Dangerzone

ED haven't released the DCE because it's not ready yet. ED's financial state doesn't make a function or module more releasable, and I'm sure they're currently working at it. From my perspective, the benefit of the DCE being introduced isn't just the income they get from current customers who may upgrade to it - it's the potential attraction to a lot of other yet-to-be customers that may be attracted to DCS once it's released. But again, you can't release a product until it's actually ready for release so financial benefit or not - it will be released when they have it at a releasable stage. There is something very attractive about 'advancing' through a dynamic scenario than just playing individual skirmish missions. IDK - but I suspect they may be both finding it far more difficult to develop than they first anticipated, and also the possible rapid enhancement of certain technology such as AI and the potential it could bring for dynamic campaigns may also be pushing some things back as they may be considering implementing this ever-changing technology as well. Given that another flight sim that's currently 'back in development' that already has a DCE that people admire from years ago is being worked on again - ED have competition, so I figure they're not just working on 'another DCE' to give similar features, but they're probably exploring a far more advanced DCE to stand out. Another factor I suspect they could also be hitting are the same issues that us large mission designers / server admins face as well, which is performance issues with lots of units. If this is an issue for their DCE, then this would need to be addressed first before their DCE comes out. If these guesses are true, DCS may need Vulkan to be out, and multi-threading to be complete for AI, physics and server coding, before DCE can be finalized. As much as I hate to say it - I'm not expecting the DCE for another 4-5 years, and am planning my expectations accordingly. I do hope I'm wrong though, but in some ways when I consider what may need to be done first, I also do hope I'm right (and it's not later than 5 years).

Could ED please consider having a secondary authentication server for multiplayers that DCS attempts to connect to if the primary server goes down? Even if it's a server that's only updated on a weekly basis - it would be really handy to have a fallback server for DCS to automatically go to if the primary server is down so multiplayer users are able to continue to use DCS. Thanks for considering DZ

Thanks BN, Seems people that were already in Multiplayer servers are OK, only new people trying to connect (for now). I unfortunately know this as I was in with a bunch of mates, but got hit with the AH64->FA/18 CTD bug (forgetting to disconnect/reconnect to the server), and when restarting DCS got bit by the authentication servers being down, whereas they're all still in enjoying the fight.

Is anyone else having issues again. Last thread discussing this has been locked - but I've just started having issues again. Also looks like digitalcombatsimulator.com is also down too.

The single DCS version is only new, I'm sure it will take some time to iron out the wrinkles, or to figure out where it best settles with the release cycle. I don't think it's just BigNewy's opinion - as I'm sure he doesn't have enough pull in ED to make the exec's, and dev's drop 2 versions for 1 all by himself. It's obvious that ED corporately have decided that 1 release is good for the community. My personal opinion is that the best option for me is 2 releases. One being a Open BETA... for testing purposes only. Very handy for server admins, mission editors, scripters, and those who genuinely want to be involved in the testing process to give constructive feedback, with the other being a Stable release version - for actual gameplay. However the community over the years has proven that it can't work this way - because as soon as there's a beta version available - most want to jump to using this as their primary production version, which inhibits the ability for a Beta version to be used primarily for testing, and has ED split between trying to maintain 2 releases for actual public production. Given that my preferred option seems impossible to have in this climate, the single DCS version does indeed seem to be the next best option, and I'm willing to give ED some time to see how things settle before making further judgement. The current version of DCS seems to be pretty good too for the most part. Good performance improvements, etc. I'm actually more keen on new features and modules than just another patch cycle - but since there's been no announcements, so I suspect that the next patch won't give us new features, but just more tweaks, fixes and enhancements. I'm glad that they are taking the time to get it right, and not quite sure what the urgency is that people are waiting for with this patch. ED may cop some flack for delaying a release by a week, but I bet it's far less flack than if they make a release that has gameplay affecting bugs.

Not sure if this has been mentioned, but one tip is when first taking off - try hovering out of ground effect. Note the power that's required to maintain that hover OGE. This is the power that will be required when you come back into a hover OGE. (Or conversely if you plan on hovering in ground effect, do the same). That way, before the helicopter settles, you'll know what power setting you need to be on in order to stop it settling.

