streakeagle

A few threads down has the answers you seek. As far as I know from that thread, capto gloves aren't working at all with DCS World and haven't been for quite some time. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=232397 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=282101

Make no mistake, I am a Phantom Phanatic and would love to have every single version ever flown. Presently, Strike Fighters 2 is the only flight sim that provides this to any practical degree. While I understand the later versions of the F-4E used by the USAF make sense in DCS World's environment, the versions I want are from the Vietnam and Israel 1973 eras. So, give me an unslatted F-4E, perhaps with the original gun muzzle. Or give me an early slatted F-4E, or even an F-4E with TISEO, which made their appearance in Vietnam in 1972. On the Navy side, and F-4S make sense with DCS World's tendency to go with the latest/best variants. But a Vietnam era F-4B or F-4J would make me a lot happier. The F-4B went through a lot of changes, so much so that it became the F-4N. Any one of them that served in Vietnam would make me very happy. A great combination would be the F-4B and F-4C. There were some differences because the USAF needed some changes for their operational needs, but overall, the two are very similar and it would be fairly easy to make both variants. Once you have an F-4C, it isn't too hard to make an F-4D variant: mainly internal systems upgrades, not too many differences in the 3d model or flight model. The British F-4K/F-4M variants have radically different engines and slightly different aerodynamics due to the engine installations. It would be a lot more work to make those. But I would buy them :) If I could only have one variant, it wouldn't be a 1980's F-4E, but a 1972 slatted F-4E with or without TISEO. If I could have only two, I would go for a 1972 F-4J as well. 1972 was a big year in the Vietnam War. The F-4D, F-4E, F-4B, and F-4J variants operating in that year would be the ones I want the most. 1966 F-4B and F-4C variants are pretty much equally appealing to me as well. With their much simpler systems, the early F-4B and F-4C variants would be the easiest to bring into DCS World. The multicrew aspect is the biggest obstacle. ED needs to provide a back seater at least equal to the the F-14's Jester AI. Preferably, better. If ED can't implement an AI RIO/WSO at least as well as Heatblur, then the F-4 is going to be a bit of a disappointment. Hopefully, they figure out how to do this right.

I fought this last night and tried checking/unchecking the IP6 box since that was the same problem a few weeks ago. I couldn't get it to work last night. But tonight, when I checked the IPV6 box, it worked. At work, having the IPV6 enabled has undesirable effects on our routing. I can see computers that I shouldn't see. So, at work we have it disabled. I had not messed with the default settings at home until a few weeks ago when a DCS patch forced me to uncheck it. Now I have been forced to recheck it. It should work either way... I shouldn't be forced to enable or disable it to play DCS World mutliplayer.

I still find the mouse faster and more accurate. I have two problems with using the mouse: 1) It tracks off the window causing all kinds of problems with "window out of focus". 2) I am right handed and have the mouse to my right, so I have to take my hand off of the stick to use it. While on the ground, the mouse is by far the fastest way to get through manual startup procedures and doesn't suffer from problem 2. But moving out of the window frame is annoying on the ground and potentially fatal in the air. I like the look of the virtual hands, but they are lot less precise. Harder to operate the desired control and possibly operating undesired controls. In a more perfect work, capto-gloves would work flawlessly and I would already own a pair. But such is not the case. I am probably going to buy Miles' mouse pointer tool, but I will wait for version 2 to be finished and taking orders. I understand that it is the best solution, behaving more like a mouse in terms of precision, but still moving with your hands as needed.

Does this work? I have tried two forms of control: 1) Rift S with Oculus Touch controllers 2) Leap Motion hand tracking emulation of Steam VR controllers I expected the hand(s)/controller(s) to disappear when not in my hand. I can understand that the leap motion/Steam VR combinations may have the palm grip detection defaulted to "ON". But the Oculus controllers very much know when a hand is holding them and when it is not. Yet they are always on screen after I set them down. Up to now, I only use the mouse when flying. I normally remove the batteries from the controllers after starting up oculus and enabling the desktop view so I can see and use my mouse. But if a VR hand was only visible when I want to pick up a controller and use it, I would give up the mouse in DCS World.

My first knuckle tends to rest up against the top of stick grips MCG Pro and TM Hornet. But back to the original topic of the leap motion controller, I had not used it in a while and I saw a check box in VR options for hide hands unless palm grip detected. So, I decided to try out leap motion again and see if the VR option would work with the current setup for Leap Motion / Steam VR. My hope was that the hand controller would appear when I made the pointing finger gesture, and disappear when I didn't have that gesture. But the checkbox option isn't connected to the finger pointing gesture. So the hands were still always on unless moved out of the camera view. Within 30 seconds of trying to start an F-86, I remembered why I stopped messing with this. Besides the lower fps performance in DCS, I couldn't easily operate the engine start switch with a momentary down and a maintained up position. In the struggle to figure out how to get it to move the way it needed to: down then up, my canopy went flying. The right hand is the natural way to operate that switch. But the camera has a hard time seeing the hand at all, much less the correct gesture when I am down that low and to the right. I either have to crank my head around to try to give the camera a better view, and/or use my left hand to operate the switch correctly. It is just to slow and inaccurate for me. I love the concept and in some cockpits it works fairly well, but it is unsuitable for me to use during combat missions, especially in multiplayer, where performance is already pushed to its limits and there is no margin for error or delays. Clearly the technology is very close to working the way it could and should, but the hardware and software could use a few improvements before it performs well enough to surpass other means of cockpit control operation in a VR environment. If the DCS World core was coded specifically to employ leap motion so it could operate the controls more easily/accurately without unintended results and wouldn't need to run Steam VR on top of Oculus, it could already be much more useful. I haven't tried leap motion in the FlyInside flight simulator (I own it but don't have it installed right now), but I understand leap motions is natively supported in that sim. Leap Motion has another product that is very promising: Stratos. Hand tracking with haptic feedback. Ultrasound is used to let you know when you are touching a control. DCS World would have to support it natively, but imagine reaching out into the air and "feeling" the button, switch, or knob you are operating. The future is so bright, I gotta wear shades :matrix: But will this stuff be useful in my lifetime? I have waited decades for VR headsets to reach consumer distribution levels and even now VR is still "early adopter" level. I want to enter the VR world have have it be so enjoyable, stable, and immersive that it is hard to turn to if off.

I am very happy with the Hornet throttle, so I would gladly buy an equally well made F-16 throttle.

I should have asked to join you guys for the big mission, but I wasn't ready yet. While the server was down, I practiced with a copy of the mission from my last multiplayer track files. I am now somewhat proficient with the A-4E and the F10 functions available on the server. I can use the navigation computer as well as use Mk82s and guns. I still need to practice offline to dial in my sight depression for bombs and play with rockets. But I can use VAICOM to get target information and find my way back to the carrier and use SRS to monitor/talk with other players with only slight modifications to my normal control mappings. I haven't tried flying the F-5 or MiG-21 on this server yet. The A-4E flying from carriers is clearly is the star of the show, so that is what I am flying. While I love historical environments and missions, I can't help but fly missions in the blue angels skin. But last night was rough. I kept messing up startup/takeoff. First, I left the ground power on, so it was flying formation with me. Then I forgot to hook onto the carrier, so I drove off the bow into the water. Then I had another player next to me trying to figure out how to use the A-4 with the carrier deck, so he bounced all over, exploded, and knocked me off the deck. My next flight, I flipped the wrong toggle switch (flying VR) and didn't check the cockpit indications, so I flew halfway to the target before realizing my gear was stuck down. I couldn't drop my bombs on the target normally because of the gear down safety. But I dumped them using the emergency bomb handle and was able to land on the deck for repairs, refueling, and rearming. After all of that, I finally got everything right and was approaching the point where I was going to turn into the coast to approach my objective about 20 miles away when a player-flown MiG-21 shot me down. At that point, I realized it was 1:30 AM and went to bed because I get up at 6:00 AM to go to work.

I love both servers. I principally like to fly on 5 servers, and these are two of the 5. The other three are the Storm of War, Cold War, and the other Korea! 1952. All of these servers have plane sets and environments I love as well as players who like flying/fighting/playing in ways similar to my preferences.

I have a Rift S, a GTX 1080, and an old i5 4690K with 32 GB of DDR3 2400 RAM. I can generally maintain 40 fps with half-decent quality. My suggestion is to find either a typical or worst-case mission that gives you the worst performance in VR, then start with ED's default settings. Pick a setting that is important to you, then use trial and error to find the best balance between quality and performance to suit your needs. I can't stand blurry cockpits, so I tend to max out on settings that affect cockpit and gauge clarity. Terrain textures are pretty ugly on low, but high does cost performance. The terrain detail sliders like ground clutter, etc. can save you some fps, but finding a good compromise between performance and looks is very hard. ED's VR defaults are ok, but the more you slide them to the left, the better performance and the uglier/less immersive it gets. I love shadows, but they cost too many fps for intense missions, so I turn them completely off for both the general setting and the terrain setting unless I am flying in an environment where the fps won't drop or I want it to look pretty no matter what the fps. I love mirrors, but recently turned them off for performance. Someone in multiplayer informed me about using the M key to turn them on and off in-game... a great solution for me! I don't use the VR PD setting: I stick to 1.0. The PD does make things look nicer, but it doesn't help with shimmering. I have better luck with using in-game MSAA. I always use MSAAx2 at a minimum and sometimes go to MSAAx4. I also prefer Aniso Filtering x16 since I don't really see a performance penalty from x8 to x16. In the nVidia control panel, I run: FXAA On AA Mode to Enhance AA Setting to Application controlled (since this setting doesn't appear to work in DCS if you try to force it to x2 or higher) play with the AA Transparency yourself to see if it works or hurts performance, but I recently set it to Off to maximize performance MFAA to On Power to Prefer Maximum Performance Texture fitlering to High performance I enabled Trilinear optimization, but have no idea if it helps performance or causes costs any noticeable quality There is some debate about the Virtual Reality pre-rendered frames. I normally defaulted to 1, but have tried others' suggested value of 4. I don't know that I saw any difference between the two.

I can confirm that with Voice Attack/VAICOM Pro on, I cannot use SRS with the A-4E. But with Voice Attack/VAICOM Pro off, SRS works with the A-4E.

I finally logged on early enough to catch a decent crowd. When I joined as an F-86, it balanced the sides as 5 vs 5, which is by far the largest group I have flown with on this server. No one complained about my lack of skills/teamwork and I had a blast with so many on the radio and swirling all around me. I was flying with a Rift S, so visual identification was a bit challenging, but radio calls helped out quite a bit. I don't mind getting shot down at all when it is this much fun! I love flying both the F-86 and MiG-15 and this is the place to do so with others that feel the same way. The problem is that if you are on the East Coast in the USA (I am in Orlando, FL), you have to log in sometime between 4 pm and 5 pm to catch the crowd. I don't usually get to sit down and play until sometime between 7 and 9 pm, long after everyone else in Europe has gone to bed. With a few exceptions, most people on my schedule are flying modern with a decent number also flying WW2, while I struggle to find Korea and Cold War fans.

I generally prefer dogfighting in bright light, but lately I have been catching servers just before the reset with sunset and/or near dark lighting. It may not be fun for WVR dogfighting, but the DCS environment at sunset/dusk/night is absolutely beautiful even in VR. I love the way some of the cockpits glow, too. I wouldn't otherwise have experienced these scenic views if it wasn't for some servers lasting long enough to go dark for a bit.

I love this server. I almost never see anyone on it, but it is a great place to hang out and practice when no one else is available. This was my first experience using dot labels. I like it a lot. It makes a huge difference in VR being able to identify red/blue at more realistic ranges instead of having to get to point blank ranges to distinguish the tail controls and/or paint schemes. I have a button mapped to my hotas so I can toggle labels on briefly to IFF, then go back to pure visual combat, which works great for me: best of both worlds. It would be even more fun if I could catch a night with a decent number of people flying on both sides.

This solution is of no value to me. I have only one grip left that doesn't have the VKB adapter, and it is reserved for my Warthog stick bases. As it is, I have mounted the VKB Gunfighter base on my Winwing desk mount without any modifications, so the Winwing stick is in the corner collecting dust as I expected. I would really like it if there was a vkb adapter for the Winwing grip, then I could use the part I like the most. And I am sure it was be fairly easy for VKB to do that given how small the adapter for going from TM to Winwing appears to be.

I have a Rift CV1 and a Rift S. The Rift S dramatically improved the visual experience and somewhat improved the comfort, but downgraded the audio. The Rift S is getting the job done most of the time. But as was said above, Oculus doesn't appear to be moving forward for PC flight sim people like us. So, for me, it is a matter of when do I get another headset? Do I wait until I build my next PC? Do I wait for another generation? Or do I go ahead and get whatever comes closest to what I hope VR will eventually become? I want higher resolution, wider FOV, AND stable high 90+ fps frame rates. I don't think you can build a PC to handle that even if the VR headset can already be built to do that. Right now, the G2 looks like the best candidate for me to upgrade from the Rift S.

I pretty much need whatever runs flight sims best, and DCS in particular. It doesn't help that the DCS graphics engine is a little behind as well as the core code that is pretty much limited to using only one or two cpu cores. But no other sim has what DCS gives me. For World War 2, there are several options that are fairly competitive, but for Cold War jets like the F-86, MiG-15, MiG-19, MiG-21, and F-5E, the only other game in town is SF2, which hasn't received any patches/updates in years and runs fine with the hardware I have had for years. DCS is what drove me to try VR. It is what drove me to try the VKB stick and Winwing throttle. So, I would really love to see hardware that can deliver the best performance possible for DCS and I would love DCS to improve its core code to permit using untapped potential in existing hardware as well as the near future. But alas, all I can do is wait for hardware that will give me a useful and cost-effective boost in performance over what I have now. It sounds like the 3080 will give me the useful boost, but there is no way it is going to be cost effective. All I can do is wait and see and hope I get called into work a lot to put up a nest egg to pay for whichever option I end up picking. I don't believe I have a single application that uses ray tracing. Unless one of the newer flight sims has introduced it in a patch. So all I am looking at are raw performance numbers and you can never have enough gpu RAM the DCS World and other flight sims are going with textures and 3d meshes.

I would love to see AMD take the lead to bring gpu prices back down to earth. The GTX 1080 is my first ever nVidia card. I had a Voodoo 5500 and when they folded got a Radeon 8500, then a 9800 Pro. The 9700 Pro had smoked nVidia and put ATi in the lead, then remained competitive for a long time. I only recently retired the 7970 GHz edition in my sons PC to give him a GTX 1080 to support VR and 4K. I dealt with ATi, later AMD, gpu drivers for a very long time. Now having experience with nVidia, I don't see any superiority with nVidia drivers. There is no one driver set that works best across the board with all my applications/flight sims. I had to go to a very old driver just to solve some problems in one sim and found it had fixed a bunch of other little problems as well as giving me solid performance in DCS. If AMD produces a card that is at the right price/performance ratio for me, I will jump on it in a heartbeat. But recent history (like the past several years) suggests that AMD always overhypes their next release and nVidia sweeps in with a huge performance advantage and jacks up prices again. I shudder at the idea of paying $1,200 for a gpu when that costs as much or more than the rest of my PC. When I bought my GTX 1080 for $480 (the lowest I had seen at that time) right before bitcoin mining surged the prices up to over $1,000, I still couldn't believe I paid that much for a gpu. I got my son's GTX 1080 (same MSI Duke model as mine) used for $350 and it has been every bit as good as mine (thankfully not burned out from bitcoin mining). Every cycle, AMD claims they are finally going to equal and/or surpass nVidida's gpus and intels cpus. Every time I am left with disappointment. I am Charlie Brown and AMD is Lucy holding the football. Maybe this time she won't pull it away when I run to kick the ball. Otherwise, I see myself going from a GTX 1080 to a 3080 Ti if my bank account is still being topped off by overtime.

The US supply used to be always out of stock, but in recent months (maybe years?, I have lost track), most of the stock is available most of the time. Whereas my previous experience was that you had to wait for the notification email, then go there the moment the email arrived to get something before it was out of stock again. I haven't ordered anything in a while because I pretty much have everything they offer in terms of Gunfighter bases and grips, so I have lost track on how well they are doing for USA orders. A quick perusal through the USA shop and the only out of stock notices I saw were Gladiator K package and the TM Hornet adapter. I did see one thing in stock that I don't have: the newer black "black box". I have two orange ones. I don't need it, but if I order the TM Hornet adapter, I may get a new black box as well.

It is amazing that the MS Sidewinder 2 FFB is still the benchmark for a force feedback stick. But it remains the most compatible/best design for the existing FFB software used by nearly every sim that supports FFB at all. I am sure you can find a way to use the grip without damaging the original stick hardware. I would probably make something involving wood and PVC that would act as an adapter between the mechanical attachment points. I think people making their own extensions for the Warthog were able to find PVC sprinkler/garden hose pipes with the right threading to mount their grips. I had an old Sidewinder Precision 2 (Pro?) stick that I had bought for my dad to try flying. I didn't like the look, but it worked very well. I don't have it anymore because it was the first stick that I cut up when I started adapting my real F-4 stick into being a USB controller. I am curious to see what you think of the Virpil.

The problem with WW2 and Korea servers isn't labels or not labels, but simply the number of people willing to fly on them. If a small community gets split into two by one server setting, it helps no one. I happen to prefer Korea and Cold War servers, both of which have fairly small populations. Both of which only have a few servers to choose from. So the decision is easy: fly on the server that has the most people, which is usually the only server that has more than one person, regardless of the server settings just to maximize the numbers. The Korea 1952! server has a small cast of regulars that is very sensitive to the time frame you log on. The absence of labels dots isn't normally a problem because most of the people I have encountered will use text and voice chat to agree to meet at Sochi at high altitude with contrails. If I have time to "rearm" and I am flying the MiG-15bis, I take the bright red paint scheme and turn on my nav lights. That it totally unrealistic, but I want to get into a dogfight not circle around by myself for 30 minutes or more. Some people choose tactics over going head on into a fight. They stay below contrail altitude and don't communicate or co-ordinate in any way. They won't engage if you are at contrail altitude and will wait for a chance to slip in behind you and get a clean kill undetected. This is exceptionally realistic. This is the way real pilots who want to live and aren't restricted by command doctrine should fly. After circling over Sochi for over 15 minutes and never seeing any enemies even though I know they are airborne and nearby, I decide to leave the server. But I don't just leave or eject, I fly home and land. Of course, the same guy that I could never find chased me all the way home and strafed me on final approach with gear and flaps down. He made only one pass and didn't damage me enough to prevent a safe landing, but it is a waste of my time to play on a server where I fly for 30 to 60 minutes, never get to fight, but get shot at as I am landing to leave the server. If multiplayer was always like this, I would go back to single player. But many if not most nights, I can find some people who want to play the same way I do: get to a WVR position and have a nice dogfight. I generally don't care if I am outnumbered. I don't care if the enemy starts with an advantage above or behind me. I just want a chance to maneuver for a bit before I die or get a kill. On a cold war server with F-5s vs MiG-21s, I don't mind being shot from behind by a missile I never saw, especially since I have radar and usually have AWACS/ground control calls. But without "dots", I can pass very close and completely miss spotting an aircraft I probably would have seen in reality. I don't get upset when this happens. I am a pretty relaxed person, not worried about kill ratios, etc. But I have a lot more fun when I can spot someone that I should be able to see and actually enter a fight instead of being bounced by an aircraft I knew was there and was less than 2 nm away, well within visual range even for small fighters like the F-5 and MiG-21. Regardless of settings, if a server has at least one person I can fly against and a matchup I enjoy, such as F-5 vs MiG-21 or F-86 vs MiG-15, I will fly whichever side will balance the numbers and if I have fun, I will keep coming back. The "dot" setting can make it easier to get into a WVR dogfight with a fairly neutral start, which increases the chance I will have fun and keep coming back. But what is more important than any one setting if flying with others whose preferences are similar to yours. With the right numbers of the right type of people, you can have fun with little regard for the server settings.

I don't have a Virpil, but from what I understand, it is very competitive with the VKB in terms of mechanics/feel. Given that I have the VKB and the Winwing, I would take the Virpil over the Winwing any day. I am tempted to get a Virpil just to compare it to the VKB. I would like to use whatever works best/feels best for me. The Winwing is a huge improvement over the TM stick base hardware, but for me, it simply does not equal the VKB, which I presume means it also does not equal the Virpil. If and when I ever decide to build an F-16 home pit, that is the only time I would consider their products. They have the one base that is perfect for that role and sell the best grip for the F-16 as well. It is a no brainer to build an F-16 sim pit around it. They should make an F-16 throttle, too. Then the used Cougar HOTAS market would die for those that have the money to get the good stuff! I had the chance to get the Cougar for a really good price when it was still on shelves. I was very tempted. But the Warthog was much better for me. But now that they aren't available brand new any more, I kind of wish I had it sitting on my shelf in the box just for the throttle. I may as yet design a multipurpose cockpit frame with interchangeable control panels. I would certainly want to have F-16 throttle and stick consoles in such a lineup. So, if ever get around to it and Realsimulator is still in business, they will finally get my money for a force sensitive base and matching grip.

Yeah, see my post about the Fw190D9. ED did something. As suggested by others, enabling easy comms worked ok for me. But when you go to the trouble of setting up hi-fidelity hardware and software to enjoy the realism that is possible with DCS, VAICOM, and SRS, it is disappointing to encounter a bug like this :( I was going to try to become a Fw190D9 ace, but this one little glitch just drove me back to the jets.

So tell me how much more progress will be made in bug fixes, patches, etc. if everyone that has a buggy module stops buying DCS products? If you understand business in general, for any progress of any kind to be made, cash flow has to be there first. If you understand the history of PC flight sims, it is a niche market, so what few customers you have need to stay and keep spending money or development stops. So, you should thank me for my service, because people like me pumping money into DCS is the only thing that keeps up any progress at all. I never had Flanker, but I have LOMAC, Flaming Cliffs, Flaming Cliffs 2, DCS Ka-50, DCS A-10C. I never liked any of those, but I tried them all. LOMAC/FC had horrible flight modeling and I don't care much for the age of AMRAAM and all-aspect IRMs. Ka-50 and A-10C were amazing study sims, but I don't really have any interest in flying those aircraft and especially the mud moving missions associated with them. I much prefer flying air superiority type missions, especially ones that require WVR dogfighting. Then in a relatively short time came the P-51D, F-86, and UH-1, which are among my favorite aircraft of all time and not too long after came the Fw190D9, MiG-15, and Mi-8. But the airplane that really sold me on DCS World was the MiG-21bis. When Flaming Cliffs 3 got the professional flight model upgrades, it just kept getting better. Those upgrades were very costly in time and money and provided for "free", though I think me having paid for LOMAC/FC1/FC2/FC3 wasn't exactly free having paid for the same exact sim to be upgraded 4 times. ED has a lot going on. They can't fix everything at once, and sometimes they have trouble deciding what to fix first. Economic necessities have sometimes made them shift priorities. Look at how long it took for the long promised and for some long paid for Nevada to be delivered. As long as they remain profitable enough to sustain their existence and continue to make progress, I will be patient and continue to buy their new releases that I like. So far, the only things I haven't bought are the JF-17, any of the GPS addons, and most of the campaigns. But I have all other aircraft modules and terrains. I did get burned by two purchases: the Hawk and the P-40F, both of which were by VEAO. What irritated me is when they adapted the P-40F to another sim and started selling it while never releasing it for DCS. But that sim went out of business not long after that, and VEAO's new company did, too. I do not count the F-5E as a loss. It is one of the modules I have flown the most despite any flaws. Overall, it was well done and it really only needs a few minor tweaks beyond having the models/textures brought up to current standards. ED's slow response to fixing the relatively functional F-5 is understandable to me. It certainly doesn't justify some kind of boycott that could put DCS World out of business.

Unfortunately, you can't go to a driver that predates your card's release. Not sure what driver was the earlies for the 2060 super and how that compares to the MiG-21 radar situation. I guess sometimes it is better to have older hardware... my gtx 1080 is still going strong and adequate for VR with the Rift S even if I can't get the awesome performance/quality of a 1080 ti or better yet, a 2080 ti.