Dangerzone

Thanks for the confirmation. I'm going to have to recheck my configuration to find out what is going on. I tried the other day changing reprojection to off and it went stuttery, and back on and it switched between 30 and 45 frames so I assumed it was reading the "In Game" OpenXR toolkit settings, so I must have something strange going on then, or I'm running on an older version that hasn't updated. (Quite possible - because I'm pretty strict with my firewall - even windows doesn't get to update unless I give permission). How will it work in the future if automatic isn't an option? Do we have to set a single target frame? If I set 45 and it drops to 30 am I just going to get stutters again? Is it recommended to set it to the lowest possible frame likely to hit?

Before going to that level can you try this: With DCS closed: Go into your saved games directory. Rename your DCS folder to DCS.old. (This way you can revert it back to DCS if it doesn't resolve your issue because what you're basically doing is relocating ALL your settings/bindings/etc). Relaunch DCS and see if this resolves the issue? DCS will automatically create a brand new config (like a new reinstall without going to the full nuke effort). If this fixes the issue, then you can go and move back just the things that you really need. (The most common would be the config/inputs directory for your keybinds) and just change only the settings you need to change again. If in changing those settings you get crashes again - you can repeat the procedure until you nail down which setting is causing the crash. Sometimes some things just get corrupt in the config section. We don't know why or what - but doing this can be a quick easy way to resolving the issue. If this doesn't resolve the issue, or there is another solution, simply deleting the new DCS directory and renaming the other DCS.OLD back to DCS completely undoes what you just did.

Thanks for the clarification. In regards to the automatic function... are you sure? I run a G2 at the moment and have reprojection frames set to Automatic. It will switch between 45, 30 and if really bad 22 and back again depending on what it needs and how much load it's under - so from what I can tell, automatic appears to be working. (Unless I'm misunderstanding or we're talking about two different options maybe)?

Pixel Density (in DCS I'm assuming you mean) is used to super sample. Basically what it does is render DCS in a greater or lesser resolution to your native VR headset. Going less reduces the workload on the GPU, but will produce less resolution images. Going greater increases the workload on the GPU but can produce even sharper images in your headset as your headset will scale back to it's native resolution. DCS's PD is similar to Resolution in steam - however it differs in that DCS is a x resolution in both directions, where steam is % of pixels. Thus a PD of 2 is double the width and double the height, so don't mistake it for 200% - it's not. It's really 400% IIRC. The best option is one that gives you the best visuals without overloading your GPU causing stuttering. I personally have left mine at 1.0. As for the settings in OpenXR - I'd suggest start with the defaults and bit by bit try different settings until you get what you want. The main one for me was to turn on motion reprojection (in OpenXR Tools from within DCS - not from windows), and set it to automatic. Some like it on, others like it off. Because I can't hit 90fps in VR consistently I prefer the smoothness even if there's some ghosting compared to the stuttering. There will be more qualified/experienced people that will probably give you a better indepth understaanding than I can - but hopefully that will get you started.

I know many will probably disagree but all I can say mate is good on you for being honest and willing to contact them and work through a solution instead of saying nothing and keeping it. I have no love for Amazon, but it shows extra character when a person doesn't change their values because of another's lesser values. Good on ya mate!

