Hippo

This is what I can see at 0.8 (I'm asked to call the ball at this point) and 0.3. See also link. I am running at 4k on a 43 inch monitor.

Understood. On your side, please try to understand that some users might have painstakingly created numerous missions so that they can practise every stage of carrier ops and that it's a bit of a let down when a major new feature like this arrives and they excitedly load up those missions to find... an empty carrier. At the very least it should have occurred to someone to mention this "issue that needs tweaking" in the patch notes.

I wish ED would just admit that the Supercarrier should always have been part of the core product and would now just include it for free (I bought it years ago, btw); otherwise we'll just continue to have more nonsense like this going forward. I would be more than happy to pay $50 - $100 every couple of years for the core DCS product so that efforts were concentrated on improving that.

A feature not a bug, then. Yippee ki-yay. Because there's nothing I like more than having to go and edit over twenty missions that now don't work as expected thanks to an update. I was really looking forward to this update and it's turning out to be an elephant-sized dropping of a disappointment.

Entirely agree. I have a night carrier landing mission I made years ago when fog worked properly, it was great: just before the ball call the carrier lights would appear out of the fog beautifully, it all worked wonderfully. Fast forward to today. Supposedly we have fog again, so I load up the mission... to find that the lights on the carrier can hardly be seen even on a clear night. Is this a recent change? I don't remember it ever being this bad. Too often DCS is just depressing, improve one thing, and something else FAQs up...

Is it just me or has the deck crew disappeared from the Stennis following the deck crew update?

Might I be so bold as to request that, when making changes such as this, a full explanation is provided in, at least, the change log? Something more substantial than "VR. Added options for Quad View to VR settings"? It's what a professional outfit with an eye to detail and customer satrisfaction would do. Or maybe provide an on-line version of the manual which is kept fully up to date with live changes? See also: fuses.

That was it! Thank you so much. I forgot that there are quite the number of steps necessary to get this working when I replaced my PC and reinstalled everything.

Has anyone else experienced this? It never used to happen to me before. What happens is that a small section along the bottom of my view always remains blurry no matter how far down I look with my eyes - as if the foveated region won't go all the way down. This only happens when using Link, it all works fine if using Virtual Desktop. I can't say for certain but I think it might be that the config file in %localappdata%\Quad-Views-Foveated is not being read. Supplemental question: I notice there are quad views foveated rendering options in the settings within DCS itself. Does anyone know if these have been documented by ED?

null

Whilst I am very grateful for DCS, ihmo it has become a pyramid scheme focused on releasing module after module to bring in funds; how else to explain many, many reasonable requests for essential features and functionality, like yours, being ignored for years?

This might get looked at in five years' time, but only after the launcher gets animated cows. Because... priorities.

You're probably not going to like this answer, but you might consider getting Virtual Desktop and giving that a try. No, it's not necessary, and it's not free, but It's another option available to you for when you suddenly get new, unexplicable issues in DCS VR following an update (as I have had happen to me in the past) or a change in phase of the Moon. And It has an option to lock ASW on.

Saw this launcher, disabled it immediately and hope to never see it again. Then wondered to myself why it is that with so much essential stuff that has needed doing for years waiting to be done, ED would waste expend time and effort providing something that was neither needed or wanted. (Imho)

Another vote for the Quest Pro from me. I don't know where you are but at this price it's an absolute bargain.

I've been having variations on this issue for months now. It's doing my head in. I've just updated my original post: Common factor 13900k / 14900k ?

Back in October when I first posted about this, I tried using Virtual Desktop instead of Oculus and at the time it seemed as if VD didn't have the issue. Because of <reasons> I shortly afterwards took a break from DCS, until now. I've been using the Apache with VD for over a week, and I'm now getting a very similar issue again. Start up DCS and (around 75% of the time) the PC will lock up, in DCS I will either see a black screen, or when I get to the main menu pauses that last 1-2 seconds during which the PC is unresponsive. As suggested above (thanks to all replies) I can eventually get back control by alt-tabbing out and turning off affinity for core 9 (first core = core 0) in task manager. The issue only appears to manifest in the interface screens (never in cockpit) Sorry to sound like a bit of a git, but this is really an extremely frustrating issue, which I'm rather surprised isn't affecting more people. I'm as sure as I can be it's not my PC, I don't get issues with any other games or software, just DCS. Looking at the replies on here, it seems that all who have also seen the issue seem to have i9-13900k CPUs. Have DCS testers checked if they can duplicate this issue with this CPU? It seems to me that all is not quite right with multithreaded DCS.

