a heck of a lot more than reality.

Are you sure it's fixed? My CL appears to have a narrow gap around where the cable goes in, making it look like it could be removable. I was also advised by Pimax that the cable is replaceable prior to purchasing - so I certainly hope that the cable is indeed user replaceable! If it's not - this is news to me, and I'll be very concerned after being told that it is user replaceable. I wouldn't expect it to be a standard DP cable though. Between the onboard Mic, the Mic socket, and the extra Power that is supplied to the headset I'd be expecting it to be a cable specific to that headset. Which has me thinking that maybe I should buy a cable now while they're still in production for later on as a precaution.

For those of us stuck working without time to actually see this - is there any chance of a few screenshots (or a video) of the updated areas and what it looks like now? These posts about how good it is, is just a huge tease to me atm.

Are you all using motion smoothing? If so - does this still crash if you disable it?

Thanks. I used to use that when I went through steam, but after going OpenXR - don't have access to it anymore. That's where I found OXRTK invaluable as it gave me that information. I've got another question, but don't want to derail this thread so will start a dedicated thread here:

How many people here are running Pimax through SteamVR with DCS, and how many are not? If you are running through steam - can you please give your reasons why? Years ago I ran through steam, but then when OpenXR came available, I switched and found it far superiour and have never looked back. After seeing that someone is using FPSVR in Steam while in DCS - I was wondering how many actually use this, and if there's a performance difference going through steam or if it's still far more efficient to avoid steam?

2 weeks yearstm Will come back here when/if it's fixed and see how close I was. But looking at this bug which is one month from 2 years still remaining I think I'm in with good odds.

My suggestion would be for now - until ED nail this - to have a new autoexec setting called Dotsize. A value of 1 set's the dot size to what ED is currently working on. A value of 0 turns it off A value inbetween reduces the dot to that %. This first meets those concerned about 'cheaters' because it wouldn't allow the dot to be > 1 (or what ED has now). However it would allow users to tweak and lessen their dots (or eliminate them completely). So if ED has removed the option for removing dots and it has to be reimplemented from scratch - do it on a scale please so at least it gives users more control until this is properly fixed. Each release that ED gets (hopefully) closer to being better, means that people may be able to move their slider closer to 1 if it's too big at the moment. This of course still runs the risk of the dots being too small - but I think it's the best we can do now. (Unless - and my personal preference would be that people can increase the setting beyond 1 if the dot is too small - but I know how that would upset someone).

I don't know - I got that too but I ignored it, and it just worked - so figure it's just a warning of the 'addons' in the mix / reporting that it's in use.

About the only thing I still use the OXRTK for is to display the FPS rendered, along with the CPU and GPU overheads in VR. Just wondering what alternatives are available for this (in VR) if any? This setting here is what I'm referring to. I set this to 160%. (Note the below is NOT my settings - I've just grabbed it from the net for reference - I don't have access to my gaming rig atm). And my apologies - I shoul dhave said Foveated resolution - I just couldn't recall what the actual title was.