eaglecash867
-
Posts
1384 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by eaglecash867
-
-
I agree with what everybody has said about the improvements in spatial awareness. Not just from a purely visual standpoint with everything in 3D, but also from the standpoint of your head movements are the same as they would be in the real world. That makes it much easier to keep from getting disoriented and confused as to which way is up. I've pulled off some really ugly landings in the A-10C that didn't damage the aircraft, which I don't think I could have done without the depth perception and spatial awareness that VR offers. I think I've seen it said in these forums before. Flying in VR is like being in the plane. Flying on a monitor is like watching a movie about flying a plane. I wholeheartedly agree with that. :D
-
Yup. They're completely independent of each other. If you have the drive space though, you should keep both so you have something to fall back on if something gets broken in the beta by an update.
-
Sounds like the good old Deferred Shading problem introduced into the beta several weeks ago. They no longer give us the option of turning it off, so everything looks cartoony, washed out, and over-saturated.
-
-
Hi, I'm finally getting to grips with the A10C after many months of dipping in and out of learning.
I'm now at the stage where I'm trying to figure out the variety of weapons and dealing with air defence.
So I'm having a good go at the River Raider mission and trying various things out, making mistakes, rectifying mistakes, and so on.
I'm really quite clumsy at it so I would really value the experience of others so that I can compare and see where I'm going wrong. I'm interested in how experienced pilots would tackle this mission with minimal messing around.
Thanks.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk
In dealing with air defenses, just learn as much as you can about the different threats that you're expecting to encounter along the way. Many of those air defense systems can be defeated just by flying high enough when you're closing in to kill your target.
-
Everyone seems to be using the beta branch... is there any reason to use the release build at this point? Is there any reason why the release version is not updated to what the beta currently is?
This is getting kind of ridiculous. I have DCS on Steam. Now, I downloaded the standalone because it gets everything before Steam (*coughcoughF18coughcough*), had to get the Mirage a 2nd time because "reasons", and now I have to install DCS a third time, this time the beta branch, because it is what everyone is using and seems to be more stable than the release version...
Seriously Eagle Dynamics, at the risk of sounding rude... get your stuff together? You make a great simulator, but in terms of software development and customer friendliness, you get a 2 out of 10.
Can someone explain why DCS is such a mess in its release states?
P.S. Oh and apparently, you still can't change your bindings with the Mirage unless you actually launch a mission. Why isn't this fixed already?
Sorry, I'm a bit frustrated. I started playing DCS again in the last 2 weeks, but I'm starting to remember why I stopped in the first place.
At least, if someone could confirm that the release branch is gonna be updated to the beta branch, I might just wait, but I don't have my hopes up...
If you had been playing DCS a couple of months ago, before the stable and beta versions split, you would have a greater appreciation for having both versions. Not that long ago, the Beta was our only option, and updates and tweaks came about once a week. Well, sometimes the updated and tweaked version of the Beta broke something so badly that it was unplayable. One example was one particular incarnation that made all of the buildings disappear. That left everybody who was doing regular updates without a sim for a week. The following week, when the update became available, I was a little gunshy about installing the latest update for fear of what else it would break. But, at that point, it was already broken so I didn't have anything to lose.
When the stable version was released, I misunderstood what that meant. I thought that it meant the product was complete, and that I should just download and install that. I deactivated and uninstalled the beta. Then I installed the stable and activated it. A little bit after that, I was seeing new posts about frustrations with graphics settings on the Beta. That kinda baffled me a little bit, because I thought the Beta preceded the stable version of any software. So, I went into it, assuming I would have to burn another set of module activations, and I wasn't sure it would let me keep both versions. But, it does let you keep both versions installed, and it doesn't burn any more module activations. Like you though, I was still a little frustrated because I hadn't yet grasped the huge advantage that this had over the prior methods. Now, if they "break" something that makes it unplayable for me, I can fall back on the stable, and wait to see what the next beta update does. The reason I put "break" in quotes that time is because I have an issue with the Deferred Shading option being removed. Deferred shading bothers the hell out of me for VR (looks cartoony to me), but a lot of other people are fine with it. I like the fact that I can find out if the beta is performing satisfactorily for me before I agree to install future updates to the stable. If I do like the lates incarnation of the Beta, I play it until something gets broken, then I can jump right back to the stable. No new installs, and all of my settings stay right where I left them. This is all very subjective. Different people focus on different things, and they can't possibly make everybody happy about every aspect of the sim all at once. This split method just gives us a way to keep playing what we are reasonably happy with and still be able to try the latest version and take it or leave it.
Sorry for the lengthy explanation of my viewpoint. But I think I'm understanding their intentions behind splitting the two versions.
