twistking

Too many MFDs

@BIGNEWY i'm really disappointed that there hasn't been a hotfix. the f-5 remaster is a brand new module. i bought it for christmas and could not fly it since. it's literally unplayable for me with low single digit fps. if no solution is found, then revert back the changes from the last patch.

I see. How unfortunate!

If there's no way to "dial it back" to a 80s/90s version than i'm not that interested. With the Cold War Germany map on the horizon, why would anyone be interested in yet another 2000s aircraft...

Do they?

The presence of Mendig more or less confirms the map area to include the Fulda AO. That's good news. The houses on Neptunbrunnen are definitely weird. The area is a public square since the early seventies i believe (or whenever they built the tv tower). How can something like this end up in a trailer?

In VR you have different latency requirements and with things like motion reprojection, async space warp etc. you have more complex frame delivery pipelines. I don't know if it's supported or not, but it won't likely work with MR/ASW. Tried to google it, but didn't find good info on it... With Nvidia working on their own space warp thing (reflex?) they could probably do their own version of an ASW type pipeline, but i doubt that they have enough interest in VR...

I don't think that frame gen is supported in VR. Even if it was, wouldn't it be better to use VR specific motion reprojection?

I couldn't deal with a modern representation to be honest. Because of the German division only a historic map would make sense. We've already seen images of the inner German border, so i think we'll get a proper historic map anyway. I personally wouldn't care if it mixes elements from a few decades, but it should be pre 89, without any recognizable elements from later years.

Do we know if it's "painted on" (albedo), or a shader/pp result (f.e. normal map)? Should be easily observable when changing the angle of illumination (aka aileron rolling). I cannot test myself, since i'm still locked to sub 10fps... ps: For me it looks like exaggerated AO (ambient occlusion), but for that to be true the bevel would need to be actual geometry which i highly doubt... If it's caused by normal maps, there must be something off with the material: There's no good PBR compatible reason for the edges getting so uniformly dark...

Yes. I did not argue with that.

Maybe a hot take, but i think that accentuating the text with a light bevel is well within artistic liberties when it helps readability and still looks "realistic enough". That said, i also agree that in this case the effect is overdone. On smaller resolutions it can also lead to moiré/flickering. It should be dialed back a little bit. If it's indeed just normal mapping, then it should be a quick fix.

it's highly unlikely that it's related to shader caching. since performance normalizes on pausing of the sim and bottleneck is from main thread (NOT render thread) it is probably not a rendering issue, but a sim issue...

+1 all aircraft external lights need a rework. night flying is ridiculous with all ac ext lights vanishing after a few hundred feet...

anyone tried disabling wake turbulence? i can't test myself right now....

with the f-5E (upgrade) i now get 8 fps (where i used to get locked 60 with other modules). on sim pause it goes back to locked 60 (frame limiter). unplayable!

Unfortunately you are right. DCS still stands for Daylight Flight Simulator. Even if you could make the AI turn on nav lights, you would still not see them after a few hundreds feet. Night flying is still broken in so many ways...

I do like me some colours! You are right. There is a selectable LUT in the graphics options now, isn't it? An option to make a custom one would be very nice. I assume it's already possible with LUA, but i haven't looked into it yet. If it accepts custom LUA someone smarter than me could probably create a webapp for it. Cheers!

LUT means look-up-table and describes a definable matrix for tone-mapping/color correction. In the broader sense (and that's how i used it) it can simply mean "custom tonemapping" or more simply put: "custom color/brightness settings". The idea would be that you find a program where you can dial in a custom "LUT" (a custom set of parameters), that will change the output of a specific program (in this case DCS) in a way that is optimal for your sensibilities. For 2d there is a program called "reshade", but i'm not sure if it will work with VR as well... I think with some fiddling you could create a "LUT" that works well for you, during (DCS) day and night, while still looking good. For example you could leave the blacks and midtones where they are and only roll back the highlights. Or tint the highlights, or cut them off completely. You will need to learn a bit about color correction, but judging by the severity of your symptoms, it may be worth it (also talk to an ophthalmologist about the headaches if you haven't already). If something in DCS changes, or you get a new VR headset with a different colour response, you can just tweak your LUT again and be up in the air in no time. ps: Working visors in DCS would still be a cool feature!

volumetric lighting

Sorry for misgendering! I just think that your specific issues could be more easily and more effectively solved by yourself through a custom software LUT or physical filtering that works well for your sensibilities. Even if functional visors would become a standardized feature, future changes to the DCS HDR tonemap or future generations of (brighter) VR headsets could make the issue worse for you again. It just seems like a crude and potentially unsustainable solution to your problem.

IRL pilots have to deal with brightness levels that don't even compare to computer graphics on an LCD. Brightness levels in DCS are tonemapped and merely an artistic representation of reality. The engine may utilize PBR, but the output is "arbitrarily" compressed to fit the tonal range of standard definition consumer hardware. There is NO comparison. Let's not get into a discussion for the sake of a discussion though. In the end we all DO agree that functional visors would be a cool feature.

Functioning visors would be a cool immersive features. We just should not treat them as an accessibility feature. Therefore accessibility is not a good argument for implementation of said feature. I'm not arguing against the feature by itself. There are better and more sustainable ways for the OP to deal with his accessibility problems.

I've done that. Is this about you flying in VR? That would make adjusting your room lighting a moot point, i agree. My argument still stands though, no?

You are mixing two unrelated things. Your problem is an accessibility problem that should be easily fixable by yourself by adjusting your display, your room lighting, your eye-wear or software LUT. Functional helmet visors would be a cool feature, but if you separate it from your accessibility problems, it becomes more of a gimmick (at least until DCS supports HDR).