Andrew8604

I did all that. I went into Oculus and disabled automatic updates. I stopped the Oculus VR Runtime Service. I copied the downloaded files to the C:\Program Files\Oculus\Support\ path. And then I rebooted. It still doesn't work. Is this the end of DCS working on Meta/Oculus hardware?

Don't seem to have enough switches in the back seat to start the engine from there. But I did get the engine started on a subsequent try from the front seat. Seem to have to move the throttle to idle before 300 RPM. Seem to have to hold the starter button until the RPM needle comes alive...then let it go. Then it was a nice flight with dual crew, giving a person a jet ride, in VR!

I can't seem to start the engine in the BE. It works okay in SP, but in MP the engine just false-starts and shuts down at about 1100 RPM by front seat instrument. The engine RPM passes so quickly from 300 through 600 RPM, I can't get the throttle out of cut-off fast enough. And if there's a discrepancy between pilot and instructor RPM, which one is the true RPM indication? Is it really this demanding in the real aircraft that the throttle must be moved to idle within the 1 second that the RPM is between 300 and 600? Or is it, perhaps, longer than 1 second from 300-600 RPM during startup in the real aircraft? My second pilot is a novice. I'll try to sit in the instructor seat and try it. Also, it seems I only get one attempt at starting the engine. If that fails, the engine won't even crank anymore. I have to restart the server to try again.

From the GIB pictures, it's basically just a big-ass, gas-guzzling, faster, F-5E (or F) with a proportional ordnance increase, AIM-7s, and a radar that has a few more modes and longer range...I hope a longer range. ....GET OUTTA MY WAY!! I want it!! (Now don't take me seriously and rant about all its features that I neglected to point out. ) It'll be out April Fool's Day. But since that's just a joke, sometime later in April. ...and of course, that's just my GUESS. But seriously... I see a lot of instruments in back like we see in the F-5E. But that's the way it was. She's from that same era. Don't worry! I mean, I'm not even going to fly her. I'm just going to sit in that back seat, in VR, on the ramp with the canopies open and just grin and know that it is COOL! And sit back and take a nap in the sunny breeze, laced with JP-4 fumes. Relax, people...it won't be long now. (...where's my F4U? I think I can hear the Blacksheep Squadron theme song!)

Thank you, guys!! I ended up moving videos from the SSD of the "stable release" PC, clearing enough room for a parallel install of Open Beta, and it offered to import the modules and maps...which duplicates them on the SSD. I can delete the Stable version later. Then it worked. And it worked quite well! Both players using VR! All except for voice (intercom/VOIP) between the two players. Each has a USB headset. Both microphones test good in Windows. PC2 player can hear their own voice through the mic. PC1 player cannot hear self. Neither can hear each other but all other sounds in game are heard just fine...including a radio transmitter on a vehicle playing a 30-min-long, repeating ".ogg" music file to give a homing signal for the Huey's ADF. Both players can hear the music, located on the "acting server" PC 1. I'll work on getting some screen shots of the steps it takes to make this "Multiplayer-in-same-house" work and post it here later for anyone else that wonders how to do it...including that the versions of all DCS installations on participating PCs on the LAN must be identical, as well as same module to be flown and same map...and any other mods involved in the mission to be used.

Thank you! I will try that. But I figured out perhaps the likely problem, I have two different versions installed. Latest Beta on one PC and Latest Stable on the other. I bet that will not work, right? If so, one or the other must notice the version mismatch and just says something like 'Failed to connect'. Maybe it should say "Failed to connect to server -- program version mismatch." That would be very helpful. Apparently, I should upgrade the latest stable to the latest beta. But there's another problem. Rather than offer to convert the installation to either Beta or Stable, it only seems to offer to create a parallel installation...but at around 300+ GB, I can't fit two installations on a 1 TB SSD with the OS and a few other large programs! On the other PC is the Beta version. With the full set of Terrains and 90% of the Modules, plus 25 GB of skins and mods, it's a 550 GB installation of DCS!! No way that can fit twice on a 1 TB SSD, even without the OS. They're going to have to allow the option of placing Terrains on a 2nd HD, since they are the biggest and can't be used simultaneously anyway. I'd imagine the Kola map will be around 70 GB and a proper Vietnam map probably another 70+ GB. I saw a recent post by one of the Forum moderators that the plan is to go to an all-stable release system and (I think) a closed beta. Open beta was meant for some users to be able to participate in the testing, but apparently a great many of the servers all went to the beta updates path, leaving few servers for the stable users.