-
I'm using 2.0 pixel density, and as I found out yesterday, checking "Force IPD" and setting it to the IPD for my eyes (70 mm) made a difference in cockpit readability.
-
VAICOM Pro not working here with 2.5.0 stable. VAICOM recognizes and logs the commands properly, press and release work properly for correct PTT assignments, pilot's voice and subtitle for issued command appear in DCS, but there is no reply from ATC when called or wingman when called. I have VHF 1 set to 118.30 for Creech, but no response from them, even though I have visual and audible confirmation of command being issued by VA and VAICOM to DCS.
Edit: Might have it working now. I disabled adaptive recognition and acoustic echo cancellation and now things appear to be working.
-
I saw other people saying similar things and thought it was strange, doesn't this mean that ED just flat out used the wrong term?
IPD mean "Inter Pupillary Distance", literally the distance center to center between the pupils of your eyes.
What you are all saying is that the DCS IPD setting is acting like stereo separation. We should probably petition ED to fix this, unless I'm somehow incorrect here which is always a possibility.
I was wondering what IPD had to do with anything, since the Rift has the slider on the bottom of it to move the lenses back and forth. But, I was bored one day and got out the digital caliper. I measured my IPD at 70mm, and set the in-game IPD to match. I'm glad that I tried it. The A-10 cockpit always seemed a little "roomy" compared to what I remember, but now it feels about right. It definitely affected scale, which IPD doesn't in the real world, but I think since your eyes are getting two completely separate images in the headset, it might. Don't know though. Its hard to wrap your brain around something like that when we don't have two separate images going to our eyes in the real world. I can't speak for those with IPDs different from mine, but at 70mm, everything seems to be the right size, so maybe its the correct term for VR. One other thing it did, which it also does in the real world, is that it made a HUGE difference in depth perception, which gets better the further apart the pupils are. I thought I had 3D in VR before, but the difference is like night and day. Like others in this thread, I also got a noticeable improvement in the clarity of everything in the cockpit by having my IPD set correctly.
-
Hi,
New to DCS with VR..Very cool.
However I am looking for a function list of the various HOTAS switches, Like TMS forward long does "x", DMS left does "y", etc,etc.
I would assume that it is out there but there is a ton of posts to go thru...Can anyone point me in the correct direction...
sorry for the noobie question. :( Thanks so much.
The DCS A-10C flight manual has a section in it that has diagrams and charts for all of the switches. You can download it here:
https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/downloads/documentation/dcs_a-10c_flight_manual_en/
-
How do I start DCS in normal mode to make sure I have checked the "use VR mode"?
Unplug your Rift. :D That should allow you to run DCS in normal mode. If the Oculus software auto-starts, just shut it down. You want to make sure that DCS even starts in the first place, and then start troubleshooting further if it starts in normal mode.
-
Tried this last night. Good thing I had spent so much time practicing cold starts on the ground. I hadn't realized the benefit of that, until I had to get the engines restarted and everything back on-line while maintaining my airspeed to prevent falling out of the sky. Pretty cool stuff! :D
-
Thanks for the info sze5003! :D I was trying to find info on how to manually adjust the VR position, because I remember seeing that somewhere. Now I don't have to keep looking. Thank you, sir!
-
I tried the latest update to the Beta last night, and I'm with you Flighter. There is still no option to turn Deferred Shading off, and with AA on at all you only get slightly better performance than in the previous version of the Beta. Things seem smooth if you're looking straight ahead, but looking left or right in VR, everything is constantly jumping back and forth like one eye is lagging behind the other eye. Not to mention that Deferred Shading is just plain ugly, and the cockpit has gone back to looking like a cartoon. I can understand that they want to develop things in the sim to take advantage of newer technology and techniques, but I think it was a mistake to take the Deferred Shading option out of the settings menu.
My main gripe with the Beta, though, is the default position in the cockpit in VR. Now they have you sitting way too far back from the panel and HUD. So far back that its extremely difficult to keep the stick within reach so I can hit the VR re-center button I have mapped to the paddle switch once I'm finally far enough away and sitting high enough to set center at a more realistic distance and height.
Just to pre-empt any "Its a Beta!" comments, that is fully understood, and the reason for having a Beta being open to all users is so bugs can be reported and squashed more effectively. If we don't speak up about things we see and don't like, we're kind of defeating the intended purpose of an open Beta.
The really great thing about how they're approaching this now is that we can have both the Stable and the Beta installed without burning extra activations. We no longer have to worry about killing the whole thing with an update and having to wait for a fix. It lets the developers keep improving things, and lets us keep flying if they miss something. That was a brilliant idea! :pilotfly:
-
I don't think the helmet blocks much if anything. It's been a while since I wore an HGU-55 (At Air Combat USA) but I don't remember it being intrusive. The helmet is designed for flying a fighter plane after all.
