RuskyV

Download the oculus tray tool and set the PD from there, setting the PD in DCS seems to give worse performance and i leave it at 1.0 in game and run it at 1.4 from the tray tool. I can also run the x2 antialiasing setting in DCS and have a decent experience, this works especially well will the Vipers smaller MFDs. If you are running an nvidia card then i would also go into the nvidia settings and cap the frames to 45 this stops the gittering and pausing you sometimes get and stops the headset hitting ASW as often.

Rotate the program switch past 4 and into bypass then use CMS forward to punch out one chaff and one flare. No need to edit anything if you want to only use one or the other just turn off the dispenser for either one you don't want to drop

Definitely plenty of scope for a plane like that in DCS:pilotfly:

I was thinking the other day how much more immersive it would be if you could pick and choose your plane and background when in the DCS VR home screen. I've seen a mod that puts you in a squadron ready room aboard an aircraft carrier which was very cool, only the menu screen ended up half through the wall which was a not so cool. I know there are many other things that need to be done with the sim that take center stage over things like this but it's something that could do with a bit of a change. Considering how long the flanker has now been center stage in the VR home screen maybe a squadron briefing room with a projector or whiteboard could be the new home for the menu screen instead of floating in mid air next to jet. I think this would be far more engaging than the dull yellow lit hanger. What do you think, time for a change? :thumbup:

I agree I think there could be some optimisation for reading the displays. One thing that doesn’t help is the baked in reflections that are pretty awful to be fair. I would rather see them gone completely.

It's not really about the cockpit width more to do with ATA from the nose to whatever you have locked up. the opposite of this is when someone says 40' left off your nose you would know roughly where to look on the B scope. Apply this for whatever scenario you would want to use it for, but i think these reference points are also in the multi command handbook.

I'm also noticing this with shadows where one eye is drawing parts of the shadows the other eye is not and visa versa. When sat in the F16 at Nellis i can look at my left wing from the cockpit and notice that there are shadows drawing in one eye or the other, when moving my head i see it popping in and out. Anyone else seeing this also?

I find that the AI nearly always takes the fight into the vertical no matter what the skill level. Nice little video though, you seem to have good control over the F14 in that clip. I often see people pulling the stick and waiting for the jet to do something and then reacting to the consequences of ham fisting, more like they are flying the jet from about a mile behind the cockpit. Good skills there mate.

The content is top notch, definitely worth a sub as there is some great info in his channel.:)

Hi Smith, I would like to ask you a few questions regarding the force sensing base you are using for the F16 stick. I have been wondering about pulling the trigger on this base unit but i want to screw it on the Virpil desk mount, thing is i need to know if the base is drilled with the same pattern as the standard warthog gimbal so it will fit onto the mount. The other question is, is the stick keyed in like the standard warthog gimbal, or when screwing the base down i have the option to offset the stick (twist) the stick into a position to centrally mount if desired. Nice setup by the way!

Just remember you are voluntarily taking part in the Beta, where you are testing and providing feedback for the Stable branch. If you are getting frustrated then install the stable version and patiently wait for updates.:doh:

For the better we hope, but i guess time will tell:pilotfly:

Sure, Maybe its possible to have an enrolment type closed beta that would still be open to all to apply but to have a limited number to be defined by ED so that they would have the right numbers and people making the right reports. This would cut down on the amount of work they must spend hacking through forum posts trying to extract issues from those that are just moaning. This would also insure that the stable version is always the first option, and then upon request and providing there are spaces you can enter the beta. I don't think this will cut down on admin so much as focusing the information in the forums to the right place, this would also benefit the community, in fact i think it would show steam users that there is a larger community than is currently perceived as there are so many on the beta program. Not sure if this clears it up, so much that it probably is opening yet another can of worms..lol

I bet your good a puzzles lol! Seriously though that is a touch of genius, you definitely want to get this one in some sort of progress thread or keep this one updated. are you working to a budget also? i ask as you can get some excellent button boxes form DSD designs. I bought this one and use it as an ICP, flying in VR there is less of an issue about looking like the real thing but i have mine mounted right in front of me at chest height and it works a treat. here is the link http://derekspearedesigns.com/p1p2.html Im using the P2 I highly recommend the DSD stuff its top quality

