zaelu

First I don't know if there is one user of the few of OMM that really uses that feature. Especially since DCS is moving away slowly from modding directly the game files and more to mods as separate file trees read on top of the original game files. And secondly I would separate them as they are functions of "different skill level" that should not be mixed and fused into the higher skill level as it will be yet another blocking stone to the program adoption by new people. I am all for clean interface but clean and unfriendly is not useful. All programs have a "button bar" and everyone is expecting to find most useful commands there. At least in "Windows world of GUI and Mouse". would rather have such optional bar with configurable buttons (show/hide) than that panel on the right where you can basically build them your self.

Sorry. Maybe I have used an unclear expression. I should have used "If you wouldn't have had Eiffel Tower etc etc you wouldn't know it's actually Paris". I thought is obvious from the trailers that Eiffel tower is present in the map. As for second point is an yes and no. Using generic buildings is acceptable if they are believable. And No, there are sims I should not name here that are able to reproduce either real buildings en masse or autogen buildings but after detail maps of open street view in a way that each and every building that is recorded to exist is represented in it with a somewhat correct ground floor shape, somehow correct height at least in number of floors and somewhat correct style. Now I don't say DCS World should match that for a map representing 1944... but at least the correct size and density of buildings should be one of the goals. Besides all I mentioned above there is also the problem with the color palette that as for Normandie 1944 (1.0) is limited and incomplete. What I mean is entire sets of the colors are missing and we have just few shades of certain colors and this mixed with the repetitiveness of the trees and buildings and wrong perceptive scale it just switches off any immersion (for me and maybe for some others too). And bottom line is I think ED proclaiming such small iterative progress in map development all mixed with a doubtfully functional pay ware scheme is self delusional in the long term. Time will tell but...

Since they are using same latest "new technology" and are managed by ED I would have expected this "small" aspect not to be overlooked. I mean what are you going to do when finally you will have a round whole Earth map? Not only I expect you will charge again 9.99 but you will still have to change basically planets to switch from a a little bit more detailed Channel to a little bit more detailed London? Does that sound right to you? My opinion is this is a multiplayer suicide strategy.

So I bought the map and I didn't had a lot of expectations (owner of 1944 version) but I really don't understand what this "new technology is about. I must mention it I play it On Max settings 4k and VR. And I am not talking about performance. I don't care about that at this moment. The map visually still looks like a glorified "Il-2 Sturmovik 1945" map (the old defunct game of Maddox for people old enough, I am not talking here about any competition). Yes more polys, new clouds a little bit of new shadow system. The cities are still patches of land populated rather automatically with SPARSELY placed generic buildings. If you fly over Paris and you don't have The Eiffel Tower and L’arc de Triomphe and some other few known buildings you don't really feel is the Paris. Flying above it is just UNDERWELMING. I flew over Paris in real life... not in 1944 but come on... New technology? What it is please? Some small incremental improvements? So you managed to make maps extendable... probably still not placeable on a round (whole) Earth but that is not New tech is a small improvement. Trees. Another BIG BIG Issue. I understand you are using SpeedTree tech. I think I saw that tech 15 years ago and it was rather impressive. Now in 2023 we have basically ONE tree multiplied all over the place a million times. Not even a variation in color. No shadows on them from clouds at least to change the color a little. I would have expected to have some variation by now... 2023 but no. And going low and slow is just the same. Generic sparsely placed buildings surrounded by mostly gigantic Tree (at singular) multiplied by a simple nvidia driver trick I guess. It really gives the impression that ED bought the lowest of lowest license from SpeedTree or has a free one. The ground. While better than 1944 variant the topography is also underwhelming. You simply have the impression you fly over a imperfect miniature of the real ground. To this also the lack of details of the terrain have their part because a cliff has a million details in real life that tell the eye about it's size but a simple pixel to meters difference in game covered by a rather low rez texture will not do the trick on tricking the mind. Is it playable? Yes. Underwhelming? For sure. At least for me.

I think the "batch" name although I know what it is since 25 years ago is just sending people to something more complicated that it is. "Create new Mods Installation profile" might be longer but clearer Also to create a batch to uninstall mods... I know it works but people using these kind of apps have a button to "uninstall all". A button to "uninstall selected". A button to "uninstall current tree" (in case there is a tree of folders or mods). So to create a batch that stays in the list of mods profiles to activate it when you want to uninstall it might be counter intuitive or simply unusual.

Thank you for listening sedenion. Also if you can maybe make it more clear how one can do a profile in the right panel... today I needed to deactivate all mods prior to update for Normanie 2.0 and... I couldn't save a preset with the mods I had activated. I had to deactivate them one by one (Ctrl+Click for multiple selection). OvGME had that disable ALL and a quick way to create a profile before patching and quickly reenable same profile after patch.

