lBlackMambal

Sent via PM.

Yeah, I'm able to use it. The issue comes up whenever I start the game in VR and have the "Activate reshade Techniques in VR" setting activated. If I leave it unchecked, the game is launching in VR and I can access VREM and the settings I'm interested in (mainly helicopter). I'm using a Quest 3 without Quadviews option. As rendering method I have DLAA/DLSS/Performance selected. Via nvidia profileinspector I manually set the global DLSS profile to "K". If you want, I can share the crash logs with you. btw, could it be that "Disable left eye in IHADSS" is currently not always working like intended? Whenever I activate that option in VREM, the IHADSS completely gets removed - for any global IHADSS visualization mode, i.e. both eyes, right or left eye.

It turns out I had to turn off that VR technique - now it's working fine. Thanks a lot for that great mod.

The description on Github says: Removed VR only for technique as it is making game crashing As my game is crashing during launch I just want to be sure that it's because of the different DCS version (DCS 2.9.14.8394) and not because I forgot to activate/deactivate something that goes along with "technique"? I followed the instructions and it works as long as I'm in 2D. Once I launch the game in VR (via Virtual Desktop, OpenXR Runtime VDXR) I always get a crash.

Hi all, I'd like to see a button/function which makes the boresighting process skip to a properly boresighted IHADSS for cold starts. Since boresighting in VR is such a pain - and finally not exactly the same as if you start with a hot AH-64D it would be great to have this added. I really would like to go with the full startup procedure but since the sight of my gunner never matches in my view we always start in hot phase. Furthermore, in case a repair is needed, I prefer to unselect the role and jumping back into a new aircraft - only because the repair requires a non running engine, i.e. a shut off and reset IHADSS. cheers

Yes, you can always set MPD/VID to TADS or show the TADS content within the IHADSS. Nevertheless you actually can reorient the TADS from the pilots seat - though that only works if you fly the Apache with a human gunner. Otherwise if you switch to CPG seat and slave to PHS, the lock will be deactivated once you get back to the pilot seat.

Hmmm, could you explain a little more what actually happens? Is the problem that even if you select TADS that you can't reorient the system with the manual tracker (RHG) or the rocker switches (TEDAC)? Did you have a look at the position of the NVS Mode switch? Eventually it's not set to "Off".

I must admit, this seat adjustment is really awesome. Thanks once more for bringing it up.

Thanks for your reply. Right, I guess I was spending too much time thinking about the proper position when being on the ground and going back and forth between Cockpit and Aircraft view. Once airborne it definitely looks a little different, yes. You mentioned to line the two bolt heads, I guess you refer to those ones (below using Desktop rendering): What exactly would be the idea behind, I mean, line those bolts, but relative to what? Good input - I will try it out. Thanks to you too.

For now I only flew the AH-64D where I don't have any issues regarding its IHADSS. Recently I started trying out aircrafts I bought in the last sale. One of them is the A-10C II and even after searching around I still wonder, what you normally "should" see in its HUD. When resetting the VR cam, I noticed that specifically the upper elements of the HUD content are cut off (e.g. the HUD menu cuts off the first 2-3 lines) - it slightly gets better if I reposition the pilot camera - but still not optimal. The irritation increases even more with threads that have been created some years ago, telling that back then the HUD was correct for VR but not for desktop usage. Is that still the case or has the desktop option been corrected and meanwhile it's vice-versa, i.e. that VR is messed up? A good first indicator would be, where the center line of the artifical horizon should be located. Is it supposed to be slightly below the upper metal frame part or far more downwards, i.e. at the actual center of the combiner? P.S. or am I really supposed to always bend forward (in real life) to be able to view the complete HUD content? Thanks a lot in advance

Thank you once more for your reply. Yes, I totally get the point that the X3Ds are playing in another league in terms of gaming performance. And 7800X3D, 7900X3D, 9800X3D and the upcoming 9900X3D aren't the power houses if it's about production software. Thing is, and that's why I brought it up in the DCS forum, I'm not sure if DCS can be considered as this typical "gaming scenario" - where the X3Ds generally outperform like crazy. If you look at this YT comparison between a 7800X3D and a much older 12900K in a DCS VR usage, it's showing interesting results: For sure, the clip isn't the most recent one, i.e. using an older build of DCS, different GPU drivers, chipset drivers etc. and someone could say, it's because "back then the CPU was new and systems/apps haven't been perfectly adjusted to it yet". Though based on the theoretical facts (gaming benchmarks back then), the X3D should have already beaten the 12900K by far. Thing is, exactly the non-equal distribution across the cores is what I notice on my current setup with the most recent DCS build as well - it mainly sets the load on 2 cores, one of them all the time close to 100%. Having in addition the feedback of a friend of mine, who is easily getting 90fps without the need of adjusting e.g. fov, pixel density, by running an Intel 14900KF (which, according to gaming benchmarks should also be outperformed, even by the "old" 7800X3D) makes me think twice if X3Ds really are the CPUs of choice for DCS - specifically when playing in VR. P.S. it not about having the bigger e-p... against my friend I just want to be sure I get the best bang for the buck.

