-
Posts
4004 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Mr_sukebe
-
Maybe, don’t know. I’’m hoping that the move to Vulkan will help solve some of the visuals and maybe allow a more consistent higher frame rate. In the Civ Sim that enabled Vulkan, I saw a significant improvement in smoothness and frame rate, hence fingers crossed
-
Maintaining a solid 72fps seems to solve the visual issues. Unfortunately that’s just not possible with my settings and hardware at low altitude (eg airfields, carrier decks). After that, enabling and disabling ASW has both advantages and disadvantages
-
DLAA for me. I found DLAA by accident when using that Civ Sim and was amazed by the improvement. At the time, I didn’t even understand how it was meant to work. Day 1 of DLSS landing for DCS and I ran tests in VR comparing DLSS, MSAA, DLAA. Since then, it’s been permanently in DLAA mode. For ref, I use a Quest Pro via link cable with DFR
-
Question regarding warning lights in the Harrier & resolution
Mr_sukebe replied to markturner1960's topic in AV-8B N/A
New contact lenses? -
!!! Microsoft kills WMR with Windows 11 version 24H2 and newer !!!
Mr_sukebe replied to Ulukai's topic in Virtual Reality
Drive space is relatively cheap now, so whilst initially my reaction was ???, it does have some positives. If you were to go that route,, you could have the WMR version as dedicated to DCS, which would hopefully reduce the amount of pap that tends to build up in windows over time. Issues that spring to mind include the potential obsolescence of the WMR build, meaning that other components may stop working or being upgraded, eg new functionality in video card drivers Personally I’d wait and see. As already mentioned, it’s likely that MS will cease to support WMR as again remove code- 50 replies
-
- windows mixed reality
- 24h2
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
Smart, like it
-
For FC3 style WW2, you’re better served with that other WW2 combat sim.
-
Anyone still flying the DCS Thunderbolt in 2024?
Mr_sukebe replied to Lurker's topic in DCS: P-47 Thunderbolt
oh yes!!! -
Anyone still flying the DCS Thunderbolt in 2024?
Mr_sukebe replied to Lurker's topic in DCS: P-47 Thunderbolt
I think it’s great to fly. Very characterful because of how many controls it has. It’s more like an old steam locomotive with the number of knobs and dials -
You could add the marks on a clean mission, then save as a template. Dead easy to add into missions in the future
-
I’d love it if the voiceovers could be updated with a full sound pack such that we could replace them with say a really hot French accent
-
Ray Bans? sorry, only kidding
-
Just to clarify, you weren’t impressed?
-
if you don’t genuinely know whether it makes a difference, why bother commenting? It just adds noise. There’s plenty of other threads that include user experiences of using wifi
-
??? Just like the Q3 and similar, the AVP can stream using wifi. DFR is basically dependent on eye tracking, which the AVP has and to say that Apple units have zero ability to be used for gaming is simply wrong.
-
Sounds like it's already close. Who's going to post the first video with the AVP of DCS?
-
I watched video this week on YouTube where they showed RAF testing of one of the 30mm 108s. A single hit on the rear of a Spitfire didn't actually take the tail off, but that's because it was on the ground. In flight and with additional forces on it, chances are that the tail would have fallen off. They also had stats for a comparison against a B17. Apparently the average was x4 30mm hits to "on average" take down a B17, or x20 20mm cannon founds from say a 190 to take down a B17.
-
Chances are that someone will create a hack to allow use of the AVP as a PCVR. Of course the question after that will be whether our GPUs can actually deal with that many pixels. I’m guessing that right now, the answer will be barely, even with a 4090
-
This is my solution for the missions that I create, ie remove access to Fox 3 missiles, JDAMs, Aim9x etc. It’s not perfect, but I’m happy to live with it, as I’d rather have the time/effort required to be used in creating a completely new aircraft, than something that we can emulate to 90% accuracy with little effort
-
To clarify is that 1000 £, €, $, yen?
-
Being fair, you’re not wrong to question the sample sizes or group, however you have no evidence to say that it’s the player base isn’t nearly 70% in VR. I would happily state that it’s unlikely to be that high, but that’s most certainly NOT the same as can’t possibly be.
-
Was that bought fully built, or was some DIY required?
-
As DCS usually gets most of them wrong, I’d rather they don’t include auto-assign. Better still if we could have the option of disabling auto-assign.
-
Referencing general VR usage is IMO almost as suspect as extrapolating data from a small poll. The point being that DCS is a niche within the niche of flight sims. My “guess” (as I have no data to back this up) is that the average DCS pilot is likely to have more disposable income than your average gamer. As such, the financial “stretch” to add a VR headset is unlikely to be anything like the % spend on gaming related bits (the PC, console, monitor, accessories and software) for an average gamer. So I wouldn’t be surprised if the average for DCS users in VR is significantly higher. What is probably more relevant is a trend pattern for similar polls that have been run vaguely regularly.
-
I’ve been messing around over Normandy in the Mossie, P47 and Spit, which roughly fit. Reading a book about the Pathfinders gave me some ideas. For example, they were used in strikes against railways, Atlantic gun emplacements and similar in early 44’. Whilst we don’t have period 109s, being fair, apparently most had been pulled back to defend German airspace so the reality was that there was not going to be a huge level of CAP