Yes, I prefer not to save there that's why I said all fields should have as the last two have now an automated default setting but possibility to change it. I simply don't see anything forcing the Library and Backups (but especially the library) to the profile folder where basically OMM is keeping some settings about that game. Maybe the user calls them by the same name but that is about it. I don't know that paradigm, yes but I've seen many "ways" to skin PC-Cats along the years so... to each is own. However, I said my suggestions not only because of my frustrations while trying to use the software (which now that I know what it does is... fine) but because most moders here are either not packing the mods or are packing the mods for JSGME (Hesus that is what I was using back in the Il-2 of Oleg Maddox era) or rarely OvGME (and when they use OvGME most of the times the archives are bad or carelessly done so it needs repacking anyway) so I think I am not alone when I perceive the workflow and nomenclature (the paradigm) used in OMM a bit... difficult. And since it's a nice program intended to be used by these people I thought maybe the paradigm can be adjusted a little so I proposed my points. Maybe even this could be an option in the settings. Something like: Save new package in game Library or where the content folder is. And of course... have the tick present so if for some reason for one or several mods the user wants them packed in other place that place is available as a "browse to..." option. So everybody is happy. Here I think you misunderstood my words. I never said OMM should keep such data base. I was just implying that the list of the games for which the user has made profiles is... obvious to the program and it should offer by default to save the package to the Library of the currently selected profile. Nothing more. Like: From where should know which game profile library to auto select for user to auto save the package into? From the drop down list at the top and it can select the currently active one. No need for some mysql server to run anywhere for that LOL.

But you don't do that. And you already do that. Let me explain. Since we already have what is in the picture 1 why not have same thing in previous screen (picture 2) only default goes to App Data? Everybody will do a mistake at first at placing the folder regardless if chosen manually or automatically but they can be edited later. Also A simple text added in that place or a tool tip that explains what is each element and the fact it might grow in size to gigabytes will do. And again. The profile folder doesn't have to contain the Library and Backups. Is not "the natural way". It's like I save my work in Adobe folder from Appdata or Blender folder from AppData... No... I would never do that. I would never save my work where the settings and profiles of the program are. Now if the program is small and benign maybe I wouldn't care if that saves me the hassle of reading manuals and watching a 40 minute youtube video that goes around and around some concepts I already know but they are named so different that are incomprehensible at first. Yes. I don't know if it sounds offensive to you but... YES! The less clicks I have to do the more streamlined the workflow is and the more likable the program is. Maybe is just me. I know you can have the mod as a folder but that doesn't mean that once the mod is done I want to keep it that way because I am the creator... maybe I do but I would still want them archived and placed in same location so I don't create a mess on drives. As I said. Any mod creator is also a mod user and first tester. Also I don't think it needs to be complicated with a database. It just needs to use the list of the existing "program profiles" in the dropdown list and simply propose the current in use profile folders as default. I also had the time to reproduce the bug. See picture 3. I created a dummy profile with empty folders and then once all done I tried to edit the backup folder and I used another empty folder when the program prompted me that it cannot be empty. Well... is empty at first isn't it? Also reverting back to first folder (also empty) was accepted. Maybe it believed the path was empty? Although it wasn't as it is clearly populated.