Here's the discord link to their channel: https://discord.gg/gErkQa5x You can download it direct from https://github.com/Penecruz/VAICOMPRO-Community/releases/tag/v2.9.3.0 You'll first need Voice Attack though. (VAICOM uses voice attack). VAICOM is free, but Voice Attack costs $10USD. Either https://voiceattack.com/purchase.aspx if you are happy to buy direct, or if you're a steam buyer, you can get via steam at https://store.steampowered.com/app/583010/VoiceAttack/ It's worth watching a few youtube video's on VAICOM first to see what you can do with VAICOM. Even voice attack by itself is fantastic for DCS - to be able to give voice commands, but VAICOM adds to the immersion with radio calls, etc without having to bring up the menu. Alternatively, you could download VAICOM and possibly just use the chatter.wav files that come with it for resources, but honestly - I think you'd be doing yourself a disservice by not using VAICOM to it's full potential. (Although that's probably a subject for another thread and getting a little off topic now)

Have you tried VAICOM? In addition to the very immersive voice commands that can be given - I believe they also have chatter functionality built in. If you haven't checked it out, it might be worth a look.

It sounds like it's more than that. Some people notice no loss of clarity. Some notice very little, and others seem to have things smudged beyond readability. I've just watched a video on youtube, and it seems that resolution can have a big impact on how much DLSS affects clarity. Maybe it's those with lower res headsets that are seeing it very blury. What sort of headset are you running?

Thanks. We're both running NVIDIA and Windows 11. The main difference is the VR headsets. I'm on a HP Reverb through OpenXR and WMR. It would be good to get some information from others having it as well to see if we can narrow down to whether this could potentially be related to Quest users.

@tribbin - while you wait for ED to investigate and potentially patch this issue, a workaround may be to run a stand-alone server instance of DCS on one of your computers. (This could also potentially give performance benefits to you as well, as your client DCS would be focusing only on you, and the server instance and threads would be serving the 'server' side).

Sometimes it just takes one person to get you to think outside the box. Reducing the desktop resolution would work if I end up having any performance issues, so that takes my fear away now from getting a higher res monitor. HP don't have their own software. They use WMR, so I'm bound by that (at least until I upgrade. Still looking at my options. The Pimax looks promising, but the price tag is just out of reach for now)...

Definitely sounds like a bug. I'd suggest posting the tracks here and maybe tagging in Bignewy or nineline to make them aware of this bug, and your reproducable track files.

I don't think there's a direct way to do this in DCS, but there may be a few 'hacks' that might work for you. One option that would allow not just gentle turns, but also formation aerobatics, etc would be a ghost replay. But this was requested back in 2012, and subsequent times since, but has not gained any traction: As for the alternative or hack options - some of these may be worth trying: 1) Setup the flight you wish to fly with to do a racetrack orbit between 2 waypoints. It could be that racetrack orbits are more gentler than actual waypoint turns. 2) If racetrack orbits are no good - setup a KC-135 tanker to do a racetrack orbit while in 'tanking' mode instead and fly off it's wing. Not as good as a F14 - but might work for practise, or 3) Setup a KC-135 tanker for tanking in a racetrack orbit pattern, and then set some F14's to escort the tanker. If the tanker flies in gentle turns - then the F14's may follow. 4) Setup waypoints in 2 or 5 degree turns instead, and space them out evenly until you get the AI to fly a smooth and gentle turn right through to 80 degrees. (This would be a last resort and desperate option - but could work - that's untried It could be that new settings have been introduced I'm unaware of to limit the bank angles on AI aircraft with WP commands, but if so I haven't come across them yet. No doubt someone will correct me if that's the case.

Turbo is definitely off. I don't recall shake reduction, so maybe I should see if I can find that setting and make sure it's turned off. It is a pity. I'm fortunate that I can hit 90FPS (If I lower settings), and I don't mind a little bit of ghosting on very fast moving objects - which is what I had before - but now for some reason MR seems to be ghosting a lot more in all areas. Thanks for the suggestion on Shake Reduction. I'll double check to make sure that's not enabled when next on.

Hi All, I currently run a HP Reverb, but my monitor is 1080p, and windows is set to 1920x1080. If I was to upgrade to a 4K monitor - does this have any impact on the GPU processing / performance? I know that the VR Mirror is just a mirror - however there are effectively 3 screens that the GPU is rendering for. One being the desktop with the icons/program running on it at the time - and the other two being the VR left and right eye. I'm not sure whether upgrading to a 4K monitor will have much of an impact on performance while in DCS VR or not and was wondering if someone could please advise? Cheers DZ

What are your system specs. It's strange how it's behaving so differently between us, and would be great if we could nail down the cause / factor involved.

I have played multi-player persistent campaigns that have lasted up to a whole year to complete. I can't speak for those who only play 3-8 hour missions, but there's a whole wide world of different persistent scenario's out there on various multiplayer servers where the ability to have dynamic FARPS would be a huge benefit.

