Gunnars Driver

Yepp, I got dual values by the optician and the measurement system is to adjust for glasses. Just add those and youre done.

No, you wont notice any ground effect at 100knots. I dont have the time right now to go into the Deep parts, or even readning the other posts carefully. Anyway, I got some 4K of low level flights(< 100 feet) and I never noticed ground effect at speed. Nap of the Earth flying at 0-3 feet and below 60knots, yes then it is noticable. @Hammer 1-1: Ground effect is commonly described as up to 1 rotor diameter. Thats also about the height you can notice it. The nature of the ground makes small differences in ground effect but anyway, at around 1 rotordiameter its not noticable. [Edit] Took a picture from one of R.W Proutys helo aerodynamics books: Easy to see that above one rotor diameter there isn't much ground effect left.

Id say these settings should be altered also: -Terrain textures to Low ( probably no visual degrading but may lower CPU/GPU load) -Civil traffic -Off -Heat blur - Off -Shadows to Flat only ( shadows is really hard on the hardware) -MSAA - consider testing Off -Depth of field - Off -Lens effect - none -clutter/grass/threes - min setting initially -Chimney smoke -lowest -Anisotropic filtering - begin lower, off or 2/4X Cocpit global illumination - Off -Start with Pixel desnity much lower- suggest 1.2 or 1.4. This should get tou back on track with smooth gaming. When you know its smooth, you can start increasing settings( only one by one). Look after sign of stutter or lower frame rate. Also look if tou actually see any digference in picture quality. Quite a few really doesnt show better graphics in VR but it load your CPU or GPU, sometimes much without any real gain. You have to realize that even with the best hardware available, you would have to compromise between picture quality and smooth fps flow. Most of the settings above is mine current, with a i9@5.2Ghz, GTX2080ti(overclocked), 32Gb RAM. And I strongly recommend as earlier said, to OC your CPU to at least 4.6/4.7Ghz. This means learning about overclocking and making sure your cooling including cooling paste on CPU is up to the job. Main reason, your CPU is the bottleneck and actually your 6700K overclocked will not perfom that much lower than a brand new i7/i9 in DCS. Which means, getting a new CPU for DCS only would be kind of waisting money. I recently upgraded the CPU, but DCS was not the main reason. Had a i7 from 2013(3770K delidded@4.7 ghz) and that was fine.

Maybe you refer to a flat screen...anyway: The friends I game DCS with still use Rift CV1. Theres one Rift S, otherwise only CV1. Before I got the Reverb I think we mostly detected other aircrafts at the same time, since I got the Reverb I often see the aircraft first and can point out a bearing and aspect call and after a while get ”visual” from the others. How much further away I see them I dont really know, but its mostly first detection from me.

All cores = thats good! I will probably order 8KX anyway because Im confident it will work fine with Asetto corsa. I will probably wait with the order until consumers got them and I get peoples rating of them. BTW, racing games isnt 3d oriented in the “whats behind” sentence. The head movement is much less then ACM in DCS. And, wider FOV means less scanning with the head and reduces the need for twisting the head. For the Reverb buy button, I think the lenses isnt that good on the Reverb: very small area where the picture is sharp. Still, I dont think there really is an better option today. Maybe better/upgrade lenses would be an good thing.

Have you used fpsVR ? You can use it with the Reverb, I dont know for you other VR-set(s). There is some info in this forum from ED developers or moderators about Vulcan. Probably a long wait but when implemented it really should make a difference.