To be fair - trying to see 2 sides here... the change that has been made has only been made so far on the BETA version of DCS... so there is still time for ED to consider community feedback on this issue (which is what OB are normally about) - and apply the best option for the stable release to come. However I agree that it's concerning that the response so far seem to be focused on a single issue (ie, the dots) and not the greater problem. ED has made a fantastic product, and I appreciate it's existence. For me - it's the only reason I have a 'gaming machine'. Passionate community members have added to this product to make it even better still. However in saying that - the above quote is IMO an underrated comment - and I think is deserving of a bit more attention. I would really like to encourage ED to have a slight change in mindset to consider with more weight what contributing community members are doing and how the changes ED does affects them - because for people to take so much time and effort into creating these and distributing them means that these are no small details that should easily be overlooked. There will always be the entitled, where what ED does is never enough - and will always find something to whine about. I'm sympathetic to NL and BN who really wear the brunt of this. But I'm talking about ignoring the noisiest to consider the bigger issue here & those who have put serious time and consideration into finding solutions that improve DCS for so many others - which the above poster has touched on and I'd like to elaborate further. Things such as optimized textures (Taz) that as literally saved numerous VR users from abandoning DCS, the new upcoming Mission Editor with some basic features people have requested for years, the Data Catridge Mod, Dots, as well as things such as Simple Slot Blocker, DMSC/Simple Save Groups, etc that make possible the severs we enjoy today. People have been waiting on these features, optimizations or improvements for a time significant enough that mods have been developed by users to fill these holes because there's no small need for them and there was no sign of these being looked at on the horizon, and it really hurts when ED undervalue the contributions made. Are we asking too much too soon of ED? I don't know. I'm sure ED dev's aren't sitting there twiddling their thumbs doing little... and that's where these community mod's really help everyone. It helps to give ED some breathing space in some areas, and give the community some solutions. But being involved with server management, mission designing, script designing, etc and working with others in this I can honestly say that there is a real feeling of frustration and even despair by a number in the community as to whether ED even appreciates the contributions made or would prefer if we gave up and just let DCS be what it is on it's own. The situation leading up to RuroniJones's all but abandoning Overlordbot has raised to the surface what a number have been feeling behind the scenes and we now are at a point where an incredible feature for MP servers is now being abandoned due to the lack of appreciation and support from ED, and I know he is not alone. I don't make this post to bash ED or to find fault. Rather I am sympathetic to problems I can only imagine that ED are facing and my desire is for the community to worth with them instead of finding blame. Going through COVID and now the current global situation - it's not great at all - and ED are still putting out great modules with more on the way, the final implementation of multi-threading is here, Vulcan being developed on, etc. I am very appreciative of the work that ED is doing. I acknowledge that it's very much likely that in a similar way that the community feels underappreciated by ED that some in ED may feel just as underappreciated by the community, which brings me to my main point: I just can't help but feel that DCS is being held back by a certain level of separation of understanding between them and the community that supports them as to what really matters to a lot of their customer base, and is underestimating the benefit of supporting those that support ED during these times or how the changes ED makes impacts them. My plea would be for ED to reconsider with more weight the needs of the content creators that support them. (And I don't mean youtube 'content creators'- I mean real content - those actually contributing to the development of DCS freely with their own time and what holes are currently being filled by community). I'm not sure what more we can do our end but plea. RJ approached ED, and then as requested - took the time to consult many of the leading dev community as to what is important and provide information directly back to the top (to Kate) and then waited patiently... for 2 years.... for nothing. I'm not sure where to go to from here? It would be very timely for ED to show a greater level of support at the moment for the community dev's to ease some concern and bring some focus to these matters. I would suggest how this particular issue of IC is addressed is going speak a lot louder than many probably realise in the community as to ED's broader attitude towards the community - whether things are changing, or whether they remain the same. I would really like to encourage ED reach out to RJ to see if some of this damage can be undone and see if the relationship between the dev community and ED can be improved. This would be no small gesture. Likewise my encouragement for the issue here (which is not just about dots but is about more community contributors having their work 'shut out' and underappreciated by ED) would be considered in it's entirety.

Yes - but not native to DCS. If you use Voice Attack you could issue a command such as "Pilot Source" or similar, which could do the keypresses for you. It's not realistic - so if you want full authenticity - it's going to be the manual presses - but if you're after something to assist you in-game for quicker acquisition - this might be suitable for your needs. I know when I'm in flight and I have my hands busy voice attack can be a real help - especially since it's not just reaching forward and pushing a button - but having to go to mouse, try and find where in the space time continuum the mouse really is (in VR - which is probably the longest step), then doing the button clicks.

I don't believe there is unfortunately. If your concern is players 'cheating' by using this when they're dogfighting, a better approach I could see would be for ED to give mission writers the ability to enable and disable this feature on a per client basis than just to say whether someone has done this or not. Then through an checks could be done to see if the client is within x miles from an enemy aircraft and if so disable this option otherwise enable it. But as for how to achieve either what you're requesting, or what I've suggested - to the extent of my knowledge I don't believe either is possible in DCS at this time sorry.

Guys, you're being trolled. You can't reason a troll and you're just wasting time. Your responses are just feeding more of the same. To ignore - move your mouse and hover (don't click) over the name to the left of the post. A dialog will appear which you can click an IGNORE button. As for the IC check - I believe this might also destroys all Taz's wonderful work that allows many in VR to get the performance they need with optimized textures, etc, so I really hope that ED's response to this isn't just to fix the 'dot' visibility.

The one time I started seeing that problem was when my cable was starting to go faulty. Not saying that that's the case with you (I hope not), but maybe check your connections, etc. If your head position is changing randomly - I doubt it will be DCS - it will be the headset tracking itself.

Slingloading a camel. Love it! While we're at it, we better have an elephant crate so we can do a "Dumbo" drop from the C130 when it's released.

