Hippo

I have never experienced an issue with HSEL (and I use it a lot). I have had issues similar to the above if my joystick was not exactly dead centre, and had to turn on small deadzones to deal with it (I don't think it should be necessary to do this, and that instead the A/P shouldn't lock out on very minor joystick deflections off-centre).

Thanks for getting back to me. On further checking the issue is a bit more complicated than I thought, but I still believe there is an issue. In the mission below, the aim is to attack the enemy ship to the west, but neither your aircraft or the harpoons can go into the (purple) no-fly zones and the aircraft can't go north of the red line (or attack friendly ships)... ... so I want to launch the harpoon from WP1 so that it flies to WP2 turns to 260 (to attack the enemy ship to the west), then activates after 20 nm. Instead the harpoon just attacks the northernmost friendly ship (see track 01). However, it doesn't appear to be an HPTP issue per se, because if I remove the friendly ships to the north, then it works as expected (track 02). I'll add that I'm almost certain the harpoon did work as expected the last time I flew this mission around June 2022. EDIT: I think that what's happening is that the Harpoon is activating its search immediately at the turnpoint and have changed the post title to reflect this. Apologies for any confusion caused. harpoon_htpt_02.trk harpoon_htpt_01.trk

Bump... is this supposed to have been fixed? Because, afaict, the issue still appears to be there.

In one word: NO. I accept it's very subjective, but since the days of the CV1 when 90fps was easily achievable in DCS (a deferred rendering engine "upgrade" put an end to that), I remain of the opinion that running in reprojection is not "true VR". Reprojection was always supposed to be a stopgap measure for the exceptional occasions when a system could not cope with extreme loads, not the default. However, we must play the hand we are dealt... grumble... I now aim for 72fps on Quest 2 and can mostly manage it with low settings. 3080ti. </rant>

I'm very much in agreement with all of that. My aim is to run mostly at 72Hz on the Q2, with reprojection only kicking in under heavy loads, and I run lowish settings to achieve this. Running the same missions and settings I use for testing in the old and new rigs the GPU util, and the points at which reprojection kicks in are pretty much identical. TBH, I was hoping for at least a small improvement. I left the data on my SSDs untouched and wasn't expecting the system to boot, but to my surprise it did, so my comparison was even using the old installation of Windows 10. I am now in the process of installing everything from scratch as I would normally do with a new system.

I have just got myself a 13900kf and z690 mobo to replace my getting-a-bit-long-in-the-tooth 8700k which I'm using with a 3080 ti. I'm using the same 32GB of DDR4 3200 (plan to upgrade later) and the same NVMe SSDs (I just changed the mobo, cpu and cooler). It's early days, but comparing benchmarks, in practical terms in DCS in VR Quest 2, it has made NOT A BLIND BIT OF DIFFERENCE!!! I'm now wondering whether I should've just gone for that (exorbitantly priced) 4090 instead. If anyone thinks my results should be better, then I'm all ears.

Thanks for the response. I wasn't aware of the MT/ VR issue and I have indeed been using the MT version. I will now be away from my VR rig for about a week but will check on my return.

Once again, apologies if this is not a bug. Please move to appropriate forum if not. In the attached track I am putting the a/c into the landing configuration. If I engage the HDG A/P only, and use the trim (pitch) switch there are very large fluctuations in pitch of the fpm, which I don't see with the A/P turned off where I can use the hat repeatedly to very finely adjust AoA. To my understanding we should not see an effect like this when using a roll-only A/P mode. Relatedly, from my reading of the NATOPS, wrt ACLS it should be possible to engage ACL with CPL HDG on leaving the hold ("commencing") and keep it activated through the change into the landing configuration at around 10 DME. I see the same effect in this case which can make trying to do this very, very difficult. ap_hdg_trim_changes.trk

Just played and much enjoyed this campaign (SC with Nevada) again. Many thanks for putting it out there for free. In the above mission there was one thing I found rather frustrating. I am using VR, and I found that the targets only became visible far too late to really be able to properly line up. Even using VR zoom, the targets would just suddenly pop up. I got around it by using labels, which isn't ideal. I was hoping to get your opinion as to whether this is an issue others have reported, if there might be a setting that can help with it, and whether it just happens to be an issue with this particular type of target. Tanks, e.g., I can see as dots from much greater distances. I thought that increasing visible range might do it, but it didn't appear to make any difference. Having the voice actors makes a huge difference, btw. Great job all round. P.S. IIRC, the a/c starts cold and dark, and I think the briefing suggests that it starts with the a/c ready to taxi.