It does a little bit. If the sides were trimmed back much further it would start defeating its primary purpose of protecting your head. Not saying its nearly as limiting as the Rift though, just that its not like having nothing at all on your head. :smilewink:
-
That's true, but the Rift does cover the majority of the part of your view that you can focus both eyes onto. You can't actually slew your eyeballs so far that you can focus them into the peripheral area and see fine detail. You can detect movement and see that there is "something" there, but not much else.
Yup. Your peripheral vision is very efficient at detecting movement, but when you detect that movement, you turn your head to look straight at it. I don't think we're losing that much with the field of view limits in the rift. When you have a helmet on your head, that's going to limit your field of view a little bit too. The big thing for me with VR is that the head and body movements are more natural, and I'm finding it easier to know which way to turn and how much to turn to get onto a target or avoid a missile. Sure, you can do that with practice with the TrackIR, but that's just it, it takes practice and isn't instinctual like it is in VR.
-
The complaint I was seeing from a lot of people with the A-10C pre-2.5.1 was that the default view position for VR was too close to the panel. But, it was actually pretty close to where its supposed to be.
With 2.5.1, however, the default position is way too far back, and slightly high. So, from what I can see, they took what was actually pretty close to reality and broke it in 2.5.1. Since the image is projected on the HUD, how much of it you see is going to be dependent on your distance from the HUD and your seat height. I believe the HUD is calibrated for a set distance and viewing angle in the real thing, so they just need to fix that in 2.5.1. I think the only workaround for it is to push your seat back from where you're normally going to sit, sit a few inches higher than you normally would, and then set VR center. There are lots of other things in 2.5.1 that are broken right now, so my workaround has just been flying in 2.5 stable until they get some of the issues worked out. Not sure if default position in VR is on their radar though. :D
-
The tooltips might still be turned on in the mission you're trying to fly. If you go to the "Customize" menu in the mission editor and select "Mission Options" that will show you if its turned on and allow you to turn it off. You'll have to put a check in the "Enforce" box on the left if its not already there. With no check in the "Enforce" box, it won't let you make any changes to the check boxes on the right. I struggled with that on training missions. Even if you disabled tooltips in the main setup menu, they were still turned on in the individual mission, so they kept showing up.
-
Do you think I've cooked the replacement stick as well?
Are you able to clip a DMM on your pots and monitor the resistance through their range of operation?
-
Okay, sorry for not getting back. The problem by the looks of it was that I'd cooked the pots soldering and heat shrinking them.
In any case I've finished modelling the holder for the smaller sized replacement and it fits very snugly now. Keep in mind that adjustments were made based on my printer and its shrinkage; I've included links to the 360 files in case anyone needs to make their own adjustments.
Just edit the first sketch, the dimensions for the collar diameter, the body width and the pot width should be at the top of it in the view. They are d1, d2 and d4 if that's useful to anyone.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ukgw424v23p8a6j/Slew%202%20elbow%20v4.stl?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wpw51ct2qkalyep/Slew%20version%202%20v6.stl?dl=0
Fusion360:
My parts were printed in 0.2 PLA+ 205/70 with supports and fit tight.
Still need to model the hat though.
The problem I have now is that when I move either axis to the limit of one side of its arc (past 0 according to raw data), it flips out and starts bouncing back and forth. Towards the other end is completely fine though.
Vin and GND are connected to the outside pins on both pots with the axis connected to the centre pin.
Not sure how you're set up, tool-wise, but definitely get a Chemtronics liquid flux pen. That'll make the heat transfer quicker so you don't overheat things. For even more protection, a Weller WES51 set at about 690 degrees F, Kester 63/37 solder, and a Steinel HL2010 heat gun set at 400 degrees F for the heat shrink will take the component damage possibility out of the equation for your project.
-
I've spent three months jacking with my settings and came to the conclusion that MSAA sucks in conjunction with DS and leave it off. The higher the PD the better everything will look in the pit. Some pits (like the Mirage) have graphics issues regardless of PD. The higher the PD the better everything will look but.... it is harder to make out aircraft at a distance as the pixels are smaller.
Going more than 1.8PD is pointless as there is no noticeable visual improvement. Honestly there's hardly any from 1.7-1.8. As of the 2.5.1 open beta, I can run 1.8PD with all settings maxed except I keep all shadows flat, heat blur off, cockpit displays 1024, MSAA off, cockpit global lighting off, chimney smoke off, depth of field off, and AF 16X. I could not do this with 2.5 stable or 2.5 open beta. Gauges and dials are all about PD and textures being high. Nothing else will fix it.
