zetikka

Disapearing landing gear il also back - thank you for the fix!

Actually the transparence issue concerns both the cockpit becoming transparent at a certain level of mipmap loading, and also the landing gear disappearing and turning the MB-339 is a sort of Star Wars spider beyond about 50m from the viewer location. This composite screenshot shows the closest 339 are OK, white the two furthest have see-through cockpits and lack landing gear.

Thank you

Basically made a training mission to work some some aerobatics, for that I set a flight of AI F/A-18C with smoke = on flying a path. When playing offline all works fine. If I run it on my multiplayer server all works... but for the smoke: there is none. Known issue or am I missing something?

Add to that the F-15E module also started triggering walware reports a couple days ago on its DLL (including on my machine). All this on Razbam modules only, and within a short span of time. Either something on the shared code used by Razban modules suddenly started showing as suspect to antivirus software (maybe a similar threat was added to malicious code databases that looks like Razban's code), of something less neat is going on.

Same problem here, started two days ago on the F-15E module (Windows 11). DLLs quarantined and, of course, SE module is now non-operational as a result. A friend got the same prompt on Sunday (Windows 10), but in his case on both F-15E and AV-8B modules. Fun thing is that I have AV-8B module as well, but no Defender warning on it. Go figure out... I am buying the false positive hypothesis if ED confirms it - after all these are modules they sell and distribute updates for, if they create conflicts with host OS they should come forward and confirm (or not) this is benign.

That was it - thanks a lot to both of you (sorry I can only mark on post as Solution)

Have not found this topic on the forum, hope it is not a repost... Basically since I purchased the MB-339 I cannot get the PAN variant to show in the Mission Editor. I select Italy, Player, but I only have the choice of the MB-339A. Which is a bit annoying as I purchased the 339 for the PAN variant precisely, which I want to propose to my online display team as a secondary aircraft - but then I need to be able to add it to existing missions. On the other hand, If I create a mission with the Fast Mission menu I do get the MB-339 APAN as an option along the 339A variant. I can then save it and edit in ME. So it is somewhere there but just not directly accessible by the ME. I did a full repair (slow) and am running the current 2.9.5.5530. This is how it shows when starting by the Mission Editor: Then if I turn back to the Fast Mission option in the main menu I get: Which result I can then edit in ME: Any help/advice will be much appreciated!!!

I just dropped a short video on last advances in my Mixed Reality project with the Quest 3 - this thing is really taking shape. Since last video I added some Winwing physical panels and refined the compositing thanks to the new options in Openkneeboard. Hope it will inspire you for your own builds!

Thanks Vakarian and NineLine, just did the testing and indeed both CLIMB and DIVE target exit altitudes in meters, event though the ME is set to Imperial units. Is this a (minor) discrepancy you guys at ED have in the to-fix list? Now I know this is not a feature-wishes section, but since aerobatics are not a hot topic... I would love to see options "figure entry time" and "figure exit time" so we can set how fast the AI aircraft enters/exits say a 45° bank turn (now it it pretty dynamic). Basically this part of aerobatics is a good playground to train formation flying with an AI leader. Thanks!

Tested on DCS 2.9.3.51704, Hornet module, Caucasus map. Not a recent behaviour AFAIK (noticed +6 month ago when first trying). Issue: when aerobatic task CLIMB is selected the aircraft will not stop its climb and level flight at the set Final Altitude, but generally at a random one above 20'000. Similar issue with the DIVE task BtW (will open dedicated topic for it) Attaching DCS and TacView tracks.null BUG_aerobatics_CLIMB-does_not_stop_at_set_altitude -6kto7k_6k-7k.trk BUG_aerobatics_CLIMB-does_not_stop_at_set_altitude -6kto7k.zip.acmi

I can only guess here... Each headset is a different combination of micro-screens and optical lenses specific to the maker, so depending on the product you can have is one case a small (pixel-count wise) screen paired with a strong set of lenses to present you with the same FoV as a higher pixel-count screen paired with a less powerfull set of lenses would do. As DCS only cares about the pixels the result would look different to your eye. And then you have the vendor with small screens who wants to sell you a huge FoV and uses huge lenses, and you get a 55' VGA display... (edited for typos)

What you describe really looks like the IDP physical setting of your Crystal that need to be set for you - in both of mine (Reverb G2, Quest 3) the only real impact of changing them is the comfort when looking at the cockpit instruments. Nothing wrong on the DCS side on that one I would say

OK, let's do some math (mind?) to stop with this "just fix your IDP" thing. If you have say a 61mm IDP and stare at an object distant 2000m away, each of your eyes will have to divert by 0.0008737° inward. It is simple trigonometry. If you have the perception that such object is like 500m away, it means the angle is 0.003495°. Four times larger. For that object to look again like it is 2000m away, I will have to reduce your IDP by the same 4x factor, so and IDP of 15.25mm. Second example: with 60mm IDP that 2000m distant object will have your eye diverting by 0.0008594°. If you increase IDP to 65mm it will look 2166m away. Can you tell +166m at 2km? I cannot. This is why changing IDP between normal values as a visible effect of the cockpit (which is a very close object), but about zero on distant ones. Can we stop beating this horse now?

In my opinion the perception of speed if off as a consequence of the world scale being off, so let's focus on that one only. You get the feeling of scale based on the way each image perspective is built, how parallax between the two VR images is constructed, the scale of objects you see, and what atmospheric effects you add. In DCS objects - namely trees - are notoriously off-scale and are auto-grown with distance to really ridiculous sizes to save on polygon count. That would be the main point to fix through an optional slider. It that would not be enough then other parameters should be consider, but object scale is most likely the issue.