Snake122

While I'm still downloading 2.5.6 stable to finally fly SC, yes! My FPS jump going from an I7-4790k @4.5ghz to the i7-9700 even before overclock to 5.0ghz was about 100% increase before the overclock and switching my RTX2060 to a GTX1080Ti. The video card switch gave me enough VRAM to run higher resolutions and higher AA levels. The other thing to keep in mind there is the effect of a faster RAM pipeline as well.

Somewhat of a necro post but wanted to get my thoughts on this subject after my first impressions of a few hours in the Pimax 5k+ when the Rift S was my old headset. Aurelius sums this up well so I'm going to use his post and discuss how I agree and disagree. One of the reasons why I was looking to try the Pimax is that Oculus Home has been nothing but trouble for me since almost the begining on 3 different systems. The majority of boots into Win10 with either an RTX2060 or GTX1080Ti would at least result in a headset not connected error. A powered USB hub reduced these somewhat and on one of my motherboards I was able to update the right Intel USB 3.0drivers that nearly eliminated it, then I upgraded to my latest system and I have had far worse issues. Not only do I have device not connected errors now, I have had to repair/reinstall Oculus Home multiple times due to it getting in a Oculus service must be restarted loop. Simply, Oculus Home unfortunately is not a "just works" experience for me. On the Pimax side, the initial setup was a pain but now that everything is setup and I remember to turn on the headset before I open PiTool, it works. I know that PiTool has been updated a lot since this thread was started. Between PiTool and SteamVR there are a lot of options and diagnostics available, so if you like to tweak things Pimax gives you more access to these. If not, it's a larger hassle. Again, I'm slightly biased since Oculus Home has been problematic and I really don't do much outside of DCS in VR right now, but so far I've been surprised how much I like PiTool and SteamVR One other thing is that the inside out tracking and included controllers of the Rift S is nice. I used the controllers a decent amount, they are usable but I am trying out my Leap Motion and Im on the PointCtrl list so that somewhat speaks to how well they work. But I did just find out that you could turn knobs with the mini-sticks after I put the Rift S away for awhile to try the Pimax. On the Pimax side, I'm using a single 1.0 lighthouse to get the 6DOF tracking and trying out a trackball and the Leap Motion solutions (VRK and DCLeap) until the PointCtrl. One other thing I'm trying to work through is the large FOV setting is that DCS gets really jaggy when using it. I don't fully understand why this is and AA settings don't seem to help. It has been reported here before but I haven't been able to find the solution. But the normal 170 FOV is still enough of an upgrade from the Rift S that at least in the FOV department, the Pimax delivered. I'll update when I go back to the Rift S in awhile to get a comparison then. But I definitely see Aurelius's points and wish I wasn't such a fan of big FOV and I could get Oculus Home to cooperate.

You look straight at one them in VR. They will stop being transparent and enlarge somewhat. For me this was a little hard in the default position because you have to bend your neck pretty far and basically look at the top of your thighs to do this. If you adjust the Z in the VRK settings VR tab it will be a little more comfortable and easier. You also have a setting in the Base tab for "Active Kneeboard Switching" which controls the kneeboard side you are writing on. I leave it on "Auto (focused)" so I write on whichever one I'm looking at.

I followed this completely: https://github.com/kariyann/DCLeap/blob/master/DCLeap/LatestRelease/DCLeap_Manual.pdf Be sure to install both the driverleap drivers and then DCLeap. Then launched DCS with a shortcut that had --force_steam_vr added to the end of the target line

I sold my original Leap Motion for more than I paid for it a month or so after the original release, it was great in some demos but never worked well for actual application. So far, Orion seems to have been a big upgrade from what I remember. But ED seems to be done with VR controller support, even Oculus Touch/Vive Controller, despite not having a good knob manipulation solution. But I somehow don't think ED has one, it's an arcane enough controller that hasn't hit that threshold to be common enough were they would spend money to buy one. I think even the Captoglove support wasn't tested by ED. But I also agree between the two of them, Leap Motion seems to be the better candidate. But to be fair, Kariyann71, you have taken it further that ED would have. I find the Oculus Touch Controllers pretty usable until I need to turn a knob. You have at least added a way to do this plus the gestures. If ED added support it would just be the traditional VR controller "gloves "and that are still hard to use with knobs and wouldn't have gestures. You work is much appreciated. And I too can't understand the want to flip virtual switches outside of view, it is not practical. Leap Motion is a better solution that CaptoGlove, all reports is that it is even more of a mess than pre-Orion Leap Motion at a pretty steep price.