You could name it: "Game/Software Profile" I see this backwards I think. Most important from my perspective as a user of a software is to be less bothered and less confused especially in first interactions with the software. So yes If you have it set up now that Library and backups are to be saved to wherever the "Profile" is saved and that is in Appdata... it will be a little problem although most users have only C drive and couldn't care less if the library and Backups are in there (like with other softwares) just as they don't care the current mods in DCS are placed in My Documents/Saved games/DCS World. Nobody cares My Documents have nothing to do with "Mods of airplanes of +3GB in size... But... Everything can be kept as is with the option to activate personalization of Library and Backups and be moved to another place if user whishes. But most importantly from my perspective is that the profile folder should be by default automatically placed in AppData and user should not be bothered (by default) with what that means as the user would probably never mess with those folders and files and edit them in notpadd++ or somemthing. So my suggestion was that just as Library and Backups have automatic placements but a tick to activated personalisation so Profile should have and by default should be unticked and a notice that it will be saved in Appdata. I am a bit baffled by this. What? The package tool IS a mod creator. It doesn't matter what I am, the greatest mod creator or a newbie that makes his first try. If I want to make a mod and package it to be used with OMM I want first and foremost to test if it works. So immediately after packing I would activate it. Why on Earth wouldn't I want to have it immediately placed in the Library so I can immediately activate it and test it? Why it would make more sense for it to be on Desktop or another random location? And second thing... again... I am baffled. So if I make a mod and pack it with OMM I don't plan to use that mod for myself? Why wouldn't I want it to be kept maybe in my library and maybe when I upload it to some site or online repository or give it to someone wouldn't want to pick it up from that library? Why would I want to have a second library maybe in another place? And what I said was to be "by default" placed into the game library and have a tick (like above with profile/library/backup) where I could simply choose another path just like you have it already but now it's in the working folder that could be whenever I had the space to work on the mod... maybe desktop... maybe a root of a drive or maybe Mods/Game directory itself. That is for user's preference. If the user wants different path than library he/she can just chose a different path. And of course once this idea makes sense then obviously will make sense that OMM knows at least about which game profile it's about and suggests the correct library destination by default. It's not mandatory necessary to have something in the mod that points to the game but in that moment the workflow would suggest OMM should be aware of what is all about. And finally, why is so irrelevant that OMM knows what game profile the mod is about to be created for? Especially since you want it to be used for multiple games/programs? Say someone likes ho the program works (I did mods for MSFS2020 with OGME fr example) and now after some years has a collection of mods that got mixed up or unclearly named (happens all the time... I have 400GB of mods for MSFS for example) why would be such a bad idea of knowing for what game/program that mod was made? We have so much info now available... picture, description etc but the name of the game is somehow tabou? Again... baffled . I don't think is a tragedy that OMM would append to the mod description the icon of the game (if chosen) and a name like: "This mod was made at date for this game". Who knows... maybe gets useful if someone wants to enable the mod later for the wrong game or something.

I think "Software context" can be synonym with "Game Profile" which might be intuitively clear what it is. Also when you create this game profile its path should be automatically saved to a OMM folder in AppData like most programs do and only give as an option for user to activate personal choice for that destination. Like you have now for library and backups. Because User might be more inclined to alter the library and backup folders due to the sizes they can get but the "profile" should be a small size folder that nobody manually alter or care about. However when you create that game profile is another chore or another not so intuitive thing to do first time you use the program. nullpicture 1 And when creating a package the little window should have a field where the game profile is selected so you select also for what game you are doing the mod and automatically select the current selected game profile as it's most usually and intuitively for that game you are going to do a mod in that moment. Do let user to tick an option to select a different game profile. Also The path should be automatically select the path of the current library for the current game profile. Picture 2 This way the workflow is streamlined, clearer and more intuitive. As for the bug I will try to replicate it after work. Thank you for your replies.

OK, I think I managed to understand it. If I can give you some feedback: I am a non native English speaker probably like you (?) so a lot of expressions in PC world if are not "standard" or at least "familiar" for the context it becomes difficult to get a hold on the topic. I remembered the first time I used OvGME it was almost the same (see first screenshot) because the names used to describe the folders for example are just hard to understand fast as they are different to any other names used for other mod managers I've used (ModMan, GME or Nexus ModManager and its evolutions, etc). Maybe they are easy to understand for some but for me... they are "oops my brain just hit a bad sector". It was the sole reason my first try with OMM stopped at the installation few years ago. So I think the program is OK but the names used should be improved. maybe do a survey or check if the adoption of the software is within the expectations to see if others find to have same difficulties. What I would say from the start is that: --The "Software Context properties" structure not only deservers another name that would be more intuitive but should be simply incorporated (optionally at least) to main program folder in "Program files" or in "AppData" folder. Basically this step of creating that structure is redundant to be seen by the user and can be confusing. For example I ended building that structure once in the main DCS World folder and once in the Library Folder and then it was appearing like another mod and I was scratching my head of what was that? The destination where the mods will go?? All because I didn't understood what it was and what it wanted from me. You can see in the first screenshot that I used very simple paths. Clear folders in root of the drive. Many people will just go for some complicated automatically generated paths that are just asking for trouble when needed to debug. --Also once a mod is created (I did one for testing (second screenshot) it should be automatically (optionally not) added to the Library of mods for that game. Maybe ask for what "Software Context properties" that mod is to be build and add it there to remove one more hassle of searching where the mod went... oh... it was on Desktop where the files were... Also maybe was a bug at some point I tried to edit a "Software Context properties" I made and the program simply refused to accept the backup folder because it was empty. I hope you take this as constructive criticism.

Is there a tutorial or something with this tool. I tried it again 5 years later or something and is just too much for me sorry. I must be sooo old. I understand perfectly OVGME. I made mod packs even online repositories but this... Sorry. It's just... I don't even know what is suppose to do? I can only amuse of myself I guess.

I ordered one myself from Aliexpress and it's on its way from China. For all the improvements I would go for the lens inserts The sensor might work differently than the one in Quest 2 or at least is what I "felt" but not thoroughly tested. What I did observed is with Pico 4 all the problems from Quest 2 of losing track after headset turning itself off or resetting view are gone.

