Snake122

For the record, I would like to see exporting with VR possible too. I have done a similar thing but took it a little further on my Pimax 8K X. I cut the nose seal and some of the foam away. I can clearly see all of one MFD/all of my physical Viper ICP. @Bergison took it one step further though with his headsets and was one of the first to request exporting with VR years ago. https://bergisons.simpit.info/making-of_reverb_g2_mod Typical QOL upgrades for MFDs in VR are silicone drawer bumper nubs/velcro on buttons for tactile feedback. But PointCtrl is also well worth it and has a lot more functionality!

If it wasn't locked I would have gladly dropped this into the old thread but its the flipside of locking one when new info becomes available. ED should do what they want with the 4 Harms. I have no way other than this to let anyone else that wondered if apparently what they call "Tac-Ferry" is a thing that it actually is. Yes it only is modern day F-15Es but its that it is interesting they will deploy unusable weapons on the jet. I even thought that was a little strange that they would do that because you are going into a potential combat zone with extra stuff on the jet that you can't use for a pop up fight. Tactics also have a strange way of repeating themselves so it may not be new. Yes the F-15E is a truck! But you may also have to factor in scale. With the F-15E they are only doing it for 6 extra JDAMs to the forward base over the 9 employable for a total of 15. That's only 2/3 full second sortie loadout. If F-16 is 4 Harms only for "tac-ferry", its actually a full second loadout. But again, as you say, it may not be a thing even currently in F-16Cs not to mention 2005 Blk50s. If @BIGNEWY or @NineLine want to lock this thread now to avoid the debate over a mute topic since ED is going to do what they want with the 4 Harms, please do. I just wanted to get out there for those that wondered if "tac-ferry" is a USAF tactic, at least today in F-15Es it is, you can use it whatever way you want for loading your Harms for DCS if ED allows 4 Harms or not.

Because what they are doing in F-15Es is one of the reasons suggested for the PACAF guide to say 4 Harms as a valid F-16C Blk50 loadout despite some SMEs saying only 2 hardpoints were wired. "Tac ferry" the extra pair of HARMs in F-16s was suggested to be an explanation but no one at the time had any evidence that the USAF actually does this. Here is an article saying that it is at least now a thing in F-15Es, it is still unknown for F-16s and does not confirm that is the reason for 4 AGM-88s. But some of us that were paying attention to that detail in the thread (like me) could find it interesting that indeed the USAF will put weapons on hardpoints that can't be employed that flight on a plane for its ferry flight to a forward combat deployment so they do not have to depend on transport planes as much.

I get it. Again, more a general knowledge update that I found interesting due to that debate. There were some people that I thought would know the answers, especially those that said the wiring wasn't there why it could have 4 listed. This was floated as a possibility so it could be the explanation or not. But carrying extra weapons that you can't launch is apparently a thing at least now F-15Es. I'm not saying if that is the case in 4 HARM F-16.

This is more a general knowledge update. I know ED is going to do what they want on the 4 HARMs issue and I expect this thread to be locked. But just though this article was interesting talking about F-15Es being recently certified in 2021 to carry extra bombs that would not be usable in flight to a forward deployment. There was speculation that this is a reason why the USAF loadout guide would list 4 AGM-88s with the second pair being put on hardpoints that multiple sources say that do not have the wiring to launch was to self deploy ("tac-ferry") with extra HARMs. Nobody was sure if it is actually a USAF logistics policy. This article shows in at least 2021 F-15Es that can be a thing to carry weapons that can't be used in flight so they don't have to depend as much on transport planes. https://www.airforcemag.com/deployed-f-15es-prove-capability-to-tactically-ferry-bombs/

Thanks for the suggestion. For me though, this works out to be about the same as SVR 78% PT RQ 1.0 which is the resolution that I get almost exactly equal with 50% SVR and PT RQ 1.25. I can also tell that the HUD is slightly less crisp than SVR 100%.

One thing I've noticed is that you have to actively unload the nose when you get in the less than about 250 knots to accelerate with any reasonable amount, I haven't ever looked down to see if I'm at the AOA limiter max. But it will be wallowing around and releasing pressure won't reduce the small amount of Gs, normally 1.4 with neutral stick, you actually have to push over to get it to 1G and start accelerating better and of course a full 0G unload is best when you get the Viper down to where it doesn't like to be.

Plus the Leap Motion seems to have a pretty big performance hit using the two other DCS solutions (VRK for Oculus, SDdraw for SteamVR).