1. On the reprojection/ASW/motion smoothing I actually think the Reverb is really good( this is probable the same for all WMR headsets?). The ghosting I am talking about isnt mainly the LCD lag but the issue of the reprojected frame not being consistent with hte "real" following frame, in many cases causing a displaced pitcure with for example the frame rate counter showing dual frame rate numbers. This was much more pronounced with my Rift CV1 than it is with the Reverb. I am really happy about that part. I do not really suffer from the reprojection and sometimes I Think I do not notice if its true 90 fps or 45 reprojected during gaming. I was planning to get the Pimax 8KX but as these wasnt available I got the Reverb as a in between step from the Rift CV1 waiting for the 8KX. Even Before getting the first VR I knew that what we really want is FOV closer to our own FOV. For this reason I have been looking at the Pimax for a long time, and actually as I enjoy racing games more then DCS I already could have gotten them as the main game (Asetto Corsa) apperently runs really well on the Pimax. For DCS, we know that performance could be a problem. I'm planning to get the 8KX as soon as they are out and when its known that the performance is good enough. With my old rig ( i7@4.7ghz and GTX1080 + Rift CV1) I was CPU bound but with the new rig(down in the signature), the GPU Always have higher frame time = GPU bound. Its really easy to see with the fpsVR software. 2. I fly the NH90(I'm PF of the NH90 in my avatar). I've been using NVG since 20 years and the last ~10 as a main instructor on NVG flights so my neck is really "proven". I havent checked with our AME but some parts of our neck training program isnt that different from moving the head in game. The nimber of hours /year with VR headset is way lower than I would like due to working away or other family bussiness etc, so I guess VR isnt the main reason if I develop more serious neck issues. Do you run your CPU on 5.4ghz on all cores ? As DCS only do mainly one core for graphics etc and that is the highest numbered physical core by default it would be needed to make sure that the cores that DCS is using is not lower clocked. I can se that other with the same hardware use higher SS than I do(I'm at 120%) and also some settings higher. I do not Think that they actually have better harware performance than I do, but they might be less sensitive to non smooth gaming. Long time Home Cinema fanatic made me sensitive to all kinds of non smooth video. I prefer smooth gaming before outstanding graphics. I can not enjoy gaming if the 'video' isnt smooth.

I don’t really see what you mean By changing from 90 to 45fps. Ive got the Oculus Rift since > 3 years and Reverb since 3 months. Both of these do 90hz and when seeing 45fps in DCS its actually 90 new frames each second. I think ASW and reprojection work quite ok. Do you suffer from ghosting? Or is do yo have stutter? Even if yuo have the best hardware, the settings in DCS can not be set on highest settings, that will get you stutter because the computer can not deliver 45fps(sometimes it say 45fps but its not smooth gaming, then you need to lower the settings to get it smooth if you get disturbed from it.) I’d say, if you have a desent PC and take some time do perform the settings it should work ok. Might be a bit lower graphic settings than you’d expect but you’ll get smooth gaming. QUOTE=Callsign.Vega;4271296] 2. With VR being 1:1, having to completely turn my head around to check my six is tiresome. Being a real military helicopter pilot, I'm no longer 25 anymore and it wears on my already well worn neck. Having like the 1:2 head turn of TrackIR is a nice relief. I’m also a active mil pilot, not that long from retirement. My neck is also worn and makes crackling sounds quite often. Still, the VR headset isnt really any weight on the head compared to the flying helmet+NVG+batterys+counterweight. As there is no vibrations or G-force at all I don’t have any problem and I think VR-gaming is more of a mobility training of the neck than A load making problems. That said, I tried with a NVG counterwieght from work(they’re adaptable number of lead plates) with my oculus rift earlier, just to test if balancing the VR-headset on the head would make any difference and because I have four collegues that got herniated in the neck because of NVG flying in helos. I didnt really notice any big difference from the counterweight(I think the VR headset is quite lightweight and beacuse I bought the HP Reverb I actuallt forgot about it. I will make a more permanent counterweight, probably 3d print a holder easy to attatch using my lead weights from work. Did a lot of PC gaming 20-25 year ago, mostly car racing but also a little flying games. What got me going again was VR, and for me, without VR I wouldn’t play. I’m actually much more for VR racing but my gaming friends are more of flying nerds so in the end I seem to end up in DCS anyway. QUOTE=Callsign.Vega;4271296] 4. How hard it is to read dials and gauges in VR. It is to some extrent with the oculus rift but with the Reverb I most of the stuff in cockpit without leaning forward.(leaning forward was the main trick with the Oculus rift) QUOTE=Callsign.Vega;4271296] 5. How incredible hard it is to spot aircraft and keep track of them in VR.. Well, it isnt going to be like the real world anyway, I guess. At least not yet. I havent really played DCS on a flat sceen but i guess neither a flat screen give the same viewing distance. In some cases I guess a PC game could make it easier than in real life to spot the enemy due to the weather fenomenas you dont have in DCS, or that its always a black dot in-game but IRL it can be very much masked by the background. QUOTE=Callsign.Vega;4271296]I fi I just think that VR isn't mature enough clarity/performance wise for me, even having THE fastest gear on the market. What hardware do you have ? Is it tuned properly(BIOS settings, drivers etc). I actually think I have more fun sometimes by the computer doing VR racing or DCS -VR than being at work flying. I of course wouldnt choose VR only before work but I can look more forward to a gaming night than another sortie at work.