Thank you for bringing up @recoilfx 's (and recoilfx for making it) comment. I did some more (quick and limited) testing and perhaps the increase in performance from QVFR wasn't as great as I first thought. I tested with DLAA + QVFR, DLAA only, and MSAAx4 only, with these settings and mission (up to end of first turn) and see the results below. Only with QVFR can I maintain 72 fps throughout. The GPU util is visibly lower with QVFR, but not by as much as I was expecting. I can't hit 72 fps at all with MSAAx4. CPU core 28 (and perhaps 11 and 12) is visibly busier with QVFR. Core 9 or 10 is usually the main(? most busy) core. There is no shimmering with DLAA, whereas it is quite visible and distracting with MSAA, including flickering ground shadows. @recoilfx I'd be interested if you could point me to a mission and settings where you see worse performance with QVFR vs no QVFR.

IMHO - the shimmering is worse with MSAA. I was using MSAAx4 + QVFR and was aware of shimmering in the peripheral area, which goes away entirely if I use DLAA. I found the shimmering too distracting with MSAAx4 so was using a larger focus area to migitate this somewhat, leading to only a modest performance improvement. With DLAA I have reduced the focus region to 0.25, a reduction in pixel count of ~75%, and a very significant performance improvement. As to that last sentence. Ahem. I wrote that after very limited testing. I would say that the DLAA visuals aren't quite as crisp, and there is artifacting/ smearing with certain fast motion (e.g. aircraft flybys can leave trails). Still, I am so far very pleased with the performance / quality I am getting with DLAA + QVFR and it is what I am using.

Anyone know what these mean in practice, if anything? P.S. Any news on when the marshal to parking is coming?

What sort of performance are you hoping for? Personally I can't be doing with ASW (whose artifacting I find to be worse than what I'm seeing with DLAA), and aim for native 72 fps. Here's what I'm currently using and I'm very happy with the quality/performance I've been seeing. I was using MSAAx4. The thing with DLAA is that when combined with foveated rendering, there is no shimmering so I can greatly reduce the foveated area for a huge performance improvement. I'm using PD 1.0 and mirrors on (have mostly been testing with the F-18). I'm not doing anything else with e.g. Oculus Debug Tool / OpenXR Toolkit. My quad views foveated config file # # DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE! # INSTEAD, CREATE A NEW FILE `settings.cfg` UNDER `%LocalAppData%\Quad-Views-Foveated` # # Common settings for all headsets (unless overriden below). smoothen_focus_view_edges=0.2 sharpen_focus_view=0.7 turbo_mode=1 # Fixed Foveated rendering settings for fallback when eye tracker is not available. horizontal_fixed_section=0.5 vertical_fixed_section=0.45 [Oculus] peripheral_multiplier=0.4 focus_multiplier=1.1 horizontal_focus_section=0.25 vertical_focus_section=0.25 #vertical_focus_offset=0.28 turbo_mode=0 debug_eye_gaze=0 debug_focus_view=0 [Varjo] horizontal_focus_section=0.29 vertical_focus_section=0.33 # Turbo mode is incompatible with Varjo's deferred swapchain release. Use OpenXR Toolkit Turbo instead. turbo_mode=0 [PimaxXR] # Dynamic Foveated Rendering settings (for Crystal) horizontal_focus_section=0.33 vertical_focus_section=0.31 [Windows Mixed Reality] peripheral_multiplier=0.4 focus_multiplier=1.1 # Dynamic Foveated Rendering settings (for G2 Omnicept Edition) horizontal_focus_section=0.3 vertical_focus_section=0.3 vertical_focus_offset=0.04 [SteamVR] # Turbo Mode causes unexplained errors with SteamVR. turbo_mode=0 I notice we have very similar setups, and I'd be interested to see what you think. I have attached a mission which you might want to try, it puts you in an F-18 low over Dubai with A/P and A/T set so you can just sit back and let the a/c fly the route. I can hold 72 fps which I didn't think I'd be able to achieve at this level of quality. If you can achive this sort of performance with better visuals pls let me know. benchmark_01.miz

I have posted a request for this to be investigated in the wish list forum. I suggest others do the same or bump the post to high heaven.

@mbucchia 's quad views dynamic foveated rendering is a fantastic enhancement for getting extra performance in VR. Unfortunately, the foveated region can sometimes be seen distinctly from the peripheral region, as if it has a slightly different shading, somewhat taking away from its effectiveness. According to the developer this should be fixable by ED. Please could someone take a look into this? The issue can be seen in the images. A square with what appears to be a light grey outline in the centre of the 1st image. A fairly distinctive square around the sun in the 2nd.

Having a bit of a nightmare with this atm, where I have now had the system stall in the main interface, and whilst waiting for a mission to load. In each case it was taking so long that I had to kill the process. It looks like one of the cores is being hammered at 100% by the dcs process, notice how it's hopping back and forth between cores 9 and 10. Also attaching a log.dcs.log

And yet another log, where the game loaded up correctly - and quickly. Also please note that it has sometimes loaded into the main interface normally and then I get the hourglass making the game unusable - although I don't think I've seen this with 2.9 (so far). Responded before your I saw your response above. Will try the above. When you say "first load" is this after a version update? Or following a reboot? dcs.log