Bearfoot

We have identical rigs, except you have twice my memory. My performance in 2.1 is significantly better than 2.0 in Nevada, and my Normandy is better than Nevada ever was. I'm getting 90 FPS when over the countryside, and no worse than 45 FPS when low over Cannes. I agree that much optimization is possible, and am looking forward to it as much as you are. BUT at the same time, it seems that 45/90 FPS (== enjoyable/playable FPS) is absolutely possible with your rig NOW, as evidenced with my machine pulling it off. Here are things you could try if you don't want to wait for the devs to roll out the optimizations: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3151946&postcount=8 And my graphics settings are here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3151237&postcount=1

Is it possible you might have take-off assistance reset to being 100% or on? I thought I had it off, but saw it was 100% in the "special options" for the Spitfire. Switching back to 0 brought back all the joyous jeopardy of this twitchy bird that we all know and love ...

Yes, this is one of the perplexing contrasts I was referring to. I'm getting easy 90 FPS over most parts of Normandy (terrain/land), at least with the simple missions (not too many other things going on). And it looks like by every measurable respect, your rig is pretty much beefier than mine. So something weird is going on. FWIW, I've also: (1) switched off Window's gaming mode (I'm running W10 Creators Update) (2) running off a SSD (3) switched off Window's full-screen compatibility mode (4) disabled hyper-threading (5) completely disabled Windows indexing (http://www.online-tech-tips.com/computer-tips/simple-ways-to-increase-your-computers-performace-turn-off-indexing-on-your-local-drives/)

Yep, the 1080Ti might be absorbing some of the inefficiencies here. But two key things remain: (1) Even with the same reference point (i.e., my machine and my graphic settings), I am getting significantly better performance in 2.1 than 2.0 in at least some of the same benchmarks (e.g., NTTR F-5E instant action take off) (2) Some of the folks who had similar or better performances than me with 2.0 are reporting worse performances in 2.1 . All the folks who reported better performance than me in 2.0 had faster memory, better CPU's, or better MOBO's, or some combination thereof, even if their GPU's were the same or worse. This led me to think that my CPU/MOBO/RAM may have been the bottleneck with 2.0. I was tempted to spend a lot of money to upgrade for the meagre gains ... but was talked out of this by folks! Maybe with 2.1 giving better performance, more of the heavy-lifting is done by the GPU rather than the CPU, leading to relative better performance in my case? Or maybe this is all an illusion? Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy?

Ah, got it. Will give it a try. I disabled this without trying it, I think, because I saw posts about the cockpits being washed out.

So, the early reports of bad performance in Normandy and Nevada in 2.1 had me thinking that I would be stuck on 1.5 until the optimizations rolled out, because, as it was, even under 2.0, I was struggling on some missions in NTTR (https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=186730). However, the actual results were surprising! On a simple mission, with just one a/c, I'm getting no less than 45 FPS low over Cannes, and 90 FPS high everywhere. The instant action dogfights (Spit, for e.g.), also gives me 90 FPS. Even more surprising, the instant action F-5E take off in NTTR also gives me 45 FPS on the ground and 90 FPS after taking off, dropping back to 45 FPS when I fly over the built up areas. I was getting a steady 22/23 in 2.0 here before! The F5E BFM FPS still sucks though. I must admit to being stumped for the discrepancies between what other folks are reporting and my experience . Some of the people who reported good performance in 2.0 in the above thread are now saying their FPS sucks in 2.1. Furthermore, there are other people with much better rigs than mine who have trouble with 2.1 (or at least, worse than me). I am not sure what might be the issue here. I have: - i7-4790K @ 4.7Mhz - 16GB DD3 @1833 - Gigabyte 1080TI Gaming OC (but not overclocked) - Asus Sabertooth Z97 Mark 1 - Oculus Rift CV1, running with 1.3 Super-Sampling / OD (set in Oculus Tray Tool) I have not even begin to experiment with tweaking with the graphics settings. Plan to do that later. For the record, I currently have: http://imgur.com/a/WMFJR (p.s., the Spitfire gunsight is STILL messed up, tho ...)

So, my initial impressions regarding performance in Normandy in 2.1 ... Pretty good. I'm getting 45 FPS, even low to the ground over Cannes. 90 FPS higher up. It's weird because I've found myself struggling on 2.0 NTTR to get 45 FPS in a few scenarios, when other people with similar rigs have had no issue. I have an i7-4790K OC'd to 4.7, 1080 TI, 16 GB @ 1800, running OR with the latest NVIDIA drivers [EDIT: this is the NVIDIA driver that was updated a couple of days ago; I remember at least one person reporting that this noticeably improved performance]. I will post screenshots of my settings later on. I will also fly those bugbear of NTTR missions that brought me to 23 FPS in 2.0 and see if there is any change. Also, I should note that my Normandy testing so far is just me in a Huey/Gazelle/P-51/Mig-15 flying around or the dogfight instant actions. So maybe richer or more complex scenarios may knock things back. I am also terribly disappointed that the Spitfire gunsight is still wonky, and I have to switch off ASW to have it useable. I wish the devs would at least respond as to whether or not this is on their horizon, even if they cannot fix it at this time :(

