npole

I've learned them all long ago.. anyway I believe that locate and operate the most important ones (80% of them) doesn't require more than a week. Btw when you point it, you can have the tooltip telling you what's that button is for, that surely helps. You can also configure the clickable cross (the one you usually move with the mouse) to bind to the center of your view (permanently or by toggling), this is especially usefull with the rift because then you don't have to use your mouse but you can look (in the real meaning of the word) the switch to click and just press a button on your hotas to click it, so you can forget about your mouse as well. There's also the possibility to use VAC (voice activation) that works quite well with DCS, for those commands that doesn't require an immediate intervention. The possibilities are endless, we just need the developers to add the native support now. NOTE: the consumer version will be 1080p, the discussion about the current resolution are irrelevant, we're asking to add the support today because that's what the developer kit is about, we can't wait for the product to hits the store, we need to move like anyone else, so we have time to tweak it. Especially considering that adding the support to the Oculus Rift requires a very minor effort (we're talking about ten working hours, not to subtract the resources from the other most important features the developers are working on currently).

I don't remember the last time I've touched my keyboard or have been forced to look at something else than my screen/cockpit. There might problem with semi-arcade aircrafts like those in FC3, but with the A10C, a full clickable cockpit and the hotas, it's all you need.

Not only this.. but any big (last one was Sony with the PS4) is looking at it.. in other words the device is already "marked" as a mass-sale piece of hardware before it even hits the stores. While on this forum we're still thinking if support it or not.. and we didn't received any official reply so far. What a shame.

I have a dedicate frame for flight sim and driving sim, so my WH has a dedicate place.. however when I play at my main PC (with a normal chair) I usually place the stick in the middle of my legs, it has a large base so it stays in place coz I'm (literally) sitting on it... the only downside is that it's too near to my body, but I didn't found it to be a problem tbh.

A small shelf with two pins to fit (tight) into those two holes that originally anchored the armrest and you're fine. Very easy and cheap. You only need a solid wood floor and two long metallic pins.. something like this to give you an idea:

I believed the modifications were only about the terrain.. so we're going to have a whole new graphic engine into DCS? :O

I've imagined DCS but with Outerra (whole world) scenery... I could sit there and fly for a week without sleeping or eating before passing out...

There must be a language barrier.. sorry.. but I don't get how "it crawls" would be translated into the current development status of the dedicated server, or I don't get the irony (if any), nor that's fun to take piss of who's paying your salary. Something more intelligible for a limited mind as mine would be appreciated, like how long we should wait, or what's the % of completion. Thank you.

Hello, can you link to me the recent official reply from the developers about the dedicated server developing status you're talking about? With recent I mean, possibly not older than the past 4 months or at max during this year. Thank you.

No developer around to give a official reply?

So I have a pretty powerful server.. but I cannot run a DCS server on it because it wants a dx9 capable gfx card (for no technical reason)... after all these years what's the dedi server status? If there's any dedicate server being developed? For what reason ED is working at those semi-arcade modules instead of give to use something that we're waiting for years? This is killing the already small communities.. we can't even run our piloting school because we can't host the server at home (since the poor bandwidth). Is there any official word about this? Is ED ever mentioned they are working at a dedicated server (or at least to a server without a GUI) or they are just ignoring the posts like this one? Thank you.

Implementing the rift, requires around 10 working hours from a single coder, you don't really have to "dump" anything. It gives to the game a major boost under how it is perceived outside of the hardcore simmers world (anything "touched" by the Rift is acquiring immediate interest from ppl that never heard about that such title before). And, finally, the dev kits have the purpose of offering the developers a device to test and implement this technology (nor that you have to wait t he 2014 when it will hits the mass; but the opposite: when the product goes retail you are already supporting it). To resume: there isn't a single downside to not implement the Rift today, nor a justification, that's why i'm asking the reason of why none (apparently) of the coders is looking into it. So i'm asking for the official reply from ED, rather that users speculations.

It may works great, but if you do you'll leave on the ground a good bunch of FPS (and the HDR), because you'll be forced to disable the native full-screen (and opting for SoftTH is not the same, unfortunately).

What you didn't got from the phrase: "I did not the calculation, it's just an example". 200cm and 180cm were just an example, make it 200cm and 170cm in example, until you obtain the same FOV. ;) With a lower DPI you cannot move a 1080p TV much closer (not as close as 1600p screen) or you will start to notice the pixel separation (screendoor effect). In other words no matter how big is your screen, you have a minimum distance (it depends by the panel quality and more by the resolution) where you can place it, before you will start to notice the pixels, and because of this you can always obtain the same FOV of a TV using a monitor (no matter of the size) with the bigger advantage of having a much more detailed image. ...and what are you failing to understand is that I was replying to an exact question: "is a TV capable of providing the same quality of a good PC monitor?" .. and the reply cannot be different than: "no, it doesn't". Using a TV screen is (like you said), accepting a compromise: you do it because you can't (or won't) spend money on a bigger monitor configuration. Using one (or multiple) 1600p monitors requires much more money than running a single 1080p TV with a average graphic board. The discussion (read the OP please), is not about the personal preference (that as the term suggest is personal!), but about the different screens quality (or the image quality offered by different devices), and this not a matter of "personal opinions", but facts. ;)

Why no reply from ED yet?

