Hippo

They do. And sometimes, not so much. A small example. Not all will agree, but for me labels are an essential in VR. In fact, I have spent a lot of time tweaking a labels.lua, so that labels would fade in and out just so at such and such a distance, etc. Well, some months ago in an update, labels no longer fade as they did. They're now only solid or invisible. Several people have raised this, and so far? Nothing. No reply, no fix, not even an acknowledgment. This is INFURIATING. Especially as it just (supposedly) requires undoing whatever was done to break it.

Thank you for explaining, and for your continued efforts on here. Sorry if it came across that I was having a go at you personally. I don't think ED's communications are terrible, but I do think they could with improvement. I assume that you and NineLine (and others), when you post on here, are expressing your own opinions, and are restricted as to what you can say. You don't speak in an official capacity for ED. It would be nice to have an official spokesperson on here who isn't one step removed. It might also help it there was a small explanation in your signatures as to the capacity in which you speak. E.g. In the specific case of the VR controls, since the official announcement that I linked to earlier, perhaps a small update on progress every three months or so could help avoid posts like this where: "and its still nowhere to be seen and DCS do not keep us up to date on progress"

So I finally put on 2.5.0.15356, and (arrrgh!) - it's ME. Testing with the A10, the jaggies appear just as bad. What I had never realised is how much turning on cockpit shadows reduces the problem. Scenery aliasing is still bad but possibly tolerable, it was always the cockpit jaggies that particularly bothered me. MSAAx2 + low shadows is a very good compromise, but then I can't hold 90FPS. MSAAx4 + no shadows + Kegetys mode is what I've been using for months to keep fps up; but this introduces other issues. It's also starting to get to be a bit of chore to get working lately. As an aside, the cockpit colours have markedly improved. I wasn't testing for performance, but as far as I could tell, there was no discernible difference (to latest version).

Look, no offence, but who are you? Are you a paid employee of ED? I often see your replies here, and am not ungrateful, but what weight do they carry if you are not? The post I quoted is over seven months old, and (sorry, if I'm wrong about this) there's been no OFFICIAL update since (on the promised controller options). Anyone else posting along the lines of "just be patient", or "I'm sure they're working on it", what is the point? It adds no new information to the discussion.

An option has existed for some time now but, to my understanding, the post I quoted was promising an improvement. Sorry if I'm wrong about this, but I don't think that anything has been improved with this feature since the post was made. I haven't tried the option myself for a long time, but the last time I did it had a long way to go to be practically useful. I wasn't (and still am not) putting forward a view on the options. I was just trying to provide some balance back in the direction of the OP's grievance (wrt communications from ED).

The OP hasn't just made this up, nor is he making unreasonable demands. It was (sort of) promised by ED. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3706594&postcount=170 The "optimized VR performance" has not been an overwhelming success thus far, and I can't say that I blame the OP for fearing that the other options will be quietly "forgotten".

Whilst testing recently (for VR performance test), I noticed that in the Tblisi TF51D mission that aliasing did not seem to be much of problem with MSAA off, which was quite a (pleasant) surprise. I have only been flying the F-18 and A-10 where aliasing seems to be more of a problem. I have been extremely critical of ED regarding the change to have deferred shading only, which incurred a 50% fps hit (for me). At the time, to my recollection, flying without MSAA was not an option because of appalling aliasing. I have since been flying with 4xMSAA and cockpit shadows off (to get FPS up). Has something changed over the past year? I tried the A10 and F18 yesterday with MSAA off, and whilst aliasing issues remain, they seem to be a lot less distracting than I recall. Also turning shadows on (low), seems to help mitigate the jaggies as well, and I would be able to afford these now because of the increase in fps from turning off MSAA. I wonder if I'm losing it as the last time (many months ago) I tried DCS w/o MSAA, I considered it unusable because of aliasing artifacts. The jaggies are at their worst around straight edges like the MFD buttons and compass housing on A10, especially when the light hits them so they shine. Same for the edges of buildings. How feasible would it be to implement an OPTION to reduce / eliminate this shine and mitigate the aliasing? I suppose I should chuck an older version on my system to confirm, but just can't be bothered at the moment; so came in here to get some opinions instead. However, I'm quite hopeful that DCS w/o MSAA might now be viable.

