kablamoman

I don't like it because it introduces different kinds of artifacts, depending on the tech being used. Legacy reprojection on my Index simply inserted an extra frame, interpolated rotationally, and this resulted in ghost images/trails for faster moving objects. The newer motion smoothing also tried to correct translational motion as well, and introduced a lot of weird effects in flight sims like a warping effect around a propeller, etc. I haven't really bothered with any of the oculus spacewarp stuff, nor have I experienced OpenXR or WMR implementations, I just try to avoid it. I have the same processor/GPU combo, and I've been tuned to maintain 80hz, 75hz and later 72hz without any reprojection or spacewarp, first on an Index, then a bigscreen beyond, and then on a Quest 3, respectively. It's just a matter of maintaining below the frame time threshold. 90hz is a higher minimum to maintain and to do so you may have to lower resolution (if your GPU is the bottleneck) or maybe some of the more computationally expensive visual settings like view distance, if it's your CPU dipping below the threshold.

It’s not so much chromatic aberration in the sense that one might think. I don’t see it around edges or contrasting shapes — it’s the entire area of the screen outside the sweet spot. I find it especially apparent at my high twelve in the sim, usually a nice shade of sky blue. If my head is facing forward centered on the gunsight, I see the sky transition from blue to red as I progressively look up with my eyes along the front to top of the canopy. I can adjust the HMD up slightly, or I can tilt it slightly to recenter the sweet spot a bit higher to eliminate the effect above, but then it becomes more pronounced at the bottom. There is a similar green/blue color shift at the horizontal edges, but this tends to be less apparent to me against the sky backdrop we’re typically seeing in the sim. By comparison, the Index provided a clear picture, and consistent colors and brightness through the entire FOV. With the head centered on the gunsight in the Mustang and sitting in my usual position, for example, I could glance up to above the top canopy strut, and down as far as the top of the weapons panel. Albeit, at a lower resolution in general. The Quest 3 features even better edge-to-edge clarity, color uniformity and brightness, with just about the same FOV I could achieve in the Index. With the added benefit of being a higher resolution overall (though not quite as sharp as the BSB in the center field). With the BSB in the Mustang, head centered on the gunsight, it was a struggle to read the airspeed gauge, and red color shift was apparent starting above the gunsight just below the top canopy frame. To be clear, my facial interface/gasket fit wonderfully and comfort was great in the BSB with zero light bleed — I still found the screens to be excessively dim compared to the index, unless I overdrove the display brightness to 150% at which point persistence problems were unsuitable for even just turning my head. At 100%, persistence was still obviously there but a bit easier to put up with.

