ZnarF

Excellent - that's the key: by using different lenses, you can produce various focals: object at infinite, or at any various degree of nearness... thank you!!

Thanks for you answers - @sthompsonof course, the result of having the speed indication projected approx. 80cm behind the windshield IS a wish of the car builder (but honestly, about 1m further far should have been best, requiring less accommodation / accommodation time, optimal for elderly). But the question is more: HOW to optically control the perceived distance, while the system seems to be the same as a wwII gunsight, which projects at infinite: which parameter differs? (@furiz: yeah, should be nice such hud in a motorcycle helmet!!)

Hey all! A question that consumes me since a while... When we fly a plane since ww2 (and sometimes ww1), we use -with the gunsight or lately the hud- a system of lens projection that show us a point situated optically at the infinity: because "anything at the focus of a lens or curved mirror (such as an illuminated reticle) will appear to be sitting in front of the viewer at infinity". But! On my car, the indication of speed projected on the windshield [situed approx. 60cm of my eyes] appears to be nor at the infinite, nor at 60cm, but at approx. 130cm... [I would have prefered >4m so no eye accomodation would be needed] What is the optical magic operating here???!!!!

As Ramsay, I would also recommend Syria: it's delightful to fly on it "nap of the earth" in helo!!!

As said Grafspee, I'm almost sure your engine failure comes from manual prop pitch - In the 109, always check on earth that if you change throttle, the "clock" indicating prop pitch automoves - if not, that indicates you're still on manual and should click the switch! Otherwise, the 109 is really stable and fiable.

Mhhh... In real life, in 1943-44, while cruising a CAP in my Bf109, I would dive on you, while you were meticulously checking if that switch really worked, or choosing if you will use 2, 4 or 8 guns... You would bring with you all these interesting questions 3 feets into the earth, end of your story. Please, take it easy, only joking... half-joking... but overthinking would clearly mean your death in the real world!!

The Microsoft FFB2 stick was really a great stick, 20 years ago - it proves that the concept works perfectly, and is doable at an incredibly affordable price! I've still 2 of these in case one broke... if only Microsoft would redo the same, but with full HOTAS buttons / hats!!! I'me almost sure a MS FFB3 could happen... I so much miss the true feel of ww2 birds, and the punch of the nose 30mm of the 109!! (and eager to feel a properly emulated heli stick...)

Also patiently waiting for a FFB stick + rudder... clearly enough market for the product to be successful... FFB racing wheels prove -since 20 years!- that the concept works and is not so costly... When the first FFB stick(s?) will be there, all non-FFB sticks will only be a thing of the past, like for the wheels...

World map... finest news ever for DCS, I strongly wish they use the photogrammetric (or IA when not possible) approach like MSFS... I find that even a very good small man-made maps is not as immersive as its photogrammetric relative! -(like the Mariana or Syria map, they're very very well done, but... each aspect [redondant houses and buildings, unnatural connection between terrain and buildings, etc.] reminds me it's a game, not the reality....while the magic works for example in MSFS when cruising central Europe for imagining a cold war scenario - DCS World really merits that!!]

Yeah, that's a curious thing: many ww2 testimonies praised the FW190, but in DCS (as in all other flight sims), it is really a lack-luster plane: not a good dogfighter, not a good speeder, and not even a so good b'n'zmer... but a real flying saw for ennemies. The Bf 109 seems to be better in each discipline. His father K. Tank talked about him as a battle horse: not the quickest, not the better, but easy to maintain. In a 1 vs 1 scenery, he's so lost. In our sims we search the better fighter (where it doesn't shine at all) without considering other real-world issues, maybe we miss something to "get it"? The cockpit layout is great, a high level of automation, more easy to land than a 109, maybe in numbers with appropriate tactics he did the trick? Hard to say... but clearly, not exciting performance in a solo scenery...

As they already propose to VR users R eye only / L eye only / both eyes in F16/F18/A10 (conscient of such eye illnesses), there is no reason it should be different with the AH64, maybe even in early access!

Pimax 8kx + Ryzen 5950X + 3090 (MSI Gaming X Trio, soft OC), normal fov on PiTool, 100% Steam SS -> 66 to 74 fps in DCS. Very very happy with the experience - when low on the deck, the ground stutters sometimes a bit, but that stays very acceptable (could be resolved but at the price of lowering the overall quality - a matter of personal sweet spot). The 8kx is an excellent VR device, I would only recommend the audio strap with "ordinary" earphones, I find the vanilla ear speakers situated 4cm on top of ears not so good.

I had that same problem of jumpy axis since day one, 4 years ago - after some extensive DIY/forum researches, it seems that the "Saitek Throttle Quadrant" uses very cheap potentiometers in order to economize probably 0.67$, so best thing is to ask for a refund. Such Saitek products should simply be avoided...

Hi! Does all work as intended (especially) headtracking in other VR app or SteamVR?

Does it exist a way to easily modify/save a view in VR as the defaut view position? (I used until now the headrest to evaluate the most real default view, but that implies to always refind the optimal spot at each flight...)