vicx

Until you guys are playing without using ZOOM then you should probably not get on your high horses about realism. I would love to see ED remove ZOOM just so you guys would understand. When you play DCS on VR HMD like the RIFT there is no ZOOM. There is NO ZOOM. On the RIFT you only have a pre-distorted half-HD image for each eye; without a "Visibility Feature" you can see lumps of things at 500m and basically nothing past 2000m. So yeah ... bang on about realism all you want but understand that ZOOMING is not realistic. I'd love to see ED remove ZOOMING .... just to see the reaction. :rolleyes:

This is an interesting bug report. I like the possibility that in 1.5 there is more fidelity in the object states and perhaps many more ARGS and other metadata is being made available to network clients and this creates a harder limit at 800 objects. If that is the case I can't say I want ED to revert prematurely to the old way. Much better that they move forward and find techniques to reduce the side effects. Mirknir, the F10 map is the tool you have now but maybe there could be other ways in the future to share target information. I would think a kneeboard would be a valid way. I will have to look into this to see what can be done. Vyrtuoz I understand your problem but I think server side recording is the only way to record a gods eye view with high fidelity. High fidelity means all the ARGS and states for all players, AI and systems. This is how it has always been for recordings of network games. God sits on the server where he has infinite bandwidth. Sorry for commenting on this report that does not directly affect me at the moment. I just found this report interesting.

This does NOT look like a bug report. If you have an opinion on this feature, take it to the right forum and have at it. This sort of post doesn't belong in the bug report section.

Is this the best resource on the mapping or is there something better out there? http://en.wiki.eagle.ru/wiki/All_about_land OK I'll share what I'd like to see. I'd like for ED to release a version of Caucasus map without any structures on it. Then a community effort with some public tools could repopulate the map with better looking assets. We wouldn't need all the tools for this ... just a subset.

That's a good idea and one they might use. Still don't assume that such a change can be quickly made. Those other titles you mention aren't in the middle of going from 1.0 to 2.0 and releasing a major new theater of OPS. Re-engineering the UI at the moment would require a lot of time while ED is crunching on NTTR, DCS 2.0 and managing 3rd party technical requirements. That they are integrating VR features as rapidly as they are is pretty impressive.

MASSIVE NEWS - I've decided to be a Day Zero Vive Owner. I'm happy beta testing - noone expects the cutting edge to be perfect.

Where else do you get to see vintage Russian aircraft in action. Mig-23 low pass at 1.43 ... it looks like it's using the DCS PFM and not the SFM.

As much as I am interested in all the possibilities of VR I am a bit fixated on DCS interoperability. If I was going to be shown a demo I would really want it to be DCS related. I hope Vive outreach is making it all the way to Russia and that Vive support is being baked into DCS 2.0 with lots of love.

Tested with an Occulus Rift DK2 ... suggested solution works for aircraft but does not does not work for Combined Arms vehicles. CA is a mixed bag in VR. It looks awesome but has visual bugs and brokeness all over the place.

I might have to back pedal on this. I'm looking at a few approaches right now but no wins. iCommand_ExplorationStart 1616 iCommand_ExplorationCansel 1618 iCommand_ExplorationTargetSelection 1617 Is what I am looking at for the first part.

Blooze, sounds like you are committed to the one aircraft. Good for you. DCS A-10C is a near perfect module without any bugs. You are a lucky man to have found the one. However, some of us other horndogs like to sample all the airframes ... rotary and fixed, old and young, and even other vehicles that don't fly at all. Getting a consistent setup across many modules is important. Doing the '5' reset dance, moving the chair or tracking camera each time you switch from one module/unit to another is a bad approach. VR is also a LOT different to TrackIR ... once your head is in the HMD you need easy ways to initialise the experience cause you can't see out of the HMD very well. Nirvi, I'll be testing those keyboard binds to see if they work with VR. I would rather use HOTAS AXIS binds with BUTTON modifers than a keyboard for VR eye point adjustment because using the keyboard in VR is a PITA (pain in the _ss).

Pictures show problem. In sky Behind mountains

I assume you mean the player and not an AI aircraft doing the spotting. The feature "Visual Recon mode" would probably work for your purposes. When you "Enable Visual Recon mode" (button press) you get a black crosshair. You place the crosshair on the object to be identified and click. This adds the identified object to the F10 map where it can be target using other units AND it also sends a radio message. Using a script you could monitor for recon radio messages and set a flag/variable when a radio message matches the recon pattern. This would give you the coolness of the built-in recon mode and the power of mission scripting. * Note - I've only just found "Visual Recon Mode" recently. * Update There is a bug in 1.5 Openbeta where the black crosshair disappears behind world geometry. I have made a a bug report on this. You have to be very accurate with the crosshair to get the target recognised and it's too tricky to know exactly where the crosshair is pointing. Would recommend another method until this bug is fixed.

WW2 didn't do to well on recent poll. Is that just because the WW2 guys missed the poll?

Silver_Dragon, I have an idea. You could create a special collision shell for the torpedo object. Keep the collision shell above the water line and put the visible torpedo part below the water. It is bedtime for me but I can try this myself and report back tomorrow.

