Dangerzone

I'm noticing that the Pimax software doesn't seem to respect the offliine mode when I choose it. My firewall is reporting that Pimax is still sending data over the internet, to s4.cnzz.com, google.com, google-analytics.com, and appstore.pimax.com while I'm using "Offline Mode". Is there something else that needs to be done for Pimax Play to respect offline mode (and my privacy)?

OK - so I've given this a go. I was using 72hz refresh prior to trying this out. Switching to 90hz (both 90hz straight, and 90hz upscaling) creates stutters/jerking when moving my head left to right and back again. (Probably 3 jerks from left to right, and the same going back) - when on the homescreen (Pimax "moon surface"). I experienced minor jerking in 72hz, but nothing like what I'm seeing in 90hz. I don't think this is an upscaling thing, as this occurs with 90hz no upscaling too. I'm not sure if this is tracking related, or rendering. I tried changing room lighting freq from Automatic to both 60 and 50hz - no difference. GPU was running fairly cool at the time - not showing any signs of high workload (which I wouldn't expect on the home screen). I'm running a 4090 on a 13900kf). I tried with motion smoothing both on and offline, but this made no difference. In game in DCS - I noticed the same jerking. I'm aware that DCS also has it's own stuttering issues at the moment, so it's hard to know for sure whether it's DCS or the 90hz that's causing this, but given that it's happening on the native homscreen moon surface as well with such a high-spec'd rig, either I have some settings wrong, or there's something else going on. I noticed after installing the update, quadviews no longer worked for me. (I no longer had the focalspot / foviated rendering respected on OpenXR applications). Thankfully just reinstalling (choosing REPAIR) on Quadviews fixed this up nice and easy. (I didn't need to touch OpenXRTK, or Quadviews Companion). I tested a little more with 90hz upscaling (ignoring the jerking), and the biggest problem with this will be writing/text. I went from the nice crisp sharp lines on the MFD's and cockpit labels to going back to being 'soft' again - almost like I was using my old Reverb. Even running quadviews with 160% upscaling of the resolution in the focused part was still too soft for my liking. I guess this is to be expected with lower rending and then upscaling with text. Stuttering/Jerking aside - I can see 90hz upscaling being effective in games such as Halflife Alyx, etc where most is graphic textures, etc, or for people who are willing to sacrifice clear text for better performance - but for me - at least in flight simulators where I'm reading labels on cockpits and text in MFD's, CNI's, etc - it seems that the 90hz upscaling is going to be a miss. Maybe if they're able to implement something in the future similar to quadviews companion where they have native resolution (or even super-sampled) in the center, and the resolution dropped with upscaling down at the edges more it might be better, but having it through the entire display leaving soft labels after experiencing the sharp images I've now grown used to with the Crystal - I'll be giving the upscaling a miss for now. Eager though to find out how other people's experiences go, or if others have experienced the same stuttering in the homescreen, and found a solution?

I'm optimistically hoping that we're going to see 'better than ST' performances for the first time with MT. IIRC, the best performance I've seen for ground units was back in 2.5 - when it was single thread only. Since then, MT was introduced, but performance has gone backwards. My best 'guess' is that the way MT has been implemented has created some bottle necks with thread sync that is causing worse performance. Once these issues are resolved (hopefully in the next update) - I would expect us to have at least the same performance we once did...but possibly even better if we actually start getting the benefits of multithreading with AI calculations. The picture in my mind is like a river has been widened with MT, but a wall has inadvertently blocked part of the river, creating a DAM behind it, and there's a huge amount of 'extra flow' just waiting to be released as soon as that bottleneck/dam wall can be destroyed. IDK whether ground units / AI calculations (especially but not limited to radar and pathing) are done in their own threads, but I'm hoping that they are - and that we could see thousands of units on a map again, with better performance than we saw in 2.5. Whatever is done though, I certainly don't want to see a repeat of the previous update - where it felt a lot more like the first of "Open Beta release" for a particular version, than it does a stable release. With only one public version now - we need each version to be as stable as possible - especially considering that fixes for any problems introduced are now 6+ weeks away in the next build.

Aah. So we’re can still use quad views, just not the OXRTK? Sweet. Thanks!

Just wondering, are you saying we can’t use quad views anymore? Or just not with OpenXR toolkit? I haven’t updated yet but are hesitant incase I can’t roll back. Quad views has literally saved DCS for me and if this won’t work with the new version, I’d want to know that the Pimax software does all quad views does first.

Thanks, but that’s not what I’m wanting. I want to spawn a farp in at runtime dynamically (which we can do now), but then set dynamic spawn to true so we can spawn units there. This gives the players control with where they build farps and how they progress through dynamic missions. As for it being possible, I’ve already seen the lua that prevents this. As such, I’m very confident it wouldn’t be difficult for ED to add in an extra variable or parameter we can set to make this happen. There are multiple ways you could be achieved with the current dynamic spawn option: - Add a api for airbases and farps that allow us to toggle dynamic spawn at runtime. (Preferred) - Add a global parameter for the .miz file for “dynamic spawn” that applies to all airbases, ships and farp that override individual farp. - Make the dynamic spawn option a public parameter instead of a private one so we can access it or toggle it with triggers. - Add an option to the dedicated server’s options that set the dynamic spawn option true or false on new farp creations. I don’t need to tell the DCS devs how to do this. They would already know. Just showing that it is easily possible IF DCS are willing to listen and implement IT for us. It could completely change online gameplay for persistent ongoing types of campaigns, so I’m really hoping ED don’t choose to deny us this option now that dynamic spawn has been implemented and it’s working finger tip reach. It’s definitely possible and not difficult, just whether ED decides to allow us.

Well, I was kinda hoping before the sale ends. I don't need any new modules. but I was thinking of getting another module just coz there's a sale on, coz you know "Hey honey - I saved $$$'s" . I've hesitated this time round I've been waiting for the patch/fixes that have broken things since the last update to be released first because honestly, I have been flying much less lately due to issues and just don't want to sink more doh into something if there's gong to be ongoing issues for a while longer and keeping me flying less.

As a workaround, could you just create a symbolic link in windows for the Skatezilla app to continue to work for now. ie, if there is only one DCS.exe file now, and let's say it's located in DCS World/Bin, could you just run something like: ... or something similar depending on where you have it installed. (This is untested, as I don't have an issue with Skatezilla and also don't have access to my gaming PC at the moment, but if it's just a matter of the .exe being relocated - couldn't this just work) Or could you just maybe do a symbolic link for the whole directory? ... or something similar depending on where you have it install?

Don't worry about explaining yourself SkateZilla. You look after your family (and yourself!). You made your situation clear previously, and anyone who can't understand that and respect what you're going through ain't going to understand regardless of how much you try and clarify. People who are not happy with the awesome work you've done and free volunteering of your time and skills can learn the parameters and create an icon with the parameters they need for the time being (or always go and learn how to code and make a launcher of their own and then appreciate truly the work you've done ) They say that one negative comment takes ten positive ones to outweigh it. Well, just know there's a ton of us who are incredibly appreciative of the work you've done - and are happy for you to take all the time in the world you need - we just may not be the 'noisy' ones posting on your thread. j Take care, and seriously - look after yourself. DCS will still be here in 2 weeks™ ... when life improves for you and you are free, in the time of your choosing.

Really? I didn't think the API was available to be able to do this. The only 'solution' (actually a hack) I've found so far is to modify core install files, but that breaks other things, so you've got to be OK with dynamic spawn everywhere with no individual control. Do you know or remember the name of what you found in the user file section. I've had a look and I couldn't find anything relating to this?

I own both. F16 stays in hanger, and FA18 gets all the time. All depends on your needs and wants. FA18 is a jack of all trades, and for me - coming back and finishing by landing on a carrier, instead of a runway is just the bees knees.

What do you mean? Have they dropped accessories and replacement parts in the past?

Do we have any news please on whether the Devs are going to permit us to set the Dynamic spawn options through code, so we can turn on and off dynamic spawn at airfields and FARPS?

That makes a lot of sense indeed. Good point.

No, you certainly can’t just email them. You’re got to start arguing about it on the WT forums until someone wants to prove a point and post the documents there.

Mine was the original. I can't test now because HP don't know how to make cables that last, and have them as a single point of failure. Thankfully they (almost) lasted me until the CL came out because I was beginning to get worried on what to move to.

Oh it is a bug then. I guess since there's been no acknowledgement of this bug then not to expect it anytime soon. At least I know that the issue is DCS and not me, so I'll stop trying to figure out what I'm doing wrong. Thanks.

That's a bit of a tricky one, as I made a custom spacers on my Reverb to get my eyes further away from the lenses. (My eyelashes kept touching the lenses and oiling them up), so the CL felt like it has more FOV than the Reverb - but I'm not a really good gauge to say for sure. What I have found though is that everything is just nicer. The center is so much nicer. The sweet spot so much larger, and even though I'm using fixed foviated rendering - it doesn't really affect me as much as I thought it would, so I feel as though I can read with more clarity too on the CL than I could on the reverb, not just in the center, but also off to the sides. All in all - it was a significant upgrade for me. But in saying that - this was only after using Quadviews and the companion to get FFR setup with super-sampling in the center. I never tried that with the HP Reverb, which I wish I had have known it worked with that as well, as I may have had a better experience with the Reverb had I tried.

Thanks for letting us know the outcome of the result. Sounds like a great outcome - much faster than getting a new screen shipped, and you know the wire is connected properly now. Also sounds like Winwing may have had a few fraudulent warranty cases go through where people were trying to get replacement screens maybe? (Maybe that was the reason for the request for the multiple video's, plus evidence for you destroying the screen?) Thankfully WW have got a rep here on these forums that seems to take customer service a little more seriously than their own customer service and was able to escalate the issue for you. Trying to see things from 'the other perspective' I can only imagine there's times where both parties unsure of whether the other is playing games. Is the company stalling trying to get customers to 'give up' so they have less warranty claims and save $$'s, or are they genuinely trying to help and the extra running around genuinely needed? On the other hand, is the customer a genuine warranty job, or trying to con the company into free products with a fake warranty job. (Not saying you were doing this - just that maybe they've had other instances) I try and see it from both sides, but at the end of the day I am a consumer/customer of these products, and I do feel that companies need to find a way forward to honoring genuine warranty claims without undue delays or causing the customer to go around in circles with customer support before reaching a solution. That was one concern I had with Pimax when I first purchased the crystal light, and then even moreso after it arrived and had defective lenses. Was I going to get the runaround. The experience though with them was much different to yours with WW. They offered support, and sent out replacement lenses without too much fuss. Hopefully WW are able to improve their warranty vetting procedure so these situations don't occur in the future.

I'm going to hold back and wait when it comes to the super. There's a few firsts from what I can tell, including the higher resolution that I want to see how others fair with it first, and whether it's better, or creates more issues before I am considering upgrading. With DFR it could work brilliantly and not be an issue as I was pleasantly surprised how well the CL runs compared to my HP Reverb - but I've also learned that if at all possible, avoid buying on release as my personal experience with new releases were delays, as well as quality control, software issues, etc. It pays to let the dust settle and see if at all possible) Additionally, buying a headset at that price, with only one year warranty concerns me, so I also want to see how people fair with longevity of Pimax gear, and how the CL fairs over the next few years before looking at a more expensive headset from them. I really hope that the super kicks butt in an incredible way. I love the market that Pimax are focused on, and there's been a need for a while for something of this nature, especially since other more notable brands are abandoning their consumer products (HP with reverb, or Microsoft with WMR, etc). I have high hopes. Pimax were smart to build their products with replaceable parts (lenses especially, cable, etc).

Just incase you're not aware, ED announced that the next update will be dropping ST, and all users will be on MT - so even though "if it ain't broke" is a great concept to go by - you won't have that option on the next update. Of course, if you don't play MT, and aren't interested in any new modules or updates coming out - you have the option to remain on your current version and run ST. Really hoping though, that ED will have all the MT issues sorted out in the next update - especially considering ST will no longer be an option. Personally seems crazy to drop ST prior to having a stable and equally comparable or better MT experience for all users first - even at least for one patch cycle, but IDK what's happening behind the scenes or what might bebeing 'held back' by ST support that will be more beneficial.

Did anyone find a solution for this, or manage to get it to work in VR?

Would an API call to modify the fuel in a jet (like we can now do with warehouses) be an alternative option? My initial thoughts is not only could this allow mission designers themselves to implement this (or not) into their missions (such as if you fly within x miles from a tanker you could use a F10 menu option to 'top up', and have it work), but it could also allow campaign makers a more versatile way of doing things as well. Imagine landing your plane, and then seeing a fuel truck drive over, and start filling it up automatically - without you having to use the F10 menu. This could all be done by script if an API to allow adjusting onboard fuel quantity was opened for us to use. The reason I suggest this as an alternative is that I'm pretty sure BN has stated that they will not be implementing AAR assist features into DCS. Therefore, an alternative way of doing this (putting the power in the hands of people for instance) via API might be a alternative path that has other benefits too. I'm not sold on the API idea - just throwing it out there as an alternative suggestion. It could be much easier on ED to implement, and open up more doors than we realise.

Yup - AI it's able to phrase a post in such a way that it instill subliminal messages into us to unwittingly revive a thread that died 3 months ago in order to keep it's original post alive. I'm impressed.

I get your frustration. It really tests the patience to try so much, and get little progress - and DCS is a game that you can't just sit down and play - it requires hours of tweaking, debugging, or bug finding at times. However, in saying that - it would be helpful if you can you please list what you have tried, so people don't respond with solutions that you have tried before. If indeed you've tried "everything", then there's nothing we can do to help, but I suspect no one has tried truly 'everything', just everything they've come across so far. So even if you've tried every suggestion you've come across - then there may be suggestions that you haven't seen yet, so it's helpful to know what you have tried. I do suspect though that your specs are underpowered for what you're trying to achieve, but if it's only micro-stutters you're getting, and nothing else there may be something that can be done to resolve that - but short of us going through 30 different possible solutions that you've tried to find the 31st, let us know what you've tried and we'll do our best to suggest what you haven't yet that may help.