Oldguy

Seems like Ed has been making the FC3 aircraft more realistic all along; with the better graphics model and PFM, those are moves in the right direction. They make an interesting plane-set; people who like the "study" modules only get to do that: study. There's nothing else to do with them.

There is a major difference between the two in that the Track IR view and your eyes are moving in opposite directions, while in VR, your eyes and your view move in the same direction. For example, to move your point of view in TIR to the lower right cockpit panel, you have to turn your head that way, i.e. down and to the right. In the meantime, your monitor, which you are using to see the lower right cockpit panel, remains where it was, but is now being seen through your left, upper peripheral vision. If the movement required to see an on-screen TIR object is relatively small, then it will not be much of a strain. If you wear glasses, the TIR problem is exacerbated, because glasses don't particularly work well when you look through the edges of their lenses. I can tell you this: TIR is a pointing device, like a joystick button. In VR, conversely, you look where you turn your head to. However, VR is also a stunningly transformational device. These two devices aren't even close in terms of impact on the flight simulator experience. Once you taste good VR, and it is a very expensive taste, you cannot go back. Sadly, the issue with VR is expense. Lots of expense. To be able to read small text, like gauges, text strings, etc. clearly, you will likely need higher resolution than the original VR HMDs offered. So you will have to buy the better HMDs with higher resolution panels. I tossed my TIR once I discovered VR. I use progressive lenses and the TIR made the turn-head-right-look-left-at-monitor experience unworkable. At first, I tried the original Vive, but after the initial euphoria of experiencing VR flight for the first time, I realized that I couldn't read gauges, see small aircraft or read text strings, like the written communication with ATC, etc. That was sooo disappointing. VR in DCS without legible text is simply not usable. I moved to the Vive Pro, and it was just enough better, just that wee bit higher in resolution, that on-screen text finally became clear and usable. For me, the Pro's resolution is the lowest that can do so. I'll buy the higher resolution Cosmos next, as soon as my piggy bank refills. In VR, the value of HMD Panel Resolution is everything. With a high resolution HMD comes the need for a really strong PC, which is also expensive. My 1080ti works for now, and my CPU is up to the task, too, but they have very little room for a good margin of error. I do not believe that they will be able to push the Cosmos I'll be buying the Steam Index controllers, hoping that DCS will support the fingers for the touch cockpits (I am NOT holding my breath for that) and converting the Cosmos to station tracking. See if you can find someone who will let you try their VR before you buy into that hardware eco-system. The industry is evolving rapidly, and you have to spend, and keep spending, relatively big money to keep up. The original Vive, which is still good, set me back about $1200. The Pro added another $700. The Cosmos and Index will cost another $900. I will keep upgrading hardware, because the Cosmos will probably break my 1080ti. I will likely just convert my PC to a game one, with a 9700K CPU and OC it and the 2080ti (or RTX Titan) to stay up. The Titan is the better card, simply because it has so much VRAM, which VR can use. Too, it's base clock is as high as most overclocked 2080tis. That's another $5k easily. However, once you sit in the surprisingly small cockpit of your favorite aircraft and feel those cockpit sides squeezing your shoulders tightly as the plane jiggles and wobbles down the runway for your first VR takeoff, banking hard and looking down over your virtual shoulder and being thrilled at the vertigo-inducing sight of treetops rushing by just mere virtual feet away, you'll find the money. Yep, you'll find the money. To me, it's simply worth every single penny. Your mileage may vary.

Truthfully, there is nothing more realistic about clicking a mouse on a monitor than typing the same commands on a keyboard, except the monitor is a longer reach and a little more awkward. When VR has finger haptics to actually "touch" the virtual 3D cockpit switches and controls, that will be a move forward. The MiG-21 module tried that, but the incredibly large, clumsy "gloves" in lieu of controllers spoil the effect. In the interim, a HOTAS is what most real-world aviators use, and so mouse clicks spoil that immersion as much as a keyboard. Mouse versus keyboard? Neither are in a real airplane. Well, maybe there are some residual, small keyboard inputs in a modern cockpit. It is much ado over very little; what matters is when one software bird flies in the same virtual skies as another, that their interaction is as close to what would happen in reality as possible. That is "full fidelity". A mouse or a keyboard adds nothing to that.

been there for many years.../sigh

Yes, that is possible, I suppose. I would think it would only affect ToW, so I deliberately kept speed high, so the little guy wouldn't drop out of the sky, as it had done on earlier runs, when the AP made sharp turns and power was in the 80% range. Watching your track, it does indeed advance correctly, so I will experiment with speed, and try to hit 3 at a lower velocity. Thanks for your continued patience. Post script: In fact, that seemed to help, although I saw AP turns above 700 knots; I do not know what Max speed + Max angle limits are. The sharpness of turn and distance to WP are definitely a factor. In any case, the mission designer had a real sense of humor, with altitude set at 2000 meters in the highest mountains. Made it to Nalchik, nonetheless. I'll just have to play around with the AP and find out what the combination limits are. Thanks again for your help!