Bumping this as I have never seen (and don't now see) any difference when changing it: no matter how I set it I can't see any part of my image that is not anti-aliased. I haven't tried restarting the game between changes when testing as it doesn't tell me in the options that this is necessary. Is there anyone out there that is using it, sees that it definitely works, and sees a perfomance benefit from it? Some time ago I used to use Kegetys's mod which offered this feature, which very evidently did work, and gave me a noticeable perfomance improvement. EDIT: I've just run the same mission twice, with mask at 0.1 and 1.0, and not only can I see no difference, measuring performance shows no difference either. AFAICT, for me this setting does absolutely nothing.

Sorry to keep banging on about this, and you might want to move this post out of bugs and into the general forum, but the workings of this mode just appear irrational to me. Perhaps I'm missing something and someone can explain the thinking behind it. I have attached a second track. If you go to 06:06, I have designated the target near WP1. You will probably want to watch it speeded up. Why the following work as they do is inexplicable to me: The LAR appears on the HSI depending only on your heading and not on your position relative to the target. So the only point of this mode seems to be that the LAR is not shown if your aircraft's heading does not match (+ or - some angle) the selected heading irrespective of the aircraft's postiion. I can see no realistic practical advantage to using it instead of SL. gbu-24_clar_pp_01.trk

Thanks for responding. I don't have any such information. I probably should have posted in the main forum and not in bugs; it's just that this mode doesn't seem to offer very much to distinguish it from SL Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but why use PP when you can just fly the bearing you want to the target and then use SL; all it seems to offer is to save the pilot from doing a subtraction (of bearings) in their head. It seems rather implausible that such a mode would be implemented when it offers so little additonal value to SL.

Sorry if this is not a bug, but if it isn't then I'm struggling to see the point of using CLAR PP over CLAR SL. The manual on p. 332 states This suggests to me that in PP CLAR the LAR should appear with larger steering errors. In the attached track I am planning to attack the target at WP1 on a heading of 270, by flying to a point near to WP2 and starting the attack from there. Shouldn't I see the LAR on the HSI well before I am lined up? Otherwise, what is the point? At 6:03 (first screenshot) I have designated the target. Shouldn't I be seeing the LAR at this point? BTW the arrow showing the offset ?steering error? 67 is not explained in the manual. Only at around 6:05 (second screenshot) does the LAR appear. Hopefully I'm explaining myself adequately, and apologies again if it's me misunderstanding. gbu-24_clar_pp.trk

Thanks again for your patience. Reducing the "video brightness", afaik, can't be done at the pixel level on a monitor, so it has to be simulated, to my understanding, by varying RGBA (and line thickness?). I think that the transparency value should probably be higher throughout the range. Also, I notice that the HUD brightness is by default (when a/c starts in flight) at its highest setting, is this reasonable/ representative of real life? Anyway, lowering the brightness solves my problem, but it would be nice to still see the target when the HUD is at a higher brightness setting. Left image HUD brightness at 9 o'clock (pretty much minimum). Right image HUD at max (full cw).

Thank you. Sorry for wasting everyone's time and for my disturbing lack of faith; if it's any consolation, I'm feeling rather stoopid now for not having tried that. When I turn the brightness down I can clearly(ahem) see it is indeed transparent. I will turn down the brightness in future when required. EDIT: Sorry to be a pain, but having thought about it a bit more, I still feel it's not quite right. The transparency goes down and the shade of green gets "brighter" as the HUD brightness is increased, so that it is virtually opaque at the default brightness setting. Would having the transparency not go down so much while the shade of green gets "brighter" be a possibility? I do realise that this suggestion might, technically, be nonsense.

I'm using VR. Sorry if I've got this wrong but I've been wondering about it for ages. I'm not sure this always happens but it seems to me that the symbology on the hud is opaque and it shouldn't be. E.g. when I place the ASL over a target at distance (i.e. a dot) to try and line up my approach, I can't see the target "through" the ASL which means I lose sight of the target.

Great post, thank you.

Thanks. Is the structure/ available variables/ etc of mission files documented anywhere, or have people, such as those who have developed mission generators, just had to work it all out for themselves?

E.g. I have 10 mission files and have made multiple individual image files for each and I wish to add them as briefing images? Is there any way to do this other than manually using the ME? Or change the weather? Or add triggers? Etc.

I very recently upgraded from a 1080ti to a 3080ti. I am still tuning, but currently I am running with these settings. My aim is to run at 72 fps w/o ASW kicking in on moderately simple SP missions (was not possible with 1080ti). I would like to run at 1.3 - 1.5 PD, but I find that I can't hold 72 fps, as I'd like, if I do, so am running at 1.1. I think it appers considerably crisper, esp for small text, in MFDs, etc, and would love to run it this high, but it impacts my performance too much. I am still running with my i7-8700k, and will be upgrading this to something newer soon (prob 13700k), which I hope will squeeze out a bit more performance. I havent tried going higher that 72 Hz, which again would be nice, by will of course impact performance. I'm actually very happy with the upgrade, as I highly value being able to run w/o ASW.