In my example the apparent screen size is exactly the same (ie: TV placed ad 2m and monitor placed at 1.8m), perhaps the FOV is exactly the same (the borders are placed at the same angles; in other words you have to turn your head the same way to reach the screen border). If you cannot move your setup and you cannot obtain the best of your screen, you can't blame the screen itself. In example you can play with a cinema screen sized projector, and sit far away from it to have the same apparent size of my 30" monitor. Even considering the "coolness" of playing with a that big sized screen, i'll be tons more profitable with my 30" monitor sitting at 150cm from it. Why? Because my resolution is much higher. :) It's called eye fatigue, it's when you concentrate on visual intense tasks, more intense is the task, more strain will receive your eyes, this is because the ciliary muscle tightens. None have said that ppl will not be happy by using a TV screen instead of using a proper PC monitor. TV screens are cheaper and are more common of big monitors, to not consider the fact that these ppl are running their game at max 1080p (so they won't take advantage of a 1600p monitor in example). It's like asking: may I fly with the A10C with a cyborg evo joystick? I will answer: of course you do! ...but pointing the fact that there's other (and better, but expensive) solutions. Would it make the cyborg evo players unhappy? Of course not! But you cannot compare a evo with TM Warthog in example. And in this case you cannot compare a TV screen, with a PC monitor quality, they are two complete different devices that have been made for two different tasks. The original question was: "my TV but would that provide the same picture quality as running on a good PC monitor?" and the reply can be only one: "nope, your TV would never provide the same picture quality of a good PC monitor". :)

It's actually the opposite, a smaller screen can be placed near to you to have the same apparent size of a larger one. In example a 40" TV placed at 200cm from your eyes, has the same screen size of a 30" monitor placed at 180cm (I did not the calculation, it's just an example), with the big advantage of having a better defined image, so the target size will be the same, but will be more detailed and so you can distinguish more easily the different objects that composes an image, that is what cause the more eye straining: it's not the size (because we established that the size will be the same) but the fact that you need to strain your eyes more looking to a less defined image.

Eheh... in bold the difference, 1600p is incredible more detailed than 1080p. This makes a huge difference at recognize targets at distance. The size is absolutely relative to your position relative to the screen: if you get closer to your screen you see a bigger image, it's that easy, while the resolution is not, it's fixed, so a 1080p screen will never look like a 1600p making the screen bigger, you're only going to magnify it, so a bunch of pixels (a possible target at distance) will not turns into a tank or a shilka, it will remains a bunch of (bigger) pixels.

Using a 40" makes the difference even more reduced to not justify the switch especially if you have a hi-end monitor. I would never and ever trade the quality of my 30" 1600p, even in a single monitor configuration, for a 40" 1080p TV screen. Again, if you own a 24" (even in triple configuration the vertical size is smaller), and the definition is not a top priority for you, then you could find an advantage in using a 40" TV screen... in any other situation a monitor is far superior. If you think at it: if a TV screen is superior, don't you think that ppl would spend $400 for a 40" LCD TV, instead of $1000 for a IPS monitor? It's not that a monitor is good only for graphic softwares or to navigate the web. ;)

Not exactly, there's so many things to consider: What's your monitor resolution and its size? What's your TV resolution and its size? Did you owned a good monitor before the switch? Is your TV good enough? Can your PC sustain a certain resolution? I own two 55" LCD Samsung TV's (1080p) and two Dell 30" IPS monitors (1600p). The 55" TV is amazing for certain type of games, or any game where the "details" aren't that important, the size really helps to make the game more immersive (it's the same difference of watch a film on a tv or on a cinema..). But there's a downside: the dpi is much lower. My Dell monitor is a way smaller of course, but the 1600p does a huge difference in terms of quality, but only where this definition can be noticed: if I play a shooter, I wouldn't probably notice it, but when I've to look at that damn pixel-sized tank in my MFD it makes a world of difference. I may love to "watch the fly" on a bigger screen, but I would never give up to the definition I have. What's the solution? Multimonitor of course: the only way to maintain the definition while having a bigger size. The price to pay? Well.. it's the price itself: good quality monitors does have a cost, power PC's and gfx boards costs a lot.. and so on. To resume: If you have no resources to run a bigger monitor, or a surrounding (3 monitors) solution, and you're stuck with a so-and-so monitor, then looking into a TV solution could be an idea and an improvement for the immersion; but if you have enough money to spend, then there's nothing that can be compared with a good IPS monitor today in terms of image quality.

Problem with TV's is the resolution, they're max 1080p, and increasing the size of the screen makes the "problem" even worse. It's not only about flying, the problem comes up when you need to identify the targets, especially if you're used to fly in CAS mission. Sometime it's already hard to spot certain targets on the MFD in 1600p on a regular sized monitor (30") ... it would be even harder to do the same @1080p, and a much bigger screen wouldn't make it better. On the other side TV's have a nicer size/cost ratio, you can buy a 1080p 50" TV screen today for "cheap".

It took to me like 2 years to figure out that there was 5 leds behind those white dots. :D

Same here, I can't imagine to fly in DCS without a WH. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone because its price must be justified by the usage (I've seen many ppl trying a flight sim for a short while to abandon it), but if you fly already everyday (or almost) then it's a no-brainer purchase. Consideration: the fact that you asked this question means that you have already decided really, you're only trying to find an "excuse" to justify those money coming out from your wallet, you will buy it no matter what, so instead of thinking too much, buy it and enjoy.

Me too, F15E, F18... having a copilot role in MP will be awesome on many levels.

Thank you, I've tried with a mission setting the wind from W (in the editor you must set the direction "to") and the ATC correctly reported wind from 270, to be sure I've tried to takeoff and the aircraft went in the air after just few meters (since the strong head wind), initially I've been fooled because with no brakes, on the ground, the aircraft started to move toward the wind (!) .. i'm not sure if it's a bug in the air modeling, or if it's actually because of the wind going into the turbines. Anyway the ATC/CDU is correctly reported. :)