Horns

Oh yeah, they clearly aren’t ready now. The next planned update would be May 22 by my count, so if the F-4E i won’t make that date but is likely to make the end of the window I guess it might make more sense for ED to delay the planned update to the 29th, or even the 31st, to give HB (and ED’s testers) the chance to make the window than add a patch out of phase. All just conjecture though.

Cheers for the info, nice to have some insight I doubt there's much more that they could tell us about the state of the module other than what @IronMike's comment said. ETA was by the end of May, now that we're into a revised release window, I think they'll let us know as soon as they're aware if they won't make that, otherwise 'By End of May' is probably as precise as they can be. It would be nice if ED clarified whether they might release a module (along with the required patch) outside of their planned update schedule though.

Would be great if you can, but either way ED has the choice to alter the schedule. @Silver_Dragon Would you know if it be a lot more work for ED to release the patch for a new module and the regular planned update separately?

I guess you mean that the patch that introduces a new module doesn't have to conform to the six week window, yeah? You weren't suggesting that they could do the release without releasing a patch. I hope you're correct that they are prepared to vary the window. I'd hope ED are aware of the updated timeline for the F-4E, so if the patch schedule would prevent that timeline being met I hope they would have informed HB and we would have heard about it before now, along with a newly revised ETA. Please note however that hope is not a strategic position.

We’ve got pretty OT, maybe that’s natural because we seem to have covered the range of positions re the original topic. If anyone else wants to say something in response to the topic I suggest you do so quick because I don’t know how long this will stay open…

That would be me. They succinctly phrased more or less what I was thinking, therefore I was grateful.

No alternative I'd bother with, which is why I'm still on board with this. I was just pointing out that if people would have chosen not to preorder the Heatblur F-4E had they known about the extra wait they have an out. Personally I think it's worth the extra wait for sure.

Agreed. I think it bears repeating that HB have offered a refund ('No Questions Asked' I believe) to anyone who is dissatisfied, so if anyone is so uncomfortable with the situation that they want out all they need to do is tell Heatblur. I don't know how that could be fairer.

Got my t-shirt today, Western Australia. Looks great, thanks!

FWIW, I can confirm DCS starts for me after the update.

Ok, thanks for replying. Given the circumstances, if users need assistance employing the workaround mentioned in this thread, they are welcome to DM me and I’ll do my best to help.

Anyone know if the update got delayed?

You have the choice of doing as suggested in the post marked as the solution here, or waiting 24 hours or so - hopefully the next DCS patch will be available then, and that should contain a fix.

Glad you weren't completely cut off! It is indeed interesting that DCS works on your second rig (and kudos for having two DCS-capable rigs to begin with). Would be great to know if this crash problem (and the issue with the PTC build this appears to stem from) is specific to Windows 11. At this point I'll reinstall Windows 10 if it means I'm less likely to get issues like this in the future.

Sorry I couldn’t offer anything more effective, would have been good to get you up and running before the long weekend ends. Fingers crossed the DCS update gets pushed on Wednesday and it’s the solution to your problem. FTR yes, pancake means flat screen

The only other suggestion I have is to ensure you don't have Public Test Channel enabled in Settings on the Beta tab. If you find it was enabled, when you first disable it it will download an update. Let it do its thing. Bad news is that, if it doesn't work after that, you should probably copy the files you downloaded in the fix back into the relevant folders (oculus-client, oculus-diagnostics and oculus-runtime). I have no doubt this situation is frustrating, and before I found the fix for the issue I had most recently I was furious (I may have vowed to kick Zuckerberg hard enough to make an outie an innie). However, the silver lining would be that the problem that prevents users loading the game based on the make of headset they have is one that we have a fix for. As ruprecht says, this seems to be a different problem that isn't being experienced broadly, so once you find a fix, hopefully this problem will stay fixed on your system.

There are some zip files among those downloads that need to be extracted, did you do that too? I mention it because I wasn’t sure myself at first

Roger that. Makes sense that you'd need the extra authority in ACM or anything precise. If I'm going to give my feet a break I'll do that when speed of maneuver isn't an issue. One of the things that appeal to me about the F-14 above other jets is that it's up to the pilot to stay within the flight envelope. Somehow FBW feels like a padded cell to me.

Good to know, I'll try that, cheers!

That’s what I was talking about, although it was good to be reminded about coordinated turns too. Thanks for clarifying that this isn’t related to inertia, that was one of my main questions. Cheers for going into this further, the linked info was enlightening too. Thanks for adding this. I was asking about this in part because my feet and legs aren’t good, so I wanted to check if I was mistaken about the value of using the rudder pedals (I don’t like twist sticks). While I’m now convinced that there is benefit to adding rudder (albeit not for the reasons I thought), it’s also good to know if it gets uncomfortable during a mission I might be able to eschew it without massive consequences. Cheers for the responses everyone, they are all appreciated.

No, all systems on normal settings, nothing exotic.

I picked up the idea from somewhere (no idea where now) that the F-14 turns more effectively when adding a bit of rudder (in the direction of the turn) before starting to roll as opposed to using roll alone, and I believe the reason was that it was to do with combatting the Tomcat's high moment of intertia. I would like some opinions on whether this is correct and, if so, why it is effective. I believe the F-14's initial yaw rate is relatively good whereas its initial roll rate is fairly pedestrian, but how that factors in (if at all) I don't know. Maybe it's just to do with getting additional control surfaces involved to offset the lack of ailerons? No idea. All input welcome.

'Just updating' doesn't mean you can leave gaps in features and come back to finish them later, it means doing them a first time, quick and dirty, just to get a product out the door, and then having to decide where the extra resources spent doing that are deducted from - the final pass for the feature affected, or the quantity or quality of other features. The F-16 underperforms in turns, overperforms in radar range and the features list is certainly shorter now than it was during preorder, especially if you just look at the features ED are saying will be available by the end of EA. One could justifiably call that bad.

Ah ok gotcha, thank you very much for the help, I'll get started on the tinkering directly

I just upgraded my headset from the OG Oculus Rift to a Quest 3. That means I'm using the same Link app (although the branding changed from Meta to Oculus), as I'm on DCS standalone. My question is: What, if anything, do I change in my DCS settings to take advantage of the upgrade? Should I be upping pixel density or something like that? Or do I just set my headset resolution in the Link app and let DCS take care of itself? I'm on Win 11, running on a rig with Intel i7-12700F CPU, 32GB system RAM and an RTX 4080 GPU w/ 16GB GDDR6 VRAM. Thanks for reading