Dangerzone

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.

I went from a 2080S to a 4090. I wasn't chasing better graphics, just a more smooth experience. Unfortunately - CPU seemed to be more the issue, so it didn't help as much as I thought it would. As for the graphics - I didn't notice as much difference as I thought I would. Yes, it's nice to have shadows on now, and a higher resolution render. Certainly helps with the shimmering, and helped with the readability of labels and screens too - but as for the outside world the change wasn't as significant as I thought. However - that was to change. The first time I noticed a huge difference was when I went from the HP Reverb to the Pimax Crystal Light. (Once I got the initial issues sorted out). Now it looks like a whole new game to me now. People say VR will never be as good as 2D, and yeah that is technically true - but now with the CL - the gap has narrowed much more than I was expecting. This isn't to say to sell a kidney and go out and buy a 4090 and a Crystal Light - but just that when it comes to graphic expectations, that your VR may actually be more of a bottleneck than you first realise and no amount of GPU updating will get around the limits of the VR. Since there's nothing that your GPU can't render that a 3080 can - (it's only that the 3080 will give you the better frames to render it with), the best advise I have is if you want to see what it could look like with a 3080 - up the graphic settings already in DCS. Do a pause, (coz the frames will be bad), but if you close your eyes when you move, and then keep your head still and open your eyes - you'll get a good understanding of what resolution to expect and graphics with an updated GPU using the same headset.

Patch would have been dropped now wouldn't it, if it was going to be out this week going by previous patch cycles, so I suspect we're not getting anything for at least another week.

All good. If you don't use it - it's hard to know about the differences. I do wish that the camera view could move in VR like it does in 2D though. There are other ways to recentre, etc - but still... it'd be nice to pan the view down like we can in 2D at times to ease the strain on an aging neck.

I don't think that works in VR though, does it? (Where seat adjust - not camera adjust also works in VR). Your suggestion should get those in 2D out of trouble though.

Can you try renaming the DCS folder in your SAVED GAMES directory to DCS.ORIG (or similar), and then start DCS. The DCS folder in the saved games directory is your configuration folder settings. By renaming it to DCS.ORIG, you're forcing DCS to reset all it's settings (this is different to a re-install). You can copy back over the config directory for your inputs/controls from DCS.ORIG to the new DCS directory when it's created (Close DCS before doing so) to save you having to remap your controls. Often this can fix a lot of unexpected issues. Even if you only want to do it temporarily (and then delete the new DCS directory and rename DCS.ORIG back to DCS) - it can be very helpful for debugging as well. This will require you to do some basic 'digging' around in your PC using file explorer, but that's it.

Sort this out using the manual IPD adjustment wheel on the left side of the headset (near where the cable comes in). That's what it's for, and get it sharp in both eyes for you. If you're sitting down, just turn of chaperone in the Pimax App for the device. I had issues with the room boundry as well, but since I am only using it for flight sim (and don't plan on simulating jumping out of the cockpit ) I just disabled this to get around the problem. Doesn't hurt to have a bit of spacing between the lens and your eye. The downside is that it reduces the FOV slightly, but the upside is that it's easier on the eyes, and you don't have to clean the glass as much from oil from your eyelashes.

I'm curious about this bit. I thought the l/r eye offsets were to offset one or the other so that the two lined up if one or the other was off. What's the benefit of moving both left and right side up in the same direction? What did it improve for you?

I think you’re both correct. There’s not just one single cause here. Unit count is definitely a factor. I’ve gone from 3,000 that used to work, down to 1500 then 1000 and now 300 to try and keep missions acceptable so there is definitely an issue with units, AI, pathing, etc. I have also experienced high cpu demand just in the menu with no mission running. One does not negate the other also being an issue. DCS currently has numerous performance issues contributors, not just one. I’m suspecting some of these have been known, but partly neglected because old tech and the hope may have been that Vulcan would be ready in time and address these before it became too much of an issue, instead of having to divert resources to focus on the problems on the older current platform and doing more work than necessary on soon to be obsolete functions? If so, it seems the issues have caught up with DCS prior too then and now it’s biting us in the butt. Hopefully there’s a few things the devs can find in there to recover a bit of performance in a short amount of time, but we’ve also seen 2 patches since 2.9.6 with no performance gain yet so it might be a while. I’m tossing up options at the moment, between options such as banning chinook on servers, reducing unit count (again), dropping back to previous DCS version, or just suggesting our group walks away from DCS and takes a break until things stabilise. But for it to stabilise, ED needs a change in tolerance quality before releasing updates. Getting rid of Stable and Open Beta and running one version as though it’s an open beta is not a good long term strategy moving forward. ED needs a higher standard of quality before releasing to the public if this new single release is going to work.