Thank you, looking forward to it! It works, I can flip switches. Alt-enter is practically required. Still learning how to use the app. I get the DCLeap hands which then "holds" the DCS glove. Seems to no have a major offset but maybe some, haven't needed to invert, haven't used mouse mode nor gestures yet, but have switched in and out of mouse mode momentarily and have looked up to find the ejection handle.

Mine should be here this week. I'll try it the same method on it. But really it seems to be the same install method and everything, just the command line parameter to make it use SteamVR!

Alright, using the --force_steam_Vr command line I have DCLeap working in DCS with my Rift S via SteamVR!

I don't have the Steam version of DCS and so far my attempts to add it manually to the Steam library have not worked. Have you tried the SDraw driver with DCLeap yet? The hands seem less offset than the controllers.

Thanks, I'll try that later today and report back. Since DCLeap is working in the SteamVR room, it seems like that could make it work.

That's one of the drivers you install for DCLeap. It works in a SteamVR app but with the Rift (S), DCS automatically uses the Oculus Home software when you launch it in VR.

Ok, will do! EDIT to add: I think I have everything installed. Now I get both the Oculus and the Leap Motion "HTC controllers" in SteamVR which is cool! When I run DCLeap, I get the hands and the red and green squares in the SteamVR house. Problem is of course when I run DCS, Oculus Home seems to take over and the Leap Motion input isn't there anymore, but at least it seems like I have everything else working and ready to try the workaround with Unity!

Yes, but it's aside branch of the software that is relatively new, doesn't have the gestures DCSLeap has. Think more like what you can do with the Oculus controllers, so no pinch, ejection, salute to launch, etc. Right now maybe more something to check out and give feedback on how to support it better since there is a small set of us that have both a Rift S and a Leap Motion.

Yeah I have a Pimax 5k+ on the way but of course that won't help with this app. But again check out VRK, it's a great app for VR kneeboard functionality and does support Leap Motion hand tracking with Oculus but it's a lot more basic than DCSLeap

I haven't tried it yet but will look at it sometime soon. VRK kneeboard app does add Leap Motion integration for Oculus if this doesn't work. This is definitely a more mature app for Leap Motion than VRK right now. Also in a post after the 1.09 announcement you quoted (and latest version of the manual from May 5th backs this up):

Does that include their G-Belt system like Bergison's has had almost since the beginning? Those are a super important part in this project. Yes that's the current listed cost in Euros for his DIY version. I believe the first version that didn't have as much of a motion platform on the base, didn't look quite as close to an ACES seat, and was just the seat flaps and belt tenison we was more like €500. If you have been following this from the beginning there was the idea this is surprisingly affordable to DIY. I almost made my own but found the JetSeat and decided that then that fell into the 80/20 rule and that was good enough for now. My bet is €3000 in a production model with shipping going to be probably a lot, especially to those of us not in Europe.

Also OP is discussing the large difference between the True heading (according to info bar) vs magnetic course(compass) My italics added because a mag compass does not show heading, it shows course. Headings in this sense technically are courses corrected for wind correction angles. To remove it from DCS for a moment in case it's being really weird and doing the variation to the opposite way, factored with real life's Batumi is currently 5 degrees east variation, the true heading of the runway 31 would be 311 since it has a reported mag variation of 5 (306° magnetic + 5 variation since you are working backwards to true its now East is best, west is least) and runway heading at least in most ICAO countries are given in magnetic. So my theory if DCS is modeling closer to real life, OPs compass reads a course of 305°, adding back in the 5-6ish degree east variation since we are working in reverse from normal, OP would have true course of 311ish. If DCS info bar is showing what it calls a "heading" (maybe more properly a track, using the NS430 and seeing if this matches the TRK with wind would possible confirm this) of 317° true, he would need a Wind Correction Angle of 6 degrees. Interesting that DCS is reporting the true of Batumi 305° instead of 311°, Also DCS ARR/DEP chart report a 306 degrees for the runway final course, and a variation of 6°E in 210 which should make the runway have a 312°T if they were following aviation standards and reporting the runway in magnetic, but the airport diagram shows 300°M and 306°T. But as ART-J said there are some other things going on there. Other theories if in DCS that "heading" = course: magnetic deviation (but doubt that is modeled) compass is not stabilized Agree that the 295 gyro heading is most likely due to drift and needs re-slaved. See quote from DCS F-86 manual from previous post.

