BiBa

3D Monitors-Users did not have this problem in DCS version 1.5! Since version 2.5 started, the shadows do not match with their objects and cause nausea and headache on the long run. This huge problem is due to wrong 3D programming. The shadows have been treated as third Independent object in the depth scale (Z axes)! Every object is double rendered in 3D. Their shadows should also be double rendered and adequately superimposed like a paint layer with its same object’s (Z axes) coordinate, like a second skin. But due to unclear reasons in 2.5, their shadow layer has been synchronized independently instead with the mouse cursor! The proof for that is, when adjusting the convergence for the cursor in the cockpit to fit on gauges and buttons etc. you can also see while zooming in and out, that ALSO the shadows in the cockpit are been parallel adjusted WITH the cursor, so that they are also FLOATING over the objects instead of been superimposed over them, when the convergence is zoomed in and out (Z axis). This 3D shadow problem is exclusively in DCS 2.5 & does not exist in DCS 1.5 version! In the 3D programming for VR, when moving the mouse cursor in different direction (X / Y), you can see how it adapts adequately to the depth of the corresponding object (Z axes) and the shadows are correctly displayed, as they should be. A big WHY the programmers do not use the same Parameters and Algorithms of 3D VR (or DCS version 1.5) and paste them in version 2.5 for 3D Monitors??? It is incomprehensible why DCS is still neglecting this BIG problem despite the many complaints about it, whereas the solution lies already solved in DCS 1.5 and VR. All 3D Users are totally frustrated about this, because their investment in an expensive 3D Monitor is now in vain. So in the name of all 3D Users, we urge the programmers to follow up this pledge and solve this problem ASAP...

Have a look on my thread : Wrong NVIDIA 3D programming in 2.5! https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=206338&highlight=NVIDIA+3D

Done - GPU updated. Looks good for now...

3D Monitors-Users did not have this problem in DCS version 1.5! Since version 2.5 started, the shadows do not match with their objects and cause nausea and headache on the long run. This huge problem is due to wrong 3D programming. The shadows have been treated as third Independent object in the depth scale (Z axes)! Every object is double rendered in 3D. Their shadows should also be double rendered and adequately superimposed like a paint layer with its same object’s (Z axes) coordinate, like a second skin. But due to unclear reasons in 2.5, their shadow layer has been synchronized independently instead with the mouse cursor! The proof for that is, when adjusting the convergence for the cursor in the cockpit to fit on gauges and buttons etc. you can also see while zooming in and out, that ALSO the shadows in the cockpit are been parallel adjusted WITH the cursor, so that they are also FLOATING over the objects instead of been superimposed over them, when the convergence is zoomed in and out (Z axis). This 3D shadow problem is exclusively in DCS 2.5 & does not exist in DCS 1.5 version! In the 3D programming for VR, when moving the mouse cursor in different direction (X / Y), you can see how it adapts adequately to the depth of the corresponding object (Z axes) and the shadows are correctly displayed, as they should be. A big WHY the programmers do not use the same Parameters and Algorithms of 3D VR (or DCS version 1.5) and paste them in version 2.5 for 3D Monitors??? It is incomprehensible why DCS is still neglecting this BIG problem despite the many complaints about it, whereas the solution lies already solved in DCS 1.5 and VR. All 3D Users are totally frustrated about this, because their investment in an expensive 3D Monitor is now in vain. So in the name of all 3D Users, we urge the programmers to follow up this pledge and solve this problem ASAP...

Game Crash Report attached dcs.log-20180412-164609.zip

high time - finally subscribed!

A lot of input to be checked out. :book: Sounds very promising! Merci beaucoup LeFuneste!

Exactly! "Bleeding the Air out" of this thread with polemics is distracting away from the important tasks & exhausting the expected efficiency, like the technical problem I've addressed in vain above for the second time in this thread. Has anyone successfully combined his Pimax with TrackIR? I'll be really thankful for a solution. Thanks

If the PiMax 3DOF is indeed extendable with the extra X,Y,Z DOF "pingpongball" softwares, can you please explain why this 3DOF PiMax combination (Pitch, Roll, Yaw) is not working with the (X,Y,Z) DOF of TrackIR? I've already posted here a pledge on this topic #520, but unfortunately, I did not receive an answer yet. I'll be really thankful for a prompt reply...