Oh - and just to confirm - did you buy through steam, or DCS World/ED Directly? If directly: Can you log onto the dcs website and look at your account and confirm that you have the module there? If so - can you then go into DCS, log out from your account (Top right icon if I recall correctly - I'm not at my DCS PC right now). Close and then restart DCS. You should be asked to log back in. Make sure you log in with the credentials you used on the website, and advise if this fixes the issue? If steam - I'm not sure if Steam has a repair function but you may need to run that separately. IDK how steam works

Oh absolutely - but your first post was about HB mode, and I agree - that sliding left/right, or forward/backwards for a bit shouldn't case the problems to the extent we're seeing at the moment. Hopefully the problem will be acknowledged as reported.

Before replying.... please don't take this too seriously! It's just a thought if ED team were looking for ideas for the next easter-egg/haloween/etc tweak/ silly gift - might be worth considering since we have the Persia Gulf and Syria (The further eastern area), plus Sinai and Australia coming - which I believe all have camels. The suggestion is for a camel UNIT (not a static object). One were paths could be set to have them walking around through the desert. It could give a bit more immersion (especially for the low flying helicopters) to come across either a caravan of these, or just wild ones out in the option - especially on those longer flights where there's not much but sand about. Consider it sort of a 'one upmanship' on the cows that we have - and I mean... who doesn't like the cows! (Couldn't hurt those cinematic videos either). As mentioned, please don't take this too seriously - I recognize there are far more important things that are needed in DCS, just throwing a random thought out there for a bit of a fun discussion.

I have experience the same thing recently - there's definitely a problem here. Thanks for providing the track files. FWIW - I don't recall having as many problems in HB when it first came out, so I don't know if it's an introduced change with continual work on the FM because I used to be able to slide left/right without issues. At present I now have to treat George like he's suicidal. Keeping one eye on everything he's doing and ready to reach for the controls at a moments notice. It's not ideal for high stress environments (certain missions or MP) at the moment, so hopefully there's a fix in the works. Not seeing an rep of ED respond to this thread yet is a bit of a concern - so hopefully it's been reported internally and is already been looked at and responding to this thread was an overlook. Confirmation of this would definitely be appreciated. The workaround I am using at present is not to get George to make changes unless I absolutely have no choice. Instead, I'll take control - I'll change the attitude/altitude/airspeed of the aircraft and once stable I'll give back to George. Not ideal, but the best I can recommend is accept that these flaws currently exist with George, and don't try to fight them but work with them and around them for now. It's WIP and early access so I really have no other choice, except to get frustrated or leave it until it's resolved. The other night I had to fly from the front seat while also trying to lead-follow a moving unit with the laser while a hellfire was in flight. Talk about a high-workload situation. Mind you - it was a feeling of great accomplishment when the (second) missile hit and destroyed the target. The new Radar guided hellfires may help to reduce a bit of this workload when they're released if George isn't fixed by then.

From a VR pilots perspective - if this is to be implemented can it please be done as an option and not as a permanent change. (I understand the OP's desire to do this, but for VR users this could greatly increase the risk of headaches or motion sickness). As far as simulations go - I'm not keen on having 'real' sickness (headaches or nausea) added to the experience of DCS and I'm fairly confident most other VR users wouldn't want this either.

But Taz says in his original post they won't pas IC? But people are saying that they will/do? Is this only for some, or are all of them OK to use?

At present we have an option for ground units "Disperse under fire". I'd like to raise for consideration some additional options when groups are under fire. Some ideas I have include: Move towards attacker An example would be T-90 tanks. An Apache at present can target a group and sit there picking them off. If the group was setup to move towards their attacker at full speed (if they were capable of firing at said attacker - no point having tanks move towards a FA18 ) this could give a more dynamic feel when encountering units. Parameters for this could include things such as deploy smoke screen to help mask as they move towards the attacker, etc. Likewise it'd be pretty scary to know that a SA-19 is not going to stay where you first spotted it, but is actively trying to find a way to get closer or flank and then engage you. Retreat away from attacker More than just 'Disperse under fire' - this would actively have the units flee (potentially another option to support in different directions such as panicking) and keep going until they haven't been engaged within a set period of time - at which point they could then regroup and go either back to their original positions, a new nearby random position, or keep going to next waypoint - depending on what parameters are set by the user. Like the disperse under fire - but move more than just a few meters - keep fleeing. Goto nearest Cover Probably especially handy for infantry - but could be used for vehicles as well - to go to nearest lot of trees, buildings, etc. Would be even better to have an option where infantry could actually enter a building, (but the building could be destroyed which would destroy infantry) Other options would be similar to 'Retreat away from attacker' as per above but fleeing towards cover instead of just random directions away from player/attacker. Call Reinforcements This option could call in any assets within a certain range that are capable of taking on the target that is posing a threat to the unit(s). This could include fast already in the area (or on the ground), or other ground assets. Variables for this could include unit types, distance away, etc. This is probably the only option that I can see that we could practically do at present with MOOSE or some scripting if we wanted to, but given the request here, it would be nice to have included as part of the options. Random Simply an option that allows you to select multiple of the above so you don't know how the group is necessarily going to behave. Thanks for your consideration. Edit: To save pages of back and forth on whether people think this is a good idea or not - I thought it easier to just create a poll instead to have your say.

