Dangerzone

I've read that most DCS players prefer Single Player. I've also seen many posts from people who tried Multiplayer but, for various reasons, decided it wasn't for them and stuck with Single Player. If that describes you, I’d like your input: What would make you consider joining a DCS multiplayer server? Or, what would a multiplayer server need (or avoid) for you to try it? For example: A PvE campaign where you only play with friends you choose. A community that carefully selects members to ensure maturity, or one that offers real human ATC 24/7. Servers that automatically match you with players of similar skill for fair PvP. Or do you simply prefer flying alone, with no interest in playing with others? I’m curious whether players avoid Multiplayer just because they prefer flying solo, or because a suitable Multiplayer environment doesn’t exist for them.

dd I'm with you. I don't use Google's authenticator. I have an issue with their terms and conditions. But you can use any 2FA authenticator. What devices are you using, and we can suggest a few for you if you want.

This is just weird. It never working from day 1... and then after a workaround was found, instead of fixing the issue properly - they block the workaround! Then official replies stopped with no further information about anything to do with this issue. What is going on internally at ED?!?

Thanks! Original post updated with this info!

Firstly, I have already rethought of what DCS is previously. I had to in order to "maintain my passion and support" because what I wanted to achieve wasn't going to be possible to do with the level of support and focus on quality testing that ED is providing, which nearly brought me to the brink of walking away from DCS completely - until I lowered my expectations and change my thought on what DCS is... so I'm definitely open to re-thinking of what DCS is. While I share a number (or honestly - most of the concerns raised) - I do believe DCS was meant to be a combat flight simulator. That's always been the goal. While there are definitely issues, I strongly disagree with the proposition that it's because DCS was never meant to be a simulator. I think the problems that have occurred are from many angles. Some self inflicted, and others external. IDK how many developers and staff have been pulled away from DCS due to wars and conflicts going on at the moment, but it wouldn't surprise me if both COVID and the war has had a significant impact on ED that has reduced the amount of resources they have at their disposal. By how much, and what factor it impacts, only ED themselves would really know - we can only speculate. I think ED is also partly a victim of their own success. DCS has grown - significant in different areas that ED have tried to introduce into DCS - and as a result, I think we might be in a period of time where there's more than they can handle at the moment. ie: Seeing Combined Arms neglected as they focus on other areas - DCS really has become quite big from a development and maintain point of view. The more functionality and modules, the more to maintain everytime a change is made. IDK where this leads to - but I'm darn glad that DCS still exists and is being maintained, even if not to a standard I would like. I can of course sit back as an armchair critic, and say what I would love to see change, which at the top of my list would include putting more focus onto Quality, Stability, and content creator support. I would love to see issues and bugs that they introduce with a new patch that wasn't there previously be treated as the highest priority - so we all had a reliable and stable platform, from the individual player, right through to content creators, but but it's easy for me to say when I don't have to balance the budget, pay the bills, or deal with who knows what challenges they face and what they need to meet in order to keep DCS viable within the limitation of the resources that they have. That's not saying that I don't think there's areas where ED could have significant improvement in (I obviously do). However, calling DCS as 'simulator simulator', and that the 'software is the game' as though it's a puzzle to try and solve to get it working is really more hyperbole. If it comes down to taking DCS as it currently is, or not having DCS at all - I'm going to try and focus on the things I can be grateful for more than the things I'm disappointed in. I think that's the only way really to actually appreciate DCS. We'll always find things that we don't like (and yes - in DCS's case we probably don't have to search too far ) - but even with those - DCS is still an incredible and amazing product that I am so grateful for. In the end, 2 people can have the exact same experience with DCS, one being frusturated, and the other grateful depending on where they focus more. I've done enough living being frusturated - I'm trying to see what the other side is like with the glass half full instead.