thanks

TF-51D Flight Over Tblisi Open Beta 2.5.4.30386 (sorry couldn't be bothered to install stable, hope this is still ok) ASW ON - 45 fps, GPU 64%, CPU 30% ASW OFF - 73 fps, GPU 98%, CPU 45% Open Beta 2.5.5.33184 ASW ON - 45 fps, GPU 60%, CPU 29% ASW OFF - 73 fps, GPU 98%, CPU 40% CPU% for highest utilised core (which is 12 on my system), core 1 is also utilised, but slightly less. Also tested: F18 Mission Qual - Carrier Takeoff Open Beta 2.5.4.30386 ASW ON - 45 fps, GPU 55%, CPU 33% ASW OFF - 82 fps, GPU 95%, CPU 50% Open Beta 2.5.5.33184 ASW ON - 45 fps, GPU 55%, CPU 39% ASW OFF - 83 fps, GPU 96%, CPU 53% A10 Free Flight Over Black Sea. Runway Start Open Beta 2.5.4.30386 ASW ON - 45 fps, GPU 51%, CPU 30% ASW OFF - 80 fps, GPU 98%, CPU 53% Open Beta 2.5.5.33184 ASW ON - 45 fps, GPU 58%, CPU 35% ASW OFF - 79 fps, GPU 98%, CPU 50%

I can easily get my GPU to hit 100%, depending on settings / activity. Suggestions: CPU is at 100% and is the bottleneck (as already suggested). Remember, you need to look at the individual core that is doing the most work, not at average CPU util. ASW is kicking in and limiting to 45 fps (so GPU no longer needs to run at full pelt).

Probably not, but then there is a huge pro-ED imbalance in these forums, with many only capable of praise (then there's the moderation...). Personally, I just found the whole thing comical. It is an open beta, so it's unfair to demand too much, and best to take things with good humour. I'm still not sure whether the VR performance improvement that has been promised for months has actually been delivered or not. I wish this would be stated unequivocally (apologies in advance if it already has been).

I mostly agree with you although I might try to be a bit more diplomatic about it. OTOH, Surely it's a case of balance - how many users benefit / benefit obtained / work required. Just saying don't bother because it's a bit hard just sounds like a cop out. However, I suspect that if the previous poster had cut out most of his post and just left the following: it would probably also be a fair reflection of his views (and of the majority of the posters on these forums).

:) That's pretty cynical. :) Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.

Certainly a double-blind trial, in that neither ED or the player base knows if they have the placebo or the performance-enhancer.

Well it now seems you were right all along; not even ED knew that they had released the patch that they had released. I bow down before your god-like prescience. :)

I blame the OP of this thread - jinxed it with his bright-eyed optimism! ;)

ED has already confirmed that the VR performance update has not been delivered yet. One of the other posters quoted above is claiming a 50% increase. Perhaps someone from ED can enlighten us regarding the cause for this putative increase which, up to now, they have not claimed or verified. I won't hold my breath.

"I wonder what that could be contributed to?" Error / external factor not related to DCS update / placebo effect / hope triumphing over reality. You always get a number of this type of post with every update. I have never been able to confirm a difference in fps when I test and compare. Take with a very large pinch of salt.

are we there yet?

Well, they managed to reduce my FPS by 50% when they introduced deferred rendering, so hope springs eternal.

Not F-18 or even DCS specific, but I found the following very interesting and well explained regarding IFF:

Maybe it's just that I'm used to the F-18, but the ka-50 cockpit in VR seems larger that it should be? Is this the case, and if so, will the forthcoming update make any changes to cockpit dimensions / head position / etc, for VR. P.S. Please, please separate keybinds for gear up / gear down.

The path to hell is paved with good intentions... ;)

Fact or speculation? You appear to state it with absolute certainty. Are you really, really sure? How do you know? The number of aircraft keeps growing. Every time a major upgrade to the engine takes place, all the aircraft "break" and need to be "fixed" for free. The DCS World base product is sold at $0. Surely I can't be the only one to see a problem with this? I'm not sure a full-on subscription model would be entirely appropriate for DCS (options are always good to have though), my own preference would be what LM do with P3D. The sim itself is free. Objectively, the more complex modern aircraft are less expensive or ballpark in comparison to top-level P3D products. I don't think $80 - $100 for, say the F16 or F18 is unreasonable. Of course, all these things are relative, for some it's a small fortune, for others it's peanuts.

You can keep on saying BS2 was the exact same thing if you like, but it just ain't so: http://www.simhq.com/_air14/air_504a.html The rest of your post is unsubstantiated assertions, contradictions, inventions and a soupcon of circular reasoning. I wish you all the best and hope you continue to get everything you want from DCS, but will just agree to disagree at this point.