Dojo

Thanks. I'm curious to know what the performance is given less than "max" settings in a few key areas. No rush, but if you've got any general numbers and are so inclined to share.

@Aurelius, thanks, understood. I thought there was some detail missing here. You've clarified, appreciate it. Unfortunately, the price-to-performance question is being conflated with the performance question. It is useful to think of them separately. 1. All other things being equal: does the 2080Ti create a significantly better playing experience 2. Is the price for that increase justified? Also @Aurelius and @jojo There's incorrect math happening here: and while it's not my intention to be a dick, it's relevant if you're going to keep arguing price to performance: Going from ~21/22 to ~31/32 frames is not a 33% increase, it's a ~50% increase. I think you are mistakenly taking the avg increase frames (let's call it 10 for simplicity) and dividing it by the result (~31). That's incorrect. You are gaining 50% more frames from what you experience with the 1080Ti in Aurelius' scenario (all settings maxed and a Rift S on his hardware). So the increase is ~50%, not 33% for Aurelius in particular. So if you want to talk price to performance in the scenario Aurelius described (All settings maxed), the performance improvement is ~50%. Whether that result, ~31fps, is worth it the price premium is a separate, but valid argument. Of course, the mileage others experience by simply adding a 2080Ti to DCS will vary, but I'm addressing the figures that Aurelius experienced. I have a 1080Ti, I'll be upgrading in the next few months, so this discussion is meaningful to me.

So you're saying there's ~50% performance improvement of the 2080Ti over the 1080Ti? That's a fairly dramatic delta, by any generational measure. Of course, 31/32fps isn't great still in VR, so I probably wouldn't use either at max. But again, I'm not sure how a delta that substantial is dismissed as a tiny bit nicer. Am I not following you here?

@ED, It appears the Nellis Approach Lighting System on Runway 21L and PAPI, long thought to be an outstanding bug, is actually operational. However, turns out that it is presently tied to the wind settings; i.e. set the wind for a profile that makes 21 the preferred runway, and the ALSF turns on. This is problematic because Nellis is a simultaneous opposite direction operations airfield, 21 is actually the calm wind runway, and 21L has the ILS. Also, as I understand it, the PAPI should always be operational. It presently switches between 21L or 21R, depending on which runway DCS believes is active. (runways 21 vs runways 3). Please fix this, ideally by tying the ALSF to time of day and weather visibility. Truly, it would be better to leave the ALSF always on than to tie it to wind incorrectly. Certainly the ILS is always to 21, so it would be best to just leave it on. Thanks in advance!

It appears that the Stable version is attempting to update to the current beta version. That is, my Release client is presently trying to fetch 2.5.3.22176. I see no update about this. It's happening on both my Desktop and remote dedicated server, so not a local issue. Accident?

That worked perfectly. The name "Static Template" is a bit misleading, as it worked just fine with Client units. Thanks as always, Grimes!

Hello Mission Builder Guru's... ME noob question: Is there an elegant way to save a group of client units to be reused in another mission? To be clear, the goal is not to save the way the jets are setup at a given airfield, and build a new mission from scratch. The goal is to take any already built mission, but with a useless client config at a given airfield, and load the desired client config at that airfield, without having to replace all of the clients by hand. Thanks in advance,

Wags, this is exactly the type of info I personally wanted to hear. Of note, many folks are basing hardware purchasing/budgeting decisions on the potential of getting more efficiency out of their gear, so knowing where things are in this area, even delays, is very much appreciated. And yes, I do consider my expectations fairly managed! Thank you!

Not sure I understand your usage of telemetry here. Are you looking for some sort of export to drive your g-seat? Or are you actually looking to review the telemetry of your flight afterwards? If the latter: http://www.tacview.net/

Ragtop is right, assuming you're running Tacview locally, although that's not the correct way to disable Tacview any longer. If you are running Tacview, the proper way to disable it is inside of DCS' special menu for Tacview (Launch DCS< go to Settings -> Special -> Tacview) and disable recording. Again, assuming that's your problem. The mission has 1000s of objects which is what makes it so valuable, but indeed will introduce performance overhead which Tacview can exacerbate.

