SPAS79

Just use open XR toolkit for that?

yes, rh APAC.

So, am I right in understanding that if MSAA is toggled on, FXAA does not work? EDIT: thanks for your work!

Also, the file content of shadows.ini within the \3dmigoto\ShaderFixes\ folder for the normal and OpenXR version 21.1 are ; suppress shadow fix ; Flat shadow skip ;------------------------------------------------------------------------ while in the 3DmigotoDCS_VR_suppress_shadowsFix we have two folders 3DmigotoDCS_VR_suppress_shadowsFix\bin\ShaderFixes\ and 3DmigotoDCS_VR_suppress_shadowsFix\bin\3dmigoto\ShaderFixes\ both contain a single shadows.ini which contents are exactly the same as the standard one. ; suppress shadow fix ; Flat shadow skip ;------------------------------------------------------------------------ is this intended?

Hey @lefuneste01 , does this mean MSAA on or off? "If MSAA is toggled, FXAA will not be applyed."

I'll take that, but this is how how I have done it and it works for me

have you copied the 3dmigoto files and folter to the bin-mt? if so, try deleting the d3dx_user.ini file, that should reset the mod parameters and let you start from scratch.

Wait, I'm an idiot. I had cockpit global illumination active again... NVM going to try the new version.

It does display the menu and some of the settings work (mainly the ones with saturation, color add etc) but most of the mod does not work for me in OpenXR and MT.

Thanks for the clarification. Yeah AFAIK that mod is never going to get another update so tough luck. But thanks for claryfing that !

Does not work for me... I have the minigun and the Armed Blackhawk addons installed and keep getting a message about pylons in SimShaker... could that be it? Also, I get this in the log if I load Simshaker with the UH-60 already loaded: 18:17:13.9113 New airframe "UH-60L" detected 18:17:13.9113 Invalid or not supported aircraft "UH-60L"! And this if I load the UH-60 after loading a "known" module: 18:22:48.8808 New airframe "UH-60L" detected 18:22:48.8808 Invalid or not supported aircraft "UH-60L"! 18:22:48.8808 System.IndexOutOfRangeException: Index was outside the bounds of the array. together with this error message, which effectively locks the whole thing and I have to kill and restart SimShaker:

So I had a problem with the mod today on multiplayer servers with SRS. Basically each radio but the UHF while in the UH60 is fixed on a frequency and there is no way to change that frequency with the in-game controls. I.e. the controls in cockpit work and the frequency displayed on the aircraft radios is correct (e.g. FM 30.000 or VHF 126.500) but in SRS they are all the same (in the two server I visited those were 200.000 and 305.000). It is like if the frequency is set by the server for every radio and cannot be changed, but the UHF. I asked at least another player on the server and they were having the same problem. Any idea what could be the cause? Also, this might be an SRS problem so I guess @Ciribobmight be interested? EDIT: Screenshot added null

This thing doesn't seem to work for me on the latest OB, can't get the pilot station view, some controls are just not there (e.g. the laser designator SHIFT+o). No Idea what I'm doing wrong.

That's great that you're following it like this! Thanks for your continued work on this mod. Could you state what you see working and what is not, at the present moment?

yes.

Yeah, I'll give it a shot!

Wait I think it has to do with the fact I was trying to use it in a pre-created mission. If I create a mission from scratch, it works. Am I correctly understanding it will not work from the rearm menu in game?

Does not seem to work for me. There are no loadouts when I load a Huey in the Mission Editor, while I see the loadouts in the refuel&rearm menu while in game, but that does not load anything.

I have been using them together for a while. Time to send SIMPLEX to rest?

the only difference I have seen is that my shadows appear only when really close to the ground (we're talking 10 ft) and trees/obj shadows appear too long and "move back" to their normal size when getting close to the 3dobject (when my POV is, say, 100-75ft away) making for a bad effect. Deal breaker as I do 95% helicopters, close to the ground. I will give it another shot with shadows on high.

Will try.

Are we still alive?

So this is what I get with a quick and dirty test at 1080P (2D pancake), eyeballing the avg fps in the very first 30 seconds of flight (with no input from the user). PC is 13600K5.5GHZ all P Cores, 4.3GHz E-Cores, 64GB DDR4 @ 3600, RTX 3090 with modded bios (power limit to 470W) I'd say it's a net improvement, I will start using it in VR and see if there's any benefit there too. F18 - Syria Free Flight Instant Action FPS avg | Version | Shadows | Terrain Obj Shadows 160 | DCS 2.8.2.35759 (no MT) | High | Default 210 | DCS 2.8.2.35759 (no MT) | Off | Off 230 | DCS 2.8.3.37556 (MT) | High | Default 275 | DCS 2.8.3.37556 (MT) | Off | Off 265 | DCS 2.8.3.37556 (MT) | High | Flat

F18 - Syria Free Flight Instant Action FPS avg | Version | Shadows | Terrain Obj Shadows 160 | DCS 2.8.2.35759 (no MT) | High | Default 210 | DCS 2.8.2.35759 (no MT) | Off | Off 230 | DCS 2.8.3.37556 (MT) | High | Default 275 | DCS 2.8.3.37556 (MT) | Off | Off 265 | DCS 2.8.3.37556 (MT) | High | Flat

Hello, BLUF: discussion on the elements in the topic is usually full of good information that applies to DCS and PC gaming in general, and I'd like to stimulate it in a dedicated space (like: this post) to keep learning how that will apply to DCS and what that is in general. I'll start with what I think, but a disclaimer first: I fly only in VR so my observations and considerations are from that angle. So here goes: MT will help somewhat, especially in CPU heavy scenarios but it will probably need more RAM to work properly and will benefit from fast GPUs that can keep up with more efficient CPU work. If and when we get DLSS, that might help too but we will need to strike a balance between definition and fps. I am using FSR now with OpenXR toolkit and while it does help to a degree, you have to carefully tune it to keep instruments and MFDs readable. Vulkan has the potential to bring the biggest improvement as I understand the API allows for a much lower level access to the rendering hardware, reduces overhead, and can enable more efficient rendering in the case of VR (If I am not mistaken, for VR Vulkan can render "differential" sections that then get added to the common frame to form the two projected images for VR headset, so it renders the common portion of the frame and then the parts that are different for left and right, cutting down time as it doesn't need to render the full scene twice). Looking at how it was implemented in X-Plane 11 tho takes some optimism away as it kind of sort of made everything a little smoother over OpenGL, but just a little. But I am sure ED is better than that. This thread exists because I have seen some threads being locked because the discussion invariably ended on MT, DLSS and the supposed performance gains that have either been hinted at on various discord channels by developers collaborating with ED, or inferred from the information teased in some official DCS video illustrating various upcoming aspects (all not related to the performance of the core sim engine but about various systems implemented in the modules - i.e. the new ARC-210 radio for the A10C II). I have been enjoying the discussions quite a lot, not because I like to read speculative hypotheses on how this or that will be better or worse, but because within the discussions there usually are bits of information that I didn't know about how the rendering pipeline works, what MT actually does, how DLSS functions, how to gauge CPU/GPU usage in DCS and so on. So, hopefully this thread will host all of this discussion. Thanks for reading my blog. EDIT: this should really be in DCS Core Wish List - ED Forums, but I didn't know it existed until this edit. EDIT #2: the thread has been moved to Chit-Chat? Ok, I guess?