Renaming the saved games directory is like wiping out all your custom settings, controls, mods (installed in the saved games directory). It's akin to a new install/setup, and a new saved games directory will be created - just with the exception that you still have all your files, so you can rename the old directory back, or copy across just what you want (such as your control bindings). It's a quick easy way to see if there's something in your configurations that is contributing to the issue, whether they be mods, settings, hooks, or other things.

It might in the end, but the thing is that the Hook is early access and ED are developing a lot of this natively. We don’t know to what extent, but it’s not a project too many will be keen on investing time to change if ED’s version is only a release or two away. Add to that many coders are spent just trying to fix, find workarounds and maintain existing functionality with the changes ED have introduced the last few updates that have broken stuff. I’d say give it time. If ED don’t implement something soon:tm: then you may see this implemented within the existing CTLD framework down the track.

Worth putting this request in suggestions and feature request as a new post. I doubt anyone from ED would see it here given this thread is about VAICOM, and it’s a 3rd party mod that DCS doesn’t support.

While I really appreciate users sharing what’s fixing the issues for them (and I really do… please keep sharing solutions), the fact that this problem isn’t occurring with other settings in earlier versions of DCS bit is on the latest concerns me, as something has changed within DCS that is having a negative impact. If unresolved/unidentified I fear this has the potential to compound until we reach a situation where no amount of tweaking will fix the issue for us after a few more updates. Going from 1,200 units down to 300 units is also a big concern. With increasing tech we should be going the other way, and be able to handle more units, not less.

Some additional things to check or to try: See if single thread makes a difference compared to MT Make sure core parking is disabled in windows Make sure DCS process is restricted to P-cores (process lasso) if on Intel 13/14 gen. Turn on DCS FPS dialog and see if it’s GPU or CPU bound during the stutters.

Yes. CTLD can be changed to do whatever you want. It’s just lua scripting. The trick is to learn lua, and then there’s a mountain of things you can do with it. But be warned, it can suck a lot of your time- Far more than first anticipated.

Do we know what the changes are? Does this include the new upscaling technology?

That’sa great video. Thanks. How are you turning around in VR? Are you literally turning 360 degrees or is there a way for people to rotate who are in a fixed seating position?

Interesting. Thanks for letting us know. Can you use process lasso to isolate stream deck and DCS interface.exe from DCS to see if that helps? I don’t use stream deck myself so don’t believe this is why I’m seeing the cpu pegged at the load screen, but anything that helps is good to know. Thanks. Love you too.

Replacement lens arrived, and initial tests show it’s made a huge difference for me. I’d say the left lens is 98% better now. I can still notice a very small distortion, but it’s small and I have to deliberately look for it now. It’s not “in your face” (excuse the pun). I’d say I had a defective lens with my original unit. I also weighed both the old and new lenses and can confirm both are close to 52g, not 24g so both the old and new are both glass. Hope this is encouraging news to others. Honestly, it’s been a rough first introduction to Pimax, but they have proved themselves to me with the after sales support in getting this resolved, which at least to me speaks volumes. I do think their QC needs improving before they ship the premium crystal super with the premium price tag. For both lenses to not even be mounted correctly, and for the left to be this distorted without being picked up makes me think this never actually got checked at all. I’ll be interested to hear others experiences, and hope others have good success too.

This would be fantastic. Especially to be able to fly in VR for the Chinook for instance, and then when it's converted to a milk cow, to switch to 2D while still in the same MP mission and drive vehicles around, etc in Combined Arms.

You need to view the individual CPUs using resource monitor. Even at 20% one core could be working at 100% and make DCS stutter. While multi threading has been introduced to DCS, it’s a WIP and many things are still all routing through the primary thread from what I can tell. E-Cores are another matter. Use project lasso to restrict DCS to P Cores only to get around that. (I’ve already done that before testing and posting my results).