zaelu

I thought is to set the drop not to be all at once but in ripples.

I have used them last night in a coop and I just set all up like usual dumb bombs. As a pilot I set the HUD to A/G then talked with Jester to select the 4 pilons they were on, select Mk20s, arm them nose/tail, riple quantity to all 4 and interval to 100m. They worked... it was a bit expensive for just two armored targets destroyed :) but... they worked. Normally first mode is CCIP like mode if you don't do something more fancy to make Jester set all up for a CCRP like bomb run.

Is that a modified lua script that you load in the mission file or a mod for the entire game?

I know what it is suppose to do but from my experience on 16x the text in F14 looks worse than on 4x maybe is just a coincidence with something else but on a quick test is what I observed.

No it isn't but I thought that since is doing something to the mirrors shader maybe there is a fix for this ugly bug there too.

In all the cockpits the mirrors work backwards. When you get closer to them instead of your pilot getting closer filling the mirror it actually moves away getting smaller.

Hi, is there a complete list of what file from the mod affects which aspects of the rendering? Some of them are self explanatory but not all. From all the features I am interested in just few of them as I tried it once with not good at all results and I would just want to keep 3-4 things like: - "Emulation" for the OpenVR hidden area mesh** (It seems _helper.hlsl controls this by adding it) - MSAA is applied only on the middle area of view*** (I think Compose.fx controls this, not sure if alone) - Removed one GBuffer entirely for bandwidth savings (probably GBuffer.hlsl controls it) - Slight mip bias adjustment for text rendering (sharper text) (I think ils151.hlsl commands this) It looks like _HMD.hlsl is used to activate/deactivate most of the functions of the mod? Thank you. PS Also about the mirrors adjustments... anything to fix the backwards Z axis movement possible?

You can spawn now from these placeable grassfields or just land?

Try with ASW disabled. I can't stand ASW. Everything is jelly or broken on edges. I can live with doubling effect because of frames missing than having everything wobbly.

Ah, then as Dunx said you have to first save your "snap view center". I can't remember it by heart but you have to start DCS (usually without VR so you remove variables) jump into a cockpit on a static plane... on ground for example and then move the head around with the keyboard controls up down left right tilt up and down etc until you are fine with it then press the command for save snap view. Then test in VR. Repeat after testing until you achieve the desired position. In DCS I am ok but I did this in IL-2 GB.

I play at 20-30FPS. Planes are doubled when scissoring. But, No. Never played on monitor again. Just to setup controls or create missions in ME. The analogy with seeing planes in the movies and books and than meeting them in a museum or airshow up close still stands. The book is nice, can shows details but... I play a certain civil sim on 4k monitor because is alpha and although is awesome is dull without VR

Maybe 16x AF is too much? That is texture filtering. Try disabling it altogether and see if the textures clear up. Normally AF should kick in for bigger distances but with MIPMaps and different FOVs for cockpit/world the engine might get confused and start filtering much closer and a side effect could be blurring on the textures.

Go to "UI Layer" in controls (top left drop down list where all the planes are enumerated) and define a center view in VR there. Then go back in game... press that button while looking a bit up or how you prefer then all set. You can add there a zoom and sniper zoom buttons too. Just make sure you don't overlap them with something else.

I think you will not see such variants in the near future. Your own explanation basically excludes it from the list. More work for less outcome. same controls, no plus function, different cockpit to create, different FM to build... No... :) I like the delta winged F16. The XL :D

You see... this is the biggest problem with the people against this proposition. You have replied to my posts here several times. Long replies that I really couldn't reply to as I considered them fringing on trolling or offtopic. You really bothered into engaging in the conversation yet somehow you've managed to miss the whole point. So.... I will not answer to your dilema you post here 30 pages into the thread. I want you to really engage and try to solve it and give yourself the answer to it. Hint. It was mentioned. The answer to the question: "How the developer would raise more money if each player actually plays less on average?" was answered! PS I don't answer now to the question because I said I will not add more to the topic but I do look at it from time to time. Also. If you find the answer you have more chances to understand it and believe it.

+1. Very annoying feature this lock on to head. Labels popping on when you don't need them around the hud because... oh... the mouse is there... No i't's not... you put it there now. Clicking buttons on extremes of the cockpit is sometimes impossible because the mouse tries to jump to the nose.