SkateZilla & JazAero are both right: - SkateZilla is referring to the adjustment of the virtual-head's Pupils within the engine, which is the Software measurement. - JazAero is referring to the adjustment of the Pupils within the HMD, which is the Hardware measurement. Again it would be much easier for the average DCS consumer if instead he just have to insert in the box the FOV degree of his own HMD, like 90° for most HMD MR, or like 110° for Pimax VR. This would guarantee a 1 to 1 ratio between the virtual head within the engine and the FOV° of the physical HMD. Then it would be up to the consumer to decide if he needs to zoom in for better readable gauges, he just have to sacrifice a few degree of his HMD real physical potential, like entering 88° instead of 95° for Acer AH100 MR, or the opposite to zoom out for more FOV gain! If DCS decides for this alternative, then call it HMD FOV instead IPD. In this case it would need a little bit of reprogramming...

It is working, but I have the impression not enough as it is suppose to be. I got the Specs on my AMD Phenom II X6 1090T: Instructions and Technologies: Execute Disable Bit? Yes 64-bit Support? Yes Hyper-Threading technology? No Turbo Boost? Yes Virtualization? Yes Enhanced SpeedStep? Yes Instruction Set Extensions: MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 Question: What are the VR Formats Set Extensions that are missing here, and how & where are they to be implemented manually, because the driver has already the last update.

It is indeed an AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition! And now blacklisted :mad:

...let alone what process is behind the whole terminology dilemma, the perception for the average consumer is a change in the FOV (Field Of View). Seen from the camera perspective, augmenting or decreasing the field of view beyond the prescribed HMD angle, is like zooming from wide angle to telephoto lens. If for example your HMD has a 110° FOV, then you should adjust your ***numbers (***IPD / FOV) so that your field of sight angle in the cockpit would match your HMD°, otherwise there'll be a Wide/Tele distortion. Only the exact FOV angle that matches your HMD characteristics would guarantee the 100% real world cockpit. Example: If your HMD has a 90 ° FOV, get a bird's eye view drawing of a cockpit, place the tip of a right triangle over the pilot's head and draw equally the two 90 ° line from it, and look how far away from the dashboard is to be seen in the cockpit. Exactly that is how far your HMD may show you. Seeing more buttons from the dashboard means an extension in the angle of the FOV and thus a diminution of the reality and vice versa. In this case, it is advisable if the ED programmers set a box for the HMD FOV angle and program it accordingly instead of experimenting too much with the so-called IPD values. So from this point of view, adjusting the angle of orientation / how far your eyes perceive while holding your head straight in the cockpit would logically resume the whole thread designation debate to the FOV alternative instead of IPD. :thumbup:

Hi Jabbers - Thanks a lot for this great Video - Thumbs up! Also a great Tip with the NVIDIA new Display adjustment! PiMax has released today a new update backed up with the new software Dr.Pi that evaluates your computer to see if it does the VR job well. Weird thing, I got ok on all hardware with the exception of the CPU. it seems that the 6 cores x 3.2 Ghz aren't enough for my 4k VR?! Anyway I'm still in the VR experimental phase... I've subscribed to your channel waiting for the upcoming VR update evaluation of DCS 2.5 Beta version.

where is the setting exactly of this UI keys, can you please prescribe the path more precisely - thanks

I've recently purchased the PiMax 4K. Compared with the other Mixed Reality 6DOF HMD, it has only 3DOF. At the beginning I deactivated the Yaw/Pitch/Roll boxes in my TrackIR leaving the X/Y/Z to compensate this defizit. I've also done the same in DCS Axis Assignment/TrackIR, and it worked! For unknown reasons the second day once I activated my TrackIR, I lost the Yaw/Pitch/Roll in my VR. It came back when the TrackIR was deactivated. I couldn't find a way to make it work again. Does anyone have an idea how to make it work again?

