dlder

Maybe it's because I use the Pimax OpenXR, but if I enable Reshade (with or without the "VRToolkit by retroluxfilm" effect), DCS crashes when loading and VR is enabled. Anyone able and willing to look at the logs (or is this unbeknownst to me a known issue already?): ReShade.log DCS.log Thank you!

still valid for DCS 2.9.21.16362

Btw, here is a quick'n'dirty fix: go to the DCS installation path and to the cockpit texture folder: DCSWorld\Mods\aircraft\MiG-15bis_FC\Liveries\Cockpit_MiG-15bis_FC rename the "default" folder rename the "english" folder to "default" You now have the ED English cockpit. For upgraded textures, you can do the same with this MOD; just copy the "English Imperial" folder to the afore mentioned location as "default": I would also delete the following from the "dscription.lua" (it seems that's not needed though!) name = "English Imperial" https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3339276/

So... no update on this issue for now I guess? No ETA?

still valid for 2.9.20.15010

I've always used the OpenXR plugin "XrNeckSafer" to great effect. And I prioritize this mod over pretty much everything else, like DFR which doesn't work with this addon (= dynamic foveated rendering, which would give me way better performance). The problem seems to be: this tool has been outdated for a long time now and even though it still works, it is resulting in a choppy DCS gameplay, rendering it pretty much useless So, for the sake of everyone that's older, has a bad neck and/or neck injuries, I'd suggest this to be implemented; as an addon like hand-controllers. For anyone unfamiliar with the tool, here are some screenshots and the most important settings: recenter view + NeckSafer with the VR-recenter-button set Yaw + Pitch separately for left/right/up/down set starting angle (so you can look around the cockpit 1:1 speed) set amplification (how much should the speedup be; ie. how far back/up/... would I like to be able to look) null Not requiring external tools and hobby programmers that abandon their work like in this case, by incorporating such features into DCS could potentially help everybody! Thanks for your consideration!

updated for 2.9.19.13478

still valid for 2.9.18.12722

still valid for 2.9.17.11733

Thanks!

still valid for 2.9.16.10973.1

DCS 2.9.16 no update to missile lua -> mod is still current

DCS now provides us with the current DLSS version (310.2.1.0), so no more swapping needed. It's also possible to force the new preset "K" via autoexec.cfg DLSS_Preset = "K" (thanks to Tallymouse for that one!) Is there a way to also force OverrideAutoExposure = true ? Could should help with blurriness / washing out...

DCS 2.9.15.9408 missile lua not changed, so 1.09 is still compatible

Sounds awesome! I thought Flaming Cliffs jets can communicate "with everyone", because they don't have tuneable and multiple radios? I never specified any frequencies when playing around in the ME. But I hear you: it's not so easy as to just "exchange the jet" and "set the loadout" in the ME. That would take like 5 min per mission

When I buy the campaign: is it unencrypted maybe, so that I can change the plane myself?

Would love to buy and play this campaign; could you please add the Flaming Cliffs versions of these planes as well? Or is the campaign unencrypted and I can do that myself? Cheers!

Sweet, ty!! Btw.: I've posted my Tacview here; what you can't see is the wingman 3 getting destroyed when taxiing out of the hangar, as I've already corrected that. But you can see that even with ARM missiles, the A-4E don't attack the SAMs and get shot down. But another issue presented itself while viewing the Tacview file: the enemy MiG-21 didn't attack us -> they just returned to their respective airports!? I've attacked one of the MiGs escorting the A-50, and I thought it very weird that it didn't move or defend while I closed the distance. I had my radar on, so it should've seen me and react. Cheers mate!

Well, even equipped with ARM the A-4E didn't manage to shoot even missile, destroy even 1 SAM... Yep, that's the one... Should I upload a track file or wouldn't the mission file be better in this case? Scheibenkleister... is this the forum for the Full Fidelity F-5E? 'cause I'm using the "FC4" ("F-5E_FC" or "F-5E-3_FC") DCSWorld\Mods\aircraft\F-5E_FC\Missions\Single\F-5E FC Caucasus - AWACS.miz

I've played the mission and in flight a message popped up saying the SEAD flight was unable to knock out the SAMs and I should return to base. In TacView I saw that they didn't fire any missiles... Loading the mission in the ME revealed, that both SEAD flights had no ARMs loaded. Problem #2 my 3rd Wingman was positioned in the hangar of the static F-4 and pretty much destroyed itself trying to Taxi out of the hangar. Repositioning the jet to a "free" hangar resolves that problem.

