mhe

I partly disagree with that last sentence. Given limited time, manpower and money, they have to balance this. If they only make money via modules and none directly via the core, there is no incentive for them to keep the core better than the absolute minimum needed to support any module. And this is exactly what we have seen. Hence my proposal to have a premium core as payware for the first year or two at release and then release it for free once the cost for making it has been recuperated and then some. But from a business perspective, the incentive structure focuses on the modules and not on the core, which why it has taken us how many years until we got EDGE and now will have to wait another "long term" as they call it for Vulkan. I'd be perfectly willing to pay the full price of a module or two to get the manpower in place to speed up core development. Hell, I'd donate at this point monthly for that. Call it a subscription if you want to, but as long as it isn't mandatory, people can't bitch and complain. Or make DCS 3.0 a kickstarter and I'll back it. Can I please pay money dedicated towards accelerated or including more functionality core?

I'd be willing to pay for a Deluxe version of the core engine with all the improvements. I believe giving the hardest to make part of the whole stack away for free creates a problem with incentives for ED - which is why we see one unfinished early access module after the other, but never finishing anything. So they, by necessity, have to do what keeps the doors open, I get that. So how about we just pay them for what we want them to do? If we want core updates, we should pay them for it. Not necessarily a subscription model, but if DCS 2.5 stays free and 3.0 with all the new goodies becomes payware, I wouldn't mind at all. I just want the goods and feel zero entitlement getting it for free. Screw the entitled penny pinchers. If ED wanted to, they could still give away the new core for free at some point, but they need money to dedicate resources towards this endeavour, otherwise it will always be on the backburner compared to tasks that create income like announcing new modules or terrains.

That does look pretty impressive for a "gimmick" to me. Yes, the first iteration was kinda meh, but the 2.0 version seems to deliver. And yes, it is RTX exclusive so far, but the performance benefit combined with the quality is quite amazing. Being CPU limited is an age old problem that as far as I know isn't even worked on because there is Vulkan in the future at some point, that is when, in 18-24 months?

Nvidia have updated their DLSS feature to version 2.0, making it look better, perform better and also make it much easier to implement for developers. It enables better image quality by using AI-driven upsampling, which outperforms higher native-res rendering by quite a margin and often look better at the same time. Performance boosts from 50-80% have been observed in reviews, vastly outperforming the previous DLSS implementation. Especially given the performance issues with VR in DCS, this could be a game-changer should ED choose to implement it. I'd even pay money for that feature in DCS.

The way XTAL does what it does is by superior optics mostly. It doesn't need to render in higher res than native of the panels and still is very clear. Which means, you'll have MORE performance with it, not less. I'd wait for the Reverb G2 and see what that brings. Also, the features the XTAL currently has will probably be standard in consumer VR equipment in 2-3 years form now. But if you can afford to shell out several grand for just a HMD in times of economic uncertainty, go for it!

I looked for oculus.exe, didn't find it. Is it the OculusClient.exe in \Oculus\Support\oculus-client\ or am I missing something here?

Dude in the yellow Mini-Boss sweater looks like Ron Swanson!

I really have no idea why nobody has done this yet, given that this idea is such a no-brainer. Absolutely should be made a reality!

I have since moved to VR, but in my case, the problem persisted even with GFE installed.

And the updated stick base mounting plate, dimensions verified against WinWing's 3D files again: https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:3866170

Ok, now fixed dimensions of the bracked against the downloadable 3D models and re-uploaded a fixed STL. Dimensions should be spot on now. Work in progress marker removed as well. https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:3866116

No, please link me there, I'd like to validate the design if you have 3D files!

In my design, there is a vertical pole that this horizontal rail will be on top of. It all should align nicely, so the leverage of the throttle's weight should be mostly compensated by leaning against the vertical pole, not letting it tilt forward. This part is just a small piece of a full system 40 pit design similar to an Obutto.

https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:3866116

I use an Index headset but also have some Oculus stuff that I run via Revive. Whenever I start DCS, it detects the Oculus software and starts it despite SteamVR already running before I start DCS. Sure, flying in the Index still works, but why waste the system resources for Oculus. Is there a way to tell DCS which VR API to use? Uninstalling Revive and Oculus is not really a solution here.

No, that isn't a thing for the foreseeable future anymore. Afaik this has been canceled and they are focusing on the B2B/Pro market for now. I think the whole WMR ecosystem will have to be overhauled at some point as the tracking simply can't compete with anything at this point, so once Microsoft updates the standards for WMR, some manufacturers might hold off on making new WMR headsets, I suspect this is the reason behind the quiet delay of the ConceptD OJO.

DCS supports VR hand controllers (Rift, Index, Vive etc), so emulating one of these should work with DCS. How well, I am here to find out. Can only start testing once I managed to print a Leap mount for my Index.

So we do have motion controller support in DCS, now there is the missing link that bridges the gap to make Leap Motion usable with that: I haven't had the chance to try this in DCS, but I can't wait to. Link to the software here, it is a SteamVR plugin: https://github.com/SDraw/driver_leap I still have some days to go without access to my flight rig, so anybody with practical experience on this, please share!

I asked them on Discord and got the answer "September".

Fantastic, thank you for this!

Old classic, came bundled with the good ol' Falcon 3.0 iirc. Finally we get to test it in a modern simulation:

Yes, I know all that, I was trying to demonstrate to this gentleman that to even match the pixel density of my notebook screen for a Rift S style FOV, we'd have to be in the mid 50 PPD ballpark. We are nowhere near close to reaching that in the consumer space. Given the obvious lack of knowledge on the subject matter, I thought it might be a good idea to start at the very basics.

I am typing this on a 17 inch (43cm) 1080p laptop screen. Sitting away approx 60cm from it. So that makes for a screen width of approx 37.5cm. Which means horizontally it fills approx 35 degrees of my FOV as I am typing. So if I were to scale that up to mediocre headsets with approx 110° FOV, we are looking at a horizontal resolution in the ballpark of 3x. Vertically the same. So basically I'd have to triple the size of that screen in both dimensions and keep pixel density the same, so it scales with resolution. That means we are looking at 5760x3240 pixels to roughly match the density of the screen I am currently typing on. Per eye that is. So even if you had the horsepower to render that many pixels, you wouldn't get them over to the HMD at a refresh rate that is a good fit for VR. And I am not even using a particularly good monitor here, once you go to resolutions that are considered "Retina", things get way worse. Michael Abrash of Oculus fame previously stated that reach the point where display quality would start to approach the limits of human visual perception, we'd be looking at around 8K res per eye. And I have no problem believing that in the slightest. Not requiring lenses? The means by which you achieve the image in the eye is not that relevant, what it boils down to is the amount of pixels per degree of FOV, lenses or not. And given the humans FOV of around 210 horizontally and 150 vertically, we are looking at a crapton of pixels to render here. Sure, you can achieve pretty good clarity with no supersampling required (XTAL does this), but even the most expensive of headsets are nowhere near the pixel per degree density a monitor offers (mostly because monitors cover such a small part of our FOVs). If you're waiting for VR to match angular resolution of current day monitors, all I can say is good luck with that for the next fear years. Don't expect that in a consumer product anytime soon.

Their website is back up.

The GPU to render as many pixels as would be required to achieve that does not exist by a long shot. At this point in time this is simply not a reasonable standard to hold VR HMDs against.