It's worth it! Apart from the F-14, they have an F-18, an A-7, a B-25, and a Blackbird. They also have full motion 6DOF 3D simulators for WW2 action. OK, not DCS level simulators --- very arcady. But that 6DOF full motion is something to experience nonetheless. When you are inverted or even 90 degrees, it is surprisingly difficult to think about things! And make sure you visit the east campus --- they have a Mig-21, Mig-15, F-86, F-4 etc., plus a couple of F-16 sim cockpits. They also have a Wildcat and a SBD salvaged from Lake Michigan that are being restored, and the people working on them are very nice and at least the one gentleman I met was kind enough to take the time to chat to me in detail about the work. The one I really want to visit is the WPAFB museum!

At the Kalamazoo AirZoo, where they have an F-14A on display. http://imgur.com/a/EUGft http://i.imgur.com/qmw77WZ.jpg http://i.imgur.com/GZ15XG2.jpg Three things struck me: (1) it is a beaut; (2) love the wing curves up and then then down from the body when viewed head-on, like a gull or hawk in flight; (3) this is a very, very, very, very, very large aircraft. Totally massive. Also, that "tunnel" (the space between the engines on the underbelly) is truly cavernous! http://i.imgur.com/QLVORDe.jpg

"Battle of Midway" as the first installment of a Pacific Theater series was officially announced a long time ago, and has been and continues to be discussed, debated, and argued, extensively on a broad range of topics across a variety of threads on the IL2 forums. So, the answer to the question posed on your title is a resounding "yes!" :)

Ah, it looks like there is a dogfight camera mode, activated through clicking the "+" button next to the left unit selection control on the top right, that does pretty much this (except for the auto-zoom part). Kudos on a great design!

Is there a way to set the camera view such that it is always dynamically centered between the two selected units? Right now, it seems that the default external camera is centered on the unit selected on the left. I would like to have the camera centered on the center of the unit selected on the left and the right. This seems to me the best way to center the view on an aerial engagement or dogfight, especially if we can autozoom such that the two selected units are, e.g., always 1/3 from the screen edge?

Sorry, no: have not tried any alternative. Apologies for the noise. (I will say, though, that, for me, any alternative will be assessed using the aforemention criteria in that order: 6DOF, FPS, resolution. That is: no 6DOF makes the VR just a gimmick that will grow old after the wow factor disappears, drop in FPS makes in literally sickening. Only after first two criteria are met, do I even care about increasing resolution over the current gen. Of course, FPS is a combination of CPU + GPU + memory + specific software optimization, and headset tech may only play a secondary role here ...).

Practical experience proves this: CV1. A week after getting the CV1, I moved my 4K to my work laptop and have not looked back. VR makes a practical difference: waaaay better gunnery, target tracking (mapping movements in head space) etc. etc. Spotting is difficult, sure. But spotting is difficult in 4K as well. ID'ing is more challenging. You may, but it is false calculus: you don't need to buy a fancy monitor if you have the CV1. Everything is in its infancy. VR currently is good enough. Not great. But good enough. I would hardly call $500 "top money", and yes, I am happy to spend $500 or more every couple of years or so. The entertainment value of that $500 over the last few months have more than paid for itself.

The answer is an immediate "yes"! In the mean time, however, I am thoroughly enjoying the CV1! Even if a new model comes out tomorrow and makes it obsolete instantly, I will not only buy one immediately, I would have ABSOLUTELY no regrets about getting the CV1 a couple of months ago for all the hours of fun I've had: the last couple of months with the CV1 alone have already paid for itself many times over in the thrills and excitement and immersion and entertainment. The argument about it being "overpriced" is remarkably almost child-like its naivette. The price is not (directly) determined by the cost of the product or the value of it, it is determined by whatever the market demand will support. Basic economics 101: go back to school or just google it to figure it out. Now, granted, the consumer demand itself is influenced by (perceived) cost/value ... but it is self-evident that both the CV1 and Vive are priced well enough for what they offer. As for all these other offerings on the horizon ... without 6DOF they are not worth the cheap plastic they are made from. All the arguments of "wait till the resolution gets better blah blah blah" are made by people who really have not tried VR. After using VR for a while, the priority is: 6DOF, FPS, and only then resolution. And this is coming from a guy who used to fly with TrackIR on a 4K monitor. Take the 6DOF from the VR experience and I would rather eat my headset than use it. I would love more resolution, but honestly, today if someone gave me the choice of doubling my FPS or doubling my resolution, I would take the FPS in a heartbeat. It makes that much of a difference. After sorting all that out, then I will ask for more resolution. But until that comes out, I can tell you this: you won't find me desperately scanning the news, waiting anxiously for word of the holy grail high resolution VR headsets promised in the paradise of the future. Instead, I will be happily living in the present and enjoying the current CV1 a lot more than I could have ever imagined.