Yes, to me it is smoother at 50-60 fps with my 3090 without motion smoothing than the 37.5 "smoothed"

But even though the parallel projection fix isn't needed anymore in the title, your mod is the only thing that I've found to fix the Pimax NVG not converging issue. Plus I love the label masking, it makes the dot labels feel a little less like a cheat, although I feel like it is needed in VR.

Definitely for me too, it's great to mask the dot labels and make the Pimax NVG tubes converge properly!

Just reporting I'm getting this same crash still on stable 2.5.6.55960 as I cross over APEX.

Yes, it was mentioned earlier in this thread that the parallel projection was no longer needed and it definitely has a performance increase. But I understand how you missed it with this big of tread and now no longer a quick thread search option and it should be mentioned again anyway!

Newer headset Pimax 8k X etc. owners that have the rubberized coating, what are you using to attach your sensor mount? My APBs went on ok reusing the same tape included. I got some 3M VHB double sided tape but it was the clear stuff, not the dark gray MilesD includes and it isn't holding.

I spent a couple hours with the 8k X tonight and the canted lens feeling was no longer noticable. Otherwise, I'm really enjoying it, still playing around with the settings to find the best options. I agree, the upscaling setting seems not worth it at all for the lack of clarity and for very little performance gain. I'm not a person that needs a high refresh rate either. I'm also messing with the SteamVR resolution levels to find the sweet spot. But honestly that 100% setting seems worth it right now, but I haven't flown busy missions or attempted hardly any Supercarrier traps.

Here's my first if impressions on the 8K X. I received it yesterday and only got about 20 minutes in it. I now see what you guys are saying about the cant. It is a weird feeling at first. But my IPD is 63.5mm or so and with the limited time I had last night to try it, both eyes seemed clear. And how clear! First impression was how "glassy" everything looked and that it was more like what I'm used to with a monitor. I was able to see the ball much more clearly on approach and maybe able to turn my custom dot labels off now! After I turned off my 4x MSAA that isn't as needed now, I have just a slight performance hit compared to the 5k+ and I'm also going to try to turn smart smoothing back on. Edit to add: Also overall, I think the halo is a plus, even though it wasn't my favorite with the Rift S. I don't plan to use the speakers and it does make using my typical headsets difficult.

It should scale through the troposphere if I recall correctly, for a good rule of thumb to make you in the ball park of a simulated DCS dewpoint. And I did make a math error in the original post I'm going to go back and fix. I think your formula is correct though. For some stupid reason, in the U.S. the FAA tends to give us these problems in Fahrenheit on tests despite the aviation weather being in Celsius. For that you divide the spread by 4.4 then to get thousands of feet so the numbers you are shooting me seem a little foreign but correct. I know a typical 10k base is a 44 degree F spread. Technically this works best for cumulus clouds where the actual lapse rates are going to match close to the theoretical ones. Stratus clouds often have a temperature inversion involved (warm front) and cirrus clouds that are the high wispy ones made of ice crystals are also a little different (somewhat your 17k range clouds in that case). But most clouds in DCS are cumulus. https://www.flymac.co.uk/how-to-esti...s-and-heights/ gives a secondary formula for cloud bases of (Air temperature at surface – dew point temperature) x 400 EDIT for numbers check: Since 1 degree C is about 1.8 degree F in that part of the scale, with your numbers converted to a Fahrenheit spread (can't just use a normal convert xC to yF because that would be at a specific temp point) look like this: 25 C spread *1.8= 45 F spread/4.4 = 10200' and 42 C spread *1.8=75.6 F spread/4.4 = 17182' so your numbers check to me using not the worlds most accurate conversions but again, this has inexactness in the real world too because lapse rates rarely exactly match the theoretical. But all good enough to get you a close Celsius dewpoint number from DCS. Lapse rate - Wikipedia

Great work again Bailey! It adds one of those missing things that a robust ATC system should have. Just a observation, there is a mathematical way you could get the approximate "real" dewpoint instead of just the 60% humidity constant. I have to dust off some weather theory here with numbers so hopefully I can explain this well enough. The standard lapse rates (amount of degrees lost as altitude increases) of temperature and dewpoint is different. Also at temp/dewpoint matching (100% humidity) is where you would normally get a cloud layer of the other conditions for cloud formation are met. So how we use this in aviation is take the difference (spread) between temperature and dewpoint and divide by 2.5 if celsius and you get the answer in thousands of feet (to keep it simple for pilot brains, but you could adjust the decimal to be more accurate). So if the temp is 25 and dewpoint is 0, spread is 25 degrees: 25/2.5= 10 thousand feet is the expected base of the clouds. So if there is a cloud layer reported in DCS you could work the formula backwards to get the dewpoint. For instance temp is 15 and the clouds are at 4000. So take cloud altitude in thousands of feet and take it times 2.5 to find the expected temp to dewpoint spread, so in this example: 4*2.5=10. Now that we have the temp and the spread, we subtract the spread from temp to get dewpoint, so 15-10= 5 celsius dewpoint.