I want to run two clients in Multiplayer within my Local Area Network (LAN), 192.168.0.113 and 192.168.0.118. I have two PC's each with DCS installed, with their own DCS account. The two PC's can ping each other on the LAN. Let's call them PC1 and PC2. Each has their own paid copy of Nevada Map and UH-1H Huey module that work in single player under their own accounts. Can one of the PCs with DCS act as a server in Multiplayer so that the other can join? It worked in Version 2.7. But I haven't tried it for more than a year and I've forgotten exactly how I did it before. Now I have upgraded to latest version of 2.9 Open Beta ...because the DCS website says Open Beta 2.9 is best for Multiplayer. When I open Multiplayer on PC1, I choose New Server, create a server and password, uncheck the box for Public server...and then it won't let me change the IP address. It doesn't let me change the IP address no matter what I select. If I accept the public IP address that's already in there and launch a server with the Public box not checked, it seems to work. I can occupy a seat in the UH-1H from PC1. But PC2 cannot find the server. What am I doing wrong? I can't seem to find instructions on how to use Multiplayer within a LAN.

So, F-104A first. Then followed by F-104G, F-104S and maybe circle back to the F-104C for whenever the Vietnam map comes out. But if we have an F-4C or D by then, as well as the F-100D, you probably won't really want the F-104C. Unless the C is so close to an A that it would be easy and a no-cost upgrade to owners of the A module. I don't think the CF-104A will be very popular in DCS, since it's mainly just a nuclear bomber using LABS (or if I'm wrong, I'll hear uh-boot it ). This is just my guess of how they should do it, based on all your comments. Yes, I think getting an F-104A first would be cool. We'll learn how to fly the F-104 using that. Then bring out the G and S for some real fun...I guess. They'll do what they want to do, anyway.

Navel F-4 in only one livery, navel orange out of Valencia Navel Station.

So, it is multicrew! Thank you. ED should mention that in the Product description. GEE sounds like a possibility for a mod. As navigator, I'd think it would be fun working the scopes and obtaining the fixes. And a B.IV with glass nose and bomb aimer's (bombardier's) sight would be fun, too...especially if it could be made to work in VR. Adding radio transmitters to a mission is pretty easy. Could even make them play 1930's & 40's music.

Thank you for the info. Point well made! I didn't realize all those things. I've only tried the FB.VI a couple times, and that was a year ago. So, can the Mosquito FB.VI be DUAL CREWED in DCS? All I remember from the back seat position is seeing the radio, and not knowing much about how it works. I had never heard of a GEE fix. Not a clue. I searched it and found a YouTube video on a channel named The Radar Room. It all sounds a bit Dippy, to me. I'll have to study it much more. (Robert Dippy being the guy who invented it.) Radio Direction Finding with the R1155 receiver: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POyFjwUZg_c ...and the GEE Navigation System here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycE3U8sGpW0 It looks fascinating. But I don't see the oscilloscopes in the Mosquito FB.VI in DCS. Are there radio stations to tune into on the Channel Map and Normandy Map? I'm guessing the Navigator/Radio Operator obtained fixes and plotted them on a map to keep track of position, and then advised the pilot, over intercom, on the heading to take.

Yes, just a picture I found (to mention their designators is one thing, better to see pictures). That would be more of a set for a Battle of Midway. A Battle of Philippine Sea (or later) set would be fine, too...or both. AI to start with, and later on maybe some of them developed into modules...especially the A6M, which I'm sure would be popular (I realize that could be many years later on). We don't always have to stick to the exact historical aircraft matchups in DCS. I'm sure an AI piloted A6M2 would be more than a match for my skills in an F6F or F4U. And even a Val dive-bomber would probably still be dangerous to a ship with Mk51 directed quad 40mm and Mk33 directed 5" 38's with proximity-fused shells...especially a dozen Val's. If we ever get AI ships equipped with those systems. Oh, to be able to operate a Mk51 director on a Sumner-class destroyer with a quad 40mm mount linked up to it, in VR...but that's another wish.

Would the B.XVI version, with glass nose, employ a "Blackett" Mark XIVA (aka US-built Sperry T-1) bomb sight? Would the bomb aimer/navigator/radio operator have two or three positions in the aircraft, then? That might make a more interesting dual-crew (two players) aircraft. Is the FB VI dual-crew right now? If so, can that 2nd crewmember do anything more than just operate a simple radio and check 6?