Thanks for the reply to both of you. Dragon1-1 what makes me think that specifically for DCS it's more than shifting back and forth textures is the fact that - at least to my understanding - DCS is not the typical game but more the simulation resulting in processing even more "non-gaming" stuff. Taken the dynamics of the ego aircraft and how it behaves with the environment + position/action data of allied/enemy forces doesn't that consume a good amount of raw computational power - i.e. isn't this the heavy duty maths you were referring to? Aapje, I took Cinebench assuming it probably reflects in a good way, how those kind of calculation demands can be handled best. Yes, the 9950X3D is a hot topic for me too, hoping that it's slightly better than the 9800X3D and that we won't have the same situation as back in 2023 between 7800X3D/7950X3D - but I guess meanwhile selecting the correct cores isn't any longer a problem

Hello all, first of all, to avoid comparing my existing CPU to the 285K - where my CPU definitely will loose - the intention behind the topic title was to cover the X3Ds chips in general, which also includes the new 9800X3D but also the upcoming 9900X3D. Ok, back to my setup, which lists as following AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D 64 GB RAM RTX 4090 With this setup and running DCS (MT) with a Quest 3 via Virtual Desktop (God Mode) I reach solid 85 fps. When I activate the DCS service info, it says I'm CPU bound. Looking at other postings here and on Reddit it reads that for VR the CPU has a not neglectable impact. Which brings me to sites like cpu-monkey and direct comparisons between different CPUs, where the 285K definitely outperforms all existing X3D variants (7800, 9800) for the single core performance. E.g. 285K vs. 7800X3D -> Cinebench R23 (2380 vs. 1811) 285K vs. 9800X3D -> Cinebench R23 (2380 vs. 2086) 285K vs. 9900X3D -> Cinebench R23 (2380 vs. 2231) Expected, not confirmed yet What's your opinion on the 285K vs. the AMD lineup, specifically when it's about playing DCS in VR? I would highly appreciate your comments. Thank you very much in advance.

For now I read the previous comments and simply focussed on the (technical) question why it's generally not possible to load a campaign onto a server to enjoy it together with a friend. But true, I totally get your point about the scripted parts which probably have a negative impact on how even a dedicated 2-seater like e.g. the AH-64D might feel. ED eventually did play-test some campaigns in coop mode and came to the same result - i.e. that although it's technically possible to avoid any negative reviews (about how bad it's feeling in coop) keeping campaigns single player only.

Ok, but I still don't get why: ... 2. paid campaigns have some sort of DRM and only run on an account that has purchased the license. this authorisation does not work when connecting to a server. the server would need to check for the client's license, which it cannot do. ... Ok, I understand if the client checks what aircraft the player can enter - after he joined the server. But what about maps, I mean specifically those which you also need to pay for and where the check needs to be performed before the player joins the server. I guess some kind of DRM also kicks in for those too. Is there any difference between checking if the player has paid for a map that currently runs on a server and a paid campaign (to my understanding the plain logic), which - depending on the campaign itself - either runs on a free or paid map? Guess, again both license checks can be handled by the client too, right?

Well, I was hoping for another Halloween sale... - seems I have to wait for the next Autumn sale

So how are the checks done so a player can only enter an aircraft he actually paid for?

Alrighty, well, if there's no difference between buying each map on its own or upgrading "The Channel" with the "Normandy 2.0" I will then go for the upgrade path Thanks a lot for the confirmation. Thanks again for the reply. Ok, good to know. Can't wait to check out those maps - specifically since they come from the same company that created the awesome Syria map.

I see, even in 2024 there's still confusion Qcumber, with this "Channel + Normandy 2.0 Upgrade", do you have HQ content all over the map? I'm referring to this YT:clip (simply play with the linked starting time):

Thanks a lot for the reply. So, if I buy "The Channel" + "Normandy 2.0 Upgrade" it would be the same as buying "The Channel" + "Normandy 2.0", right?

Since I'm super confused now too. I consider the following options: #1 DCS: The Channel (36,96€) + DCS: Normandy 2.0 upgrade (13,85€) -> 50,81€ or #2 DCS: Normandy 2.0 (46,20€) + DCS: Channel (36,96€) -> 83,16€ Would option #1 provide both maps in full state, though for much less compared to buying the maps separately? If I choose option #1, in DCS will there be a dedicated "The Channel" and "Normandy" map to pick in e.g. the mission editor, or will there still be only "The Channel" to build missions?