Actually, SteamVR does that on most VR headsets, for instance the 100% setting for my Pimax 5k+ is well over the native at a resolution 3412x2104 for wide FOV. But this SteamVR 100%>native resolution is extra noticeable in the G2 because they apparently set it extra high but is also supposed to go back to native in a future update. I would bet though that what RogueSqdn is seeing in those areas is where DCS is switching from GPU bound to CPU bound. I get similar experiences with my 3090 and my i7-9700kf@5.0ghz, especially close to a Supercarrier or on a lots of aircraft and ground unit MP mission.

Yes, they are HTC Vive base stations (a.k.a. lighthouses), either 1.0 or 2.0 work with Pimax and the Vive VR stuff obviously, like the knuckles. I know Pimax is working on a "sword" controller, but I don't think they are planning to make their own base stations. I always forget the difference between Valve and Vive these days because at first it was a complete collaboration and they still work together despite different headsets now. I don't know if Valve manufactures base stations too to the same specs or they are all the same source of HTC Vive. You can use more than two 2.0 stations for less dead spaces if you are doing roomscale. So those of you that plan to do both, if you can find a single 2.0 base station you could get 6DOF seated while you are waiting for HTC production/Pimax shipping/budget allows later. The second post here has a good run down on the base stations: https://forum.vive.com/topic/7656-10-vs-20-base-stations-whats-the-real-difference/

Good to hear! I know a lot of people have not had good experience with Pimax support, but I have had good experiences so with them with replying and working through a problem, besides for the hack of asking for your tracking number to get them to ship quicker if an item is in stock. They sent me an extra protective cover when EMS took forever to get the original and offered to send it back when the original finally made. I get that the backers from the crowd funding have been hosed a lot. I ordered a 8K X on their Amazon Black Friday sale so we'll see when it gets here, maybe these are actually in the country since they are saying a Wednesday delivery. If anybody wants a used 5k+, I'll be selling mine soon:music_whistling: But again for those just need basic 6DOF temporarily or just on the cheap, a used single 1.0 (or 2.0) tracking station will give you acceptable 6DOF and you can flip it for about the same price you bought it. l will say I did see an improvement in smoothness and extreme angle tracking with two 2.0 stations so they are worth it if you can afford it/Vive keeps them in stock/Pimax ships them. Remember though you can't mix and match base station versions when you get more than one.

While it is Pimax's fault for promising them quickly, Vive has been very bad about keeping these in stock. Are you are least using the 3DOF built in the headset for seated, right? If you want 6DOF but are looking for seated experiences, you can get away with a single 1.0 Lighthouse and then flip it for about as much as you have in it when your ones from Pimax finally come. I have been keeping my Rift S around for partly for the standing/roomscale stuff due to not being able to get Vive "Knuckles" controllers causally looking for them since I got the 5k+ this summer. However, I've never put myself on a pre-order/notify list so they may have came in stock when I wasn't looking and I was GPU limited on most smaller missions, like typical single player campaign when not on the ground/Supercarrier. Busy MP missions are always CPU bound for sure, but if you mostly single player or small private MP missions, you are probably GPU bound. With the 3090, I'm seeing well over 10gb of VRAM with the Pimax 5k+, even over 20gb allocated and dedicated in Syria. If this method is right, I only see a few hundred MB difference between allocated and dedicated VRAM: You might want one of the AMD 16gb cards or 3080 20Gb. I think this is why most of us 3090 owners are reporting less stutters. Good info! I would say it's probably hard to make a large sweet spot with the FOV involved.

Quoting a previous post I made on this: But just so you can see what can happen, granted this battery, while small, is about 5-10 times the size of what is in PointCtrl:

It is a typical thing you see with lithium chemistry battery hobbyist items like RC planes, cars, airsoft, etc.It is being extra cautious despite you probably keeping the same kind of battery in your pocket and night stand 24/7.

The Viper has a reputation for being hard to land well isn't the most stable on the ground. While it wasn't caused by bad pilot handling, just bad choices, this video does show how easy the plane is to tip over: Aerobraking by keeping the gun cross at about 10° nose up until you can start applying brakes is very important to landing distance in the Viper. Letting the nose drop right after the mains touch means you are going off the end of the runway.