

Hippo
Members-
Posts
1055 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Hippo
-
Sorry to log this here, pls ignore unless others report seeing it too as there are too many variables for me to test, but... I've noticed (in VR haven't checked in 2D) that after I apply the brakes and stop, the a/c is flipped around and the parking menu appears that my frame rate is immediately adversely affected (due to CPU not GPU). If I select to takeoff again it returns to normal, if I select cancel it doesn't. It's as if something funky is going on in the background.
-
Bump. And now just noticed that when touching down on the carrier deck at night the flashing carrier deck lights cause the foveated region to light up so that I can see a highly immersion-breaking bright yellow square. Sorry can't provide screenshot as it's only visible briefly when the lights flash. I know this only affects a relatively very small number of users but I really wish someone could look into it. Please. Thanks.
-
Carrier IFLOLS overbright…..and overlay query
Hippo replied to markturner1960's topic in Bugs and Problems
That's strange, I'm not seeing that at all (just tested with VR). I think the iflols is now working pretty well, and I still think the deck lights are too dim as I don't see them until way too late. Maybe it's something in my settings? EDIT: Using the Stennis in that mission. EDIT2 (12 hrs later): Now swapped with Truman. Seems the same. At around 1.6 DME iflols pops into view but it is all just a blur (though this could be due to headset resolution limits) . At around the ball call (0.8) I am able to discern the ball , I can also just about see the deck lights at this point although they are very very dim. I don't know why I'm not getting the super bright carrier reported above?! Combining the ball with the ILS and trying really hard to see the deck lights in time I am able to make the trap; I was not able to do this before the latest patch. -
Sorry, but I'm back. Everything you say is perfectly reasoned and sensible, but in the nicest possible way I'm going to ask you (or anyone else who feels so inclined) to put your money where your mouth is and show me some numbers: system spec, DCS config, VR config. Then tell me if you can hold 72 fps without drops in the attached mission (F18 low over Dubai, the a/c will set itselt up to follow a path within the first 10 seconds of the mission, so you don't have to do anything but look straight forward), just let the a/c fly itself until the end of the first turn. My hardware specs are in in my sig. For QVFR I am using the following settings: # Common settings for all headsets (unless overriden below). smoothen_focus_view_edges=0.2 sharpen_focus_view=0.7 turbo_mode=1 [Oculus] peripheral_multiplier=0.4 focus_multiplier=1.1 horizontal_focus_section=0.25 vertical_focus_section=0.25 These are settings that in combination with DLAA give me visuals that I find acceptable (reduce shimmering in peripheral area, and don't introduce too much artifacting into the HMDs) and maximise performance. My Quest Pro is set up like this: My DCS settings are below. My current system cannot hold 72 fps, but my previous system (see sig) could, just about. It has to drop to ASW 36 fps at times as the GPU util hits 100% - I have tried to set things up so that with a graphically demanding mission such as this, my GPU utils stays just below 100%. Even with QVFR, how are people holding high (no reprojection) frame rates with the much higher resolutions of newer headsets like the Crystal or (when it arrives) Crystal Super? I realise that everything from my choice of test, to the way I'm setting things up, to my interpretation of the results could be all wrong and I'd be really grateful if anyone could suggest improvements. Trying, and failing miserably, to get back on topic, I don't think the 4090 -> 5090 30% bump we'll be getting will be enough for the high resolutions of the latest headsets (come on DCS VR reviewers, where are you?), and anything without eye-tracking, well forget it, imho. Leaving as our only hope the improved DLSS? Still, it's over 2x the perf of my 3080 Ti, so I might be tempted to do something very stupid on Jan 30th. benchmark_01.miz
-
Sorry if there's some other way to achieve this that I've missed, but I've been finding that it would be very handy when I select to display only, e.g., blue ships on the unit list to have this choice be replicated to the units that are displayed on the map, as a very quick way to unclutter the map. I realise that a similar result can be achieved by hiding units but that can be much more laborious when dealing with large numbers of groups. Thanks.