I've recently purchased the PiMax 4K. Compared with the other Mixed Reality 6DOF HMD, it has only 3DOF. At the beginning I deactivated the Yaw/Pitch/Roll boxes in my TrackIR leaving the X/Y/Z to compensate this defizit. I've also done the same in DCS Axis Assignment/TrackIR, and it worked! For unknown reasons the second day once I activated my TrackIR, I lost the Yaw/Pitch/Roll in my VR. It came back when the TrackIR was deactivated. I couldn't find a way to make it work again. Does anyone have an idea how to make it work again? [EDIT] I've moved the first question to "DCS and Pimax" Thread. My second question; is the zoom option deactivated in VR or am I the only one having this problem?

Thanks for the prompt reply :thumbup:

The installation of 2.5 Open Beta said that once installed the DCS World 1.5 version will be deleted (may be when the Beta version is official), so the big 1.5 File is still there now. Can I uninstall the 1.5 version now without having any problems, like lost of AI serial numbers etc.? I need space on my driver because the 2.5 Beta version is BIG...

This thread is a true asset thanks to you guys - you never learn enough... I still have a few remarks like if any adjustment of the physical seat to match the location of the in-game virtual seat would have an impact on the HUD Reticle, but it's premature now until I receive my VR in a few days to relate everything into practice.

As I'm about receiving my first VR in the next few days, and as a Fan(atic) of true authentic simulation environment, I was wondering about what would be the IPD setting for a realistic cockpit, and here you are... Thanks a lot... But does the 71 IPD setting goes for all other cockpits? If not I'll be needing at least a dozen of settings for the rest. Would be nice if someone pins a TTS (True To Size) IPD list for all winged ED-AIs !

...so I guess we'll have to wait... When the time comes - call the ball :pilotfly:

I'm really curious out of which sources you're getting hold of your technical information, because you need to disassemble and check the hardware to squeeze that info out. If the display is only capable of taking in 2560x1440 as asserted, than it cannot even be defined as a 4K display. Only the input capacity is what counts! No matter what technology is used in upscaling the input is in my opinion, treachery. :music_whistling: What is always a mystery to me is how manufacturers always manage to legally present their merchandise on the market labeled with such specifications without being even thriftily penalized. :doh:

As said, my GTX 970 Engine has a maximum Digital Resolution of 5120x3200. PiMax 4K has a maximum Digital Resolution of 3840x2100 / 2*1920x2100, so with my current computer performance it wouldn’t make a big difference having a higher VR resolution. So I just bought myself a used PiMax 4K on eBay for €190, which is for me a cheap VR Vernissage. In a couple of days I’ll give a feedback on it. But in advance I can say the SAMSUNG Odyssey advantage is that it has a 6DOF, while the PiMax 4K only 3DOF (x,y,z field of vision), it does not have the 3DOF body movement. So either you have to invest an extra for a 3DOF motion controller, or use a TackIR excluding out of it the 3DOF field of vision options like what I’ll be doing with mine. The PiMax 8K has 7680x2100 / 2*3840x2100 One GeForce GTX 1080 Ti has a maximum External Resolution of 7680x4320, so it will do the job if the PC high-end hardware offers the optimum functioning environment, like for e.g.: X399 Motherboard, 16 cores x 4Ghz CPU, 2 x 1080Ti GPU and 128Gb RAM

Hi Rage - I was jut about to purchase a VR until I stumbled on your review & it scared the sh!t out of me... But before I praise your review, would you please give us more details on your PC specs to check first how far it exceeds the minimum VR requirements! Now I know that to avoid seing pixels in a VR, you should start with 700ppi display. SAMSUNG Odyssey has 615ppi (pixel per inch) = 1600p x 1440p / 3.5"", so I'm not surprised by your conclusion. That is why I'll risk my first VR purchase with the PiMax 4K, which has 806ppi, also because those are my utmost PC output limits for now. Once I'll have my PC updated with a X399 Motherboard, 16 cores x 4Ghz CPU, 2 x 1080Ti GPU and 128Gb RAM - than I'll go for the PiMax 8K with 200° FOV. Until then I'll keep dreaming... Now, if someone is using a 800ppi VR and is also seing pixels, please let me know asap before I buy that thing...