I've been running an Index for 4 years, with a focus on IL2 and DCS for the most part. I was really looking forward to the BSB and making it my new daily driver as all the early influencer stuff, specs, and first impressions made it sound like it was a no-brainer upgrade from the Index. The kinds of things it was supposed to be really good at, were great for flight sims, while the tradeoffs were things I thought I would be fine with. Unfortunately, this was not the case at all for me. Indeed, my experience with it has only served to highlight just what a champ of a headset the Index was for its time. The biggest issues, without question, have to do with the miniscule tolerances required by the teeny hardware and optics. It quickly became apparent that the device has an extremely small sweet spot -- it is so small that simply moving your eyes is enough to leave it entirely. This makes the problem of the already smaller FOV much, much worse. It seems that anything outside of the immediate center of the lenses is blurred severely, which makes it feel like your view has been slathered in vaseline. I suspect that many of the complaints of excessive glare are largely (but not entirely) the result of this effect. My initial unit had an IPD that was slightly too wide, and this presented big problems for convergence when looking at objects close to my face, like instrument panels or gunsight bases. Because the inner portions of the lenses were a blurry mess, it was impossible to see things clearly when they were up close. To Bigscreen's credit, their customer support is exemplary, and they worked to get me a replacement unit with an IPD 2mm narrower and this resolved the convergence problem for the most part, but with the new, narrower IPD, a larger portion of the outer edge became blurred. When dealing with customer support, I also requested a thinner facial interface, hoping that getting closer to the lenses would widen the sweet spot, and they obliged. However, when the replacement face gasket arrived, it was no thinner, and support informed me they couldn't get it any closer due in part to my face shape (more pronounced brow compared to my cheeks). In desperation, I cut away the excess from one of the gaskets and was able to get close enough for my eyelashes and even portions of my eye lids to make contact with the optics -- and while this helped somewhat (not enough), it also meant there was very little cushion left to soften the hard edges of the device and the vaunted comfort went out the window. Even with the sweet spot maximized, the outer edges of the FOV are a blurry mess: This makes things like checking six require you to turn your head even more (whereas you could clear your six with the edge of your FOV in the index) or maintaining a basic scan of your panel while looking out front next to impossible. If you tilt or move the headset slightly to make more of the instrument panel (lower FOV) clear, the high 12 portions of your outside view become a mess. Another problem is the oft boasted about OLED color: I don't know what people are smoking to not mention this, but another quirk of the areas outside the sweet spot is that colors are shifted to red in the vertical portions, and to blue/green on the sides. When fully half of your useable FOV sits in these areas, and the colors are shifted, it makes for a psychedelic experience, flying through with a blue/red/green sky. I was pretty shocked at this one, having fondly remembered the OLED colors in my old Vive. I think the reviewers are honestly on crack, here -- what good is "great color" if 50% of the display is color-shifted??? Both units I tested behaved identically in this regard. Similarly, I also find that the great "low light", high-contrast performance is completely ruined by the poor brightness of the display in general. Pancake optics end up dissipating the panel's actual brightness and traditional LCD panels just amp up the brightness to compensate -- you can actually overdrive the BSB OLED panel to get similar brightness to say, an Index at 100%, but you will get terrible persistence: Think motion blur, whenever you move your head. I did run the BSB at 100% brightness as a middle ground -- but even without overdriving it above that, it still has noticeable persistence and is still too dim! This made the color and light in the night scenes lack "oomph", and the great blacks were smeared with glare anyway. All this on top of the things I was already prepared to accept, like smaller FOV (not as easy to look up across the circle in a dogfight), and lack of the phenomenal audio solution of the Index. I was actually looking forward to 75hz and a hard DP connection. I bought a 4090 to drive it and keep it above 75hz minimum at all times without motion smoothing or fixed-foveated rendering. The 4090 coupled with a 14900k did admirably even in demanding multiplayer scenarios and over large cities with the render resolution set to 80%. The headset was indeed very clear in the sweet spot. Impressively so. In addition to the form factor and comfort, clarity in the immediate center field of the display was probably what I enjoyed the most about the headset. That said, the persistence issues did take away from clarity of the panel/DP connection, as any kind of motion resulted in fine detail being smeared and lost. For DCS, this headset just did not work out for me. I love what the company is trying to do. I love the focus on dedicated, no frills, high-performance, innovative PCVR. So, I'll not be returning it -- hell, I've even ordered the hard head strap, as the soft strap it comes with does not provide the experience the HMD deserves -- and I'm excited to see what they'll do in the future. After trying to make it work, I gave up and went back to my Index (it really is a phenomenal headset), but the BSB also highlighted its one big weakness: Resolution. I was so bummed out I finally caved in and picked up a Quest 3 from a local retailer. The optics are absolutely stellar, and resolution isn't a problem -- the visual experience really is a worthy successor to the Index. I am still coming to terms with the lack of DP and the problems with encoding and streaming the display signal, but wireless has been a fun experiment so far. I really wanted to not like, and return the Q3, but it's looking like it's the main contender for my daily driver at this point. Hope these impressions help.

Really is pretty disheartening that issues like this continue on without any proper attention given to fixing them. I’ve been flying the Dora at 3000 RPM for years now, and I don’t even bother with the 47 in its current state. The frustrating part is that so much has been done so well, but these longstanding issues persist so long without any effort or attention given to fixing them that even the small things end up putting many off what is otherwise a great product. I personally think the WWII stuff has the potential of being the crown jewel of the sim, if only it got more TLC.

@Slippa, I’ve never had any curves on my toe brake axes and still don’t after the update, and I’ve not had any problems — have you tried running MFG axis calibration tool?

Virpil T-50 CM2/3 are pretty good as you can use the split throttle for boost and throttle, and the flap lever axis inboard for the RPM.

I have not encountered this issue. Is there some joystick button testing/display software you can run at the same time to see if your device is registering a button press when it happens, maybe?

There’s not a whole lot extra to worry about in normal operation, nor even much you can do if there’s any kind of damage. Either you get peppered in non-critical areas (wings, for example) and keep flying. Or you take a critical hit (most commonly the rad or something that results in some kind of coolant leak), and then it’s just a matter of time. Running reduced RPM and lowering the desired coolant temp with the knob might give you a bit of extra time before the engine seizes, but it’s dynamic and also depends on where you’re leaking and how badly. I’ve been peppered with some spit .303, had a small coolant leak, but it was minor and I was able to get back to a field safely without having to pull back power (was still running). But other times, with more severe leaks it’ll burn off and overheat a lot faster. The oil coolant heat exchanger is tied into the same system, so either way you’re kind of hooped. I’ve yet to have my MBG damaged, but I’d imagine that would manifest as some kind of erratic, non-responsive, or overboosting throttle. I wouldn’t worry about that except in that very specific circumstance. In real life the handle was used in cold starts as a kind of choke for smoother starting in cold temps. In the sim you’ll never really need to do anything with it.