Thanks for the answer IronMike! I waited this much so... :thumbup: @captain_dalan and Uxi To each is own obviously. For me having a ghost cockpit is less immersive than having the pilot moving just the hands on stick and throttle and the legs on the pedals. I always have Numpad0 mapped to toggle the body for those cases when I really really need to dim the position lights...

+1 to this unanswered question. As a new virtual pilot of this plane (I just received it as gift yesterday) I couldn't stop noticing this feature missing. For many of us with a lot of negative time quantity available becoming proficient in these planes systems is only a distant dream, however the short sessions in these birds would be very nice to be as complete as possible from "experience" point of view. I know for some a 1st person pilot body feels awkward/unpleasant/useless sometimes because of first feel "not my body" or limbs in the way... but for some, usually VR players the 1st person body asures "the presence in the experience". For me, when that 1st person pilot body is there... the illusion is complete. P.S. Nice Job Cobra/HB! Really piece of art! :thumbup:

@Lunatic98 Seriously I don't find myself in your quotes and interpretations of my words so... very sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to address by reinterpreting my words.. Also, I will take a break from this thread again... Corona is more important.

Oh, I understand now. It was about the "implied disadvantages" since he said something about only subscribers having advantages. I think it was just a mishap on his part. The phrase should have been split in two better and maybe made a bit more clear. But thinking about it more.... because I think about this not only as a "poll" but actually how would ED implement it if they decide internally that is the only viable road... it's clear it has to be started in paralel with the current model with the ability to stop it if is not working and revert it. So if we think a bit... it can be done with current options already and this month was a good test. You see, we had access to payware planes for 2 days. The planes are still installed but not active... so in the future they can be easily reactivated/deactivated. So tier 1. Free model can be easily made already. Keep prices on modules just the same and instead of having just TF51 and Su-25T free (which are not enough imho in 2020 especially in VR) now you also have access to the rest of the content but for very limited time. Which is fine. After a while... a Tier 2 can be introduced. Pay 10-15$or€/month and have access to all released modules out of EA/Beta. Stop paying and you revert to base/free model where you can buy the modules or wait for the free days. After that... tier 3. Pay 20-25$.€/month and have access to all modules EA any other goodies. On top of it you can add the minor pay for access to one specific EA module but stay in Tier 2. IE pay 30$ to acces in first 4 months, 20 in next 4 months and just 10 for access in the last 4 months of EA year. All this time you can still keep the pay for modules model and decide after 2-3 years if it's worth it to switch to the new one. Once is decided is OK... just increase prices on paid model a little so it wouldn't make sense much to buy modules and people are nudged to subscription and the stop it. Voilà! All in one. They do, they just become not niche. Ironizing poorer people aside, I think is in the interest of ED as in any other merchant to expand its customer base. 80$ on F14 is something else than 80$ on JF17... You don't see even an effort to make more sense... like 82.34$ F14 and 71.80$ JF17. It's clear it's just a rough homogenisation and not a thoroughly calculated price. Also 80$ means something in Moscow and something else in Los Angeles and something completely different in Karachi or Tehran. Yet the two planes mentioned above would fit geographically all the regions. As a side note on this. I bought most of my modules in Romania I think... less when I came in France. Work and the child make me think twice on buying this module on 80€ or the other module on 80€ and ended up not buying any! Or waiting very patiently for a huge sale. Not sure this is the best for ED. It needs to be smart so the niche gets bigger. At this moment just yelling/hoping more people will play will not speed up things. Sure... a lot of mistakes can be done... and this is one of them and I think is what ED has in mind...sadly.

This is something I don't get... What are the disadvantages you see?