EDIT: OK, ran it again, and in an excess of zeal, waited probably 4 1/2 minutes after power-on, before selecting navigation mode at hardstand, then taxiing for takeoff, selecting AP after climb-out and reaching WP 1 altitude. Once again, it did not increment up to WP 4 after overrunning WP three. Track is attached. Many thanks for your patience and sharing your experience. I'm going to run your track while I wait on this reply. autopilot test 2.zip

Okay, I'm going to give the three minute drill a shot, and see if that prevents the AP from overrunning the WPs repeatedly; I had to manually advance them once the AP overshot. This time, I will simply watch the run. Thanks for the tip; much appreciated.

Here you go. I do not know what camera the track file uses, but of course, it does not match the PoV of my HMD while in-game, so I can only say that what I saw was remarkably smoother and more stable when I made the track. The best way to try to decipher this is to watch the way-point number in the HUD, and the distance counter just to its left. If the aircraft passes the way-point, and the distance-to counter starts to rise, then I manually shift to the next WP. The AP begins to act a bit wonky beginning with WP 3, which I went past by quite a bit before I manually shifted. Thereafter, it will occasionally increment up to the next WP automatically, but that is the exception, not the rule. The view in the mirrors is funny, just as an aside: you get a nice look down into the bowels of the A/C, with the spinning disc representing the intake fan blades. On the occasion when it appears that I will run aground, I take manual control and try to stay close to path until it is safe to shift back to AP. Otherwise, this track is pretty indicative of every trial I have made with this canned mission. Any ideas? :joystick: autopilot test.zip

I'm just running a simple, canned mission for the T model, to allow the plane to fly itself while I play around with control settings and the like, for my VR setup. It comes with the free version of DCS and involves a simple take-off, follow multiple way-points, and land. I've got plenty of fuel, and time-over-wp is not important, so I take-off and keep the power high in navigation mode. I settle on a course close to what the FP requires, and I turn the AP on. I just want the plane to follow the mission (as written by someone on the DCS team), so I can screw around with other settings and enjoy the VR view. Thing is, I thought the plane was supposed to follow the plan's way-points, including altitude. I can see the plan altitude and speed values in the HUD, but the plane rarely matches either. It does not even seem to try to climb to match the planned WP's altitude. The distance-to-next-waypoint counter, at the bottom of the HUD, sometimes increments up, and occasionally down. The AP cycles thru the WPs correctly, by number, but the course the plane flies from one to the next seems very unpredictable. Since this mission crosses some very high mountain peaks, it seems important that the autopilot try to keep the plotted altitude, or at least somewhat close to it. So, in a round-about way, I'm asking if the DCSW autopilot is functioning normally, or is this unpredictable behavior the result of buggy behavior?

surprise Thanks for the light-smashing "Easter Egg"!!

Same here; mirrors can be turned forward and back, but show no images. This is new behavior. The engines start-up bug is still present.

Track IR and progressive eyeglass lenses don't play well together; so I give up on trying to use this hardware. I've enclosed a picture of what is included in this offer to sell. The buyer will have to obtain the software; it is not included. The price is f.o.b. my residence, which means you pay the shipping to wherever, however you choose to send it. Once we agree to the sale, I will get quotes for shipping costs, if I can comply with your requested shipping method, and I will add them to the price. I suggest that you insure your package; once it ships, it's yours. It is sold without warranty of any kind, express or implied. I verified that it was working order, then I packaged it. The price reflects the used condition of the hardware, which is very light, since I cannot use it effectively with my prescription lenses. The risk of purchasing these used goods lies with the buyer, so caveat emptor! Method of payment is negotiable and will reflect consensus.

Thanks for the many helpful replies; just what I was looking for!

Many thanks; my French is practically non-existant, so some of that is lost on me, but where I could follow along, it was very impressive; many thanks!

Did you even read my post?