some1

Unlikely, as this is the price of a Meta headset which has worse hardware, while at the same time Meta can use economy of scale and sell them at minimal profit as they are burning money on VR anyway.

Every headset can be charged while being used. With this one you're not restricted to tethering to your PC, you can run a thin charging cable (as opposed to a thicker data cable) straight from a wall charger if you have one nearby, or use a power bank in your pocket. Steam Frame is said to use around 7 Wh when streaming, so it should provide around 3h of play time on internal battery alone. Higher power consumption is when you run the games directly on the device. Overall this should be like an improved Quest 3. Better image quality due to much more efficient streaming, better performance if the game supports foveated rendering, and maybe better comfort as it's much lighter. And of course easier to set up, as PCVR is the primary use case instead of a barely supported afterthought as is the case with Meta products. If intended to be used exclusively for DCS and other flight sims, there are better headsets out there (or on the horizon - at least on paper), but also more expensive.

Although looking at the animation of the target acquisition controller on the stick, this is actually the realistic way to use it. An interesting quirk.

This really should be a global feature in dcs input system instead of the need to reinvent the wheel for each addon. I usually add curves to axis to match my detents, but it's not ideal.

Can you make your calendar public? Sounds like it's a pretty good info on ED release schedule!

Yep, there are some edge cases where a slight reduction in RPM can eke out a bit more performance. But this cannot be used as an explanation why the aircraft does not match its published performance figures (which were measured IRL at max RPM setting, unless stated otherwise in the manual).

This is a bold assumption. Unless you are in a relatively narrow band below supercharger critical altitude and won't pull back the RPM too much, the engine will not be able to produce the same manifold pressure at lower RPM. The superchargers are gear driven and directly linked to engine speed. A small drop in RPM is a relatively large drop in boost. For example R-2800-8 from F4U-1 is rated at 2000 BHP at 2700 RPM, but only 1675 BHP at 2550 RPM. Also, just because you have the same manifold pressure at lower RPM does not mean the engine is producing the same power. On the contrary. Otherwise, it would make no sense to spin it faster. I don't have a full power table for R-2800, so here's something more meager from Lycoming. Same principles apply. Reducing RPM is a great way to reduce engine stress, wear and improve fuel economy. But not a great way to squeeze more performance out of the aircraft. The story about flying a Beech 18, while cool, has little to do with this discussion topic.

I run at 2700 (or whatever is the max rpm) and expect high speed, because this is what the real aircraft manuals tell me. You may be overthinking it a bit. While there are many factors that go into propeller design, and efficiency changes with speed and altitude, ultimately these things are considered during aircraft development. In service, the max performance is meant to be achieved at max power/max rpm setting. Even if there is some efficiency loss on the propeller, it is offset by the engine producing considerably more power at higher rpm. If a different RPM setting was required, it would at least warrant a footnote in the pilot's operating handbook. Here's an example speed chart for the Corsair, not the exact dash we have in DCS, but you get the idea:

Guys, don't waste your time submitting tracks. As you can see this thread has been marked "GFM in progress" two years ago. GFM is still in progress. Hope it won't be "in progress" two years from now in the future, but one never knows with ED. Until it's released, I wouldn't expect improvements to DCS FM.

No, thanks. Two years ago I'd have probably bought it just to support the developers, but now after Razbam debacle I'm much less enthusiastic about spending money on DCS.

It took Razbam more than 10 years to make those 4 airplanes. Sure, you could argue than a more focused and competent developer, already familiar with DCS, could make them a bit faster, but who's available? ED barely makes one aircraft a year, more like 1,5 years to early access. Heatblur takes even longer. Hope we'll all live long enough to actually see those "replacements".

Yes, haven't played dcs recently, but that was still bugged a few months ago. Come on guys, with stronger ffb hardware this becomes a real safety hazard.

It's even simpler than that. Don't touch Steam, just copy the folder from old drive to the new one, turn off PC, replace drives, turn on PC. Last but not least check if Windows assigned the same drive letter to the new drive as was used by the old drive, if not, correct that in Disk Management. That's all. No need to fiddle with 3rd party cloning or partitioning software.

You can order from amazon.com with shipping to eu for a few extra bucks.

Not only bombs but also 530 missiles are fired in a salvo now.