WelshZeCorgi

Got it. The caveat being that you have to be signed up for ED newsletter, which you can turn on in your account settings in the DCS main website.

There's supposedly a 10% discount on the vkb tomcat grip for people who have the module, but I'm still not clear how you would get that coupon for proof of ownership of the F-14 module. How do you get it?

I believe the recent patch has caused a drop in fps for f-14 RIOs, it's fine when the plane is cold, but when you begin turning on systems, the fps drops to 5-10 fps. I noticed the drop starting when I turn on the datalink. Edit. After reading previous comments on the ride screen turning on, it would make sense as the TiD usually warms up when I get around to turning on datalink.

F-14 RIO fps Feb 2020 patch I believe the recent patch has caused a drop in fps for f-14 RIOs, it's fine when the plane is cold, but when you begin turning on systems, the fps drops to 5-10 fps. I noticed the drop starting when I turn on the datalink.

I tried this in several freeflight mission, I intentionally input a bad heading, waited a half minute, then input the correct heading. It does seem to slow down INS degradtion initially, but it still accelerates exponentially into an unusable state. I looked this up in the bugs forum and the explanation is that the INS takes the Earth's rotation into account, so inputting the wrong heading completely messed up the calculations for that part of the equation. As far as I can tell, (though I hope I'm wrong) there is no fix other than switching to a backup mode.

@super Grover Is there no way to correct this mistake once the heading is accidently inputted?

Ok, so fixes do move own ship and not the other way around. Thank you. I was wondering about the other two mistakes, inputting the wrong heading or wrong windspeed (or whatever causes the HUD to shift offcenter.) Can you fix that by just inputting the current heading or setting windspeed to 0?

While trying to get Navgrid set up, I accidentally put in the YY lat coordinates while the TID was in Aircraft Stabilized mode, which shifted ownship to that lat input, completely screwing up the INS. I've had similar troubles in the past of accidently inputting Navgrid stuff into the INS, such as inputting the heading 180 into ownship, which made us look like we were flying south when we were actually heading north, fun stuff like that. I also did something (not sure how) where we suspect I accidentally made the INS think that there was a 100kt crosswind that caused the pilot's HUD to be half off the glass. I've learned how to set it up consistently without screwing it up, but I wanted to ask if there was a way to undo mistakes like these. Just in case I have a brain-fart in the future. I know about the Radar Fix, Tacan Fix and Vis Fix, but those fixes seem to shift the waypoints around ownship and not the other way around. So I have to ask if there is away to fix ownship position if it gets messed up through bad RIO inputs on the CAP pad. Thanks for your time.

Weird how I'm getting shit for acceleration when those same people are suggesting using swivel chairs. Like it's somehow more realistic than acceleration. Wait, I must apologize, I never knew F16's and Mig21s used swivel chair technology in their seats. Anyways, I'm not talking about you. Thanks for the suggestion, I've tried it, but I don't think it's for me.

What's surprising to me with the replies to my post is how so many are (subconsiously?) missing my point in order to find themselves a new deadhorse to beat. I love the 1:1 tracking too. That's not the issue. The issue is the unrealistically narrow FOV that the CV1 provides. Looking behind you in a chair in real life is easy. Looking behind you in VR with only has 94 degrees or so is unrealistically difficult. Since I'm such a stickler for realism, I want to be able to look behind me in VR with the same ease as in real life. I don't want it to be easier, I don't want it to be harder, I want it to be similar if not the same. I tried the swivel chair suggestion and found a few things. 1. It actually gave me motion sickness. 2. Using pedals caused the swivel chair to swivel around unintentionally, thus causing motion sickness. 3. As the board is wooden, it also caused the wheeled chair to move around out of place and required me to stop, center the swivel chair again and try playing. (Can't do that in MP.) 4. Even if the chair doesn't move, swiveling it around causes my knees to knock into the stick, which causes the plane to violently roll unintentionally, which again causes motion sickness. 5. In order to swivel the chair, I have to take my feet off the pedals in order to swivel the chair intentionally, while not inputting rudder unintentionally. 6. My center stick and 2 desk mounted controllers kept scratching and poking my legs as the chair moved. It's bad enough as it is but when you're in VR, its a weirdly extra shock. 7. And before a crowd of angry pitchfork holders demand evidence, here it is. https://i350.photobucket.com/albums/q429/WelshZeCorgi/Mobile%20Uploads/IMG_20191018_155749062_HDR_zpslj3iejlt.jpg Well, quality is not great but it's still evidence. And to answer people probably crying, "well how would acceleration help then?! Wouldn't it cause motion sickness too?" Maybe, I don't know, but the only way to know for sure is to try it. All the things that caused motion sickness seemed to have come from unintentional motion, (swivel chair swiveling from rudder inputs, knees knocking into the stick,) controlled acceleration from intentional movements (and a profile with a subtle acceleration, like giving you an extra 5 degrees after turning your head 110 degrees not 180 from turning your head 2 degrees) would most likely not create much motion sickness, if at all, I predict. Not that I can test it as there's seemingly no way to adjust it.

Seems like one particular user has a well-working "headset" between his ears.

