Mr_sukebe

thanks for the response. apologies, I didn’t really understand the last paragraph. That sounds like a fix for passing eye tracking data using the SteamLink. If SteamVR doesn’t support dynamic foveated rendering, what would be the point?

An interesting update. SteamVR has been updated and there's some noise about it's ability to link wirelessly. If anything, that put me off a little, as I'd prefer a wired link (not currently possible). However, the updated SteamVR link also includes foveated rendering by default, and the ability to conduct dynamic foveated rendering if you have a suitable headset with eye tracking, i.e. like the Quest Pro that I have. Clearly, that's rather excellent news, as it has the potential to replace Mbucchia's rather excellent Quad views solution if/when it breaks, as he's pulled to plug on further development, to allow him to move on to doing bigger and better things elsewhere. That's the good news, right now, I couldn't actually get it running. I was happily able to install the new SteamVR App to my Quest Pro and successfully connect to my Steam account on my PC. It took me a few mins to find that to change the SteamVR setting to use OpenXR was only possible on the PC's version of SteamVR, as of course that setting had changed. I was then able to fire up that WW2 combat sim, but unfortunately it then had an OpenXR call failure and crashed. Within the menu screen, it was good to see that DFR was actually running, before crashing when I tried jumping into a cockpit. I tried firing up DCS via Steam, but it didn't want to go into VR. Probably my ineptitude with the settings in Steam. Either way, whilst I was unable to get it running, it DOES look worth investigating as it might well save the day for DFR.

It’s also worth checking out XRnecksafer, awesome app

+ another one please

To add, I have one of the Cubesim damper kits on my TPRs. I really wasn’t that impressed as the design means that the damper is angled at it’s two connecting points, which just strikes me as poor design.

Timezone?

To repeat myself, “it’s much better to under promise and over deliver, than vice versa”

I create my own KBs in PowerPoint, use Sniptool to turn them into .png files and then simply dump them into the correct folder.

The F22 thing is nothing new. After all, the Tizard mission convinced the US to develop the atomic bomb, and then assisted the US. The theory being that we (US and UK) would share the technology. 1945 turns up and Truman says “no chance”. Lovely…

So, imagine that we had a 32 core threadripper (I seem to remember DCS-MT being limited to that), and water cooling using a fishtank next to the PC (bearing in mind some of the cockpits out there, I could picture someone doing that), do you think that we could run more than 8 cores effectively? My current understanding is that the 4 CCDs would struggle to coordinate. Thoughts? Has ED tested DCS-MT with a threadripper?

Agreed, though I'm still hoping that the ever decreasing size of the lithographic techniques will eventually allow more than 8 cores, though being fair, maybe we'll all be running ARM by then. I just feel a bit miffed that the current improvements are mainly in IPC, as we've already reached the current effective limit of cores.

X3D. The AMD “all our cores are full cores” is both true and misleading at the same time. Yes, the cores are the same. However, AMD only put 8 cores on each CCD, meaning that their current 16 core CPUs have their “full cores” spread over two CCDs, which are on a single CPU socket. Unfortunately, whilst they’re good cores, it seems that the CCDs don’t talk that well to each other, meaning that for gaming, only one CCD can be effectively addressed, ie 8 of the cores. The other 8 can happily go off and run background activities, but not the game. So right now, neither Intel or AMD sell what is “gaming” CPU that can genuinely run more than 8 full cores. The roadmap from AMD suggests that the next version (2024) won’t give us a solution. It’s just a bit pap that you have to dig around to find this stuff out. So back to your question, for DCS, the X3D version

Chaps, Come on dudes, lighten us. It’s nearly Friday for one thing.

If you have the space, my opinion is to stop mucking about and go straight to an extruded aluminium frame system. Dump a s/h car seat on it (much better than most gaming seats) and bolt your HOTAS to the frame

Wouldn’t the definition within the Wiki article be appropriate for say a P51 or Zero, both of which had massive ranges

It's interesting that the French, German and Spanish don't mind so much. Makes me wonder if the Indians would let us have data on the Sea Harrier, and the south Africans data on the Buccaneer.

Lol, that’s awesome. Maybe go hunting TRex on the Falklands with a Huey Which coalition are they assigned to? (Just joking)

What timezone?

How about the Yak52? It’s not fast, but is actually quite fun

+1 agreed, great idea. When I can be bothered, I start a mission via the mission editor and apply the real weather forecast for the day, which works, but does require that bit more effort

Chaps, Check your RAM (not VRAM). Jabbers very good video did spot the VRAM use, but didn’t highlight the system RAM use. Watch the video again and you’ll see that there’s a massive increase in RAM use just prior to the FPS drop. My “guess” is the DCS-MT might be parallel processing the unpacking of texture files (or similar) and is doing this using system RAM. With the additional cores being available, DCS is using more system RAM, to the point that windows ends up using swap files. Jabbers suggestion is using CPU affinity to restrict the number of cores being used would therefore reduce that parallel increase in the use of RAM and is a brill idea. If my guess is correct, does this mean that we should now be looking at our next PCs having 128GB or RAM. Hopefully ED will write some clever code that will check the RAM of the PC that’s available and scale the CPU core numbers used on the fly.

+1 My first flight sim was the original Falcon on an Amiga 500. 30 years on and I now rock in VR, some great quality HOTAS bits whilst having my bum wobble by Andre. Just simply an amazing experience, even before starting to shoot things.

Is either your VRAM or RAM fully utilised? If so, that could be a potential cause. What textures are you using for the scenery? If high, try reducing it.

For DCS PVR, my belief is that the QP has the advantage. My understanding being that the QP has: - lower resolution, making it easier to drive - eye tracking for DFR - local dimming - I’ve seen feedback that the lenses are a bit better Having said the above, if you want to use the headset for walkabout VR, the Q3 has: - Faster onboard processor - it’s the new kid on the block unlike the QP which is more likely to be discontinued faster - has AV1 decoding, which looks useful for wifi connection on PCVR

I would have thought it easier to simplify to represent the 1940 time period for the Battle Of Britain, as against post DD in 1944.