Its the nature of reprojection. read my older post: I use reprojection in auto. Which means that when I have 90fps the reprojection is auto disabled and I have 90 frames per second, which al is produced by the game and 3d rendering. No pre-assumption of frames at all = there is no judder or ghosting. I also have Oclus Rift since > 3 years. Id say that the Reverb (actually WMR / SteamVR?) is outstanding on this. There is a lot less ghosting for me with the reverb than with the oculus. (of course, if I use low settings and my Rift I'll get 90fps mostly and then no ghosting. Bust as most people(inluding me) have hardware limits and have to compromise, most people will use reprojection/ASW and then get ghosting. Try lower the settings, SS etc, set reprojection in auto or off and fly on a scenery with lower demands, maybe the see, and look 90 degrees to the left or right. No ghosting.

What helps is increasing pixeldensity ( or Supersampling, its the same thing). It comes with a cost of increased load on the hardware and may affect your fps. Rift S, if you use them, is at least not that low resulotion. They are better than the first VR generation. I actually think I did read about someone saying the opposite, PD 1.0 gave better detection, but for me it was better with the Oculus Rift with higher PD. For the Reverb( higher resulotion than Rift S I think the detection range isnt that bad.

@Notso: suggest rolling back to 2.5.5. (Already said by others but as a reminder)

Without Hammering on any specific vendor, the AJS37 Viggen and the F14 do not get the game running at all as smooth as F-18 and the Mirage 2K. It is a noticable difference. Just looked but I could see who makes the F-16...is it original eagle dynamics ?

So I fired up the F18 and went for a run in Las Vegas area. Instant action, Nevada. [/img]

I have these settings: [/img] I didnt change that much. I'm leaning to think that your settings in nvidia CP can be at least part of the problem. [/img] Supersampling in the two, Video and per application doesnt work individual. It actually supersmaples x [per application] at least for mee when I did my setup. doing 150% in video and 150% in per application/DCS makes total go to 225% or something like. This is most probably your number one setting killing fps and spiking CPU/GPU. Motionsmoothing - I have it off. [/img] Make sure Pixel density is set to 1.0. When I see your settings I Think theres a lot of high settings that'll bog the CPU/GPU. The biggest problem is using supersampling in steam VR in both video and per application DCS as it both are in action times each other….but there is a lot of other "high settings". My steamVR setting as per thuds guide at vr4dcs.com give me 100% = 2204x2160. In you settings, some Picture show 100% = 2708x2652 = says 100% but it still is 150% as per pixelcount. I Think there might be quite much to change to be sure it will work perfect.

Something is strange. I have virtually the same hardware and in 99.9% of the cases its the GPU that sets the limit. But not 2.5.5, as he rolled back and didnt get a big improvement.

Maybe you could make a mission with a route to follow, stating a specific altitude to fly and attach that .miz file with your post so others can try it and then compare fps values. I dont really see that I have the same behaviour. If I set low settings I can keep 90 fps quite often and if I sett high settings and high SS I bog my computer down and have no fun. If I remember it right you hade quite some changes to the nvidia control panel. I think some of these might set you back. For the other people I have been in touch with we got quite good fps and frame times when backing settings as per thuds guide in the site vr4dcs.com. Some have problems that occationally raise the CPU frametimes, the cause this isnt really k own to me yet but in between they got good gaming. I do not know for sure but I have a feeling that it is easy to buy the best hardware and then think that you can put most settings to max. Yes, for most other games that true but not for DCS+VR. You WILL have to compomise a lot even if you use the best H/W. I’ll make some print screens and get back with my settings.