Offline might help, but my observations when I've used it before Pimax still tries to 'phone home' on a number of different endpoints (well, at least does for me - I rolled back to an older version that's in the 20's when I experience issues, and haven't updated since). I'd be very keen to know if this has been 'fixed' so offline is truly offline with zero internet connectivity, or whether it still goes online with numerous communications in offline mode. Are you able to confirm?

No reason to have it in the autoexec.cfg file if that's the case. I wasn't aware of the buttons, and/or are just using an ever growing list of things to try and check when I hit performance issues, and this was on it. I'll amend the original post. Thanks fort he heads up.

Do you have a youtube video link. Also - unfortunately your specs/signature doesn't show up for me. Not sure what's wrong with the forum, or my settings. Is there anything in particular that you're referring to that should be added to this list?

My gut feeling is that it's intentional. I suspect this is one of those 'too hard basket' issues that would take a lot of work to resolve for an issue that they don't consider significant enough to warrant the time - and engaging with customers regarding this issue is riskier and exposes more than keeping silent. FWIW - I think the better option (only if this is true and it's never going to be dealt with), is what @P3CFE recommended - the ability to disable contrails completely. I think they're formed automatically depending on altitude, temperature, and some other factors (??) but for those who don't have the time to mess around trying to find the magic combination but find this a significant issue - it would be nice to just disable them completely. Personally I'd prefer to see it fixed, but I get the impression that DCS is a mounumous beast now and there must be so many different wish lists and things to work on that some will sadly never see the light of day, so I'm trying to manage my expectations accordingly. And no contrails is far better than "warping" contrails that don't match the rest of the airspace. So hint to ED: Even if you 'sneak' something in as a setting for the autoexec.cfg file that allows disabling of contrails and have it leaked through one of your acquaintances if you really don't want to engage customers regarding this issue would be an option.

I don't use the DCS FPS Limiter. I've been using rivatuner instead. Finer adjustments (ie, not jumping by 5fps) , and I can make changes to it if needed in realtime without having to close mission.

Is this being released as EA, or full release? I thought the pricing on EA is discounted? (Not pre release price but still closer to it than full price?) Have you heard any different, because you’re scenario seems to expect it not to go to EA price but full price immediately on release? Historically, pre-release have been 30%, and EA 20% discounted. Seems to me that’s fair. An extra ~ $6usd savings for those who know they want it regardless and buy, and ~ $6 extra for those who wait until after release but still buy EA. $6 difference for insurance/security for those who want public reviews doesn’t seem unreasonable to me, ( or $6 savings for those who show support by pre-ordering seems pretty reasonable). Personally, I’ve never understood preorder on a digital product that doesn’t have limited stock, and would prefer to pay $6 for the insurance, but I also don’t think it’s not unreasonable for those who invest and commit early to get that extra bit of a savings. I’ll always advocate for choice. I think the way it’s been released couldn’t be better… unless there’s something you know that I don’t, such as this being released with no EA? If so, please let me know.

I think you're right. I found Quadviews Fixed Foveated Rendering quite helpful back when I was running the HP Reverb. However it gives a lot more control and adjustments than the new Pimax feature. For the PCL - we would need the ability to offset the horizontal and vertical area. (Moreso the vertical area) like the QFVR app. I do like that Pimax is moving forward in trying to incorporate more natively into their system, saving us having additional separate process inbetween DCS and the headset, but at the same time it needs to be of benefit. I'm guessing this is solely focused on improving the super. I'm still on a version in the .20's (Can't remember exactly which). I've been waiting to upgrade for both features, and a stable version - but so far, reading in the following, it seems people are still rolling back. I guess if there's no new features that are going to help, and mine is working as is - I won't risk breaking it. I was contemplating taking the risk in trying to update if there was going to be any significant reward, but for now it sounds like there's no reward for the PCL.

