npole

The offset is minimal even in real life.. unless you're a gecko. While the FOV L/R is much higher (around 45° on each side because of the nose), but the DK1 doesn't provide a FOV similar to the human eyes (you can't see much on sides), this is why the images looks very similar to you (coz a large part that should exists on the sides.. is missing).

In many rift games you could just disable the rift tracking, then you can use their sensors into another program. That's what i'm asking. Maybe as you suggested by opening FTnoIR before the game, the game library couldn't communicate with the sensors (already opened) and i'll be fine.. I haven't tried it yet. EDIT: i just tested it, and it works. If you open FTnoIR before DCS, DCS isn't capable of controlling the head tracking, and so FTnoIR remains active.. and 6dof works too (with the hydra). The other benefit is that you can control the curves and all the other parameters (the Rift is mapped 1:1 and you can't change it). Now i only need the IPD fix and i'll be fine. :)

On a separate matter: is there any way to disable the embed Rift head tracker? I want to use my custom version (FTnoIR) that uses the rift sensor + the hydra sensor (mounted on head) so i can have a full 6dof tracking, that is very useful to read the MFD's in the rift, by just moving your head towards em.

I think people that claim it to "works" didn't figured the problem... yes the rift works, but as we explained early: the IPD is completely off (because they used the new HD version IPD). So they provided a custom visual.dll ... but it doesn't work (the game crashes... etc.). So atm the oculus rift (DK1) is not usable... unless you're looking for severe eyes pain (you need to cross your eyes to compensate the IPD).

I second this, an attachment here on a post would be great.

It's even worse. The IPD is completely off on my side.

Am I doing anything wrong? The default eyes separation is crazy... (unless you're a chameleon). How to adjust it?

The winter pics posted on the forum right now are much more nicer than the previous ones (it must be because of the environment color filter and because you cannot spot any "lo-res" texture). Nice details.

That's perfectly understandable and obvious... we're not asking for the perfection, we may desire constant improvements (possible improvements.. not the impossible ones). Good to know.. can't wait to try it myself, better gfx is always welcome, whenever i'm more anxious to test the other possibilities that EDGE will opens.

Few.. but there's (that's why i mentioned Project CARS), btw I am not pretending that DCS will looks like real life (for the nature of the product, it couldn't with the current gneration hardware), i was commenting about those people who were calling "real" those two screenshots in the first page. I don't think so.. i'm enjoying this product, I use it every day with my squadron. We all understand that probably due to the niche product, limited resources, etc. the game has the best possible engine it could have today, so we "accept" the situation and we never blame the devs. But accepting it doesn't mean that we don't have the eyes to understand that it is far to be "perfect", and we hope that it will improve. I only half agree: limited to some vehicles (A10C, BS2.. etc.) the cockpit (and the whole aircraft) is perfectly reproduced. Something better could be done with the textures tho: they can be improved alot paying much attention to the details (we have seen some example with modded A10C cockpit textures already). The Su25 in the screen of this thread in example doesn't look "perfect", some of the textures used looks artificial (especially in the reflection), and the textures applied to the aircraft: look at the red star on the wing.. i would you call it "great"? I don't. What's the nosense? I can produce better screenshots with the current engine, so i don't quite understand what's the "good" (better) thing that some people are claiming about those screens. I'm sure that those screenshots have been posted just for us to give a look at the new engine and not to show how better the new engine is! This is talking about the game, not about an "imaginary product".

You're confusing "personal taste" with "objectivity". Distinguish what's "real" from what looks obviously a video game is just a matter of having a couple of eyes. It doesn't mean that it's not "good" (nor that it isn't "good enough"), it just means that it could be improved eventually (hence my "critics")... and I hope it will.

Exactly.. you don't need to do magic to have nice screens with the current engine, and yes they looks very nice, but (again; i'm sure everyone is bored to hear it again) they aren't perfect nor near to be considered "real", and i said why (most of them can be improved technically, not having enough resources [understandably] is another matter...). I'm personally looking at DX11 not to have a much improved gfx (i'm convinced that the improvement will be minimal in the end), but to have (if possible) a better performance (DX11 cards used in a more efficient way), and all the other features they promised and linked to EDGE (first of all: the dedicate server). I'm not all about the gfx .. as my gfx is acceptable already for a flight sim of this type, one of my screens (contrast enhanced / but jpg compressed):

Stop offending: call me a troll won't sure help your cause. And to reply to the other (luckily they are only few): fan boys, i'm not criticizing what the devs are doing + i know perfectly what WIP means + you don't even reading what i wrote: you just spot someone (me) not saying awesome things about your "pet", and you don't even open your eyes to fully read what I wrote into those messages (i see people commenting the 3D models and the terrain, while I only talked about the lighting, the coloring and the cockpit and aircraft textures?). I am not criticizing the devs, i'm commenting those ones that are claiming that those shots looks "real", and I explained why those shots looks average - Again: i'm not saying i don't like them > i am saying that they are FAR from the perfection you're claiming in certain posts. It's not that i'm going to stop playing it because it doesn't look "perfect", I only hope that it will improve in the future (that should be the hopes of ANY of you.. unless your brain brain operates in a not conventional way).