-
- 1
-
-
Great to see that the IFLOLS has become visible again, so thank you very much for that. I still think the landing lights (on the deck) are too dim and should be visible from further away, hopefully this is still being worked on.
- 4 replies
-
- 3
-
-
- bug
- visibility
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
BIT and P/INS advisories incorrectly appear upon mission startup
Hippo replied to Hippo's topic in Bugs and Problems
Whohoa, you fixed this, you absolute stars, thank you! -
Because if after 30 mins in the ME you don't feel like you've been to a flak, aaa and sam-infested hell and back, then you're not getting your money's worth. This is Digital Combat Simulator, after all. If you want standard application convenience options, might I suggest Microsoft Powerpoint instead.
-
What is this barbarism you speak of?! Having said that, I can see how too much time in the ME might make someone never want to use a keyboard ever again. A suggestion so excellent that some might say it even deserves its own thread . Since you mention triggers, I at times have needed to copy triggers between missions and would like that functionality also.
-
Since the ME is essential for the production of content for DCS, it is very frustrating that ED can allow it to continue to have such basic, shameful failings. As I mentioned in another post, I ocassionally dabble with the ME, but in the past have always given up with emotions ranging from frustration to rage as e.g. when I unintentionally move a meticulously placed object and... no undo! I don't think, however, that it's due to a lack of talent, but more to a lack of resources and choice of priorities, and a community which is nowhere near loud (or large enough in the case of the ME) enough in its criticism. I normally wouldn't post something as pedantic as the above, and I expect it will achieve nothing, but it does help to bring down the frustration levels.
-
This is sadly widespread within the ME, but for example in the dialog shown in the screenshot below: - Click on group name text dialog -> text entry cursor appears - Press TAB key -> cursor disappears, but nothing happens - Press TAB key (again) -> nothing happens - Press TAB -> cursor switches to CONDITION text box - Press TAB -> cursor switches to % text box - Press TAB -> cursor switches to UNIT text box, but COUNTRY drop down list is skipped - Press TAB -> cursor switches to FREQENCY text box, skipping three drop down lists, a text box and six check boxes - Press TAB -> cursor switches to OF (UNIT) text box, skipping a drop down list and two check boxes - Press TAB -> cursor switches to UNIT NAME text box, skipping two drop down lists - Press TAB -> cursor disappears, but nothing happens - Press TAB seven times -> nothing happens - Press TAB -> cursor switches to GROUP NAME text box - Press TAB -> cycle repeats In summary: Buttons, drop down lists and check boxes are ignored when using TAB (and shift-TAB) Pressing the TAB key sometimes seems to do nothing Elements are not progressed through in a logical order Additionally there appears to be no way to switch to the options below (route, ammo, triggered actions, etc) using the keyboard
-
E.g. Please could you allow for when GROUP_NAME-01 is copy-pasted for GROUP_NAME-02 to be created. Or for when GROUP_NAME-001 is copy-pasted for GROUP_NAME-002 to be created. Etc. The current system makes the correct alphanumerical sorting of groups in lists impossible. Thank you.
-
- 1
-
-
Currently when selecting a number of groups the anchor appears to attach by default to the group with lowest unit id. If there is a good reason why it is this way then I'm afraid it escapes me. I think it would be better if the player could select the unit. Perhaps by using the last unit that was selected by the player before clicking on the multi selection tool icon. Thank you.
-
Multi selection tool: what is the anchor (and the move anchor button) for?
