Boris

To be honest, probably not. DCS is already very demanding with current gen VR hardware. I have a 1080ti and an Oculus Rift and still wish I had more horsepower and you need to find the right balance between quality and performance in the settings. I have backed the Pimax 8k, which looks very promising, but I'm not optimistic what performance is concerned. If I run the Rift at equivalent pixel density I don't get the desired fps. I'd go so far as to say it's unplayable. I'm glad that the next generation of nVidia cards is also rumoured to be released in about two months time. You might fare better with a VivePro as the step up in resolution is less dramatic, but expect many concessions to be made with the 1080ti. All that being said, if you have the money, VR is more than worth it for DCS. Having flown in DCS with an Oculus Rift for about a year now, I can confidently say it's a better experience, despite the admittedly much worse resolution (coming from a 40" 4k screen).

The main issue here is not the cockpit scale and it's not the viewpoint. You can change the head position in cockpit at heart's desire, but if you have the view in a position which seems natural, much of the HUD is obscured. It's the age old issue of the HUD being scaled (allegedly) incorrectly.

I agree with this. Flying only in VR for so long it's easy to forget what it was like on a monitor. I remember upgrading from a 1080p monitor to a much larger 4k screen because I thought the higher res would give me crisper dots to spot. Spotting didn't really get any better. Once an aircraft is lost in ground clutter for instance it's just hard to spot in general. Spotting planes above in the blue sky is also a nightmare. I'd love to know how this compares to real life.

Do all Rift owners get the credit or do you have to ask for it for it?

Do you have depth off field on by any chance? If so, turn it off.

I for one am certainly very glad and thankful that my wife allows m to have my me time.

I have cleared out old pilots over the years because I sometimes deleted the Savedgames DCS folder for clean installs. I did things like have a US pilot, a Russian pilot etc. at one stage. I kind of regret not having used one pilot over the years to see how many hours I have logged on each virtual airframe. I think in this day and age it would make sense for the log to be linked to your DCS account and synced to the cloud.

While I understand your concerns in principle, I think you're being a little melodramatic. The "Combat" part of DCS is looking better than ever. Never have we had more modern combat aircraft, more maps, more content, and there's so much great stuff on the roadmap. When I got back into flight-simming and signed up for this forum only a few short years ago in 2013, there were only two high-fidelity modern combat modules (the A-10c and Ka-50). Just take a step back and look at what we have now. And extreme high-end modules like the Hornet and the Tomcat are yet to come. You're implying DCS is somehow steering away from combat and this just isn't the case. And while I would understand your concerns more if it were about the Christen Eagle, I find it a little odd that it's in reference to the Yak-52. The Yak-52 is a military aircraft that fits right into the post-Vietnam era that you described (first flight in 1976). It is used to train for combat aircraft. DCS pushes for maximum realism and therefore it makes sense to have realistic training options for becoming a combat pilot. So in short, the trend you're fearing isn't really a trend and the Yak-52 fits perfectly into the context of a combat simulator.

I did this write-up a few years back: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=124711 DCS has three wind layers you can set in the mission editor and four in practice. Setting all of the right wind speeds and directions in LASTE does indeed make unguided bombing very accurate. The automatic correction only takes the wind at your current altitude into consideration. Haven't tried it in 2.5 though.

Thanks for the detailed analysis comie

In two weeks...

It actually looks a lot like Silent Hunter 3 but with very different gameplay. Even sounds like Silent Hunter. I'm sure they've been inspired by it and are trying to recapture that atmosphere. I did some menu screens and texture work for GWX back in the day and always liked to play on the very highest realism possible. I guess it's no wonder I moved on to DCS for my kicks. Still, this looks really cool.

Funny, I've almost always taken down a MiG with one missile and never taken down a Harrier with one. Maybe you're accidentally firing at the Harriers thinking they're Migs?

I was referring more to the fact that Harriers frequently take two to three missiles to down. That isn't the case with the MiG-21 or the MiG-15. Yeah, a whole bunch of stuff needs to be fixed on the MiG-21.

They should just fix the freaking damage model.

It's good practice to completely clear all of your axis and button assignments (keep the keyboard assignments of course) and assign everything afresh. This insures you have everything where you want it and there are no conflicts. And yes, you need to repeat for every aircraft you want to fly. But it's all worth it in the end.

This is something that also got me extremely frustrated with the Spitfire at first. I blew the engine in every dogfight I was in. Watch your gauges. As others have said, 8 boost is already plenty, even though your throttle still has a lot of room to move. You only need to pus it a bit further if you really need it. Also keep an eye on the temperature gauge. The natural thing to do (at least this is what I always found intuitive), is to increase power in the climb and to decrease power in the dive. The problem is, that in the climb you lose airspeed and therefore less cooling airflow to your engine. So what you want to do is make sure your boost isn't too high in the climb, and increase your power to gather as much energy as you can in a dive / once your airspeed is higher.

In regards to your seat, why not get (or make) an extension that curves towards you, much like a helicopter cyclic?

For me it's a no brainer: What's the most realistic? All DCS modules are aircraft that have a stick between the legs. Where is my stick? Between my legs. Simple. Yes, having the stick mounted to my chair is a little bit of a con, but honestly, it's not that hard to just step over it. I have it attached with wingnuts, so if I don't need the stick if I ever play other games, I just quickly detach it. Before I had a stick extension for my Warthog (it's not a good ides to constantly keep removing the extension as the extension cable will eventually break), I had it like this: Just remove the grip when not using it.

This! :thumbup: It's becoming a tendency for developers to move onto new modules while released modules are still in open beta, lacking complete documentation, campaigns, training missions, and having many bugs and missing features. Good thing Cobra has already announced that after the Tomcat they're going to consolidate their modules, fix bugs, make improvements and create content.

I haven't tried it myself yet, but as I understand it, right click isn't implemented.

I certainly hope performance will improve. If the implementation of Vulkan does indeed have a noticeable impact, then your GPU being maxed out now shouldn't be an issue. DCS is very demanding. Of course your GPU is maxed out right now. Vulkan should make things more efficient, meaning you'll have more headroom. It also distributes work across more CPU cores and more efficiently utilizes the CPU. As you know, historically DCS has been notoriously bad at taking advantage of multiple cores.

These: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/campaigns/spitfire_operation_epsom_campaign/ https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/campaigns/p-51d_charnwood_campaign/

One of my favourite aircraft in DCS. It has a few bugs but none of them are actual showstoppers. Just a few cosmetic things and performance/systems that need to be made more realistic. Yes, some people are very vocal and passionate about all the bugs, but if you don't know any better you probably will only notice the broken night lighting and excessive canopy glare. And hey, if you're optimistic, these things may actually get fixed. It's great fun in multiplayer and fairly evenly matched against the F-5E, even in its current state.

Things take a long time with DCS. This is a "sad" fact about many aspects of DCS World. I remember Wags saying the F-18 is imminent more than 2 years back. Many other modules are also unfinished, still in beta for a long time or have unfixed bugs that have been around ever since the introductions of 2.0 open alpha. While I really hope all of these things are fixed and completed sooner rather than later, I'd suggest not to get depressed about it. This is the nature of DCS and the sheer scope of DCS is now much more impressive than just a few years back. There are two working campaigns out for the Normandy map, so it already provides a gameplay experience.