DCS 2.9.14 I don't need to update my mod, because the missile lua hasn't changed. Which is weird, because apparently ED made some changes to the Aim-120 ? There shouldn't be any other place for missile specific data, so I do wonder if it wasn't pushed in this update and coming may at a later date?

Well, you can use DLSS 4 - meaning the new DLL. True. But as soon as you use the new Transformer model you will loose performance. That's not only my finding, but also from tech review sites (trustworthy ones, not Youtuber clickbait shills). Why would that be any different in DCS? And about the better quality: at least FlightSimGuy cannot comment on that. If you play on downgraded graphic settings, you cannot say anything definitive at all. Then again: I made no claim, that the quality doesn't change. Me personally haven't seen any difference to a newer DLSS 3 dll then the one supplied by DCS + changing the Preset from the default C to F. As far as FG goes: as long as ED doesn't implement it, you can force it however you like. FG or MFG have to be supported in-engine! And that is currently not the case. ED is looking into it, but again: this feature is only usable on FPS > 60 and MFG will need refresh rates > 120Hz. Or else [M]FG will make the game look and feel way worse. So, if you're like me and maxing graphical quality, and you barely reach 60 FPS, then I'm doubtful FG will help...

Yeah, I've seen his videos. And although I really like his content, he's quite honestly a bit "overenthusiastic", if you know what I mean^^ Also, he doesn't show any comparison, just says "it's game changing and amazing" and what not. Well... it's not. At least not yet. At least not at that performance level. You can read any review: the new transformer model DOES cost performance vs. the older GN model and although it can be better at times (reducing flickering), a lot of times you just can't tell (like in blind tests). And it can also introduce graphical errors (with shadows for instance). All that is to say: it's not so clear as "VR Flight Sim Guy" makes it out to be! -> also: yes, you can lower your VR (pixel density) and graphics settings, but what's the point, really? Why have a good-looking SIM and a high-resolution HMD (Crystal, not the Quest3, lol) and then play with <profanity>ty graphics? (as a side note: this video didn't cover J vs. K preset and also, you don't need to use "MT" folder any longer. It's always multi-threaded now and there is no special MT folder / branch anymore. It's deprecated and will be removed soon (I was told).

Yes, a few lines in the aim9 lua were changed; mod is updated. Has anyone tried version "b" of the default missiles? The one were you don't load the modified Aim-9L, but the actual Aim9X missile? Did anyone find any difference performance wise? Because it's really hard to tell and 1 datapoint (me^^) isn't enough Cheers!

My system: i7-13700KF RTX 4090 (566.36) Pimax Crystal Win11 latest I've added my old Benchmark track file. Looks even better then before, now that there is fog on the ground in Georgia! (-> I should add: I'm only running the track file for about 120 seconds. Right where I turn into the enemy fleet, about 10km from WP2) 2D, all settings max, 3440x1440, DLSS Quality VR, same settings as 2D, visibility only ultra Pimax: Lighthouse, 120 Hz, EyeTracking, Render 1.0, w/o Pimax Quadviews, w/ Central Rendering, Balanced, w/o Smart Smoothing, w/o Lock Half Framerate, w/ Hidden Area Mask Conclusio I haven't tried the newest DLSS 4 dll too much; there were stability issues with the beta-dll resulting in crashes, so I can't say if that is still the case. Is DLSS v4 with the new Transformer model better looking? I can't tell. At least not with just this (semi-dark) benchmark scene. DLSS 3 (with preset F) and 4 (Preset K) are looking better then the default 3.7.0 with preset C though! But seeing as there is a 5 - 10 FPS performance hit with DLSS 4, I wouldn't recommend it; only with VR HMDs with lower resolution where you have more headroom fps-wise to use this supposedly better DLSS version. Another thing to note here: as much as I'd love DLSS3 FrameGeneration or DLSS4 MultiFrameGeneration, it is unusable with such low FPS. One would need about double the raw performance to be able to use FG or MFG... Benchmark.zip