Hippo replied to Hippo's topic in Mission Editor
Thanks for replies. I watched the video and see that the anchor is for rotations, which don't seem to work for me at all; I'm currently not on the latest version of DCS and believe that rotations now should work. Hopefully when I'm back on my regular PC tomorrow it'll all work out. I'm only an irregular dabbler with the ME, but I agree that it has a very poor interface design and I've always given up on it in the past when I've tried to do anything complex with it. If the likes of Adobe or Microsoft released a product with such a poor design they would be laughed out of existence. How professional campaign designers manage to keep their sanity while working with this tool is beyond me. Still, it is what is, and we appear to have little choice but to accept it and hope for improvement, which does happen, sadly at a glacial pace. EDIT: All appears to work as expected with rotation in latest version of DCS. Apologies. -
Firstly, thank you so much for the multi selection tool which I'm finding incredibly useful. However, I'm finding that when copying or moving groups that I would really like an option for advanced waypoints to be moved so that they keep their relative rather than absolute position. Hopefully the images explain what I'm going on about. Copy highlighted in first image is what I'd like to be able to do, second image is what happens now. Third image is original group. Thanks.
- 1 reply
-
- 1
-
-
Thank you for your post, all very interesting and sensible. Wrt to the above, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're setting your QP / PCL at a lower res in its software, but then running at a higher resolution (at least as high as the headset's recommended for barrel distortion correction) in the foveated area? If so, I didn't think to try that, and didn't even know if it was possible. I'm currently running a lower spec PC and will give it a go - thanks. If you can spare the time, it's always interesting to know hw spec + settings + fps obtained for the types of mission you normally run.
-
No worries, only kidding. 1. I sold the PC in my sig. a few months ago. 2. My testing was limited to missions like that uploaded in the linked post. 3. I attempt to hold 72 fps (no ASW) and try to get just below 100% gpu util with a demanding mission such as (2), so that I can have plenty of headroom for more normal loads. Bearing (1), (2), (3) in mind: 3080Ti, i7 8700k -> i9 13900k - no benefit whatsoever that I could discern. 13900k, 3080Ti -> 4090 - major benefit. There was no way I could hold 72 fps in the mission with those settings (see linked post) until I got the 4090, the gpu util would always hit 100% and ASW would kick in. I found that if I wanted 72 fps on a mission like that in the link, with those settings, I needed a 4090. I don't know how people with, say, a Crystal Light (or eventually Super!) or similar higher res headsets can run without reprojection or lowering rendering resolution from optimal. I was running QP at 5408 x 2736, PCS is 12840 x 7412 at 100%. If, as is very likely, I'm missing something, I'd be very grateful to be informed by the knowledgeable folks on here.
-
You presume incorrectly sir/ madam: I do use QVFR and will not consider a headset without eye-tracking; if you're interested to see how I tested and my settings, you might consider clicking on the link in my previous post.
-
I see that this appears to be the general consensus on here, but how are people coming to this conclusion? I would say the opposite: I find that it is the GPU that maxes out when I try (tried - I sold my PC a few months ago) to hold 72 fps with my Quest Pro / 4090 / 13900k, high VR rendering resolution and in-game graphical complexity. I would have chosen to upgrade the GPU rather than the CPU, and going 3080Ti -> 4090 was a substantial improvement. I do tend to run single player missions with not much going on, and test that way, so maybe that's it? Unfortunately it doesn't seem that the 4090 -> 5090 uplift in rasterisation performance is going to be particularly substantial. I did manage to sell my 4090 for around 80% of what I paid for it. If a reasonable price can be obtained for the 4090 then the (supposed) improvements in upscaling quality and performance could make it worthwhile. I'm looking forward to seeing the results of real world DCS VR testing.
-
Yes, I'm aware, although I can see why the way I phrased my 3rd question might have made it seem like I wasn't. What I really meant was "what would happen if reprojection and MFG were enabled at the same time"? With my 4090 I found that I didn't use frame generation for any "normal games" as I didn't need it. In VR, no games that I'm aware of seem to use it. I guess what I'm getting at is, supposing we ignore reprojection, shouldn't this tech enable games to be rendered to a VR headset at many multiples of traditional rendering fps? What it would look like wrt artifacting, etc, is another question, but shouldn't it at least work? Are there any VR games out there that support it? Again, care to expand? From a quick Google found this: Is it only because of latency?
-
Thanks for replying. Care to expand on that?