SundownSix

The thermal system ED showed doesn’t require knowledge of where components are. It can be done simply by blending between different thermal texture maps— one set for tracks, another for engines, and another for cannons, with amounts based on unit game states and actions.

Having the IFLOLS work properly for the Tomcat also seems like it should be high priority/low hanging fruit.

As a game dev, an hour by hour breakdown of time spent on one system or another is bordering on micromanaging when having to compile and submit to a manager. Imagine having to do that for the public. I do think it’s important to get regular updates on what has been done and planned *near term* on the core systems, especially in the areas of AI and ground combat modeling and logic. In my opinion, because of the state that DCS is in after 10-20 years of development and where it still remains a weakness at best (and reminiscent of a buggy, rough, early access alpha at worst— which the core game really should not be in at this point), a renewed focus on the core game is sorely needed. Not just peripheral systems like farps, propellers, or visual improvements that the team seems passionate about working on (and which are welcome!). But basic combat and air operations behavior (like AI wingmen not running out of fuel just keeping up with you, and ejecting 5 miles after reaching IP). If weekly updates could simply show what core gameplay combat systems are being worked on, that would be extremely welcome (and maybe even needed). We don’t need devs to report hours to us like some sort of external producer. We do however need focus placed on improving the core experience— not just through huge ambitious overhauls with ground breaking systems that might come next year or 5 years from now, like a dynamic campaign, but also through immediate fixes near term for game disrupting things like taxi collision issues, carrier cats getting stuck in MP, wingmen not managing fuel with any reasonableness, lack of splash damage, omniscient AI reacting to missile launches they can’t see, etc. etc.

DCS in VR doesn’t approach the feel and brightness of a sunny day at 20K feet. There’s a slight dimness due to how it’s tonemapped that feels more pronounced on the limited brightness levels of most VR displays. It’s not just DCS. No VR headset really comes close to producing the brightness levels of brightly lit outdoors. Hopefully things will change with better screens and HDR to at least close the gap a little. Things feel a bit better when brightness and contrast are bumped up a tad in ReShade, but the sky and sun starts to clip. This is where HDR would also help a ton.

DCS in VR (and in general) is pretty dim compared to how things would look in real life. I actually already rationalize that the pilot has his visor down to explain for why it looks so dark.

@Hollywood_315, would it be possible to have an option to turn off the VAICOM PRO Kneeboard Extension in the settings for times when it's not wanted?

They can label Taiwan whatever they want in the SIMPLIFIED Chinese translation. In the Traditional Chinese translation, it should say Taiwan, and/or Republic of China depending on time period.

I too, badly want a Taiwan/South China Seas map to play out the defense of Taiwan against the encroachment of an increasingly belligerent China. The last thing that we should accept or encourage is for ED to exclusively parrot and distribute Chinese Communist Party propaganda in marketing materials all for a buck, or even more lamely, for our mere entertainment. If that’s what it takes, then screw it. It’s not worth it. And I’m frankly appalled that capitulating and pandering to a totalitarian state— all to get toys for our hobby— is what’s even being suggested as a recommended “solution” here. Sure, if China gets one version and the rest of the world gets another, that’s one thing. It’s a bit weasly, but okay. Or if the labels and descriptions change based on the side selected, great. Justifiable and immersive. Instant buy. But to suggest that the module should only label the independent, democratic, sovereign state of Taiwan “a rebel province of China”, and then push that view through international marketing— this is exactly how China uses “soft power” to export false propaganda globally and force international business and culture to self-censor all that doesn’t comply with the CCP’s narrative. You can argue “we know better”, but China’s strategy is to keep this up for long enough that eventually “we” won’t, whoever the next generation of “we” might be. ED should not be part of this, nor should it involve its players in support of this brand of exported totalitarianism either. I don’t care to get “political” when talking about DCS, but some of the “solutions” and suggestions presented here really raise my ire and are too important to not address. TLDR: a Taiwan map would be amazing. Faction specific labels for Taiwan would be fine. Labeling Taiwan *only* as a “rebel province” and then exclusively pushing that narrative through international marketing materials to appease China as some suggest here would be awful, pathetic, tasteless, and soulless.

We’re also all patiently waiting for the water improvements you guys have been teasing us with in videos of internal builds for months now. :)

The old B-17 flight sim The Mighty Eighth actually had individual see-through bullet holes and you could actually really shred the B-17s in that game. It was amazing tech then, and is still rarely implemented in games even now.

For what it’s worth, the 2.34 number has been around way before the internet. It was in the coffee table books and probably on all the model kits. I had the number committed to memory as a kid in the 80’s. Now I would definitely be curious if HB was to ever reproduce 2.4 internally with the few necessary hacks, just as further validation that the FM is *so* accurate :D, it will even hit those edges of the envelope that weren’t originally intended, even if a player understandably wasn’t able to do it.

It is definitely the same picture. The mirror image is the frame buffer of one of the eyes copied and then resized onto the screen. It would be prohibitively expensive to re-render a VR mirror image in better quality. The VR mirror might look better to you because of the filtering due to resizing or some other difference between display and HMD, or some combination of both.

A lot of people post that the clouds now look great in VR, likely because they looked so bad when 2.7 dropped that our collectively standards were massively lowered. Subjective judgments of looking “good”, or “great” since the jitter fix again just continues to muddy the issue. And since ED hasn’t really directly acknowledged the issue, this continues to give them false data points about whether the issue exists or remains. Comparing directly with 2D and how much better they are supposed to look in screenshots and promotional material shows that the clouds in VR remain blobby and lacking detail in comparison, especially when close up.

The VR cloud quality is definitely still an issue. ED has still not confirmed whether the quality discrepancy between 2D and VR is a bug or an intentional design decision, or even if the team recognizes that it exists. The clouds still look like “LOW” quality clouds and have little of the definition of higher qualities, even on Ultra. We’ve had multiple threads about it and ED reps have been asked directly over reddit, but there is still no confirmation or reply that ED recognizes the issue in VR. The only solid and relevant reply pertaining to this was one reply that said it will be mentioned to the team, after the detail/quality issue was getting conflated with the jitter issue. Then there are multiple users themselves conflating the jitter fix and possible mild quality fix with the detail issue being addressed, when it simply hasn’t. VR cloud still significantly lack detail they have in 2D. The only hint that it might or might not have been worked on are replies that the quality was improved, but it’s clear it is only marginally better if at all, and does not really address the huge disparity in detail between what Ultra looks like in 2D and VR. The are still the soft blobs they looked like when 2.7 was released. It’s be really good to get confirmation one way or another on whether this is intended or a bug— especially as they look very unlike the clouds as they were repeatedly showcased and advertised.

Kind of disagree. HB is in the process of doing good work but it’s still good to hash out what is what. Especially when that what is what is directly relevant to how HB’s work might have been evaluated, correctly or incorrectly, and will be evaluated again when it drops. I only see there being something to gain to clear up or discount any possible discrepancies or misunderstandings for all involved so everyone and everything is on the same page. If everything is kosher on HB and ED’s side, and it’s just getting definitive answers on what users should and shouldn’t trust and why, then that’s already hugely helpful to reduce false reports regarding FM issues.