I think CA has the most utility for people who are interested in mission building and stuff like that. Like you I have owned CA since day zero so I didn't know exactly what it was adding to the experience; then I went without access to the CA module for a week and it felt like someone had taken away half of DCS. For me DCS is a sandbox where I can jump into any unit and get a unique perspective. I've even started adding Driverviews and LSOviews to ground units and ships that don't have them; just so I can get that unique POV at any time from any unit. People who don't have CA can just fly aircraft and be completely oblivious to this other stuff. You would not know what you are missing. CA is being constantly updated and improved. I think ED has some plans for it.

Even though I want a Multirole Mig that can drop an LGB; it would look like an F-16 is likely or maybe even immanent. This poll looks like it was only canvassing opinion on stuff that is already more than half done. ED are probably very happy that the 4th Gen aircraft got a very strong second place. I'm not sure if working on a Dynamic Campaign engine is a task that ED wants to undertake. It isn't something they have ever talked up before.

This is a different observation to the OP ... I find that once you get in the safe operating region inside the DCS sim then you can get away with a lot of silly things that you probably shouldn't be able to do. I can land very roughly or bounce the helicopter very hard without penalty as a long as I keep the rotors out of harms way. Can the suspension be damaged or broken? I haven't experienced that yet.

I did expect the poll to go longer. Being a details kinda guy I voted for OTHER but was still thinking about my post when the poll ended. Honestly I didn't take a shine to any of the poll options but I think it is an OK result. If ED end up working on a Dynamic Campaign kind of project then that might improve many areas of DCS and make me happy indirectly. If ED will be "eating their own dogfood" their could be a lot of flow on benefits.

Interesting to see the global connections in modern aviation. Russian company leases from an Irish company an aircraft made by Airbus (global company). There has been leading statements from Russian operating company and the Irish leasing company indicating they would prefer a reality that does not find them negligent in some capacity. Airbus is much more careful not to pre-suppose with their statements - main message is that they are lending their experts to the investigation. Russian government is also careful not to pre-suppose with their statements. Their message is that are investigating and nothing is pre-supposed. Egyptians have by necessity given the most statements. Egyptian government has to show that they are responsive and able to operate quickly and efficiently in their territory. They are at the location and have data from the scene, they have the data from ATC, they have the black boxes, they are in communication with all stakeholders. Doing all the things that they must do. It is a another air tragedy but it seems as if it being handled in a professional way. Some media is confused on how to report this in a dramatic way but I don't feel sad for the media.

I don't think this is a completely ridiculous idea. A radar directed system could be smaller by concentrating a narrow beam in the rear aspect. There could have also been an optical component which was common for the ship based CIWS systems. So lets talk about the Tu-22 of the 60's and early 70's; tasked with firing the big missiles at the boats and then exiting at supersonic speed. Why were they fielded with radar directed rear gun systems? That fact is that the naval anti-air missiles of that time were not uniformly useful for engaging the Backfire threat and in the air there was only the Aim-7 Sparrow. If a Backfire put those old missiles on it's tail and extended at maximum speed then the closing speed of that missile (also losing energy) would put it in a state to be engaged by a radar directed gun. It becomes something to consider. I'm sure the Americans considered that the Backfire could pull this off. Which is why they spent a lot of money to counter it. AIM-54 was a significant part of their response and I'm sure the Naval missile systems all received attention too. This is all speculative on my part but it is not a ridiculous premise.

There you are domini99. Bacon has you on the right track.

The more detail the better. If anyone knows another place where this stuff is recorded, that would be pretty cool. Is there a way to send/log data to the score window from the mission scripting environment?

Deano87 try these commands [General][View] Zoom external in [General][View] Zoom external out Bind these commands to some buttons ... Win photography prize

Good news hannibal. I just tried the Gunner position in VR with a DK2. In [uH-1H Gunner], [Axis Commands] Unbind MOUSE_X and MOUSE_Y FROM Camera Horizontal View and Camera Vertical View to stop the Gun View from being totally messed up. I don't know why this would be the case but I'll add a video to show the problem when I have some time. At this point, looking around works and is not messed up but you can't aim the gun. Map the Gun Left/Right to MOUSE_X and Gun Up/Down to MOUSE_Y to make the gun aimable. At this point you can 'look with the HMD' and 'aim with the mouse' which is GREAT! In [uH-1H Gunner], Weapon I had to unmap Machinegun Fire [/b] from the mouse button to stop the DCS window from losing focus when you click the mouse. When the mouse is not locked to view then you have a cursor and it can travel beyond the edges of the screen. With the current way the mouse works in DCS; using the mouse for aiming (independent of the view) in windowed modes might cause troubles. Just something to keep in mind. Am about to try aiming the gun in VR mode using an Joystick/Analog controller instead of the mouse. Will update this post. *update* Does not work with joysticks for now. Button_42 and Button_41 do not like axis input from my x55 throttle. {action = device_commands.Button_42, cockpit_device_id = devices.WEAPON_SYS, name = _('Gun Left/Right')}, {action = device_commands.Button_41, cockpit_device_id = devices.WEAPON_SYS, name = _('Gun Up/Down')}, This is my first time looking at input lua ... so there is more reading to be done.