I am finding there are also performance issues around the AI planes that are flyable modules, maybe the new lighting is affecting higher LOD modeled planes? Flying the single mission included with the F16 module at the Nellis range completely tanked my FPS in VR especially when the A10s taxid past. i've also noticed that when an F16 is near me even if im flying another module has the same effect. I'm no expert but i think there might be something going on here with the models that have been reworked, this would also include any of the ground units. When using free look and moving around the older models i see no impact on frames. When doing the same thing with any reworked higher fidelity model i get the a much larger than normal FPS hit. -Could the new lighting and the higher poly count models be causing issues? -Are LOD levels scaling correctly? I noticed that in VR i can now spot planes when using the VR zoom function out to 40+ miles and even a bit further when using the spyglass zoom. Im not complaining about this one as its a massive improvement and it saves me having to use the dot labels which is very cool! Could there be a relationship between the LOD and distance?

Anything is possible mate, you need to think about how much time you are prepared to design and build something like that. its a bit of an open question to be honest, more like how long is a piece of string. if you do start the project open a build thread im sure there are many that would benefit from your idea. good luck! :)

Ive just tried to do a mission provided with the F16 module at the nellis range, and with the AI the performance takes a massive tumble. Seems to be that when any AI aircraft that are also a flyable module have a massive impact on frames in VR. Not sure if this new lighting is reflecting off of them in a more complex way due to the higher LOD levels? might be an idea to have some sort of "no cockpit version" of the modules that could have slightly less detail to save FPS.

Yea the meat under the dome...:megalol:

As i learned from a previous thread and if correct then you have all the early access modules in the stable version of the sim. If you are having issues with the Beta and its not for you then the best thing to do is install and run the stable version only. The core issue is most people are choosing to run the beta because they want the shiny stuff first, the problem is everyone (including myself) loses sight of the fact that a beta will break every now and then. If more people were on the stable release there would probably be less winning (no disrespect to the OP) about broken stuff. Could ED communicate or do a better job of informing people that the Beta is not as stable as the Released version? Sure they could but they need people to help develop it. Maybe a way forward is to have a Beta version that is an application based that way you could have a better concentration of players on a stable release and then still have a healthy amount of beta testers to help develop the game. It would keep things ticking over and prevent the forums filling up with rants..

I'm surprised there is no mention of this offer at all on the main website, seems a little crazy that any free weekend wouldn't be plastered all over the front page...

i remember there being issues in the past where the TGP on the A10 was rendering even when there was no TGP, might not be related but what ever is going on the work is being doubled up somewhere. The biggest hits im seeing at the moment is with the contrails and the smoke effects, i have these basically turned off on the slider so there should be nothing other than battlefield smoke and what the jets make. In some instances this is harder to prove as the MP mission running on our server is next to unplayable because of the massive FPS hits being seen, we do have alot of planes flying around in the con layers and i even saw a post here where one person did a bit of a deep dive into how much the jet generated smoke is hitting performance. As mentioned i don't think the new light is the sole cause, whether it be AI or smoke or unnecessary rendering happening in the background i think ED have got a huge problem as there has been very little communication about what is actually causing the issues, which probably says that they don't know either and are still trying to pin down the root cause themselfs.

probably why i didn't see it, been looking for performance related fixes just recently, still nice to see with everything else going on that they had time to spruce up the manual...

I Also see huge FPS hits when there are alot of contrails and smoke around on top of what is already poor performance. I saw that someone had even looked into the poly count on the smoke and that seems to have more than doubled apparently.

Didn't even realise it had ever been updated...

If ED finished all the early access modules tomorrow and moved them over onto the stable release then there would be no need for me to use the open beta as much. What Pikey says about the Multiplayer OB would then make even more sense As there would more encouragement to use the stable release. This however comes with other issues more centred around the EA model.