He's not asking to reference off of true north, he's saying that the mag variation doesn't add up and on top of that the true heading reported by the info bar is 317°, the mag course on the compass says 305° and the variation is -4.8 degrees. Which should make the true course be ~310° since that's working backwards from the traditional "east is least, west is best" assuming mist reports a "-" as we would an East variation. Which map is this OP? Looks Caucasus so an East Variation would be around that there. If so, we would need to add that back to the magnetic number to get true since we normally work it the other way: True course/heading +/-Variation = Magnetic +/-Deviation= Compass course/heading. Course ONLY matches heading in zero wind conditions. So a few thoughts: A. from the manual: "Indicator readings will be incorrect if the airplane exceeds 85° of climb or dive or banks left or right more than 85°. Error in heading indication when the airplane is in an extreme bank or roll movement is an inherent characteristic of the gyro; however, it disappears when the airplane returns to straight and level flight. An additional error, however, will build up in the indication during turns. This is caused by centrifugal force which tends to swing the transmitter flux valve into the vertical component of the earth's magnetic field. The amount of error is proportional to time and duration of the turn. Therefore, errors will result in the indicator during turns, banks, or rolls. The fast slaving button may be actuated after the maneuvers are completed so as to correct the heading indication at the fastest possible rate" B. Magnetic Deviation, not sure if DCS actually models this, I've seen a few deviation cards in aircraft but can't find one in the F-86 and I tend to think that they are more atmospheric on the the planes they are in than actual use. C. The info bar at least is saying heading and if Eagle Dynamics is proper in their terminology, there will be a difference because a heading is the course corrected for wind drift (remember the back side of the E6B GTFreeFlyer?). So that would be saying that even though your compass course is 305°, your wind drift is causing a 317° ground track. Similar to a lot of GPS that you may have flown OP, if you have the DCS NS430 system you might use it to confirm.

I technically said it wrong but you got my drift. There are 2 extended probe positions, to be fully correct it is a 3 position switch, your wing tanks do not get filled if in the first extend position. From the manual: ALL EXTD - All extended, extends refueling probe and allows refueling of all tanks. Also resets WING/EXT TRANS switch to AUTO. FUS EXTD - Fuselage extended, extends refueling probe and allows refueling of only fuselage tanks. RET - Retracted, retracts refueling probe.

Honestly I tried the lowering view and transition but then with the Rift S I decided to just use the upper right canopy bow watching the S-3 tail until I am half way through hook as my visual references and not shift view after getting in. You might be tempted to peek at the basket a little more but for me it gives a little more of it in the field of view of the Rift S to line up a little better. I had the same 12200 pound issue, the refuel probe switch is 2 positions, make sure it is all the way up to get the complete transfer! I just wish I could stay connected during the transition from turn to level and vise versa. It feels like the hose is too rigid when that happens and just swings away even if you are in the middle of the connection zone. I actually have better luck connecting in a turn though.

Video is great, explains why especially for fighters why this is better than a traditional motion platform and the belt system, as you know, is actually a very important aspect. If that's what you expect the final product to look like, it looks excellent! However that is also part of my concern. I've been following your project for years and know it was very DIY but was actually very affordable due to that. That does not look that affordable and shipping to me will be brutal. I had been hoping for the DIY instructions that were discussed in the beginning. I understand that your priorities on the project have probably changed because a commercial product has different needs. But any chance of a DIY kits or licensed plans (I understand that the later is problematic though)? Again, I really believe your G-Seat design and do wish you success with it and hope I can be part of it. Edit to add: Are you still using Open Source software? If not, could that be part of the DIY answer to still making it profitable/controllable to you, full G-Seat buyers get free software license, DIY kit/plan has to buy a software license?

You are not confident in your own brake mechanics or the TPRs somehow? That is another thing I like about heels on the floor pedals, I feel like you can brake better (but I also have a decent number of hours experience with this style). I also like that you can adjust the brake pedal angles on the TPR and I set them to the most vertical possible. Again, the TPR brakes are an improvement from the decent Saitek Combat pedals I had before, but not proportional to the cost.

To me it more seems like a slowed down version of "Jump, Jive, an' Wail" but no matter what it is a great pick with that early jazzy/swing influenced rock. I really like that about all of the wall papers that have music, it helps set the mode for sure!

Just focus on the one you want to write on.

Yeah, I wasn't home when I posted that and was thinking the same thing. I got the idea from one of the YouTube channels about VR recommendations where he put them on his TM MFDs. I did the same thing and have added them to my Saitek Switch Panel too. Something new I just added was the electrical tape. Looks ugly but is a tactile feedback to when the pen tip hits the edge of the writing area. I discovered that writing actually became easier on the other leg with one tablet controlling because the tablet is always on the side I write with. I just had to overcome that little bit of disorienting feeling at first of hand here, writing there. But there is lots of that in VR.