https://developer.oculus.com/blog/asynchronous-spacewarp/?locale=en_GB

Thanks again, many great points there. At the risk of being tedious, did you try my track with the ST exe, and was performance destroyed or noticeably worse? I think this is going over my head. What is meant by CPU latency? Am I understanding correctly that the likelyhood of CPU bottlenecks tanking frame rates in specific situations with very high settings is greatly reduced in MT, but that in situations like my track with lowish settings like mine it will make no noticeable difference to frame rates? I refer you again to the YT video I linked to. That guy has a top end system meeting all of your requirements above and yet sees no difference between the ST and MT versions of the exe. But I take your point on focusing exclusively on the fps number. The ED FAQ states: I can find numerous pancake YT videos demonstrating fps increases varying from 50%-100%, yet am unable to find VR videos showing similar gains. My own view is that the above statement is at worst incorrect, and at best needs to be qualified (as to what exactly they mean by "performance").

Done

Firstly: thank you so much for taking the time to do that. I am unfamiliar with the G2 so I assume that it runs "native" at 90 Hz, and drops to 45 Hz with reproj when the system can't keep up. Reprojection is acceptable for me, up to a point. I can live with it in helos, but the artifacting it introduces in fast jets as maneuvers can be much more violent is a problem. Ideally I would want not reproj, or for it only to kick under very heavy loads. I prefer to drop the eye candy to maintain native if possible. I understand this point is very subjective. Maybe the G2 does reproj better? And throwing FSR into the mix? For me, I was able to maintain 72fps (native) throughtout (i.e. I could not cause a single drop into reproj) with MT. With ST I could induce ocassional drops to reproj if I looked around while flying close to the ground. Unfortunately in MT, I could see visible terrain stuttering when looking out to my left/ right while banking over the island, even though I was running at a constant 72 Hz. I did not see this stuttering with ST. Sorry to be pedantic, but could you unequivocally confirm that you did not experience this? Forgive me, but I am unsure as to what exactly your frame times are telling you. Unless I am misunderstanding things frame time is just the inverse of fps, and has the advantage that comparisons between numbers are in direct proportion. I am old school (or just old) and have been using fps for decades, so have a good "feel" for what they represent in reality, and continue to use fps in comparisons, though I probably should switch. As another poster very reasonably suggests, if the cpu frame time to which you refer is a theoretical max whilst in reality what you are actually seeing is limited by your gpu frametime then I would suggest that it is not all that relevant. I hate to impose on your good nature, but what would be really useful is if you could also run the track ST and MT and see if you notice any differences in fps, especially when looking directly at the ground beneath you when the plane is in a bank. For extra credit it you could fire up msi afterburner and screenshot a graph of what all your cores and gpu %util are doing throughout, this would be very useful information to diagnose why you are seeing fps improvements that others are not. It is only where the aircraft is over the island that the system is under stress, so a pretty poor choice of track from me... sorry. This chap demonstrates a performance increase between an older ST version and the current MT version, but what is interesting is that he states in the comments that he's noticed no difference between the current ST and MT versions in VR. The concerning implication is that he would have seen exactly the same increase if he had compared the new ST version with the old ST version, and one has to be wonder whether any improvements people are noticing in VR are down to other changes and not MT itself. I unfortunately did not run tests with the version before the update, but from memory I'm almost certain that performance was considerably worse. Most (all?) of the other YT videos that I've seen demonstrating large performance increases are in pancake. I don't doubt that you are seeing what you say, and again I'm sorry if any of my remarks came across as snarky - it really isn't my intention, but from all the other evidence I've seen, VR performance improvements appear to be marginal at best. Edit and note: I notice that many posters say things like I got 35 fps before and now I get 50 fps. I can only assume that they are running w/o reprojection, i.e. with unlocked constantly varying fps. I gave up on doing this years ago as I found it too uncomfortable, and always run with reproj, so I only ever see 36/72 fps, which is why I compare cpu / gpu loads at the same fps.

Sorry if you've already mentioned it, I couldn't see it mentioned anywhere, but what VR hardware are you using? If you have some time to kill, I posted a track in the thread I linked to, and I'd be very interested to hear about your experience replaying that track. In particular towards the end where I'm flying low over the terrain. Look out to your side at the ground when I'm flying / banking low over it. Is it smooth without stutter? What sort of fps do you get? Is the frame rate stable? Is there any reprojection going on? Edit: the maps you mention I haven't tried. I don't own Syria, and gave up on Marianas the first time I tried it (although I had a 1080ti at the time - unusable slide show). I've only tested on Caucasus, Persian Gulf, and a bare Supercarrier on missions with very little happening. Perhaps I might see greater improvements with the maps you mention, and with missions with more going on. I did notice that the CPU was doing a lot less on the SC missions, perhaps because there was no terrain nearby.