Which part prove what part wrong there? Your logic on my words eludes me. They are mere proposals in a obscure thread on an obscure subforum, nothing more. And they are inspired from other similar services. There are Free to play games, 10-15-20$/€ per month games and premiums schemes. I even gave examples Stadia, GeForce Now etc. Ever heard of mortgages? Do they make sense for you? I take it you never payed for something in several installments? Sorry I can't really answer to your post as I find it not really on what I meant and I don't want to waste time one debating fake arguments. My point was quite simple. Make all people pay a similar rate and give access to everything. You can make a module that sells a lot at 80 bucks and make one that sells less at 80 bucks. IE F14 vs JF17 That is risky. Have money coming to you constantly and a failed module is not riscky. Now you have a problem that maybe you lose some of the clients that dodge between modules and sales. Introduce the free tier in front so you can include everybody. Now you just need to think of a scheme to make these apparently contradicting tiers work. So you can make a lot of things... all already implemented or you can be innovative. But clearly there are 2 tools now in ED's arsenal. The data mining tick in options, and the possibility to give access to modules for limited time. They are powerful. You can make free stuff be available like it was this month. 2-3 days one or two modules. And you rotate ad infinitum. Every demo session is just an ad to buying into the product. You can keep it like it is now... or you can ( ED knows better but judging by the speed of development I wouldn't say they have an ocean of money add here Corona) make a subscription. You can make a subscription with an entry fee too... like I said, First year when the module sells best... put a diminishing access price. Example. 30-10$ to access JF17 first year then from next year can be included with simple subscription. It's doable. Add a 3rd premium tier because there are money there and you need to cover that spectrum too. All in all is not about paying more and having less access is about generally paying less having more access for players/customers and bringing more clients and more money for ED. The idea behind my tiers was win-win. And there is no contradiction there. No matter how many modules I bought, full price or not.

By enlarging the paying player base. I don't expect DCS W to rich Warthunder or WoW levels but fur sure now has a small footprint. Again.... imho covid changes everything.

Many of us have RL problems that for sure are not compatible with paying more than with playing. @Voodoo_One You must have missed the first tier my model was proposing. Free. Also giving the argument "I don't have Netflix" so listen to me is a rather counter one. Somebody that wants to sell a service like... say "4G Phone access" will be little impressed by somebody that brags he has no Electricity contract because he wants to HAVE the product and electricity just flows away... @HankCzinaski Let me check... I have 24 planes, 2 paid maps and 2 campaigns (31 things bought in total but some twice, etc). I probably would pay subscription... How is that for an argument? Anyway. I am afraid my model is not gonna save DCS World. IMHO Corona it will be devastating.

Both kind of polls are irrelevant in here because this one takes into account only the current players in the current system which is my assumption (you can say is wrong, sure) are a minority. Example: Poll: Asking current players of Warcraft 3: "would you like a MMO based on Warcraft Universe with monthly subscription?" yes: 30% no: 70% Reality... Blizzard rich. (note. I am not a Warcraft MMO player) Same for online vs offline. The offliners are mostly on the forum... heck.. I am mostly an offliner in DCS... 95% if not more of the time. 70% I stay in ME basically and I hate it. The best games I had are online., Offline playing stupid bots and stupid buggy scripts is boring no matter how much "story" I can add. So in a poll online focus vs offline focus... the offliners would come and vote in bigger number than onliners who most of the time are spending... playing online rather than staying on forum(s) So if ED are basing their strategy on such polls on this forum... Sorry to be pedantic but I see no argument there, just a bit of change of heart by the end of your quote. What sucks? Paying for internet service for example? Would you rather pay upfront say 2000$ for a 3 year internet access? I take 50$/month... 3 years 1800$ and add or subtract some money because of lack of insurance and distribution for telecom company. The game looks like a service now. Can you provide a counter argument? Or just... sucks. I can understand that a subscription where you don't have an option other than pay... sucks... but also the alternative of paying a ton of money on parts is not nice either... Add please some 500-1000$ to equipement for internet access above please... How is it now? Let me reiterate my proposed model Tier one 1. Free access limited quality, features, time. could be all, could be just some. Or even free access to part of the not already paid modules monthly or daily. etc. IE This week you can access 2 modules you don't have them bought, next week other two. ETC Tier Two 2. 10-15$ per month. Full quality all modules and feature access. You can add here a smaller payment for some modules. Like... If you want access to EA for Eurofighter pay 30$ to 10$ for first year, IE 30$ first 4 months, 20$ next 4 months and 10$ last 4 months. You can even make the price vary daily in 2020. Tier Three 3. 20-30$ per month. access to all alphas immediately and a lot of cool stuff, printed stuff, T-shirts, golden missiles, etc. All existing modules that are already bought are accessible free on full quality by current players/customers. Also simple way to change payment model monthly. What sucks here?