Exactly these two emotions: :music_whistling: :clap_2:

Thanks Vampire, this gives the info I need!

I appreciate the gesture, Absolut79. But does this mean there wasn't an official document or instruction somewhere? I see a number of items for the older bases (e.g. Gladiator). The insert that comes with the stick seems to point to something that doesn't exist. I could "figure it out", but I'd rather follow an official process.

Where's the documentation on how to change cams/springs in the Gunfighter? Harder to find than I imagined, although I could be missing something obvious.

Just received my Pro, and my only regret is that I've got to travel for work, and won't get to try it until the weekend. Unboxed, and very pleased with the quality!

Sigh... you spoil us so.

Hey Ciribob, I've been holding back the feature requests, knowing you've been working on a few things, I didn't want to bother. But if it's not too much trouble, can you add the ability to separately enable/disable mic click sounds for PTT and release? (ideally for sending and receiving as well, but just local will be useful) There are a few scenarios where disabling one, but not the other, would be very useful. Sparing you the examples, but happy to provide if desired.

So I received my grip, extension, and mounts today. Pleased! I unpacked everything, but had a social engagement this evening and haven't had an opportunity to use it yet. I did connect it to my warthog base, just for a quick feel. Very surprised at the shipping time, much faster than expected! As far as my 5 minute impression: The grip is incredibly ergonomic, feels great in my hand. Of course it's much lighter than the Warthog grip, being plastic, but it feels very sturdy nevertheless. Looking forward to playing with it! For the record, I live in New York. It appears it took 5 days to get to customs here, and then only a day to get delivered to me. My serial number is #27 ;)

Hey folks, Captoglove only has 4 days left on its Kickstarter, which is already fully funded. For folks who still pledge, there's still a pretty significant (32%) discount $170 versus retail of $249. We're also in talks to get Captoglove to come chat with us on the 476th podcast. Check them out if you haven't already!

I had this issue a couple weeks ago. It's very likely a mod, not the Rift. e.g. AlaskanGrizzly's Kneeboard Builder app was the one that was affecting it for me, because of a particular A-10 cockpit lua it changes. Are you using it?

Thanks Cyph3r, I don't follow the thread regularly. I received e-mail notification that pre-order was ready, and originally the adapter (as you know) was distinct. I suspect others might have the same sort of confusion. In fact, in a previous mail direct from Virpil it mentioned the adapter was in manufacturing as of Feb 24th. Perhaps it's worth it on the grip order page to make it clear that no separate adapter is needed for the TMW base. Placing my order now.

Cyph3r, to be clear: I don't see the TMW adapter. Does this mean these parts we're ordering are useless until either the TMW adapter or the native VPC base is available? Or is the adapter implied in one of the items above and I missed an announcement? It's not obvious on the site if that's the case. The adapter was previously mentioned as a distinct item, if that's changed, fair enough.

I like the idea, but I've had horrible luck with tracks. I fly, take off, and land, and in the track, I crash shortly after takeoff. Last time I tested was with the Viggen in beta. But you're right, it's worth a re-try for my testing style. Those key combos weren't working for me today, so I had to download the SDK, and use the debug tool to shut it off. Here's an explanation directly from Oculus on the core concept: https://developer.oculus.com/blog/asynchronous-spacewarp/

I've pulled this thread off track enough, so just some final notes, and I'll create a separate thread when ready: Disabling ASW had a significantly positive effect on my performance, including FPS. Noticeable decrease in judder in 2.0.5. I've been recording observations sporadically through out the day; I'll publish in the new thread once I have the new card (hopefully tomorrow, as weather here in the North east delayed delivery) and can complete my "real world" tests. I'm sure it helps many machines, and many games, but as of this post, ASW is currently no good on my rig for DCS.

Indeed. Finding common stress points in your actual play is the best measure.