The reprojection let the game produce 45 fps ( thereby seeing 45fps in DCS fps counter) and in between each frame, reprojection extrapolates one frame using the picture movement speed as the input data. This is a calculation based om the assumption of ”what is going to happen” so it is not perfect and it has a harder job predicting if head movememt is quick and/or has a angular acceleration. I think WMR /Reverb reprojection is good. I also have Oculus Rift since they came out and I experience a lot cleaner picture with reverb + reprojection then Oculus in ASW. If you deselect reprojection there will only be real DCS calculated pictures: i.e no predicted ”im between pictures” so you will not have that problem. I use auto which give me reprojection of when I have 90fps, and rejorojection if between 90 amd 45. For me, thats the best setting.

I have similar hardware, slightly overclocked -see my signature- and I use openbeta, latest 2.5.5. Still with 2.5.5 which is supposed to be easier on he hardware I Think your settings are on the high side. Of course, its a matter of personal choise and how you experience the "flow". I might be a bit on the sensitive to stutter. You need to adapt the settings to your personal choise, and the fastest way is to look for settings from other people with similar hardware, and from that test until you find the highest Graphics that still give you smooth gaming enough so you dont get disturbed from stutter etc. It will be a compromize. Some settings loads/might load the hardware without giving you a noticable difference in VR in DCS. fpsVR print screen; if you do not use full screen in-game(Alt+Enter), and alt-tab so you have the mouse pointer outside the DVS window on the computer screen you can use a print screen of the whole computer screen window. Make fpsVR window seen on the screen and print screen.

I’ll start by adding some extracts from the NASA documentation already refered and linked to: This NASA report did look at the collected research available for VRS from the invention of the helicopter until 2006 when NASA released the report. Basically all researchers in the world came to the same conclusions, including very similar data and mathematic formulas for calculation of VRS. Trying to shoot all of this down by saying, ”Nope, they’re wrong” should need some very thourough explanation and also very precise data to refer to. As the Chief pilot of NH90 in our Airforce I had a plan to order VRS training in the 20M $ Full flight simulator for OPC training this year, to increase the knowledge and awareness of VRS for our pilots. What I found was that these simulators not really have VRS implemented. The plan was main rotor VRS as well as Tail rotor VRS but none was really implemented. There has been a similar thing for airliner simulators where the need to train real stall conditions, found after some accidents and incidents. The problem was that the training was only made for avoiding stall and upset conditions, so the simulator software was only certified to that part of the flight envelope( before full stall and upset). The add on for getting a certified really correct flightmodel outside the flight tests fir the real aircraft was hard. There really was no flight test data and no computer simulation data available. Now they have started getting some simulators certified for this purpose. The catch is that IF you need to perform training on this part of the envelope it better be good damned correct otherwise you learn pilots wrong when handling really dangerous situations. The Full Flight sims lacks some parts of the envelope because its hard and expensive to develop credible behaviour. It might be a notch harder to make it right for DCS...for the Huey i have seen more than one not credible behaviour. Some of this seems to come from the urge of having ”issues heard of” implemented and then getting it wrong. For example(not knowing if it still present) if you flew for around two minutes with the EGT just a notch above limit, the engine broke down and actually caught fire. There is more margins than this IRL. I know of a Huey individual that got known as a ”most powerfull” compared to others, and we did start to say that there have to be something wrong( cant really be much more powerful than it should withouth a fault. Later they found a faulty EGT meter by 50 or 60 degree celcius, when doing service. It had flown parts of flights for long time with way higher egt than the limit. I think the engine went to service but it didnt brake down.

Yes, we have been participating in the same threads. Its easy to see that Bear has a bunch of solid knowledge about helo operations. I have also noticed quite some humility; flying helos makes most people humble, so I quite sure about your profession In my case, at least I say I am. I back my statements up with references to credible data, and it is up to the reader to judge if he/she think its valid. Actually I could be lying about being a pilot to the extent that my nose grows, it really shouldnt matter as long as my statements is backed up with solid credible data. Most real pilots learn during basic training that aircrafts can not really defy the laws of nature. What we learn to do is to use the flight manuals data to be able to stay on the safe side. This takes us to the charts you seem to despise. The more I learn the more humble I get, seeing that the data in the flight manuals is one part of what is keeping us alive. What about the humble part, instead of trying to minimize our posts, and actually substantiate your statement with crefible data?