This is encouraging to hear. It sounds like the Pimax is the only VR headset (I'm aware of) that's actually really gunning for the sim community at the moment. WMR is going the way of the dodo, Varjo Aero is all but sold out, and their new headset appears to be designed for something else (both with features and price tag), and I don't think I could consider a headset that doesn't support DFR for futureproofing moving forward. It's good to hear that DFP should give me similar performance to the G2. I just know that YMMV is very real in the VR scenario. Hardware, machine specs, and personal tolerances all play a role that seem to make experiences very different from one person to the next. I read numerous people are dropping the resolution for VR below the native resolution (such as DP to 0.8 in DCS) - but when I do that, I can't stand the image. Others find motion reprojection woeful, but I found it great (until about 6-12 months ago where something changed for me and now it's horrible and I don't know why). I'd prefer to run at 90hz - but honestly, if 72hz is really that much better than 60 - I could be tempted to either use that as a fallback if needed, or otherwise to bump up some extra nice graphics in DCS. But at $2000USD - I'm wanting to cross all my i's and dot all my t's before I make this big decision and know that it's definitely going to work for me, and be the best option moving forward.

Thanks to all who have replied... With the 120Hz/60fps - are you using motion reprojection? Last night I had the idea of experimenting by moving DCS's slider to 45FPS with my HP Reverb set to 90Hz to see what it would be like. I did notice the staggering for objects that were closer or moving much faster. It was very noticeable when doing a roll in the FA18 on 'free flight' in Georgia. What I'm not sure about though, is whether that's just 45FPS itself, or whether that's a condition of 45FPS being used with a 90Hz display. it made sense (in my mind) that halving the FPS should avoid staggering - just obviously having less frames - but I can't help but think that what I see on my monitor, and in VR are two very different results. Motion reprojection used to work brilliantly for me. 45fps (at 90hz) was a dream, and I could even get down to 30fps with a good experience. But something has changed in the last year now and motion reprojection is horrible. I don't know what it is, but I'm grateful I can now achieve 90fps in 99% of cases, but I'm always on the look for contingency options should they be needed.

You're definitely not alone. I believe the FM has changed significantly. You can get some decent AoA now in the hornet too - a lot of fun (but warning - you can lose a lot of energy very quickly too now doing so ). I also suspect that drag has been reduced in some configurations as well. (The after burner definitely seems to have more effect than before). The change is deliberate. I don't believe we'll be going back to the way it was - but in the same time - there's nothing saying that it won't be continually tweaked to be more realistic again sometime in the future if the SME's/Dev's believe it's not quite there yet. As for the perceived delay - I'm a massive survey of one person - so others may have a different experience, or I may not be as observant.

At the moment this function already exists, but just for the Vigen, so it seems that it doesn't have to apply to other units - it comes down to what the dev's decide. None of us really know what decisions are made or the reasons for them behind closed doors. Anyway - time will tell whether these features are released with the CH-47 or not.

HP Reverb with a 4090 and DLSS is fantastic. Allows me to hit 90fps continuously. Text is slightly softer with it on vs off, but I don't get the blurry that others seem to be reporting. It's surprising to see such a wide variety of results with some people getting what sounds to be unreadable/unusuable, but others having little problem. I wonder what the different factors are causing this.

Not sure where the paranoia is. It would make marketing sense to exclude something that could be included in a release of a module to encourage sales. I'm not saying that's what they're doing - but I'm not saying that it's not a possibility. If anything, I'm being optimistic - not paranoid - because I'd be delighted if we end up with these features with the CH-47 and C-130. That would be far better than the alternative that you're suggesting - that it's not worth the effort for them, and we'd never see it.

I'm hoping that the release of the CH-47 and C130 is going to bring us a lot more in DCS when it comes to troops, logistics and mission progression in general. In particular I would love to see: Animation of actual troop embarking and disembarking Revisit to sling loading and hopefully fixing issues with physics that cause slingshotting. Introduction of the COW (mobile FARP) for refueling/rearming/repairing of other units. Dynamic Spawn point creation on the map / the ability to create new client/player spawn slots in real time. There is so much more potential for things other than combat that can be done in DCS. MOOSE, a variety of different script writers, server owners and mission designers have managed to graft in some of these abilities with some hacking - but for it to be fully functional and native to DCS would just be a dream. The ability to bring in non-combat players who fly 'the other civilian flight simulator' into an environment where they can contribute to a progressive multiplayer campaign without having to worry about combat operations - but where their flight has real impact on other people and not just flying virtual cargo on a MP server has the potential to reach out to a lot more people than combat alone does.