NakedSquirrel

I noticed some improvements a couple of months ago with the Vive. I had taken a break from DCS VR because it was unplayable on the Persian Gulf map and MP. The game plays much better now than it did before. It is even playable in multiplayer.

Is there a way to transport static objects, or to give a transport helicopter a weight to simulate hauling troops or ammo? I wanted to add Huey transport to one of my missions, but I don't want to bog down the server with extra AI.

I had the issue on the PG map after a 20-30 min flight in the A-10C. It threw me off because I’ve been able to play VR for hours on end with no fatigue or motion sickness. It could be the map. It’s probably the first time I did a long VR flight on the Persian golf.

Thanks!

I'm having an issue with VR in DCS. The game seems to cause very bad eye strain. I believe it is due to things being slightly out of focus? It's like I'm flying with my eyes crossed... not that things are blurry, but my eyes are working hard to focus on objects at different distances. I wish I knew how to better explain the problem, but my eyes are working overtime to focus on the image, it's exhausting and almost painful to try and play the game in VR. It's probably related to IPD, because I can purposefully induce eye strain by setting silly IPD settings. I have "Force IPD" set so that the world scale is roughly 1:1, but the focal point of the image is off somehow. It's the same sort of strain I notice when I use the 'zoom' option in game. As far as my VR "sea legs" I'm typically unaffected by nausea or eye strain, but DCS is causing me issues. I don't notice much eye strain in other games or sims. I prefer narrow IPD settings in most games (smaller than my measured IPD), I find it's easier to read/focus on things that are close up when I move the lenses closer together. I have the IPD of the headset set to the same as the "Forced IPD" setting in DCS, but there's still something wrong with the in-game image. Putting this out there to see if anyone has suggestions.

They will eventually send you parts if you keep asking. It took me a bout a week and a half to get the circuit board for my Warthog throttle. I decided to take apart the extension set I had from Virpil then soldered it to the wires from the broken TM DIN connecter. Yeah, the wire colors are just as confusing as they look, it took quite a bit of double checking. (and I know, it's a sloppy soldering job.) Here's the end result: Buttons all work flawlessly! There is a little bit of slack, but I'm not worried about it. I could try to stuff them back into the grip, but I'll probably just use a small handle extension instead. My only advice to anyone opening up their grip is be very careful not to pinch any wires when you put it back together. The ones I soldered were fine, but the ones near the trim button kept slipping out every time I tried to reassemble the grip. :doh: Happily, everything worked out in the end and the joystick back up and running! :joystick:

I managed to peel away most of the plastic and epoxy from the male DIN connector. My wires appear to be colored differently than the above image Hopefully that is right. I peeled off as much material to get close to the connections. I guess they don't have a standard color scheme for the wires?

Similar issue here. One of my pins broke in half (Joy). I have an extension from Virpil that fits, but I think I will wait for the new plug to arrive, as it should be easier to take apart. Also the extension doesn't have the grounding wire (black wire). This pic was posted on the forums a while ago: I believe the [thin] black wire is now green, or at least it is on mine.

Static objects are free save for their GPU cost for players. If you mix static and active you can get pretty busy looking environments. I did a test copy and pasting almost a thousand or so statics with no impact.

I like the look of the radar hood, but Perhaps a cockpit option where you click on the radar hood and can cycle between full, medium, and no hood?

Does this work with combined arms?:P

I have. It seems like a good number have been answered as WIP or something else. I’ve just seen a number of posts like this and they don’t seem productive. Making a bucket list of bugs would be a little less vague and complaining.

I see a lot of these style posts but they tend to just say the FM is “wrong” without saying what exactly is wrong with performance. I’ll admit I haven’t put the plane through it’s rigors in a while. There were a few aspects of the FM I have really enjoyed, like sliding in turns and the fact the plane would drop like a brick once wings lost lift. I’ve seen videos of this in the MiG 21, and it is neat to see it replicated. Substantial posts about FM usually quote manuals or charts or at least boast some anecdotal quotes, but I don’t see that for the complaints about the MiG. For example the roll rate. There were complaints the aircraft is hard to control. The devs quote the realistic roll rate and suggest setting a curve, but it’s just met with stubborn complaints.

It’s fun to see how much detail goes into these flight models

Yes And older aircraft you can use a waypoint or TACAN as bulls. Which makes this practice tool useful.