Do you know what is also unrealistic? Having your FOV artificially narrowed to around 94 degrees. Since everyone here is just banging the term, "real life," like their first hooker, let's try a real life experiment. Sit in a chair and look back. Look behind you. Simple right? It's easy! Unless you have serious back problems, you can easily see behind you by turning your head sideways, maybe add a little naughty twist in your shoulders and look out the corner of your eye if you need to, I didn't... voila! You have a clear, unimpeded view behind you. Now boot up DCS in VR, put on your CV1, flip on a quick mission and look behind you. And no, I'm not saying contort your body like a pole dancer, no need to imitate your mother (I'm joking, chances are extremely high I don't know you or your mother, and therefore have no way to give an insulting statement as fact, but what is the harm in humor in this already sarcastic post?) But anyways, look behind you the same way you did without VR (with a CV1) and you'll probably see what I see. Half of your view is a blurry mess, the other half is just pure black because it's just the side of your headset. And since having an enemy behind you is THE most dangerous situation to be in, it seems rather illogical to not give yourself a fair chance in seeing behind you to find him. I am trying to solve that. I'm not trying to "cheat reality" by being able to talk to my headrest with a 1 degree turn. The CV1 artificially narrows your FOV and that, in and of itself, is not realistic last time I checked. Fighter pilots don't strap binoculars to their heads. I simply wanted to add a little "umph" to the VR camera when I turned my head and shoulders to their maximum deflection so that I would have a similar view of the space behind me, as I would in "real life" as demonstrated by looking behind you without the headset. This is in opposition to VR land, where you have to contort your body in an "unrealistic" way to get the same view in order to compensate for the "unrealistic" FOV hoisted upon you due to (understandable) technological limitations.

Guess that speaks volumes for the shortcomings VR has.;)

I thought I made it clear in the first post but it's because I want to see behind me. For some reason my neck can't turn my head 180 degrees.

Is there some way to accelerate?/accentuate?/intensify?/multiply? head movement with the Oculus rift CV1 so that you can look behind you? Seems with the 1 to 1 headtracking you can't check your six unless you dislocate your spine. Even if you manage to turn your head most of the way, because objects in the CV1 only come into focus when they are in the center of your headset, you can't use the corners of the headset FOV to see behind you.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=251377 This ended up helping me. Not perfect, but it definitely did stop the hiccup/stuttering every few seconds.

Settings is just the vr quick option at the bottom of the graphic settings. Pd is 1.5

Ryzen 7 3800 32 GB ram Vega 64- 8 gb? Not sure. I can check later. Ssd for DCs. I feel like I have a setup decent enough for the CV1.

Does anyone know how to get the framerates to smooth out? I just bought a used CV1 and I can't figure out how to get the frames to stop stuttering or hiccuping. It runs pretty smoothly for a few seconds before it drops to 15 frames or so, then returns to normal, this happens in all conditions, happens when I'm alone and clean in Caucasus (no AI assets) and when I'm looking at the controls menu with the game paused. So I can't tell if it's something I can even fix.

Yeah, did get engine shutdown with the negative g for 10 seconds + afterburner. Firing aim-9 from wing pylons with landing flaps and slats down did not damage flaps or slats. Lighting the fuel dump with afterburners (dump and burn) doesn't do any damage to the F-14 as far as I can tell. #5 (No rolling maneuvers with angle of bank change greater than 360 degrees.) Not 100% sure what this means, but I do find that rolling around (at the speed of sound) too much during a dogfight can really **** up the F-14. Especially if I get disoriented and start creating uncoordinated rolls with bad pedal inputs. In non-combat flight, simply rolling indefinitely doesn't seem to cause the jet to fall into a spin.

When in the cockpit, in-game, the default controls are always pilot, even when you're in the RIO seat. It makes for keybinding a bit tedious when if you have to change something or test something out, you have to switch from pilot to RIO control options everytime you enter it. Can it be set that the control options default to RIO when you are in the rio seat and Pilot when you are in the pilot seat?

Aux release safety cover (the switch that drops drop tanks, down switch) does not have a keybinding slot available. And the HCU trigger axis does not work with the slider axis tune option. With sliders, the HCU trigger axis considers both 0 and 100 to be full action and 1-49 & 51-99 half action. With slider axis on, 0 should be no action, 1-99 or so should be half action and 100 should be full action. Also, from the RIO's seat, you can accidentally click on the pilot's autothrottle switch. You can accidentally select it somewhere in the upper left corner of the TID (the frame, not the screen)

Amazing! What kit and scale?

While I would argue that there is a subjective interest in heavies, (where is the cutoff point to qualify as "enough interest"? 20% of playerbase? 40%?) I would say that there is not enough interest to interest ED into development. As good/bad "insert your opinion here" as Jester is for the F-14, I can't imagine how commanding a bomber with 3-4 "Jester's" to command would feel like. I can see how it might be a nightmare to code and how much resources it would require to build and run the models. And in a multiplayer aspect, if 4-5 players are sitting in a multi-crewed bomber, that's 3-4 players not in a single seat jet. Having a number of these in the air would depopulate the air battles, as bombers would be suckin up all the brain meat. I'm not saying that would be bad, it would seem like it but I'm not 100% certain. I just know it would be different, and with a difference comes the uncertainty of player reaction. They may like it, but they may also hate it, which may mean PVP servers banning heavies enmasse, devaluing the module. I'm all for heavies, but I think about it and can see how tricky it might be. Certainly if it really ****ed up, they'll have another Hawk module on their hands and I don't think ED wants that. I think, to put it simply, due to the technical and development and implementation uncertainties, it might end up making a niche product (due to limited implementation, not necessarily limited interest) in a niche market. that's like... niche squared?

Not Sure if this helps but I experienced the same thing. Not sure if it only pertains to mission 3 though.