This would, indeed, be poetic! I can just imagine the howls of rage/rivers of salt, though, if they bumped it by a week ...

Fantastic!

Ah, yes, I'm afraid I added confusion because in my mind I mean 2.0.5. Either way, your performance is a little better than mine. But that little means a lot -- 45FPS is fine, 22/23 is not. I have an i7-4790K that I just OC'd to 4.7 Mhz, with 16 GB DDR3 1800 on a Z97a1 mobo. GPU is the same: 1080 Ti .

To figure out the comparison, I guess now this is where that high-school trig which they told us would be critically needed in our future comes in ...

Ok, quick and dirty gets me ~14cm from center/rest to full forward, or from center/rest to full left. KG-12 grip (and, of course, 20cm extension).

Unfortunately, I have disassembled the TMWH and packed it away! But I could set it up again and take the measurements if you like. Though I am not planning at this time to switch out the grips, so the TMWH measurements would be on the TMWH stock base + Sahaj extension, compared to the VKB Gunfighter stock base, extension, and KG-12 grip. Are you interested in the maximum deflection as displacement of top of grip from the center position to full foward/aft and full right/left? Angles are going to be too much of a hassle/ tricky measure ... If you are willing to deal with fuzzy-wuzzy impressions rather than hard measurements, I will say this: at full deflection, the VKB feels like less of a throw. Significantly so, in fact. And that's a good thing! With the TMWH and extension, I always felt a full forward deflection was a bit of strain from a normal seated position: my elbow was stretched as flat as it could be, my shoulder was at its extreme, and I sometimes even had to lean forward a little. At the same time, for full left/right, I sometimes had to bend or move my leg out of the way to get the full axis. Whereas with the VKB there is no such problem! Full forward/backward and left/right without any stress or strain or shifting of position or limbs! The slight S-curve definitely helps with making the forward-backward movements even more comfortable, but even left/right is noticeably improved.

That would be great. In the mean time, even an indication of whether the height from the grip bottom (i.e., the point where it connects to the extension) to the palm rest base is going to be the same or taller than the KG-12 would be great. Thanks! This is useful. Now I need to figure out the KG-12 vs. Cobra M-5 grip!

Is there any information on the height of the MCG-Pro from base to top? Is it higher than the KG-12 as measured from the minimum hand rest position? I need to figure out a stand for the VKB Gunfighter, and want to know whether I can use the KG-12 grip as a model for where my hand will sit on the MCG-Pro so I can work out how high the mount needs to be.

I, too, had issues with this: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3136206&postcount=547

So, I am sure we will soon be flooded by full reviews with images, videos, and all, by some very knowledgeable and experienced folk. Or, at least, so I hope. However, until then, I thought I would share my literal (very) first impressions. Got the box delivered by USPS. And my first thought as the postal worker handed me the box was, "There must be some mistake!" I thought I got just the extension or maybe just the warthog adapter, and the full Gunfighter would arrive later. The box was soooooo small, you see ... and so light. Compare, for e.g., the box for the VKB and just the Warthog stick (no extension and no throttle): After unwrapping it, I saw that it was indeed the Gunfighter. But then I thought, "OK, so it is the Gunfighter ... but not the Gunfighter Pro, because there was no way there was an extension in there!" And, in fact, on the first pass through the box I did indeed miss the extension entirely! It was only the second time around after digging through the foam and packaging I found the elegant curved tube that was the extension. So, a little bit of fiddling around and figuring things out, and I had the stick assembled with the default KG-12-ish grip. Set it up next to my TMWH (with 20cm Sahaj extension) for comparison. The first word that comes to mind look at the two together is "gracile" vs "robust" (as used in biological classification). The VKB is a slender, elegant, graceful thing next to the lumbering bulk of the TMWH: a katana as opposed to a broadsword. While more diminutive, though, it is by no means delicate or less capable in its raison d'etre! Quite the opposite: the amount of control I gained over the TMWH when I eventually got into a virtual cockpit behind the stick was significant and noticeable, and extraordinary for all that. After experiencing the VKB Gunfighter's Swiss watch like precision and control, the TMWH now feels to me mushy, like stirring thick oatmeal in a small bowl, especially at extreme deflection. In fact, as I took apart the VKB base to loosen the dry clutch etc., I was struck by how much the inside of the VKB could pass for that of a finely-crafted clockwork automaton from steampunk sci-fi, whereas the TMWH insides (if you have seen them, with the giant bulky spring and thick grease) seemed more like those of a mass-produced 1950' farm or construction machine. The VKB internals would not be out of place in a fine art museum (or a watch/clock museum!): a working piece of art whose beauty comes from its functional design. I also see why they named the Gen 1 of this "Black Mamba". Every time I look at it, it evokes to my mind a coiled snake, and given the color and relative slenderness of the body, the mamba is a perfect reference!