MSAA seems to be the biggest factor in stuttering, so I have mine completely off now too. I have been playing around with settings on 2.5 stable for as long as its been out, but it seemed to be only after installing the 2.5.1 beta last week that I started having to mess with my settings again, even in the 2.5 stable version. Maybe I'm just viewing things with an ever-increasingly critical eye, but I'd swear I could run at least 2X MSAA with everything else set the same as you, with PD at 2.0 and only got the occasional stutter. Ever since the Beta got installed, both seem to have issues with MSAA being on. Even at 1.9 it was giving me issues until I turned it off. Not going any lower than 1.9 though, because I do notice a difference. At 1.7, it was like I had something in my eyes that was slightly blurring my vision.
I hope the latest update for the beta brings the DS option back. Its not so much its inability to handle MSAA that bugs me, its the cartoonish colors it puts on everything.
But, yup, I agree, reading gauges and dials is all about texture settings and PD. BTW...something else I noticed when I went to flat shadows instead of medium, is that the MFD buttons no longer shimmer when I move my head. :D
-
Its important to remember, if it weren't for all of us blissfully ignorant idiots who bought the CV1, Oculus would think that there isn't much demand for VR gear, and would probably shift their focus to something else instead of continuing to improve and innovate. The rest of the market would have followed. They're not going to continue developing and improving a product that nobody is buying because they're all waiting for it to be as awesome as they think it should be. Its pretty simple. No bucks, no Buck Rogers.
-
Not really sureI understand the LOL, It's a pretty epic experience already, my daughter loves doing rollercoaster rides, and DCS and Elite Dangerous are simply amazing, going back to a flat monitor, even something that's 55" plus, is just... Disappointing.
People keep going on about FOV - do you folk actually know many degrees FOV you get withy a typical monitor (say, ~30" at about 3 feet? It's less than a CV1...
Z...
Not to mention what the FOV is for a pilot wearing an HGU-55. Granted, its not as narrow as the CV1, but its definitely not like wearing nothing as far as FOV is concerned. Nowhere near the 200+ degrees mentioned in the video for normal FOV.
With VR, you're also not having to train yourself for unnatural head and eye movements like you have to with the TrackIR. Where you turn your head, is where you look, and that makes a HUGE difference in SA and SAM evasion. Its far less disorienting than doing the same on a flat screen with TrackIR.
But yeah...we should all wait for the perfect thing to come along...because we all know that technology never advances, right? Graybeard, out.
I'm hanging my hat on Oculus too. The Pimax looks impressive on paper, but their current model I've heard is kind of a rattle-trap. "Feels and looks cheap" seems to be the concesus. Who knows though. I remember the days when Samsung was cheap junk. Now they're pretty much outpacing everybody in innovation and quality.
-
But why are you laughing at cv1 owners? I have a cv1 and when the new version comes out I will just go buy that too? So what is funny about that?
I have a CV1 too, and I'll be buying the better one when its released as well. He may be laughing because he's waiting for things to be perfect, which may never happen. In the mean time, us CV1 guys are happily flying in VR, and he isn't. THAT'S funny! :megalol:
Can't wait to see this thing released! I'll probably pay too much for it because I had to have it on release day, but I think a lot of us here will do the same thing. Also funny, and a little sad that we'll pay too much. But we're enthusiasts, its what we do! :D
F/A-18 be specific 2.5.2 open beta
in DCS 2.9
Posted · Edited by eaglecash867
Added more info
None of the above is even necessary. Just download and install the Beta version if you already have the stable version. The only thing you might have to change is where it gets installed if you don't like the default location the installer uses. If you choose to change its install location, just make sure you don't select the same base "DCS***" folder that the other one is installed in. You will then have two versions of DCS that run independently of each other, and update independently of each other. When you install modules, you will find that you can have modules that you own installed on both (subject to the afforementioned compatibility specifications of a couple of them) without even using an extra activation. No need for command line stuff. Both versions can coexist peacefully and easily on the same machine. :D
Its my understanding that once the Beta is to a point where its reasonably problem free, another update for the stable version will be released that will bring the stable up to the same, basic version (like 2.5.2) as the Beta. At that point, updates continue for the Beta, but the stable stays where it is until the next time ED feels the Beta is ready for prime-time. It seemed counter-intuitive for me too, but with both versions installed now (and I was also convinced they couldn't coexist) I can easily try the new updates and new modules for the Beta, and still go back to the stable when I want to if something gets broken in the Beta.
Nobody is going to have to buy a module twice. :smilewink: