streakeagle

I want to wait and see what some of you guys have to say before I commit to this. For the most part I can live with the Rift S for the foreseeable future, so I can afford to wait until I get around to building a new PC and preferably see a truly new generation of VR rather than relatively minor refreshes of existing hardware.

The mission, number of aircraft flying, etc. can all impact performance. Find an offline mission that is very demanding and tune your VR settings for that. I have been flying on the Korea server with only a handful of guys, but it is up high with lots of contrails. So, there is this Normandy mission for the MiG-15bis with lots of aircraft fighting up high with contrails. It is incredibly demanding in VR. I tune my settings for the best performance possible while trying to keep some semblance of the visual quality I prefer. I like to start with DCS default "VR" graphics settings then toggle things up higher if they don't hurt fps much, plus take into account suggestions from these forums. But the best way to handle it is to try adjusting one setting at a time, then flying the same demanding mission/terrain over and over to see the cost in visual quality vs frame rate and pick what is best for you.

The track clip pro is extremely delicate for the price. Some of the custom designs are far more practical and probably cheaper. But I love the lightweight, the adjustable folding/rotating arm, and the method for clipping it on to a headset. I thought my original headset had finally failed and bought a new one, only to find that it was my USB hub that was failing. I use the new one just because, but the original still works fine. I have had the first one sent TIR 5 was released. I think I still have my TIR 4. I think I threw away my TIR 3 with vector at some point... maybe it got damaged while being stored in a junk drawer. The additional cost over open track solutions is negligible if you use it as many years as I have. TrackIR support is native to most flight sims and with the right setup of passive reflector or active LED clip, every other solution can only hope to equal its performance and compatibility. I got Oculus CV1 first and after Matt Wagner's thoughts on the Rift S with DCS World, I got the Rift S right away, too. VR is not only immersive, but I literally fly better in dogfights because of my ability to maintain situational awareness so much better with 1:1 head tracking and using stereo vision to see around canopy frames with little or no head movement. But, I still end up flying Track IR up to 50% of the time. With good tuning of the head tracking profile, it can be both smooth and precise. The benefit is high steady frame rates generally locked at my 49-inch TV's 4K rate of 60 Hz with visual quality settings practically maxed out. The images are breathtaking, which is also immersive. I love using TrackIR when doing training missions, basic navigation flights, etc. As long as you don't get in a violent, close-in dogfight (like I normally do flying F-86s and MiG-15s online), I can use the TrackIR just fine in combat. While you can technically see longer distances with higher resolution and quality settings, that is really only true if you can clearly pick out 1-pixel on a 4K screen with a low contrast background (like a camo plane flying over trees/bushes/ground with the same color(s). Unless VR in DCS World makes some big, usable gains in both image quality and frame rates, I won't be ditching TrackIR anytime soon. If you can only afford VR or TrackIR and your PC and GPU are strong enough, I would go with VR. But if you can afford both, I think it is still very useful to have both.

I understand that VAICOM doesn't use the menu system... but the difference in the menu system may indicate a difference in the underlying code which for the radio comms for those modules, which could be the source of the problem. In which case, VAICOM would need to implement a different interface for those modules. The fact that it works in easy mode but doesn't work in normal mode is interesting. It means that in easy mode, the radio functionality is the same no matter what. So what changes when easy mode is turned off that is different than other modules that work correctly with VAICOM? Because with VAICOM not running, the radio works fine with easy mode turned off using the menus. So the problem is most likely the exposed interface between DCS World and VAICOIM, but why are some modules different than others?

I started using those keyboards around 2001. You can see another one just like it to the right on top of my old Athlon 64 PC that was built with WinXP 32 and still runs with Windows 7 64. One aspect I liked about those keyboards was the two USB ports built in to them. I used to always use one port for the mouse, but the mouse supports a lot higher speed than USB 1.0. So, I now use one port for my Steel Beasts Pro PE license key. I also like the dual pigtail: the keyboard has both the old PS2 serial connetor and the USB, so if I don't want to tie up a USB port, I can unplug the US connector and the keyboard is fine minus the USB ports. I can type fairly fast and know the feel of these keys very well. https://www.amazon.ca/Microsoft-C17-00001-Internet-Keyboard-Pro/dp/B00005MA9V When my last one finally dies, I will probably get one of those expensive IBM reproduction keyboards. But those won't have all the extra function buttons across the top, the most used of which are the volume/mute buttons, which I can access even when blinded by VR. Some of the keys look polished from wear with the letters gone. One of the two "home" keys that have little ridges on them doesn't have a ridge anymore. I used to have a supply of MS Intellimouse Explorer 3.0 USB mice as well, but I went through all of the original "good" ones years ago and later reproductions were never as good and died fairly quick. The Razer DeathAdder you can see on the desk is exactly the same shape. I know what I like and I stick with it until I have no other choice :)

Given how well VAICOM is integrated, I am willing to bet this problem is on the DCS side. Either way, I sure would like to see this fixed. But with DCS, there are quite a few "little things" I would like to see fixed that have been around for years.

If I got the monster mount, I would eliminate the winwing mount all together. I have some angled aluminum leftover from my F-4 cockpit project that will get the job done. I just need to make time to sketch a quick design and get it done. The winwing mount/stick has been sitting around for quite awhile. I would rather spend more time flying than modding :) I like pits built with the monster mount system. If I was starting from scratch, I might have gone that way all along. But it is fairly easy for me to work with wood and aluminum, I and already have a pretty good start on a complete pit... I want to get my throttle, stick, and panels working on my F-4 cockpit before DCS releases its F-4, but it seems I still have quite a bit of time to do all that. But it is the recent progress I made on the F-4 project that sold me on getting the Winwing: I wanted the throttle and the desk clamp to free up my left console for conversion from TM throttle to real F-4 throttle, which is still going to use the TM throttle for the levers (hidden underneath with some sort of cable or pushrod connection.

I wish the Winwing setup had come with a dedicated way to mount three MFDs. I am going to make some kind of crossbar that will attach to the desk or the Winwing desk mounts and get another MFD set so I can have three. I also need to make a swing arm side stand for the keyboard. But I don't fly the modern aircraft that much, so I am in no hurry.

I have some extra padding in my jetseat. Without the extra padding, it feels like sitting on rocks where the motors are. My wife used to order those "simple meals" in a box and they used plastic bags filled with recycled cotton for insulation. I have recycled the recycled cotton :) This is my 2nd jetseat and I just got around to adding the padding today, so it hasn't gotten compressed yet. I need to check one of the motors on my first jetseat. But when Gametrix shutdown, I wanted to be sure I had spares, so I ordered a 2nd one and will use the first one for spare parts and/or a 2nd seat. I just finished programming a few stick profiles and trying out the Winwing stick in combat. It feels great. I don't push over into negative g very often, so the only time I am crossing center in a dogfight is when I am rolling from side to side, so I rarely feel the transition bump. The feedback from the springs is great. Not as good as force feedback, but it still feels nice. I wish someone would make a decent force feedback stick for a reasonable price that is readily compatible with most flight sims. The one I have seen in the forums is expensive because of the awesome hardware setup, but it isn't necessarily compatible with DCS World. I also understand that DCS World doesn't necessarily generate the best force feedback signals for every module. For that kind of price, DCS World needs to generate good signals and the stick needs to be fully compatible with those signals. I don't especially need basic vibrating effects, because the jetseat already does that for me, though I certainly want a force feedback stick to do that, too. Feeling the stick get harder to move with increased speed would be fantastic and if the motors could generate enough force, I would love to feel the controls locking up on aircraft that have this problem.

The WarBRD should be more than adequate... fix the wobbly extension! Winwing might be a step down due to the feel at the center, though I don't know what a WarBRD feels like. VKB doesn't have exactly the extension I want: just the straight 10 cm and the curved 20 cm. So I bought some aluminum pipe that is almost identical to their extension and I will cut it to several lengths then use the cable and connectors from the 20 cm curved extension to make the desired size work. I need about a 12, 15, or 17 cm extension depending on which grip I am using at the time. So I will make all three. The Realsimulator grips are very nice. But I already have two Hornet grips and both were good enough to be my primary grip for modern US jets. I also like having the paddle switch as it saves the trouble of have to build one and then integrate it to some type of USB interface. If you get the Winwing stick, hold off on getting the Realsimulator grip until you try the Winwing grip. You may find it more than adequate. My current installation:

I am using the extension tube at its minimum extension setting, which puts the top of the stick at almost exactly the correct height relative to the throttle panel when the desktop clamp is at the full down extension limit. If I didn't want the extra range of motion provided by the extension, I could remove it and raise the desktop clamp up to keep the top of the stick at the same height. This is a very flexible arrangement which should be able to satisfy just about anyone's preferences for stick length, range of travel, and elevation level. I would never use a wobbly extension tube. Precision is my thing :) The Winwing tube does have screws for adjusting its height. The threaded connectors between the stick and the tube and the tube and the base allow a lot of flexibility on the twist angle of the stick. But all of those connections could pose issues with being loose/wobbly if the threads got messed up especially if you were repeatedly disassembling/reassembling. As it is, you have to be careful to get everything tight to keep the stick from twisting, but lock screws are provided to make sure everything stays tight once you are happy with your setup. As I have said more than once in this thread and others, I have only one complaint relative to the VKB: the transition at the center. Otherwise, I would say this stick is mechanically and electrically equal or better than the VKB. I have not messed with the software other than to use it for calibration, flashing firmware, etc. So, I can't say how the software compares with VKB's package. But the VKB software is extremely powerful. The only things SimAppPro could try to do to surpass VKB's power and flexibility is the make the user interface friendlier for the average simmer instead of being packed with features that only make sense if you are a controls engineer and/or have time to read the detailed documentation. With the Warthog adapter to permit using the Warthog A-10C/F-16C grip and possibly many Virpil grips, this stick is a very strong rival to the VKB and Virpil sticks and the TM Warthog stick is far inferior not only because of its gimbal design and feel, but the difficulty in disassembling it to clean, lubricate, and/or make modifications is much inferior to these later designs. I love the TM Warthog throttle, but the stick is only an emergency backup for me. I will probably give away one of them to my brother-in-law when I build a new computer and give him this one so he can fly, too :)

That is interesting. I had noticed I could talk to the base on some cold start missions, so I thought it was primarily commands that were on a different menu structure that didn't work. What would change on either end... DCS World engine, Fw190, or VAICOM Pro that would make the behavior change upon leaving the ground? Line of sight calculation error (i.e. blocked or out of range)? Virtual power failure? Mic doesn't key in-game? Bizarre. Overall, this software works brilliantly and I have come to rely on it. It eliminates seeing text on the screen while communicating and makes it so all I have to do is key a mic to talk to anyone, including my virtual RIO. The integration with SRS is very nice, too. ED has come to the party a little late with their voice chat. It doesn't even come close to doing what SRS does. They would have to give me something that rivals the VAICOM Pro/SRS combination to get me to use it at this point. But right now, I was hoping to focus on the Fw190D9 for the first time in a while. This little hangup will force me to do something else, because I am not typing key commands to talk to AI ever again if I can avoid it.

I finally altered my seating arrangement to permit installing the Super Libra stick with the desk clamp. I already loved the TM Hornet grip, so having almost the same exact shape is a good thing. But the feel and functionality of this grip is better in many ways. The 4-way hat functionality on the little button between the trim and castle switch vice the TM idea of adding an extra control to the left of it is great. The center depress on the trim hat is beneficial, too. The thumb switch on the middle of the stick is the biggest improvement since I can easily move the Winwing version in every direction, whereas the TM Hornet grip's version of this switch is too stiff to easily move to the left. The stick desk clamp works as well as the throttle desk clamp. The variation in height adjustment gives you the option to use the stick with or without the extension. I like having an extension to better match geometry and motion of real-world aircraft sticks, so I had to lower the mount all the way down and use the minimum size of the extension. With this setup, I pretty much get the geometry I wanted in terms of the height of the stick above the throttle panel as well as the desired range of motion in the pitch axis. I have only one complaint about this setup compared to my preferred VKB Gunfighter base: when you transition across the center in either pitch or roll, you can feel it, similar to the Warthog stick, but a lot less severe. If you start from the center and move away, there is no bump nor is there any "stiction", so you can smoothly make very small adjustments that are simply impossible with a stock out-of-the-box Warthog stick base. But if you very much know when you are crossing the center, which is not the case with the VKB base. If I had this stick before I got the VKB, I probably would not have bought the VKB. But since I have both, the VKB is still the better option for me. One further comment: One thing I like to see is precision in the digital output of the analog axes: no noise, but sensitive to even the slightest movement of the stick. The Winwing appears to be as good as anyone in this regard. The Warthog was always good about this. VKB gives you the tools to tune the behavior to your preference, but is at least as good as the Warthog out of the box. The Winwing is smooth. VKB has one more little edge, though. After calibration, if you bump the VKB and let it return to center, it almost always returns exactly to center. The Winwing calibration procedure seems focused on the endpoints, as I don't see it exactly at the center after calibration. This doesn't really cause a problem, because when my hand is on the stick, it will always report the position I move it to, as a real stick would and as the VKB does as well. So the natural center has little value for me other than knowing the precision of the centering mechanism, axis position sensing, and calibration system. While some say you can't use that level of precision, I can say that with the Winwing, I can pick a reference anywhere over the 0-65535 digital axes range and move the value by 1 bit, i.e. from 32767 (center) to 32768. While it is easier to do near the center where the spring forces are lower, I can move exactly one bit even at the extremes, i.e. from 89 to 88 which is right at the end of the pitch full forward limit of 0. This makes the Winwing a top notch stick for me. The Warthog has only 14 bit resolution despite advertisements to the contrary and the stiction makes it very difficult to make such small precise adjustments. VKB is capable of higher resolution, but out of the box they have it programmed for 14, probably for stability and helping get that near perfect centering effect. I will probably fly with this stick for a week or two to see how it holds up after hours of heavy dog fighting and to see if I get to a point where the center point doesn't bother me.

It isn't nonsense on a relative scale. I used to be able to beat AI before using correct tactics despite their wacky flight mode, but now I can not. So, either AI flight model performance increased or the Fw190 player flight model performance decreased. I would bet on the latter. On the other hand with some speed built up, I can pull away from Spitfires with speed and climb to at least have a chance of escaping to re-engage on my favorable terms. I can use the same tactics to club AI P-47s like baby seals.

Those graphs are not what I experience in-game against AI P-51Ds. The AI can gain energy on me no matter what I do. With boost on, I should be able to shake them in a climb, but I cannot. They just pull up behind me at will and gun me. In the past, 1.5x and earlier, I could go into a climbing turn and bleed the AI P-51s energy down, then try to create a situation where I could dive on them. But I cannot do that at all in the Normandy instant action dogfight mission. At best, I can exactly match the AI P-51 so that neither of us is gaining while in a steady turning cycle at an oblique angle alternating between climbing/stalling/diving. But If I let off g to try to gain alt or speed, the AI instantly kill me. Recent patching may have robbed some performance, but I had noticed a degradation against AI some time ago... maybe even back during the final 1.5xx patches? I don't fly the Fw190 much, but I am trying to become proficient enough to be competitive in multiplayer, but that isn't going to happen if I have none of the advantages I need in power/climb/acceleration to make up for the P-51's diving/energy retention abilities.

If I play without VAICOM and use the ingame radio menu, everything works fine. If I have VoiceAttack/VAICOM in use, the Fw190D9 cannot use many if any radio commands. I am going to guess that this is because some aircraft like the Fw190D9 have different comm menus than most other aircraft. For example, the call to "engage bandits" requires different keystrokes/menu options in the game. It really would have been nice if ED had stuck to identical comm tree layouts and just skipped branch numbers that didn't apply to specific aircraft types, but they didn't and it is not an option to mod the core game. My solution to this using my old free Shoot voice command software was to have separate profiles for each aircraft (or class of aircraft) to accommodate the comm menu tree variations. But with VAICOM Pro, I don't see anything I can easily edit within the voice attack profile, and I don't know a way to customize the plugin to make it work with WW2 aircraft, and even if I did, I would need to have an alternative modded plugin to support the odd aircraft. Has anyone else encountered this and have a fix for it?

With recent proper mods getting a clean folder of their own in the user's saved game folder, removing/adding mods couldn't be easier and in general have nothing to do with the behavior of other aircraft. When you start tinkering with the files common to all DCS World is when mods get you in trouble, and very popular things like VAICOM can wreak havoc. The MiG-21bis has been a train wreck for years. The flight model has been all over the place. But recent progress has finally pulled it out of the hangar for me, yet it still has problems that have never been fixed. The only problem I have observed at all regarding these two particular mods at their current revision is the MB339 causing an error in my SimShaker vibrating seat software, which itself is an unlicensed mod. If I took away all the unlicensed addons I am using with DCS World, I wouldn't have VoiceAttack/VAICOM Pro, SRS, SimShaker and countless liveries. I have had some of the liveries cause problems, but they are usually somewhat older ones and all I have to do to trouble shoot is remove folders from Saved Games mods then put them back one at a time until the problem is isolated. Unlicensed mods also provide an opportunity to fix problems with DCS core modules and 3rd party licensed modules that have been ignored. Problems like the radar display in the F-5 or canopy reflections that make it difficult to see anything. So, I wouldn't hold my breath avoiding non-SDK mods to guarantee tech support, or you will be stuck with "known issues" or "documented features".

The best way to make permanent changes is to find the aircraft of interest in the snap views file and edit that to suit your taste. There is a default view entry used for 2D and a separate one for VR. The file path/name is: C:\Users\<user name>\Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\Config\View\SnapViews.lua First, you have the search the lua file for the aircraft of interest. In this case I am found: SnapViews["FW-190D9"] = { The default VR head is too far back, so I edited the "x" value to move the default position 15 cm forward: [14] = {--default view - VR viewAngle = 80.000000,--FOV hAngle = 0.000000, vAngle = -9.609863, x_trans = 0.100000, <-- this value was -0.050000, which is in meters y_trans = 0.018884, z_trans = 0.035561, rollAngle = 0.000000, }, Note: lua files should only be altered with and editor that supports the file encoding used by DCS World, UTF-8, otherwise you may corrupt the file. I personally prefer Notepad++ for editing text files because it automatically detects and uses the correct file encoding scheme and has a lot of good tools built in and/or available as plugins.

Most modules with flip down triggers work as they should. But this one does not. This module has been out for a very long time. The trigger isn't rocket science. It isn't a major fix like tweaking the flight or engine model. Why hasn't it been fixed yet? I paid for this one just the same as I paid for the F-16, F/A-18, and P-47D... yet all the effort goes into the newest modules while old ones are neglected.

I use a Rift S, and before that a CV1. I match my real IPD on both the Oculus software settings and the DCS World settings. While some modules are a bit different, by far the majority scale pretty close to dead on without any tweaks to the DCS IPD setting. What I do have to tweak for almost every single aircraft is the default head position for VR. Aircraft with virtual pilot bodies make this fairly easy to do. Those without virtual pilots, I check the external view for references of the eye position versus the seat, canopy frame, etc. Once I have the head in the right position, I rarely observe any scaling issues. I will say that some of the virtual pilots have long skinny arms and or legs. The chair I sit in is a fairly accurate 1:1 scale model of an F-4E Martin-Baker ejection seat, including a real survival kit/seat pan and parachute container/head rest. This allows me to accurately very the scale in many US aircraft since the seat is very similar to most other US ejection seats in the basic dimensions, especially the notched seat cushion that allows the stick to move freely. I also have my stick placed correctly for an F-4E, which aside from some height differences, is otherwise very close to most aircraft I fly. It is in the throttle area that I see a lot more variety in location and range of motion between various modules. But I can't name a single module where the scaling seems so off that I need to adjust it. What would be nice, is for me to put my rudder pedals on tracks to adjust the distance from the stick, then put the chair on tracks to adjust the distance from the stick so that I can more accurately replicate cockpits that deviate significantly from the F-4 dimensions I used for my setup. If I could adjust the seat height and recline angle, that would be icing on the cake.

The A-4E and MB339 free mods are outstanding. The only big limitations I see with them are the things that have not been implemented because they are not licensed to have and use the SDK. Compare them to the Hawk, which I paid for but can no longer use and never worked good enough for me to use on a regular basis. I am thoroughly impressed. I hope two things happen: 1) The success of these mods encourages more modders to develop more aircraft, something DCS can always use in the present state of development where theaters like Vietnam, Israel/Middle East, and India/Pakistan don't even have terrains much less a decent library of flyable and AI aircraft appropriate for them. 2) The success of these mods encourages ED to award the best of the modders full access to the SDK with some technical support to make their mods fully comparable to the best payware mods. The MiG-21bis started out as a LOMAC/Flaming Cliffs mod. I would love to see the A-4E, MB339, and many more aircraft make the same leap from a really nice mod to a full-blown DCS module. From a business model perspective, I can understand concerns that free stuff could hurt sales of ED and licensed 3rd parties. All you have to do is look at the FSX/P3d environment. Despite almost infinite availability of free mods, the market for expensive, but really well done payware is still doing extremely well. People don't mind paying for great work. Competition from free mods may provide incentive to make sure ED and third party work is held to a high standard to justify the price. For the record, I own every DCS aircraft and terrain module except the JF-17 (including the long gone Hawk and the never released P-40F), and I am eagerly awaiting the option to preorder many of the up and coming modules, like the M-23MLA, the F-8J, etc. If the A-4E and/or MB339 went payware or a 3rd party released fully supported modules for those aircraft, I would gladly pay for them. But in the interim, I have gained two really well done aircraft in an environment that otherwise grows very slowly. Thank you to the modders! And thank you to ED for leaving the game engine open enough to allow modders to deliver aircraft at this level of completion!

I have been flying the MiG-15bis a lot online and offline lately. The existing canopy reflection is worthless. It not only looks bad, but really limits visibility out of the cockpit. I lose sight of contacts at nearly point blank ranges all the time depending on the lighting/angle to the sun.

I am relatively new to multiplayer, but have been logging in regularly for several weeks now. I rarely have stability issues. Most of the time, I can get on a server with zero issues. If I have a problem, it is usually while flying. DCS crashes and generates a bug report. But those have been fairly rare considering the hours I have been putting into multiplayer lately.

Played again with my previous low quality/high fps settings mixes with ASW off: for dogfighting this is the way to go. I didn't see stuttering or ghosting, things just look a little uglier when I stop to sight see. I think the 27fps setting would be better for non-combat missions where you are more focused on the map/ground objects rather than rapid pitching/rolling/turning in a swarm of aircraft.

So, I did a follow up test, where I played the exact same mission with the exact same settings, but turned ASW off. With ASW off, my frame rates had three stable points: 70-80, 40-42, and 27-28, so Oculus is obviously doing some kind of VSYNC that I don't have turned on via the game or the gpu driver. Playing with ASW off did sometimes have a slight stutter, but for the most part, it looked as good as playing at a steady 27 fps. More importantly, virtually no ghosting. So over the next few days, I am going to start playing with ASW off and see how that does in the missions I typically play offline as well as in multiplayer. If it gets ugly, I will try 27 fps again. But I suspect my best bet would be to play with ASW off and my settings lowered for speed. Staying at 40 to 80 fps with no ghosting would be better for me than having shadows and hi res terrain textures.