AlexCaboose

Squadron Name: Baby Shakers Discord ID on MVP Discord: [BS] Loco Contact person Discord ID: Caboose#4705 Aircraft Selection. F-16C Pilots: USA - [BS] Loco

I don't believe there's any public Rhino mods currently

You tried them and got 55-60 at the menu or in game? They’re the same resolution though. The only difference with the G2 is the lenses are better.

No, let me reiterate. At the main menu, I was getting a solid 90 FPS - hangar scene with nothing going on. Which is what I personally would expect anyway, as there's really not a whole lot of work to render or very much for the GPU to do there. 45-55 was what I had in DCS while actually flying, scene dependent. The overclock was a 5.0Ghz all core on the 9900K. I've tried PCIE 3.0 for all devices. I've also tried rebar both off and on. Motherboard bios is up to date. Yes, these are the settings I used to run and I got the framerates I mentioned - 45-55 FPS in DCS while actually flying around, scene dependent. 4x MSAA is only within the confines of the render mask anyway and doesn't make a huge difference in terms of FPS vs 2x. Or at least it didn't before. Neither did 150% SteamVR, and the Viper MFDs are a muddy mess with anything much lower than that.

I appreciate the suggestions guys, unfortunately these didn't work, nor did a full reinstall. I also tried DDU and reinstallation of SteamVR/WMR for SteamVR. I do have the same HMD as before the upgrade - I'm running the Reverb G2. The main reason to swap to a new system was to replace my old case and to upgrade from the i9 9900K to the AMD R9 5950x. This is fpsVR while sitting at the main menu. And Instant Action --> F16 --> Syria --> Free Flight And here are my relevant DCS settings with a PD of 1.0 w/ SteamVR SS set at 150% As I mentioned above, with my old build I would have a solid 90 FPS in the main menu, with negligible frametimes. In game, with the same settings as above, I'd hover around 50-55 typically with frametimes around 14-17ms. I also never noticed reprojection other than on the shorelines in DCS. So I'm really at a loss as to why my system got worse with a brand new install of windows with faster/same hardware. FWIW, DCS and Windows are both running on a PCIE Gen 4 NVME SSD.

It's also saying I'm getting reprojection in the main menu, which never used to happen.

I just built a new PC over the weekend. My old system was an i9900K w/ an RTX 3090 and 64GB of RAM @3600mhz. I just upgraded to an AMD system with a 5950X. I am using the Reverb G2 for VR. I used to get a solid 90 FPS in the main menu, and 50-55 FPS in game. Now I'm getting 45 in the menu, with noticeable artifacts. Text seems to bend when moving my head quickly. Not sure if this is a side effect of reprojection or something. In any event, the whole thing has left me very confused. Anyone know how to fix this? I'd like to get 90FPS in the menus again, and it seems my overall FPS is much lower with this new build. I used to get 55ish FPS, now I'm down to 30. All settings in DCS as far as I can tell are the same as I copied over my saved games folder etc.

Yes, that would be awesome.

The Rhino might get it in the future, but definitely not the Hornet.

Did you ever figure out how to get these added? I'd love to have this sort of thing in the F-16. If you've worked it out, please let me know.

Loco, F-5

But all the people here who work on the jet say it's not wired for 4x HARMs. So the planes can't do it.

This apparently can happen with regular CCRP attacks as well.

Does this NVD_HDR.fx file still work? I keep getting installation issues

It doesn't matter why. It isn't. And it isn't wired, which you've been hearing from people who work(ed) on the jet.

Completely wrong. There's nothing that stops you from taking it, other than an agreement that it won't be done on a private server. Regardless, it is not accurate for the specific aircraft being modeled and should not exist.

It does specify "hardcore realistic AND casual gameplay modes." Sounds to me like they're pretty well separated in intent. It is entirely about realism to me, personally. ED said they're modeling a 2007 USANG F-16CM Bl. 50 and 4x HARMs were not able to be fired.

How is killing one or two extra tanks the lesser of two evils when an aircraft is far more valuable? Regardless, that's pretty off topic. The pylons weren't wired for HARMs and so shouldn't be allowed.

That's my point. They don't have unlimited airframes, why would they risk that level of damage?

And "Unlimited Weapons" already exists as an option for those people, as does the rest of the Game Mode you're describing. Why would they risk the whole plane when they could just send another strike flight? I'd expect that it still would probably not happen.

This is what ED's own marketing materials on their website have to say:

I would imagine that they didn't greenlight it and that ED did what they did on their own. I was not consulted, nor am I an F-16 SME. I would probably ask them if that's the case before I would place any blame at their feet.

I have no idea, I'm not a Hornet guy. I don't believe it's realistic though. It's more than just not being certified. It's not even wired for it. I absolutely agree, there should be a high probability of catastrophic stab damage. But at the moment, that doesn't exist, and I don't think anyone sees that being programmed in anytime soon. If it's not certified for use, it's not accurate. It's an equivalent argument because neither are something that the 2007 USANG F-16CM Bl. 50 would have access to.

It pops up because if it's not realistic it shouldn't exist. If ED accidentally modeled an AESA radar it shouldn't stay on the aircraft because "oh well, we already gave it that capability." If it's not real, it's not real. ED billed the module as being the most accurate representation of a 2007 USANG F-16CM Bl. 50. There's really no difference between 4x HARMs and double racked AMRAAMs as neither are real.

Because if it can't physically launch them, it doesn't matter what map it's on. The conflict and scenario may be fictional, but the aircraft is not. Should we have an F-35 in DCS? It would be just as fictional as 4x HARMs. What about a moving map on the HSD because it's convenient? Perhaps while we're at it we should get double racked AMRAAMs because that looks cool. Because all of that is just as fantasy as having 4x HARMs. The sim is a sandbox, but the aircraft are not.