The 27R isn't a terrible missile compared to the Blue missiles. Unless something has recently changed the 27R has marginally less range than the Aim-7. And unless they've changed it, the Matra 530D is aweful because it loses tons of airspeed and becomes a brick after the propellant is expended. I use the same tactic with the 27R that I do with the Aim-7 Make sure you are within 15-20km, when you fire, it will give you the best chance of hitting. With missiles it is ok to fire near the launch limit to get the enemy to maneuver, but I would still fire a second between 10-15km for a better hit probability, but you are in R73 range by that point. The radar missiles do not have a very long range in DCS and have marginally better range than your Active IR missiles. The main thing I use them for is for shooting enemy that are close to friendlies because you don't want your IR missile to track the wrong target and hit a wingman. Even in Blue aircraft with Aim-120's I tend to carry an Aim-7 or two for that reason alone, not hitting friendlies. The big problem is something brought up in the above video, missiles in DCS always calculate full lead, even at long range, so missiles bleed tons of energy at long range. The guys you are shooting at are probably doing high G barrel rolls to force your missile to lose speed. Just toss a boresight IR missile into the mix :)

What are you guys using to estimate scale? I've tried a few things like standing next to an ejected pilot, Looking at the controls in the A10C (since I have a TM Warthog), and aircraft with copilots like the Huey or Gazelle (since you can tell if a human model appears 'out of proportion') I used the "force IPD" setting and my IPD in game settled to around 62-60. This appeared to be the most normal for proportions, but it is hard to tell. Forcing the IPD seems much better than default settings as far as the game scale is concerned. There are still some cockpits that appear small to me, like the Mig21. The switches, cockpit levers, controls, everything looks very small in game, but in pictures they look to be decently large. For example: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Aoc8sw9fk6g/U3mIGwintII/AAAAAAAA5OQ/n6pB5IvlAoU/s1600/MiG-21PFM_gallery_05.jpg What sort of 'landmarks' are you guys using to find the 'sweet spot' for IPD/game scale?

Is there any way to buddy lase the Vikhr? I know you can do this for the ML-25, but I haven't been able to find out if there is any way (if at all) to buddy lase for a Vikhr... to perhaps curve it around a mountain, or even have a KA50 which is in safe range of a SAM lase for a KA50 launching in the SAM's range. From what I understand, the Vikhr is almost like a TOW missile, but guided by a laser, but even if there are ways to 'trick' the missile into jumping onto a wing man's laser designation, it would be interesting.

It is pretty well functional as far as weapons systems. It is a fun bird to fly. I think it is very much worth it.

TACAN works to show distance in A/A mode. I find it better to find a TACAN station somewhere near your AO and use it as a sort of “bullseye” for your flight. It helps when evasive maneuvering spreads out your flight because it gives range and bearing to a common point.

Did you rearm/refuel after you turned the aircraft on? That has caused issues for me. The aircraft should be rearmed before starting. I could not find a bit test that refreshes the Stores page

It definitely looks daunting, but it’s just looks. You can change the cockpit language and in the end you can use auto start, bind almost the same number of controls as a FC module and never touch the cockpit again... until you want to learn more. And as Heatblur mentioned with the F14, piloting is more simplistic than FC aircraft because of the RIO taking a good portion of the workload. I agree that FC modules could use more functionality like datalink, moving map, TACAN, etc, but there isn’t much to be gained from changing these already full fidelity modules to a FC format. It’s better to put guides out there and show people that these modern birds aren’t that hard to learn :thumbup: The problem with FC modules is you have to remember the huge number of key combos, and you can’t just click on the cockpit if you forget something. Adding TACAN or CDU functions could be tough since you’re adding even more key commands to the mix. It’s easier to click on an OSB button. It seems like ED announced some new “FC4” modules for the future, so we’ll see what those add.

I can't find this "patient" thing in the 2.5.2.17559.377 change list. Are you sure we're supposed to have it?

I expect between 8-12nm since that is the max range you can force correlate in the A-10C

I don’t see an advantage to having 3rd parties or ED redo these modules as FC style modules when users could simply rebind their controls on their own. Most of these modern aircraft are already “simple” My M2000 module, for instance, has a hotas setup that is nearly identical to my FC3 F15C setup. If I were to use auto start, the only “extra” thing I would need to do is to click is the master arm button. The plane has a lot more capability than the FC F15, but you don’t have to mess with the INS computer or TACAN (etc) if you don’t want to. And hell, how do you make the MiG21 more simplistic? Disable radar filters and IFF interrogation? Just select your pylon and fire your weapon! If you really want these modules more “Flaming Cliffs” like you could rebind the controls and share them or even use a 3rd party app to make macros. I’ve never tried to work on an endeavor like that myself because everyone has a different HOTAS setup. I’ll walk people through control setup, but I don’t like to tell people what keyboard and joystick buttons to bind because it needs to be ergonomic for the individual pilot. In general, I always suggest trying to make control schemes similar between modules. It makes it easier to learn multiple airframes. I find there is some anxiety associated with the full sim modules, but most of them aren’t that complicated to get started with. I personally think they are easier than Flaming Cliffs planes, because if you forget a keybind you can always use your mouse and click the button in the cockpit. But, if it’s a project you are really passionate about, go ahead and make a FC like control scheme. (If it’s a price issue... wait for a sale. They have one every quarter.)