In fact i'm not telling it to the devs.. i'm commenting those people that claims that those shots looks "real"... are you telling me that those persons knows perfectly that those shots are "average" but they are trying to praise and incite the developer with not genuine comments? :)

Should i post a picture of a real airplane or other "more real" video games, to let you spot the differences or what? I'm sure you have an idea of what's the real life, or what's a better gfx engine without me to give "examples". :)

Yuppo, these was the same critics we were doing to ArmA (OF) and then to Arma2 for years... but none of us really cared much honestly, everyone was attracted by the simulation aspect of it, but finally we had a major step in ArmA3 and actually the current engine (whenever it's not "perfect") offers a visual impact on pair with this years. This is what I would love to see in DCS... one day. :) PS: the map of DCS is huge, but i was criticizing the model textures, the lighting and the coloring that aren't influenced much by map size. We couldn't have detailed terrain for obvious reason, and i believe that everyone understand this.

I'm not sure what's "vague" into my post. I'm talking about two things mainly: the rendering engine (comparing to the rendering engine of the other games); and i was commenting people claiming that those images looks "real, for me "real" means that they looks like the "real life" (or to be simplistic: to real photos), then I said that those pics looks good (at least not worse than the current DCS) but far far far far to be "real" (then I posted an example of a game that looks "real"; i didn't meant to compare cars with airplanes!). We should give real opinions and not be a bunch of "fanboys": critics will help to improve the product, pretending that everything is awesome (while is not) won't help anything.

I upgraded mine a while back.. but i have not idea about the changes... but i can confirm that it works and there's no downside. :D

I won't be that one... but I don't understand all this excitement: are we really accustomed to bad graphic to look at this shoots as stunning? We should compare it to the modern (others) games, not just to the current DCS levels. What i see in those pics is: very nice 3D models, and this is not a news (the current 3D models of the prime cockpits and weapons are awesome already); but: very poor textures resolution and materials; average lighting; wrong environmental coloring. Now i won't say that i don't like the progression, I am playing the current DCS after all and I will continue to do so, even with a "bad" graphic; but i won't call at the miracle, and certainly i won't say: "these pictures looks real..." .. because if those shoots looks real than a screenshot taken from a game with a stunning graphic (ie: Project CARS) what is it? MORE THAN REAL? Let's be happy of the fact that this game still exists (it's a niche game and our only "save"), but we should remain down on earth, and "pretend" to have more (when/if possible).

You can use a modified version of opentrack, it will use the gyro in the Oculus Rift for the head tracking, plus the razer hydra (one of the controllers) for the positional tracking: you need to "strap" it on your oculus rift. To have a cross-hair in the middle of your screen and use it as "mouse pointer" (to use the cockpit switches...) you need to modify your clickable_common .lua: use_click_and_pan_mode = true

I use the hydra strapped to the rift for the positional tracking. I really don't like the optical solution they seems to use with the Crystal Cover OR, it reminds me the very bad experience i'm having with the TrackIR5. I want to be free of looking at my back while leaning .. if I want, not to be forced to have the "visual" to a stupid camera. I hope they will reconsider this idea.. or eventually I hope they will use the leds only to improve the 6DOF and to eventually zeroing a gyro .. and not as the only solution for the positional tracking.

Nope, the best option is to give up with semi-sim modules and stick with the full clickable cockpits. With a HOTAS and the A10-C, I do not use the keyboard at all, and when using the Rift, i can have the mouse crosshair linked to the view.. so I just point the relevant switch with my eyes and click it with 2 buttons on the hotas. But I also didn't found any trouble to use the mouse to do the same (you don't need to see the mouse to use it really).

(i own all the modules.. including the A10C of course.. :) ). ...in the end it was about Steam: it "updated" the modules (after the activation) only the next day (today) ... with a 1.2GB downloading.

That's what i believed.. i own FC3.. but then why i can't use the A-10A? In example in a MP server... Is it a different problem? Are we sure that those models, added into a mission, aren't different for the game?

I mean, with the modules... do you have to buy the A10A and the SU25T again if you own FC3? I remember they confirmed that those "stand alone" modules would have been free for the FC3 owners, coz i tried to fly with the A10A by using the Steam client (after have redeemed all the products I have.. basically everything except the A10A and Su25T modules)... and it didn't works. Does anyone could explain how it works please?