I think we’re all pretty desperate for updates to the WWII modules. Would be nice for ED to spare a modicum of dev resources every once in a while to fix some of the longstanding bugs and otherwise clean up some of the modules. After SoW closed there was a tiny reaction and response that resulted in some modest fixes being rolled out, but that quickly came to a stop. It is an unbelievable shame that a community’s primary server has to shutter its doors in protest to get even a small response from the team reiterating its commitment to the era. Do we have to lose even more frustrated players and server operators for ED to send some TLC the way of warbirds?

@NineLine As -303- mentioned, it's been over a decade. Any chance we can actually get a fix for this long-standing problem?

Just to add more fuel to the mixture, I think you could make a strong argument for calling it "Engine RPM Control" as that's what you're selecting with the lever and seeing on the gauge. In contrast to this, you can manually set the pitch of the prop blades in the 109 or Anton, and both have a gauge that directly shows you the blade angle.

A while back I had been curious about high-speed performance and how it related to engine RPM settings, and I actually ended up running the numbers for the Mustang prop tip speed just to see if it could play a role in reduced prop efficiency at high speed. That is to say, I was wondering if I could get better performance by reducing engine RPM slightly in max level flight or a high-speed dive. This was based on the reduction gear outputting 1437 prop RPM at 3000 engine RPM (0.479:1), and a 134" propeller diameter: At sea level and roughly max level speed (355 MPH or 308.5 KTAS), it came out to around 0.88 mach for the prop tip speed. For that same TAS at 35,000', the tips would be at 1.02 mach. 0.88 is starting to get to the point at which a conventional propeller design starts to bump up against inefficiencies due to wave drag/supersonic flow over the thicker portions of the prop blades -- it is my understanding that these start to creep in and become increasingly worse anywhere from mach .84 to .88 depending on prop design (more modern designs with thin, swept blade tips, try to delay this onset as much as possible). It doesn't seem like a coincidence that the Mustang has been tuned to operate very close to this threshold at the top end of its speed range. All of this to suggest that wave drag and tip speed problems with efficiency should only really factor in at the higher end of the speed range, and more so at higher altitudes. Whether DCS models this and to what extent, I am not sure -- but it shouldn't be a factor low to the ground at lower speed (eg. takeoff, climb). @Nealius, with regards to windmilling, and how the mechanism by which this creates drag in the absence of power works, this video sums it up nicely (see time 12:10): It could be thought of as a kind of auto-rotation that creates lift, but in the direction opposing the aircraft's normal thrust line because the blade ends up flying with a negative angle of attack -- almost as if it were a reverse autogyro. That entire video is pretty well done and worth a watch. The prop and all of its widgets and doodads can be thought of mechanism for transferring energy between the engine and the relative airflow. It's important to remember that it can go both ways: In the absence of engine power, it'll start to extract energy from the relative airflow in the form of drag. With a constant speed prop, to think of the prop lever as something you use to select a blade pitch directly is wrong, as the actual blade angle/pitch will depend on airspeed and engine power output (both MP & RPM) and will vary dynamically in response to those things changing -- instead, think of the lever as something you use to select the rate of energy transfer between the engine and the airflow. You choose the direction of that transfer with the throttle. For example, if you want max power to accelerate (transferring from engine to airflow), push both levers forward. If you want to extract the most energy from the airflow in the form of drag, push the prop lever forward, but pull the throttle to idle. If you wanted to minimize that transfer at idle throttle to reduce drag from the airflow, pull the prop back all the way as well. With this analogy you can also see how high engine MP settings with a low transfer rate (reduced RPM) might be problematic -- the energy the engine is generating has nowhere to go, as its transfer to the airflow is inhibited, so you end up with an excess of potentially damaging heat and pressure.

Just the power is fine, you will never need anything else.

It's very useful and will save you from getting bounced. It is also worth binding the toggle for power, as you will sometimes receive nuisance warnings from friendlies or from ground returns below about 3,000' AGL. When you first turn it on, I believe it has a timer and won't activate immediately (to prevent it from being activated by the ground returns shortly after departure).

