PawlaczGMD

It might not be just resolution, but keep in mind that pixel density of the Crystal is actually around double that of G2 due to it scaling as an area (square law), so I wouldn't say that it isn't big. The actual resolution rendered is also larger than nominal pixel resolution due to how VR is distorted, so it might be even larger than that. The difference in FOV is not large at all. And yes, I agree that 6nm is a poor visibility result, that's why I'm complaining about the way the game is rendered for me. I believe my Pimax is set up properly, this is the only visual issue I have. I will try to tune some in-game AA options, and try to reduce the VR resolution to see if it makes a difference. I don't want to go below 100% resolution though, as it just makes the game look noticeably worse.

You can move some part of the content to a different drive. You do it by making a symbolic windows link to another location. If you're really pressed for space you could try moving some content to a slower drive. I once tried that with maps, but the game stuttered like hell (on these maps). Perhaps moving planes would work ok?

FYI Intel offered to replace my CPU when I opened a ticket, they didn't bother me with too much troubleshooting. I noticed some weird symptoms a month ago and opened a ticket, I can't say for sure it's the CPU but it is known to be defective and I can't be bothered to diagnose it definitively.

I set up a test mission with KC135(large) and F18(medium) as spotting targets against the sky at day. Cold aspect, co-altitude, I'm trail behind them and they are at different ranges (5,6,8,10,15,20,25,30 nm etc). My results at 100% Pimax Crystal resolution, MSAAx2: improved spotting dots on: large target 8nm, medium target 6nm (I see nothing like a spotting dot, they are nonexistent at this setting at all distances as far as I can tell) improved spotting dots off: large target 10nm, medium target 8nm (I think I see a slight improvement, and spotting dot is actually rendered) And you say you can see stuff at around 30 nm? This is a huge difference. My eyesight is good btw. Frankly, I don't understand why the spotting system always put larger dots at lower resolutions. Wouldn't it be fair to keep the solid angle subtended by the dot constant, regardless of resolution? For an arbitrary example say that at 1080p you see a 4-pixel(2x2) dot at 20 nm. If Pimax res is 2880x2880 per eye, this is roughly 2.5 times larger than 1080p. Therefore, I should see a 4-pixel dot at 50 nm, and a 25-pixel(5x5) dot at 20 nm, and then a 100-pixel (10x10) dot at 10nm, etc. But this is not the case as dots don't exist for me as far as I can tell. And I remember using Quest 2 and Pico 4, where the dots were huge, as their resolution was much lower. So this is not just my subjective impression, as when I had a lower-res headset, I could see the dots just fine and I thought they were big. In before spotting an f18 at 6nm is realistic - that's not the point. The point is that it is very significantly easier to spot at lower resolutions. So if it realistic at my settings, it would make it unrealistic at lower resolution. Can we pick a distance that will be the same for everyone? What concerns me here is the imbalance and incentivizing playing the game/sim looking worse, when it can look so good. If this guy has visibility at 20-30 nm and I at 6nm, this is a huge advantage, as he can set up a merge as he wishes, and I'm racing to even spot him before the merge. Very critical in cold war and earlier scenarios.

Also having issues with ACLS, I think that it either can't handle turbulence/burble, or the burble is too strong. ACLS will sometimes rapidly pitch up and down just before touchdown. This has resulted in no trap and also broken gear a couple of times. The approach was stable, it just went crazy at the end. If the ACLS breaks your gear, I would say it needs to be looked at.

Decreasing the res from 125% to 100% improves spotting significantly. I would kindly ask the devs to test the spotting on these very high VR resolutions, as I think the system still needs some tuning in this regime.

Sorry, this works fine for me with the same setup.

MSAA x2, high details, Pimax Crystal 100% res (125% in the center with QuadViews). I practically see no spotting dots. I missed every merge in MP today. It might be just me, but it feels like the spotting system got worse for my settings (very high resolution). You are talking about spotting 20-ish miles away, but your headset has much lower resolution, which seems to be the main factor deciding how large the spotting dots are. For me they don't exist. Against the sky my visibility is definitely below 10 miles, unless I zoom in it's like the enemy isn't rendered. And much harder to spot anything against the ground in hot aspect.

Not sure if spotting has changed recently, but lately I can't see anything in high-res VR...

There was recently a fuze update in DCS. The Mk20 Rockeye now only has timed fuze options, which the F-18 has absolutely no symbology for, or options to enter fuze setting into the A/C. This weapon is now unusable in any practical way. You could maybe drop it CCIP in some hacked way, but this campaign wants you to use these in high-threat environments with AAA and SAMs, I think it would be suicide trying to use these here. I would strongly suggest to swap them out for the almost identical CBU-99, which has an altitude fuze option. You have to set it to a desired burst height in the rearm menu, and then enter this HT using MFUZE VT1 in the hornet. Any other option will not work for you. This cannot be modified in the A/C on the fly, so you should give the burst height in the brief. Workaround - rearm as such at mission start - hopefully won't break scripting? Also, if using pre-update missions after this update, some fuzes will not work at all, you need to remove the loadout and readd it as a workaround. This behaviour might have changed since I last looked.