If we just have modules for only the F4U-1D and the F6F-? If we can also have AI versions of the SBD Dauntless, SB2C Helldiver, TBF Avenger on the USN side; and on the IJN side, something like this... ...I think it would be cool. Eventually making all of these to be modules....someday.

There is currently some amount of delay in the opening drag device "pedals" or "shovels" in DCS. I would think just adding a 1/4-second more delay would probably do it. Unless it is a calculated distance from the rack that determines when they open (simulating an arming wire). Either way, just about double the delay or distance...we're talking a small amount here. And I assume the drag of the bomb makes an instantaneous change from a low drag coefficient to a higher one at the moment the drag device opens in DCS. I think the animation of the fins opening could be done away with, or maybe just three visual states in the animation sequence: closed, 1/3-open, and fully open. The testers will tell. As well as evaluating whether this change will have any appreciable impact on accuracy. One other thing, it seems (per expert testimony of a former ordnance man on Heatblur's forum, as well as my observation of the mechanism diagram in an F-4B Phantom II NATOPS manual) the activating cartridge (impulse cartridge) in the ejector release unit (ERU) not only retracts the hooks from the bomb's suspension lugs, but also drives a piston out a few inches that gives a slight push to the bomb straight away from the rack mechanism. In the case of the MER (multiple ejector rack), there are normally attached 6 ERU's, three forward on the MER beam and three aft. The bottom ERU aligned with vertical and the left and right ERUs aligned with an angle of roughly 45 degrees to vertical, to the left and right, respectively. So, when released (ejected) from the MER, the bomb on the left side will be nudged slightly left and downward. The bomb on the right rack nudged slightly right and downward. The bomb on the bottom ERU nudged slightly, straight downward. The MER recoils just a bit in response to an ERU kicking a bomb away...action causes opposite reaction. But I don't think it's worth modeling that. And then the same with the TER (triple ejector rack), but with only three ERUs. Anyway, I mention this kick away force if you think it's worth modeling.

That video being slow motion, those fins snap out fast! I was watching like: ...and their goes the bomb and...WHOA!! ED might as well dispense with the animation of the fins opening and just go instantly from stowed to deployed. All they might have to do is add a half-second delay to fin deployment and make sure drag isn't changed from low to high until after deployment. I realize "fin" may not be the correct term for those drag things. They might also want to add just a bit of "kick" force vector away from the ejector rack, no? Like on the MER and TER, the side bomb racks are angled near 45 degrees to left and right. I think the ejector rack doesn't just drop the munition straight down (which would probably give it a slight rolling motion) but gives it a slight kick of force in line with the rack. You can see the whole MER yaw left and right a bit in recoil as the side bombs release. That would help separate them at release, too, for clean drag-fin deployment...and probably just a tad bit of dispersion at impact. The bottom rack, of course, being straight down in reference to the aircraft's vertical axis. I remember watching live Mk-82s, -83s and -84s released from A-4s, A-6s and A-7s at China Lake NWC in about 1980. They all seemed to let off a small puff of smoke as they kicked of the racks, and an audible "pop" with a couple-second delay to reach my ears several thousand feet slant range away, on the ground...impact zone being a few miles or so away. They don't seem to have airshows like that anymore!

Assuming these pictures are sneak-peeks from in-game DCS of the HB F-4E in development, is there an "issue" illustrated in these two pictures? The low drag bombs fall and retain the aircraft's speed pretty well...low drag. However, the high drag bombs seem to be either extremely high drag or not falling under force of 1 G. Also, are these low-drag fins opening too soon after being kicked off the MER racks? Isn't there a near-one-second delay before the retard-fins deploy? Or is that "issue" with the DCS bombs and beyond the control of Heatblur? Or maybe the delivery speed of the aircraft is too high? Or am I wrong and there is no issue? I do appreciate seeing the pictures, though! It's going to be cool!

Bridges At Toko-Ri time! Where's our Skyraider and Corsair? And we need an HO3S-1 helicopter. CSAR missions.

I don't know if we'd ever get an F-101B Voodoo interceptor. It might be cool, but I don't know much about its capabilities. To stray off (recce) topic a bit: A set of ADC interceptors in DCS would be fun in specialized missions to intercept bombers...F-86D Sabre-Dog, CF-100 Canuck, F-101B Voodoo, F-102A Delta Dagger, F-106A Delta Dart, F4D-1 (F-6A) Skyray. But the RF-101C Voodoo could be the "supersonic" recce bird in DCS. Or the RA-5C Vigilante would be even more cool. But those are all new airframes in DCS. Lots of development. Would I buy them? Hell, yeah! The RF-4B or C would have a lot in common with the F-4E and might be easier/faster to produce...and probably highest speed of them all. Supposedly, the F-8J Crusader is going to be developed one day (or is in development)? Maybe they can also do the RF-8G? Then how to employ aerial photo-reconnaissance in missions and campaigns in DCS. When you snap recce photos in quick succession, you should get sets of stereo pairs...high resolution 3D-images for those of us with VR goggles! That might make it easier to find enemy assets on the DCS battlefields.