It's still super competitive, especially in the 6000-8000 meter altitude block. Its biggest threat is the Mustang. The 47 will start to be a threat only at extreme altitudes. The spit is never a issue at any altitude as it simply can't catch you. The Mustang (and 47, if the player knows how to maximize its dive) absolutely will out-dive the Dora though -- you'll do better to get away in those instances with an extension and a shallow climb. But if you're stuck within guns range, use the Dora's roll to alternately pull to the attacker's belly and out of plane after a split-s. If you can shake them, try to reset and extend with a shallow climb or lose them in cloud. Without MW50 it will be close enough to matching the Mustang's sustained turn with takeoff flaps to go quite a few circles, but it's tight and a stupid thing to do -- you'll either get third-partied or if he's decent he may eventually catch you after quite a few turns around the church steeple. For instantaneous turn, you can drop flap all the way to landing and pull insane G to get shots off without damaging the flaps. You've got to fly it defensively (it's very good at this) and avoid getting into mindless turn fights.

There are indeed quite a few dedicated Mosquito aficionados. I think they have a system where it can be ferried over from England to open slots in France.

Should spend some time on the Project Overlord server. A lot of high-flyers there for sure. It's quite common to joust with opponents in the block from 25,000 - 35,000 feet there. Dora holds its own up to about 26k even with the MW50 disabled. Above that, even though it could already turn, the 109 starts to really shine in terms of speed (again, even if it doesn't have MW50). Mustang is a great performer in general at most altitudes and the biggest threat to axis aircraft by far, in my estimation (above 30k the 109 and jug start flexing on it). The Anton is definitely at a disadvantage against almost everything except maybe spits and jugs down low, but it's still quite popular for air-to-ground stuff and coordinated formations of A8s in a dogfight can still be lethal. The ATA boost for the Anton would definitely be welcomed by almost all the players I know.

FYI, it seems to be a bug with all remote compass installations for the WW2 modules. Although I'm not sure which model of compass is used in the Mosquito I am reasonably certain it shouldn't affect the p51 or the axis birds in the same way you detailed (but it does at the moment). Some additional info from this thread where I did a bit of research on the remote indicating compass in the mustang: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/264224-cannot-calibrate-gyro-with-mag-compass/

A little update with some more clarification on the "flux gate" shown in the diagrams, in case anybody is interested. It is not a flux valve compass like in a more modern installation, but a simple toroidal coil used to sense the position of the compass float. "Magnesyn" was a patented method for converting mechanical movement to electrical signals and back again for remote indicating instruments. The remote compass in the P51 is indeed a traditional wet compass, it just happens to be located in the wing (to be free from any magnetic interference in the cockpit).

Thanks @NineLine. Any word on this? I just did some more testing and it looks like it's an issue related only to the modules using a remote compass installation. The P-47 and Spitfire correctly read 65 degrees magnetic sitting on the ground in Bazenville aligned with a magnetic heading of 65. The P-51 and all Axis birds read ~90 degrees with their deck angle titled up on the ground, and the error seems to modulate in relation to the deck angle. Flying with a neutral deck angle along the same heading results in correct readings. Screenshots attached: P-47 with correct reading: P-51 and all axis birds showing 90 degrees: As mentioned, the P-51 float device is suspended in fluid with a pivot that allows it to maintain level with the gravity vector (horizon) until the casing itself starts to impede free rotation, and as far as I know the Luftwaffe "Mutterkompass" installation in the back of the Axis birds was mounted with gimbals allowing it to stay level with the horizon through a range of deck angle changes, and so deck angle of these aircraft should not lead to their remote sensing compasses being affected by magnetic inclination (the vertical component of the magnetic field) the way they appear to be at moderate deck angle changes away from perfectly level.

The way the binds interact, you only need three for each switch: Rad Open, Rad Close (which will both open the cover if it happens to be closed) and Cover Close (which will set the switch back to auto). But I agree with you, after the cooling changes, you don't even really need to worry about messing with them at all.

Just to provide some missing context from my previous reply (as the other user removed the post with the dive procedures from the Pratt manual) here's the relevant bit again: The above was extracted from a -8/-10 version of the manual (which has the same overspeed limits as the -59), and the wording matches that from the generic A/B series manual that was previously posted.

Not sure what’s up with OP’s question, but just to alleviate any potential for confusion: As far as gyroscopic procession is concerned, yaw to the right would contribute to a nose-down moment with a clockwise turning prop.

I’m pretty sure the ability to mark your current position (without having to know your current position) can’t be disabled. Personally, I would like to see a better chart resolution and more control over how to “fold” the map (which sections you can frame in the kneeboard), along with an ability to write anything you want on it freehand. Along with this, I would appreciate a server enforceable option to disable the “auto-mark” ability.

By that same logic all the difficulty settings are gatekeeping. I don’t think anybody cares if you want to use the feature, but if a server operator would prefer to disable it so people don’t have a magic button that tells them their exact location anytime they want, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for them to have an option to prevent its use. Just like they already have options to disable external views, f10 map icons, and require the use of the realistic flight models.