S D

Its Its the power being provided by the USB-C Port. Either use a powered USB Hub capable of outputting 18W+ such as this https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005005883913960.html?spm=a2g0o.order_list.order_list_main.5.21ef1802YgAP1y Depending on your friends GFX card they may have a USB-C port on there, the fabled VR ready cards. Which will keep enough charge for lengthy sessions. Using this on my 2080, i'm able to do 6/9 hour sessions while only going down to 85/90% battery.

Turns out I just needed a router reboot , still hard to believe VD is so much more stable than using Link.

Lee, have you experienced issues with Virtual Desktop since the pre Xmas update? I had the same as you, constant issues using Oculus App and Meta Link (Official Cable). Switched to VD and it was great, but since the last updates either to the game or there was one to VD, I have been getting aweful latentency/stutters using VD aswell now.

I have just switched to using Virtual Desktop and no longer get this problem, headset can go into standby mode and recover into the game fine. Just as a heads up for anyone using Oculus Link, ditch it, as quick as you can. I spent a week trying to get some semblence of stability with little to no reward especially in multi-threading build. I was not conviced that using VD could be better than an actual wired connection, despite reading reports to the contrary. But boy was i wrong, the difference is night and day, I cannot recommend it enough. I still keep it wired to provide power, but no longer use the Oculus PC software at all. Everything is run through VD and i'm getting stability like I have never experienced before, even with the RiftS. Try it, for the small price of the program, you will not regret it, just make sure you can meet the requirments of your PC being connected by Ethernet to your router and a 5Ghz connection for the headset. Also try the newest version of the OpenXR toolkit and enable Turbo Boost mode.

Awesome, thanks for the input. Little update from my end, turns out after double checking, I did have a usb-c port on my GPU. After using this with the official link cable, Quest 3 remains fully charged, just completed a two hour sortie, with 100% charge remaining (did actually go up from 98% > 100%). So can confirm like Silencer_ZA, if this is an option for people it does work. Hopefully there will be a more permanent solution in the future. But with your and others input there does seem to be hope... Many thanks again.

Just checking, as these say they don't support video output, is it required to use airlink or VD? Or does it actually support just using the official link cable into the hub?

Thankyou TimberWolf I shall look into that. Very happy with the Quest 3 so far, a nice upgrade from the RiftS, if i can get this power problem figured out I'll be sorted.

That's probably the issue, I currently have it plugged into my motherboard via the official link cable into a usb-c. The test is showing 2.4Gbps, so all good there, I guess it just cant give enough power to play and charge. Only running at 72Hz as well, as I wanted to get everything stable and consistent before starting to really tweak, but this power issue is a problem. Ok so with that being said, as well as the powered cable option, does anyone know of a usb-c expansion card that works with the Quest 3? that can provide enough power to charge and play.

How does this work with the Quest 3? Without eye-tracking, does it actually provide a performance boost?

Anybody got a powered cable link solution which gives the quality/performance of the official Meta Quest 2 Link Cable, that actually provides power reliably? Not necessarily looking for indefinite charge, although that would be nice. But something that could at least provide enough for a good 8/10 hour weekend session.

Sounds good to me, shall keep an eye on this, definitely more up my street.

Welcome to DCS multiplayer, its an improvement, previously barrage balloons didn't even show in game for clients.

Bumpy

This, this and more this... PLEASE people, understand. It's not bashing ED for the sake of it, we are all fans and want DCS to become what the potential shows. These problems are critical, but don't often get shown with the small scale that most scenarios in DCS currently are. The dynamic campaign, will not work in the current state of the game, i have no doubt that ED are aware of these issues, because quite frankly they can be highlighted fairly quickly by dynamically adding AI to a scenario in any scale which would be considered necessary for modern day flight ops. There are so many fundamentals missing or not working currently "under the surface" and that's not to mention the MP side of things, that's a whole other beast. To my mind, in the approach to any kind of dynamic campaign release, we should be seeing these problems addressed. But we're not, or at least not being informed of any progress, which is the most frustrating. Sorry but based off evidence so far, using the dynamic campaign as an example, i just dont see ED releasing an all singing all dancing system with all these underlying issues fixed, like people seem to be expecting.

Your better than this BIGNEWY, lets not trot out the old user scripts line and ignore the fact your well aware of AI pathfinding problems, not only on the deck but in general whjile navigating taxi paths etc. Apologies, but this line has been chucked out time and again to excuse ED failings, these user scripts (personally talking MOOSE here), show up how bad the base level from ED is, as all they do is plug into default game behaviour, which DOES NOT WORK on any scale which would be considered necessary for flight ops, its all well and good using 2/3/4, aircraft for one of your promo videos, try launching the best part of a full squadron and see what happens without having to manually block certain points to stop unwanted AI behaviour.

Please implement this feature or remove it from the ui, its been in for far too long in a non functional state.

Just to give this a little bump, hopefully these issues can be resolved. It is rather frustrating not being able to base certain aircraft where i need them, even though they should be able to.

Adding my support for this... Please listen to these community contributors. They understand more than most, what we need and generally should be prioritised, for improving the experience.

You still have to use the key combo for the Tomcat i believe. Shift-U

Hear, hear.

I think, the thing to remember here are the different levels of script usage. You have the mission maker (like moi), who use systems/frameworks as everybody previously has mentioned, to make life easier and accomplish relatively complex tasks with ease. The other side are the more advanced mission makers, framework designers and people who have a good concept of .lua or whatever. They can produce advanced missions and frameworks for others to use. As much as i would like a "module" type system in the editor, for controlling carriers, IADs, Tankers etc. At this point i think i would like to echo a couple of others in here. 1. Please focus on SP/MP compatibility and getting a solid base to work from, where you dont have use workarounds for stuff that doesnt function in MP. 2. Rather than putting effort into new systems to replicate what we already have with MOOSE/MIST etc. Work with these guys, find out what limitations in the engine are being highlighted by using these frameworks and collaberate on deeper issues or new api's etc to help. 3. This is tricky i suppose because who do you invite, but potentially a monthly or every couple of months have a meeting/chat whatever. Where community members/framework designers with a good understanding of what is currently lacking, can discuss what is needed directly with ED coders. Rather than through the forum process, often being ignored or plain just not seen, because of the amount of threads there are already. (I guess this could be achieved, like has been mentioned, rather than a meeting, having a forum section that can be used for this purpose, only allowing "verified" contributors and ed staff to post, but allow everyone to read. Again as a lowly mission maker with no real talent other than copy pasting. I would love in built editor options for complex tasks. But at this point, i would lean towards a more stable base and features which have been highlighted as needed by these framework designers / scripting freaks . By all means in the future, lets get all this stuff added to the editor, but for now lets get everyone on the same page. Help them help us.

This is a long standing issue, if client joins after mission start some of the statics vanish. Hard to nail it down why, but easy to reproduce if you stack the deck with statics. But this is not a recent problem, has been a thing since before SC.

Super carrier test, with SAR/Tanker/Awacs overhead using MOOSE, for anyone not great with scripts. SCTesting.miz

I would have to agree with this, it has never made sense why the Kutz and AB are part of this. If this was DCS:Naval Assets, with much more to come fair enough. But its not... Justy stick to it being the super carrier and add those two assests to the core, its not as if they are going to have any advanced features anytime soon.

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/personal/server/?login=yes