I'm not saying that the night sky doesn't have room for improvements, but I've flown plenty of hours at night across remote areas, and I can attest that I've never seen a sky like the on in the OP's post. Moonless nights tend to be black - and it can be difficult at times to determine if the dot on the horizon is a lone farmhouse, or a star in the sky. Full moon nights are different, give a clear horizon, and surprisingly a lot to see as well on the ground (tree's structures, etc). But the OP image is a long exposure capture, that takes in a lot more eye than the human eye see's - and bringing something like that into DCS would be in the lines of being more unrealistic than closer to realism. Yes - stars can be more visible at the higher altitudes, but still nothing like a long exposure photograph. Saying that - a very rare occasional meteor/shooting star would be kinda cool, and I agree with the city light glow. Not sure though how much extra processing this would add to DCS - and if some - I'd be happy for it to wait until Vulkan is done.

SD and TB. I'm with you on expectations with the dynamic campaign engine. I think history with new new Mission Generator, the save game feature (which honestly, I think some of the 3rd party stuff has served better, and for many years already), the more recent inclusion of Dynamic ally created FARP spawn options (that still have issues), to name a few - I'm actually preparing for the DCE to be something that I probably won't be touching for quite some time after release and still be using 3rd party solutions (like SRS vs the internal radio function). I really hope I'm wrong. But likewise, I'm aware it would be unfair to put these prior experiences on a new 3rd party dev. This is ASC's moment to shine. I think of other 3rd party companies that have raised the bar (HB, and Urga), and see no reason why the C130 couldn't be released with a similar raise in the bar. in some ways it's interesting to see posts about "I won't buy another 3rd party module after the RB incident" - where I find myself exactly the opposite - I have higher expectations from 3rd parties with what will be delivered. I guess in fairness - in part - they only have their own modules to maintain and ED has a lot more going on. Re the C130 - I'm already dreaming of the options available in MP missions that it could be used (as I'm expecting to be using it there, and planning accordingly. I'm certainly not going to be leaving it up to the DCE to be the provider of purpose and opportunity for the C130), so contemplating what else can be done by myself and the community to make this thrive.

Re the glimpse of gameplay - the dev mentioned above that there will be video's incoming, so you'll get the same with this it would seem. As for the preorder being strange - I don't think so. The pre-order is a choice. The dev maybe could have chosen not to do it (I don't know the contract obligations with ED) - and not given an option and just had it available to buy at release. Well - we still have that option now to us anyway - we just have the additional choice of whether we want to buy it early for an additional discount. Personally - I'm not a huge person of pre-purchasing myself - but I'll never knock someone for making it a choice that I can ignore so it gives options for others who have a different mindset or priorities to me.

Thanks for this. How does the upscaling work with DCS? Is it even needed since we have DLSS? In regards to the Quadviews - I've been waiting for this for some time to be native to Pimax. Does this work with the Crystal Light as a Fixed region in the center? And if so - is there a way to adjust the view left/right/up/down? (Either by app, or editing a config fiel)? At present from the video, it seems like you can only set % vertical and horizontal. For fixed users - it would be helpful if we could offset that as well - especially up/down.

No choice for me. My DCS modules last me their lifetime. FPS games I get bored and put aside after a much shorter period. Plus - I have been waiting for this for some time! Can't wait to see how much it adds to what DCS can already do from a dynamic MP environment, not to mention what it will mean for the DCE - which IIRC was hinted to be released later this year as well?

Yeah - but this one is specifically a question about it and VR - as such I'd like to see this thread remain (and not be merged) as it's dealing specifically with VR. My (limited) understanding is that this isn't supposed to work for VR. Chatbot AI seems to confirm this (but now I'm doubting myself, since AI agrees with me, and I know how often AI lies to me).

This looks great. Does it break IC? Or is it possible to use in MP?

How does this work? From the video - it appears that this is more of a button clicker, with scroll options than an actual point mouse device? In comparison - PointCtrl is calibrated so when you point your finger, you're pointing at the switches isn't it? Or does this work the same? Can you calibrate it in the direction you're pointing, and can you move the mouse by changing your hand position?

