skynetsysadmin

Nope...I installed that, and it still hangs DCS. The only way I can get it to run without hanging is to disable the 'Emulate quad views foveation support' in the Steam VR settings.

It's not really possible to follow the original instructions to the letter anymore because... So, if I read this correctly, the functionality is now in the first tool in the instructions, the PSVR2 Toolkit. I was able to rename old/install new DLL with no issues. Next, I installed the msi for the Quad-Views-Foveated. The instructions for this tool also state that all you need is the PSVR2 Toolkit. The last part is the Steam VR and the DCS settings. But it just causes DCS to hang now. It looks like the September 2025 changes might have broken this for new installs. if you installed this before the change, maybe it works fine.

I tried this yesterday. Installed the first tool, PSVR2 toolkit. The second tool, OpenXR Eye Trackers, is shown as deprecated, so I skipped it. installed the Quad Views Foveated. Followed the instructions for the configuration. This caused DCS to become unstable for me. The first attempt, I got as far as the mission load, and DCS hung. The second and third attempts it hung in the DCS main menu screen. Uninstalled the Quad Views Foveated tool, and DCS is back to normal again. Anyone else having difficulties? Maybe something with the recent updates to DCS is breaking this?

It might not be an issue with the aircraft module. Most of the time, I have no issues with waypoints in the A-10A. But in some downloaded missions and Briefing Room missions, the waypoints seem broken. I would suggest looking at the "Clickable" mod for Flaming Cliffs aircraft. It's not as complete as the A-10C/CII, but it helps. I would love to see a full fidelity A variant, but I doubt we'll ever see one.

This isn't unheard of. In Syria, there were many cases where RPGs were largely ineffective against the T-55. It would be better if we had more realistic AT weapons. Even the LAW would be better than an RPG. The Dragon or TOW would be very effective. I was an 11BC2P in the Army, so I am biased.

After more experimentation, I have ruled out the E-cores as the primary issue. I am now getting consistent fps in VR with the E-cores enabled. I'm not sure what actually solved the problem. Some of the things I changed: Uninstalled Process Lasso (used to disable the E-cores) Uninstalled ReShade Running DCS in Administrator mode. Bypassing the DCS folder in Defender. Recently, there were updates to both SteamVR and the PSVR2 apps. Maybe that addressed something I was encountering before. I also made various tweaks to the DCS settings, like capping the FPS at 90. The combination of all of that seems to have really improved the performance. I'm now getting fairly consistent 45 fps in VR with all modules, with occasional brief dips down to 30fps. I'm not seeing the 3-5 fps I was seeing before in the CH-47F.

OMG, that dashboard!

Not disagreeing with your stance on the E-cores. In my use case, the CH-47F is unplayable in VR unless I disable the E-cores. The other modules I own do not seem to have this issue. I tested the A10-A, C, CII, Huey, Apache, and Chinook modules with various maps over the weekend. Only the Chinook seems to exhibit the problem for me. And, it doesn't seem to be related to the map either. To be fair to Spud Spike, we are both using the same 14th Gen i9 CPU. Perhaps this specific CPU is key to the issue. The issue only happens in VR for me. Not certain about the 'YouTuber'. Maybe he is full of crap, but his suggestion is the only thing that makes it playable for me.

To clarify, the video that was linked about the use of Process Lasso, is about disabling the E-cores per application. Not about anything that DCS is doing on its own. Not saying that disabling the E-cores is the ultimate solution, or the only solution. In my case, the cores weren't parked. But the fps dropped to 3-5 in certain modules in VR. Using the recommendations from the video, disabling the E-cores only for DCS brought the rate up to 45fps. The issue was specific to VR. Without VR, the fps is 100+ even with the E-cores enabled.

The i9-12900K uses Efficiency Cores (E-Cores). Many DCS players have had issues with this. I would also take a look at the YT video linked below. This helped resolve some problems with the CH-47F in VR for me. Essentially, it's about disabling the E-cores when using DCS only. The E-cores are still available for other apps running in the background. Spud Spike - Process Lasso

Maybe this will be helpful to someone. I was experiencing crazy VR issues with only the CH-47F module. But I finally found a fix. Basically, all other modules would perform consistently around 45fps in VR. Roughly 100-120fps without VR. The Chinook performed well outside of VR, but in VR it would drop to only 3-5 fps. When I went back to another module...magically back to the usual roughly 45fps. Very frustrating! First try was the log analyzer in Discord, but no luck. It showed everything was green and good to go. Tweaked settings to see if it would improve, but nothing helped. I stumbled upon a YT video from Spud Spike that solved this for me. The issue appears to be the efficiency cores in the Intel i9-14900 processor. Using the steps in the video to disable the E-cores brought the CH-47F VR up to roughly 45fps. The change did not improve the performance of any other modules, just the Chinook. I think that means that the module, at least in its current state, just uses more CPU than the other modules. And, if you happen to have one of these processors with E-cores, they just can't handle the load. The work needs to be done on a P-core. Anyway, I'm glad I was able to fix this, and maybe this will be helpful to others having VR performance issues with the CH-47F. If you have an Intel processor that uses E-cores, try disabling them when DCS is running. Link: Spud Spike Video

Can't wait! Please add paratrooper operations at some point!

I meant to add that I simply love this map. For me, it brings back a lot of memories of the time, the place, and the mood of that era. Flying around the map in an A-10 makes me appreciate what the real A-10s we used to see zooming around all the time on our exercises near Wildflecken.

I think the premise of the original question is not correct. It wasn't the 'obvious invasion point'. It was considered a likely and suspected invasion point. There simply was no obvious and easy invasion point for the Soviets. They had a pretty large numerical advantage in forces in the region. The theory was that the Soviets would try to overwhelm the smaller, although technologically superior NATO force. Securing Autobahn 7 speeds an attack towards Kassel. Securing the end of Autobahn 66 aids the assault on Frankfurt. A66 didn't go all the way to A7 in the 80's like it does today. This would potentially cut West Germany in two and cause NATO some significant tactical problems. I was an infantryman stationed there from 86 to 89. We trained in the Fulda area on several occasions. NATO did not ignore the northern attack option. It was also suspected as a possible invasion point. It just doesn't get the 'publicity' of the Fulda scenario. The Fulda Gap scenario is a very risky, but potentially very rewarding strategy. Luckily, we never had to deal with an actual invasion. I was part of the Pershing 2 missile brigade. That's a kiloton of nuclear pain that would have devastated Europe. One of the potential strategies at the time was to fall back to France and launch the P2s at the forces attacking through the Fulda Gap. It's a nightmare scenario, but one that stops the Soviets in Germany and potentially saves France, Spain, etc. Very scary times for an 18 year old grunt.

As someone who was stationed in Bayern from 86' to 89', I too would love to see this. However, I think the main reason that it was not included is that it wasn't tactically significant to the likely soviet attack scenarios. The invasion wasn't coming through Austria. You could make the argument about the former Czechoslovakia, I guess. I hope they do expand the map to include this, but I can completely understand why they initially left it out.