The guns are harmonized at a range well beyond deflection shooting even in a moderate turn - If the bandit is turning, he will be well below the canopy glass at harmonization range. Only the very best can hit that shot and only with a lot of luck. So it's not a surprise that 95% of players need to get in closer. You can only do convergence shots if you ambush the target, i.e. non-maneuvering target, or the target is running away and you are able to catch up. Meanwhile, most real gun cam footage shows the bandit flying straight and level, or in a very gentle turn by DCS standards. Frankly, DCS combat is likely far from reality. People are probably more aware, they always expect an enemy, they don't suffer from psychological factors, and have tools like ERW bots, spotting dots, etc. It would be very useful to be able to change harmonization to a shorter one, as most valid shots will be at half the default harmonization range at best. So you are correct that a lot of the issues might be because the players are shooting onto the wings because of being "too close", but that's hard to avoid unless you're going for a head-on. But I still think the full range of damage is not represented on all planes in DCS. I never see a wing come off unless due to overspeed. Tail comes off only on the P-51. Otherwise, only control surfaces get destroyed. There are no fuel or ammo explosions. The German 30mm is much more likely to do such structural damage, but the British 20mm really isn't. If someone told me the .303 is doing 0 damage due to some bug I'd believe it. Spitfires will as you say hit the wings with a solid burst and they never break. At least that's my experience. And I don't want to bash the DM, I think it is really good actually, but is it perfect? We argue that it isn't. But I agree that you've made a good point about how players will attack in a very repetitive way, so the damage looks repetitive also.

I agree with the observations- although some of the failures make sense. 109: radiators are the easiest to hit due to convergence. 190: no radiator or oil cooler. They are very tough, you need hits on the engine or pilot. But sometimes it feels like you're doing literally nothing. Ju-88: Here I agree it is very suspicious. Very easy to start and repetitive fires. Seems overly scripted to me. P-51: Yes, they like to lose a tail, which I never see on other aircraft. It would be good to know how fire chance is calculated.

I agree with this. Although it makes sense, as in the 109 you can quite easily pop the oil or radiator and they're done. In the 190 you need to shoot the engine or canopy unless you're going for structural destruction, which is way harder. And those are hard to hit with convergence issues and shooting from behind. Yes, .303 is mostly for tracers, very weak round.

It seems to be caused by some unique errors I've not seen before. Any ideas? dcs_bccrash.log

I had the same issue in the same campaign, maybe even the same mission. I had it 2 missions in a row too. I'm coming back over England from a mission to France, cruising at a chill setting like 2750/+4 or+5, and suddenly engine oil temp maxes out and engine seizes. Temps were fine for a long time before, this must have been 10+ minutes after combat. Same symptoms as OP. Height maybe 3-5k ft. I've never had this type of engine failure before. I flew it mostly by the book, climb at 2900/+12, combat at 3000 and however much boost I need. Climb out was a long time before the failure. like 20+ mins before It only happened in these campaign missions, which I suspect might have something to do with the climb or long total duration. Still, I think I was doing it right. And the engine dies much later at a very casual cruise setting. This never happened to me in MP despite running the engine much harder in combat, but also I wasn't climbing to 20-30k ft. Track: https://file.io/JwO0Up0ZyQHq In debrief, the failure was called "Engine Degraded". In practice it was an almost immediate total seize.

I definitely had the latest this time. It was the SEAD mission, 6 or 7 I think.

I have one more problem that emerged. Missions sometimes don't complete successfully after landing. Comms indicate mission success, and I get indications to contact carrier using normal comms. I do so and land, but a few times I did not get a mission complete message, and ended with score 50. One example track here. It might be because I got a W/O (despite using ACLS)? I have not tested enough to confirm if that's the case. https://zippyshare.day/ZCguzWpMLdDmSdG/file

I've also noticed they like to "emergency land" on water. This doesn't credit you a kill.

I saved the track but it's too big to send. Edit: https://zippyshare.day/UD95EHZ8JTq8Tzl/file I was flying a decent turn behind the guy to the left of center, as expected. It looked like the entire left half of the AI formation just spazzed out and went all over the place. Seemed like more of an AI bug than me influencing them. The only thing is that I could have been too close to them, but I don't think AI would try to avoid that.

works after updating campaign. ED should really integrate user-made campaigns/mods into auto update...

Latest version of the game for me, but not the campaign. I will update it.

Also just happened to me. Reds crashed on the first turn after phoenix formation. I got an instant fail for "crashing into them". Debrief showed that they crashed.

I've already found it's a bug with transferring new fuzes to old missions. You need to rearm or all bombs might/will be dud.

Everything more or less worked for me a few weeks ago. The AI does a decent job. If AI flight run out of gas, you need to give them more bags. Or manually send them RTB via the F10 menu. DCS AI is not the most fuel efficient, you need to give them more than yourself.