Mr_sukebe

Just flown over Iran on the Iraq map. The F10 "map" shows the location of a whole bunch of Iranian airfields. Even has Tehran on it. Unfortunately, it's all flat textures. Worst case scenario, we could add some buildings ourselves.

I watched that vid earlier. Interesting idea. Would be even better if the status of the aircraft could be ported from one mission to the next (eg fuel, damage, weapons loaded).

I don’t remember the Stennis ever having deck crew, unless added manually

Apologies if this is a dumb question, but is there a way to request an AWACS unit to call out the location of an enemy ship?

Gon> Have you reviewed and updated the .cfg settings? If not, they might need a bit of an overhaul. The default settings were no what I was looking for.

Gonvise> By two methods, are you referring to the options of: XRtoolkit version with the Mbuch DFR had effectively 3 circles, with the XRtoolkit allowing the choice of detail available in the centre, middle and outer circles Quad-views built into DCS, where you can edit a .cfg file in the Saved Games folder to change the level of detail in the outer rectangle That's how I'm seeing the differences. I'm currently using option 2. If you're seeing a difference in frame rate, might be worth checking the settings you have within the .cfg file for Quad Views. As one used circles with 3 levels of detail, and the other a rectangle, and two levels of detail, it's pretty likely that you'll have dialed in a different level of detail reduction outside of the centre areas.

How is the printed extension? Does it feel solid and strong? I was thinking of one of the 50mm ones that's angled.

+1 on the above, all good suggestions. Some additional thoughts/ideas to try: If you have an Nvidia GPU, try using DLAA for the Anti-Aliasing. Don't enable DLSS upsampling. It's also worth downloading DLSS 3.8.10, though you'll need to manually paste it into the BIN-MT folder of DCS Disable heatblur and lens effect If you're not getting a fairly solid 72fps, have a play with ASW whilst in game. I've found the visuals a bit jerky at times when I'm not at 72fps. Using ASW seems to smooth things out nicely If you don't already do this, install the empty VR hangar. There's a link somewhere in the forums. It's does what the name suggests, i.e. the hangar you normally see on opening DCS is empty and just black. Apparently that saves some VRAM, and might help Have a dig around about the use of upsampling with OTT or similar. I use x1.3 with my Quest Pro and it significantly improves the legibility of flight gauges and similar. Sorry, don't know what the multiplier should be for a Quest 3

I was pleasantly surprised by the update. Above all, the flight model feels a bit more "immediate" and lively. Love the updated internal modelling. For $10, bargaintastic.

Does the title of this thread need re-visiting?

Quite. There are many forces that "might" influence feel through a stick. I'm not a pilot, so don't know what is genuinely realistic.

The use of extensions will of course change the amount of force used to move or hold the stick, so agreed on that. However, it would be great to understand whether other forces are experienced through the stick with the actual aircraft. Of course that will depend upon the design of each aircraft, whether it’s fly by wire, hydraulic etc, eg - transition from cruise to stall speed - changes at high speed, during turns - other physical things happening to the aircraft such as raising the undercarriage, lowering flaps, dropping weapons or stores etc FFB is definitely more than just giving you a workout, and includes nuances like being able simulate a force sensing stick (as per the F16). Couldn’t do that with a normal spring/cam based unit.

Just to add, love mine. Ref the licensing issue. Yes, clearly it appears to be an issue. Is it our problem? IMO, not really. Above all, it’s an issue between the initial developer and Moza. So just as I stay out of the Razbam/ED discussion, I see little value in debating it. Ref Moza as a company. Yes, they are Chinese, but they do have what appears to be a track record with the Sim racing gear, which gave me more confidence. As for their ethics, that’s a bit of a mess, but where do you stop on that? Tesla are now associated with a Trump, Ford operated car manufacturing in Nazi Germany etc.

I love flying on the SA map. I have to ask, is the update expected to fix the issue with the frame rate going to pieces when the aircraft is under 800’?

I have a Quest Pro (now out of production). If I had a to replace it, it would be with a Quest 3. Thoughts: - Pimax units apparently have brilliant visuals, but I read far too many horror stories about issues and support - Vive. They have a new “Focus” coming soon. Hi res, but uses fresnel lenses, which I personally wouldn’t go back to after using the pancakes within the Quest Pro - Pico. I had a 4. Great headset, but I hated the software. Just couldn’t get it to run reliably. More to the point, the Q3 seems to do everything that the Pico does, but not only works, is cheaper - Varjo. They’ve basically refocused on the pro market and have stopped selling the Aero, which looked really cool - Bigscreen. I love the format, but it’s very expensive and apparently suffers from weird visuals - Megane. New to the market. Again, looks very interesting and is very high res. Issues being no eye tracking and the res being so high that I don’t know if we could really drive it. Additionally, I’ve seen no reviews as yet on actual usage that I’d trust in short, none are perfect. However, the Q3 is cheap, I find the software reliable. Visuals are good if not amazing.

This ^ It’s a question that has been asked and answered multiple times by ED

+1 on the modelling of incoming maps using present day as a basis. For one thing, the proposed "spherical earth" will potentially replace all current day specific maps. If theatre maps were made for more appropriate time periods, in the way that Normandy is focused on 1944 and the planned WW2 version of Marianas, that would be preferable from my perspective as would give them a purpose post the arrival of spherical earth.

That's already possible with the 2 week trial

Just a thought, but that's actually quite interesting. By inference, if you setup your friendly AWACs or tanker to do the same, does that mean that they're far less likely to get hit by long-range SAM and AAMs?

there’s already 2 zooms in DCS. Look in the UI section of controls under VR. There is a normal zoom and a spyglass zoom

??? You don’t HAVE to buy it, simple as

Any chance of auto-deleting any post with Temu in the title?

It’s partly dependent upon which Gen of NVME your motherboard supports. Different gens had different bandwidth capabilities

Was it non-manoeuvring, or was it turning?

My assumption is that yes it "could" be done, to the point where you could have building and scenery objects given say a year of build, and when that happens, that version of the building/scenery item could change. However, what you'd talking about is potentially a LOT more work/effort/cost. Even the underlying terrain can be changed by people, who might for example in the Gulf, build those new islands. Using the Gulf map, just think about how much Dubai has changed over the last 50 years. To be accurate, would you be happy using a "snapshot" of how the city looked in say 1960, 1970, 1980 etc, or would you want it more granular? Is the data even available? Might not be for some remote places. I've no idea of actual development costs for a map, but imagine that say half the cost is to place the roads, scenery, buildings etc. If you were to then re-look at the Gulf map, and asked for 3 time periods, that "might" result in doubling the costs of the consumer for that map. Would you pay for it?