I would take an F-105D-31-RE to no F-105 at all! The F-105G would be the next most important and only other import variant, in my opinion, anyway. But I don't know when or if the 'G' could be made if technology in it is still classified...it would be a significantly different aircraft from the 'D', I think. The F-4 Phantom is a much more significant aircraft, I think, having been produced for both the USAF and USN/USMC to over 5,000 aircraft, right? I would hope Heatblur would also produce an F-4C and D, as well as the F-4B and J. Or at least either a C and J or a D and B. So, a total of at least 3 variants of the Phantom II. I hope. But for the -105, I think we'll be lucky to get just the 'D' at the "systems" detail level of the F-16C. Hopefully, they won't just make a 'G' and skip the 'D', though. Here's a link to a video some of you may not have seen called "Thud Pilots". Enjoy! I include it here in hopes that it might generate more enthusiasm for an F-105 in DCS.

Are you talking about the police car flashing red and blue lights? It might be the graphics card. Maybe it needs a driver update. I think Trackir just controls the direction of your view. I wouldn't think it would cause black streaks to appear on your DCS view on your screen. If it interfered with your head tracking, that might be something with Trackir. Just what I think, anyway. I use Oculus Rift S VR. I used to use Trackir 5 a few years ago. Switched to VR and never went back. I love the near perfect 1-to-1 head tracking and amazing 3D view of VR.

I like the end part of the video, too. Like how that rotor flies off. What happens if you land on the train and then it enters a tunnel? Driving those cars on roads in southern Caucasus map is fun, too! I used a Thrustmaster steering wheel! And I set up a spaced-out series of about 20 cars and trucks. Makes it somewhat like realistic civilian traffic on a mountain highway, even at night.

I think this is a good idea. Also, the option to lead 1, 2 or 3 other AI ground troops, somewhat like a flight of 4 aircraft. And a commands menu (or key mapped) to command your AI soldiers into different formations and set fire control (ROE). Also, to be able to equip yourself and those AI soldiers in ME with: Main weapon: rifle, squad automatic weapon (BAR, M60, M249, RPK, etc.), pistol, RPG, etc; quantity of ammo and grenades; up to some maximum weight. Ability to board an APC or utility vehicle (like a Jeep), and a helicopter, of course. Ability to sit in one of two passenger spots at the door on the UH-1H or other helicopters, (your AI units will occupy other seating spots on the helo as well) and be able to fire your main weapon from the helicopter...such as hand firing your M60 to help out the door gunner, or if there is no door gunner. AI soldiers should be smart enough to duck to the ground if under fire but not so skilled as to be able to down a Huey from 500 yards with an AK-47 or -74...as they can pretty much do now. I think it would be a lot of fun in MP...if it can be done. 4 MP players could pretty effectively command a small 16-man platoon, deployed on two Hueys, for example. ...AI Hueys or MP player piloted Hueys. The lead squad could have a two-way radio and comms with other MP aircraft or ground units, and able to call in AI artillery fire or airstrikes or airlift. Or they could be deployed in 4 Willy's Jeeps. Which is another thing...make the Willy's Jeeps a little more detailed with working gauges and an optional tunable radio transceiver in the back and whip antenna, and optional 30-cal or 50-cal on a post-mount...and a low gear that can climb modest grades! Right now, you have to turn around and back up the "ramps" to cross some bridges. LOL Right now, it seems that AI soldiers and AAA open-mount gunners cannot be "suppressed" with high volumes of small arms fire, machine gun fire, artillery fire or close air support fire. They won't duck and stay down for a moment. It's not going to be perfect. The ground is not that detailed (unless the ground could be highly detailed in the local area of a foot soldier). It likely can't be done with more than a couple platoons at a time. Maybe just enough to go find a downed pilot and get him to an LZ and get everyone out? But it would still be pretty cool, I think.

Where did you get the tow tractor, tow bar, and start cart?

Darn! Well thanks, anyway! Thanks for what you have provided!