Ohh! My last post was’nt supposed to be a slap on OP. More a point to module makers to be aware of risks of getting wrong information and falling into the problem of myth’s. Also to any forum member to critically judge the own knowledge level: ”How much do I really know about this subject, and what parts do I think I know?” (We also have some people floating around stating they are helo pilots not really being but in most cases, probably all I guess, “real” helo pilots can see through and disregard these, mostly providing corrupt info. I know the module makers also see.) The above about critical review of information should be applied to all information, including what I state. ( I mostly use credible sources for each statement so it should be quite easy to validate).

To make an add on to what I and CHPL is saying, there seem to be not that uncommon in this forum that people Think they know. Next part is convincing the module makers that their statement is right. This is the Dunning-Kruger-effect: The picture above, having some knowledge but quite high confidence. The module makers, would like to please the gamers, of course. Theres a risk that when one, or a few guys, says "you get VRS from 300fpm+20%torque", that we actuellay get that behaviour in DCS. Also, we dont get it "sometimes" as IRL, but we get it every time. When thats "true" in DCS, we have VRS each time we descend at 300fpm+ with low Power setting which is very far away from the real world.

With the reverb I have both used reprojection of and did fly a traffic pattern, and looked at the average fps in fpsVR and also had reprojection on and lookwd at the average. The average will be higher if you have a higher percentage of 90fps. Earlier with oculus only option was(still using this with reverb also) flying a speficic way low level, passing ares with a lot of forrest and also buildings in a city. during flight maybe a small glance at the DCS fps counter but mainly looking out and making sure there isnt to much glitches or stutter. This still is the last test I do after setting up with the reverb cause even if things look fine by frame times and fps-numbers in fpsVR, its not sure the gaming is smooth enough for my personal choise. The fpsVR is a very good help when it comes to setup but I have to lover the settings from that by a little to get perfectly smooth gaming. (I know I have a smooth-video destroyed mind after 20years of home cinema tuning. Im quite often distrurbed in the Full Flight Sims from stutter and non smooth flow of the visuals, at the same times my collegues are most often not even noticeing it)

I'll comment the parts of your post in sequence: 1) Yes, its hard to hit the sweet spot. I know this from own experience, just as you do. Easiest way to enter for training is keeping the altitude and fly downwind and reduce speed and keeping the power on when going on the low side of the power curve so you dont loose altitude. Its a hit almost everytime. For the gross weight, you are safer the heavier you are(se my other posts, also in that link to a post in Another thread. Its hard to hit the sweet spot for training, but if you fly reckless you might sooner or later hit it, if low level you in a really bad situation. The risk level isnt set by me, its set by the numerous researchers in the subject. 2) DCS tends to exaggerate a lot of fenomens or risks. The gamers that doesnt know that much think they know and sets demands for the module builders to incorporate things...and than it gets unreallistic. Like the Engine failure of the Huey. Or the mast bumbing that could occur way yo easy in some manouvers. (maybe fixed now, I dont know.) 3) I am a military pilot, currently flying NH90. (earlier: AS332 Superpuma, BO105, Jet- and Longranger, Hughes 300. Started fixedwing 1990 and helos from 1995) 4) The heavier you are (higher downwash) the higher is the descent rate to enter VRS. A R22 has a lower safe descent rate than a CH53. Thats facts, and is easy to prove. [Edit]Had to go away in the middle of writing. You and I are saying the same thing, it isnt easy to hit the VRS sweet spot. The "high risk" is set in the theoretical models, and one of the conditions that is included in the formula is that the lateral airspeed is within the limits in the model , thats means basically a maximum of the same as Vih(the theoretical downwash speed). This means for a lighter helo, not much speed. R22 Vih is 7.4m/s so lets say maximum 15knots airspeed probably less and around 10knots to really increase the chance of hitting VRS. When training this high up in the air, its hard to really hit the sweet spot. If doing it into the wind you might have to have a backwards ground speed. Having better instruments, as we have with grounsspeed information and a hover indicator makes it less hard but still not easy. This is cut from a NASA report about VRS: They molded the result from a few research results in the same diagram, all say about the same. The VRS formula explained in this post: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4180185&postcount=15

Yes, you need to start it to see it in the video settings.