I have -7.5 both eyes and switched from Quest 2 to pico 4 and I had to buy again the prescription lenses. My advice is buy prescription inserts lenses and you will not regret it. In my opinion all VR headsets combined with wearing glasses inside them is horrible experience. I almost returned my Pico 4 to Amazon having the old Quest 2 still with me and being able to keep it in case Pico4 was bad. IT WAS HORRIBLE! And here is why: The glasses I wear and many others wear are square in shape and the lens does not fit over the headset lenses well. Basically the field of view is totally destroyed as everything around my glasses is not seen or not seen properly not only because of myopia but because there is no useful light path for anything around the glasses in the headset to reach the eyes. So everything that is around my glasses is gone. Also the glasses refraction plane is not aligned with the headsets lenses and screen as it is impossible to have the glasses placed inside perfectly even and symmetrically. And finally the cherry on top of this bad cake is that the glasses have a more or less IPD adjusted for your eyes... note on more or less... if you always felt you need to adjust to the new glasses for few days... this is one of the reasons besides the new changed dioptric numbers. So you have a natural IPD of your eyes in front of them you have a little different IPD of your glasses to which you are now adapted (and in these glasses don't stay aligned perfectly not even just on our noses without headset, inside headset is even worse) and in front o the glasses you have the lenses of Pico4 with the IPD adjusted either for your eyes or for your glasses or something in-between. The resulted light path is a total utter mess! So my whole hearted advice is buy lens inserts no mater you need to change them. You can even delay changing them if you happen to change glasses every year or so... I bought my inserts for Pico 4 from HONSVR. They were the cheapest (still are I think) and I received them extremely well made and packed. If the box was white and not grey I would have thought they are from Apple. This is where you can order them and I can tell you for me it was godsent as I kept my Pico4 and sold the Quest 2. https://honsvr.com/product/pico-4-prescription-lenses/ there is a picture with mypico4 and quest 2 lens inserts. Totally worththe expenses. Quest 2 were 100€ (from vroptician.com) and Pico4 50€ (from honsvr.com)

I think it would tone down a lot of empty "heroism" in many over time. It would be "funny" at first but after some time I suspect it would start to bother the minds... which is what should be normal! And sanitizing it is not (imho). I am referring here at both types... damage done and the one received. Wounds are bad. Makes you think. Maybe not support stupid stuff in real life after wards. But... I agree with Bignewy's motive why is not planned.

There are reasons why launching ordnance is heavily regulated in real life and not a willy-nilly thing.

is it already done or soon to be implemented?

Same is the door. The comparison with FC3 stands imho as many modules evolve from a core or barebone with roots in such modules.

Maybe some have a collective with the whole thing simulated? That brake has a switch on it that tells the AP you want to move collective so it shouldn't fight you in case the altitude channel is on ans altitude is maintained by AP. Same feature is pressent for Rudder pedals and simply deactivates automatically the heading hold but usually some microswitches in the pedals would signal the AP that you want it to suspend its actions. Some have those switches or wants them simulated so the option now exists... much to my struggle to disable the thing but... So Tarres wants same thing for Collective.

+1 Me also I was surprised again this feature is left out. You can't even judge if the cockpit or eye position is right in VR with an empty cockpit. I have reached the conclusion most of devs are against this feature as it's something love it or hate it. once you fall on the idea you are sitting in another man's lap and is not your body... snap... you're out. Tons of excuses and rationalisations but in effect is some deep hidden resentment of this feature. "I can't see the most important toggle switch which is located... right about here or there..." "Once is On I am completely unable to toggle it off" "It's hard to do it... the pilot body needs 30 billion triangles else the simulation of it's blood circulation is off" etc etc When in fact is very simple if you just accept the absolute Freudian fact that when you hate this feature you feel like you are force to sit in another man's lap and you hate it so much that you just don't want to see it used by anyone. You don't want even be talked about and if is in the project to do list it just slips for years and years at the bottom. oops... Freud again. Thousands of years ago the planes didn't had a 3D cockpit... and same discussion was running... "Yes a 3D cockpit is realistic but will hinder visibility as we look through a small monitor. " etc. Probably then was another Freudian slippage... cockpit Probably the same happened with the... joystick... But it's good we can open the panels now. At least the "OMG these are better used elsewhere resources" argument can't be used without making me puke.

+1

Maybe you have some power saving profile for USBs and they turn off and so the rudder pedals?

Long press shkval unlock and it will turn. Not sure it is how it should suppose to be.

So it's actually normal that Ka50 2 controls are gone and a new set for ka50-III has appear in place? thanks! I don't want to create a new thread if this is normal.

Is that stock skin or maybe a user made? I didn't see the problem on my end.