Your computer will always be either CPU Bound, or GPU bound. One will always be faster than the other, so CPU bound isn't necessarily a bad thing (it often means you're using very conservative GPU settings, or you have a great GPU). CPU bound would also mean you could increase your graphic settings until no longer CPU bound, and back off slightly until you're CPU bound again, and you can enjoy those extra graphics at effectivley 'no cost. However - CPU bound can also occur with lots of scripting, AI, or otherwise, which can decrease performance. From the missions I've been invovled in designing and scripting - lots of radar activity appears to be a potential culprit of this too. It would be a bit more helpful if you're able to post your graphic settings, and your PC spec's along with the frames or screenshot of the FPS in DCS to be able to give you more than an over-all indication.

What is your actual purpose? I'm assuming that a Blufor plane isn't going to protect a Redfor plane, so can you please expand on exactly what you're wanting to achieve? ie: Are you wanting it to follow the aircraft without actually engaging it? Just as a brainstorm solution - there may be a way of doing it by dynamically on the fly updating the estimated fly-to position of the aircraft every 30 seconds or so as though it's trying to intercept the other aircraft - but since it's a flyto command instead of intercept - it would hold weapons?

Is it possible with the MOOSE version of CTLD to spawn, load, drop and unpack crates using vehicles in combined arms. I came across this video that uses DSMC's CTLD to do it (although comments there say that CTLD is now no longer part of DSMC) and was wondering if MOOSE has the same or similar capability?

For me it's not the price. It's the price divided by the life usability. Buying something like this would technically have a greater life usage than buying a cheaper unit. I mean - if I could get 5 years usage out of this, and a HP might go in 2.5years and I'd have to replace - then it's break even price in the long run. The problem with this logic is even though Varjo seem to not have the weak link like HP does - there is still the potential after 1 year you have a paperweight if something goes drastically wrong. (Hey - my current experience is with HP and their cable being their weakest link and them not caring, so maybe I'm paranoid, but just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean I'm wrong). If on the other hand they offered something like 3 years extended warranty for $300 extra, or 5 years extended warranty for $500 extra or similar - then the pricing structure over the life compared to some of these cheaper units becomes a lot more competitive.

I managed to get hold of another 6m HP cable. Headset works perfectly now. Looks like (at least in my case) it definitely was the old cable failing. My symptoms were that it first started not being as good at headtracking as it used to be. Then it'd lose the track on occasion (if I was looking down, etc) - then it went to having a black screen for a few moments, then returning. Then finally - it was a black screen and it was a paperweight. Unfortunately the place I purchased from only had one in stock at an international store via Amazon. I did end up finally getting a quote from HP's partner here in Australia for a replacement cable - just short of $300 - so it really wasn't an option for a 4yo headset - I would have opted to buy another. I have mine working again which I'm grateful for - and hoping it lasts a while to see what 2023 may bring for PC VR - I'm watching Varjo with great interest.

Is your problem with MT and ST, or just Multi-Threading? If multi-threading, the solution will be to switch back to ST and wait - as it appears a number of us are seeing issues with MT - and MT is still just a 'Preview' release at the moment (we're all Beta testing it). If your problem is with ST as well, I'm not really sure what to say then except to try as I mentioned previously dialing down some settings because from my perspective abandoning DCS before trying to dial down a few settings when you have options seems a little heavy approached. No - I agree you shouldn't have to do this - but in the same place - ED are currently working on performance optimizations - something we've been waiting on for years, and it's now here - in BETA testing, so it would be a shame to abandon DCS right at the edge of where their may be improvements if there are settings that you could dial down a little as a workaround for now. However in saying that - that is my perspective - I also understand if DCS is becoming more of a frustration than it is enjoyment then it might be worth putting it down for a while until things are sorted out, but I personally hope you try dialing down the settings if ST is causing you issues for the time being.

A thought for consideration is to have a new tripwire function added to the AWACS function. The idea would be to have under the Tripwire "Cancel" to cancel previous tripwire requests and 10, 25, 50, 50 & 80 mile options. (5 choices with user able to set them in the Special tab would be better). This comes from having the tripwire (or "Set Threat x") option available in Overlordbot for the past few years. For anyone who has used Overlordbot - It's in credibly handy - gives the immersion that the AWAC's isn't just a response to a menu call bot - but is actively having your back while you play. And given very sadly that OverlordBot looks to be heading south - having this option natively in DCS would be a helpful feature.