You are correct - this is close to what CB is. This would basically be a step between closed beta and the official release, to give those that don't have closed beta access opportunity and time to test and prepare for the official release (as I presume the closed beta testers currently have?). The reason I advocate for making it harder to access - is to prevent a repeat of the past, where the open beta effectively became the main release. My suggestion still allows those who genuinely want to test to do so, since anyone setting up a server would need to share the IP directly to fellow testers by DM (e.g., advising of IP address of server). It would discourage server hosts from using the beta to attract players by being "first with the module," as these servers wouldn’t appear publicly—reducing the temptation to treat the beta as a production version and avoiding a repeat of what we saw previously with the Open Beta solution. And even if a few did - it would be the minority - thus being more like a real Beta version. So, those who would run / those intended for would be those who specifically want to do beta testing, and fix breaking changes before it's released to public. At present, there is no opportunity for those outside of closed beta to do this. Often, non-CB server operators and mission designers find out only at release what breaking changes there are. The amount of pressure this can put on people to have to provide fixes immediately can be significant. This would hopefully help to alleviate a lot of this. Of course an additional side benefit too would be that more bugs could potentially be flagged that slip by the CB team before it reaches production servers. (This is no dig at the CB team BTW - I genuinely appreciate and value what they do and the time they donate often to test each release before it gets to the rest of us - no doubt an often thankless task that is often overlooked by the community, and comments are mostly only made when something gets through - not for all the things that they have caught). Maybe I'm out of line, or this is a bad idea for reasons I haven't seen. I understand that an Open Beta solution could bring in challenges. (Such as module release announcements - as ED in the past had basically used the OB release, not public release date of a module as it's official release - maybe in those occasional instances a OB is skipped - and only used for all the other updates?). I know I don't have all the answers here. I'm just advocating for some sort of discussion on potential solutions where we can change to assist those who are finding the current method difficult and discouraging which I'm concerned could lead to further burnout for content creators and server hosts. In the end, this comes out of a passion for wanting to see DCS be the best it can be, and reduce the amount of last minute rush some server operators and content creators need to do.

I've previously suggested what I believe is a better solution: a true Open Beta—(implemented differently to before). Make it accessible only via command line, so only those with the tech knowledge of how to execute command lines, and also know the OB version number can install it. That way, it’s not used on production servers, and Open Beta versions don’t appear in the public server list—IP connect only. This would make it a genuine testing platform, not a general gameplay environment, and give us the time we need to adapt and see the upcoming changes and try them out. Sure - there will be some that push and opt to use it as a stable release, but it would be the minority. The previous OB didn't work because the majority used it as a stable release (and even ED recommended people use it for production in MP). I really feel we need a proper Open Beta for everyone’s sake. Far too many issues are being discovered in these new so called stable releases within hours, forcing hotfixes. That’s bad for both ED developers, who get blindsided and must scramble to patch, and for us, who have to react to breaking changes without warning. Let alone the image that it's putting out there of ED's quality. Let an Open Beta run for a couple of weeks—(1) to give content creators time to adapt, and (2) to apply necessary hotfixes—before pushing a public stable. Just a pity that ED seems to disagree that there's issues for the community by working this way and believe everything is fine as is. Nothing needs changing, with "no plans to consider...". While all along I see what I feared when open beta disappeared. That the new and improved stable release would eventually degenerate to being what Open Beta was all along - with no real practical alternatives for public server content creators (that aren't in the CB team anyway) to be proactive, and just have to be reactive and rush about to deal with bugs, problems, or breaking changes at the last minute.

I've stopped flying the Kiowa as this just creates all sorts of eye strain for me. Unfortunately this doesn't appear to have been recognized officially as an issue - so I'm wondering if it's 'correct as is' and will receive no attention. That's a real pity - I had looked forward for years for this module, and would love to fly it more.

Well, this whole time I've been disappointed that it's not aimed for VR - and after your update I realise that there's no point being disappointed - even the target audience is better off without it. Thanks for giving us those test result info!

A log book that tracks hours in different airframes would be great. It's kinda sounds like something a pilot would have IRL.