Raven (Elysian Angel)

I don’t remember where exactly, but a while ago someone on the forum wrote a very technical post on why mirrors in VR are actually some of the most difficult and performance draining tasks possible in 3D graphics.

If they’re broke, consider paying them more. No wonder they refuse to work

I remember the F-18 having that problem too when the effect was initially introduced

Yes, that was my plan too if not for the lack of 2x 64GB kits with proper timings as you say: CL30 and decent enough secondary and tertiary timings. I heard 24-48GB modules are “easier” for the memory controller to deal with but I have no clue if that translates into real-works benefits and if so, how… I am curious, however.

Your chosen equipment's software takes care of that: TelemFFB or whatever it is your brand uses. Everything you could possibly want or need is there.

I agree

Sure, but it's been well established by ED that you can't have Vulkan (in DCS) without multi-threading so the one who made that video likely knew that? Also, DCS still has a main/synchronisation thread that should benefit from single-thread optimisations I'd think (or at least the reduced overheard), but perhaps I'm talking out of my behind

Yes it is. I went from 32 to 64 5 years ago, and my new system (since 2 weeks ) has 96. Even non-simulation games these days can benefit from having 64GB of RAM. Just as a side note to hopefullly help with decision making: sitting on the ramp in a Chinook in one of the presupplied IA missions makes my PC sit at 42GB RAM in use. That’s just sitting there, with very few other units in a mostly empty map. 96GB is best for future proofing so you’ll be safe for the next 5-10 years or so, imho.

Indeed, but until DCS supports it there’s no point. Yes that’s what I hoped for: I noticed the first flight of the day things are a lot stiffer than later on. If I don’t forget, when I sit down in my simpit I move the rudder left and right a few times before the actual flight, and that does seem to help (a bit).

I know the new fuses are not supported, but the ballistics have remained unchanged as far as I am aware? I don't know about JDAMs because I don't care for them and it's been well established by Notso the implementation we have is *VERY* WIP. But I have had zero issues with LGBs The iteration we have at the moment is pretty much a '90s version so that's how I use it. I have been dropping Mk84s on ships and hangars just fine, and yes the pod is quirky but it's an older model so that's to be expected. *edit* I just made a quick mission to test if something changed very recently that I missed, but nope: I dropped 2x Mk82 and 2x GBU-12 (self lased) and all 4 were spot on.

That's a smart way to get extra revenue with a limited amount of work (compared to making a new module from scratch)

About a week ago my new R1-Falcon pedals arrived, replacing my Thrustmaster TPR - which are not that great for helicopter flight even with the spring removed. I also got the damper kit so I ended up removing the spring, attaching the no-centre cam and putting the damper at around 40% strength. The one major downside to this setup is that there is too much static friction so very small movements are quite jerky (the virpil CM3 base had the same problem). I haven't found anything that can fix that. So when you use the damper at minimum strength, the static friction is much larger than the dynamic friction which makes you overcorrect all the time - quite annoying that. The best solution I found is to increase the damper strength so that the dynamic friction matches the static one as much as possible. It took some getting used to after that, but in the end I am quite happy with the result: it is a serious upgrade for the TPR for helo flight, and for fixed wing it is also much better (though for primarily fixed wing use I'd use either the soft centre or hard centre cam instead, for obvious reasons). It also takes a lot more strength to use the toe brakes compared to the TPR but the movement is smooth and thus it is very easy to dose the exact amount of braking you want. https://virpil-controls.eu/r1-falcon-rudder-pedals.html

Could be my imagination but I experience even more smoothness than usual. The only graphical glitch that I noticed it clouds turning off and back on in the distance depending on where you look, but I’m pretty sure that’s been a general DCS problem for a good while now. Overall I am very happy with this setting, and glad another post reminded me to enable it again after trying it years ago.

Splendid, thank you! I'm looking forward to it!

There is native support for FFB sticks/bases but not (yet?) for pedals. Whether FFB support exists at all and which effects are available purely depends on the developer of every individual module. Various FFB bases have software that can read telemetry from DCS (using export scripts which need to be installed in your saved games folder) and do something with it (and is user configurable). More information on FFB and in your case Moza can be found here in the correct subforum: https://forum.dcs.world/forum/70-input-devices/

I don't know if you have seen following video, but I think it sums up pretty well what we can expect: Personally, I don't expect any benefit with the first iteration either. It will likely be purely to test compatibility and to make sure it doesn't break anything or causes unforeseen issues. Later on ED will refine it, and as Wags has stated in multiple interviews: Vulkan will allow them to add a lot more effects to DCS which are currently not possible - including raytracing but also FSR 2/3/4 for example (DCS currently only supporting FSR 1 is due to the limitations of Direct3D 11). Additionally, you can check out this thread here where people have been discussing the same questions you have for years:

There will always be compromises, as IRL on your chair you likely have a lot more freedom of movement compared to sitting in a cramped cockpit strapped to an ejection seat. As a comparison: lean forward in the Apache while looking to one side and the pilot model's head detaches from your position too and you see the NVGs floating away... I wasn't able to either. Luckily I can reach/see everything I need to with the pilot body still present.

We have them

Yes, they probably meant AN/AAQ-33 aka Sniper XR.

I tested this again today, and I noticed a dramatic improvement in image quality: it seems to have fixed some long-standing bugs with lighting in the cockpit (especially for ED modules). I'm sure I wasn't the only person to notice that there is/was a dramatic difference in lighting/colours when looking outside to the ground in external view, and then switching to cockpit view looking at the same patch of ground: suddenly the brightness increases greatly and the colours become washed out. For some reason ED modules always suffered a lot more of this issue than 3rd party modules I wonder if it is indeed considered "ready for public use" now...

Yes you don't have the brake lever functionality (only the button works aka paddle switch) when stuffed on a Warthog base: that's one of the major limitations and a serious problem for flying a MiG.

Yes, that's normal in VR. No idea since I never use 2D other than to make/edit missions. Yes, use a cable But in all seriousness, no idea since I avoid all things wireless as much as practically possible.

It's definitely strange: I get e-mails about the weekly newsletter, and notifications if someone sent me a pm on the forum, but that's it...