TomcatFly

I guessed that, thanks for the confirmation. And thank you again for all you great job and support!!

I know and I have all 3. If I'm not wrong, it seems to me to remember that HMD for base and clear water version are slighlty different, any reason for this? I mean, is there a link with between HMD and clear water settings or not? Thanks for the clarification.

Super! Thank you!

So for example: 1) disable the mod with JSGME 2) remove/rename the 3 files from mod folder 3) enable the mod (same one, but with 3 files removed/renamed and maybe proper _HMD.hlsl) 4) fxo and metashadres2 cleaning and DCS restart Could be? Thanks again!

I'm very happy of basic shaders mod!! Anyway, thinking at those 3 files mentioned above, which is the quickest way to enable/disable clear water? For example, renaming the 3 mentioned files, then cleaning fxo and metashaders2... or I need to do the whole process, this being disable the Mod with the Enabler tool, then adding the other shaders mod ("Clear water" one), then enabling the new mod, then editing _HMD.hlsl with same pars I'm keeping now and finally start DCS waiting for whole recompile? Thank you!

At 0.525 I do not see any dark or not rendered edges around in VR...so with my IPD (63.5) it would seem I could try to reduce little bit more, right? No need to empty fxo and metashaders2 in this case, right? Another thing I need to clarify is which masksize is dominant with these shaders mod? One in DCS VR settings or only MASKSIZE in _HMD.hlsl file? Or these are maybe 2 different settings? Thanks again!

Any indication about the ideal "MASKSIZE" in _HMD.hlsl for the Oculus RIft-S ? In last shaders I see 0.525 ... Thank you

I have last OB, I tested all 3 and stick now on base shaders (no clear water) and no problems running all 3. That work great, as always.

..in my case is not twitchy but absolutely over controlled unless I reduce the Y saturation to 50% at least.

Amazing update, congratulations and thank you!!! I followed clear procedures on the website, removing the bindings, the previous V1.3 and adding the new one. No problems at all on restart, but only thing I noticed is that the roll and pith sensibility (including standard Y saturation) are exaggerate compared to previous model more/less all other DCS jets I have. Same thurstmaster A10 Hotas stick and throttle system I always used in the years. Last Open Beta. I had to make Y saturations on pitch and roll down to 50% (never did it so far) and even adding 30% of smooth around the center positions (exponential) of pitch and roll axis. Otherwise I can fly the jet, but the with few mils of movement of the stick it rollsl like hell and also the pitch makes it so twitchy and instable, shaking and buffeting on command application as if the controll surface was really opening too much... Looking with F2 makes clear the fact that with standard 100% stick throws the surfaces moves really a lot indeed. Anyone else noticing/experiencing this? And maybe any suggestion about what I may have missed? Thank you and congratulations againfor the new updated marvelous mod!!!

How much do you feel "clear water" shaders version affects the general performance, comparing to shaders basic version?

Any news/suggestion about the not very visible F-16 HUD green data (and I guess all other jet HUD's)? I've the feeling that with previous shaders all was much more readable, more contrast, brighter green color (of course brightness is at max)..

Confirm! I just noticed same thing as soon as entered the F-16, compared to previous shaders version...

Thank you very much for the clear explanation!

I see there's also a version with Water-fx and IC pass.... I'm not so expert, so what could the practical differences be in having IC red or green in multiplayer? With previous shaders (ones before current version 2.5.6.50321) I could use multiplayer with IC pass red with no problems... for this my doubt. Thank you!

Thank you for the reply. So, about point 2: I've Open Beta 2.5.6. So you mean I should only delete fxo and matashaders and it should be enough for recompiling, right? In any case, as told, if I deactivate and activate the shaders again through JSGME, to load DCS and - even more - when loading a new mission 1st time it can take even 4-5 long mins. While removing fxo e metashaders2 only, it just takes 30 to 40 sec more the 1st time. For this my doubt.... Of course, after one or the other thing, all comes back to normality that is very quick DCS and missions loading with my pc and hw. Thank you!

Hi 3 questions for you experts: I use JSGME for enabling these shaders and it's fine, but I still have few doubts: 1) Every time I decide to edit _HMD.hlsl I cannot save the file directly over itself and only way I find is saving it on desktop and then copying and paste into original position, then overwriting and having the updated version. Is this normal? 2) I've noticed that - even emptying "fxo" and "metashaders" folders, at DCS restart it seems DCS takes little bit more time to load than normal, but I'm not usre it is really compiling everything. For sure fxo and metashaders2 folders will be again filled with necessary file. Instead, if with JSGME I deactivate and activate again the shaders, on DCS restart I have to wait a very much longer time and the same also entering some mission for 1st time again, until all is compiled of course. So, my question is : why longer time in one case and very much much longer time on 2nd case? What's the difference between 2 procedures? 3) Considering point 2, what should I do after I modifiy the _HMD.hlsl file (for example removing the bloom or enabling simple glass canopy etc.) to be sure these modification will be effective? Any need to empty fxo and metashadres2 folders in this case, or just enough to modify and restart DCS? Thank you very much!

Same error, just updated to latest beta.

Ok! So, to go back one day to no-shaders, it will be enough to disable the mod by JGSME and/or do a repair. And to keep going with shaders normally, I could potentially already rename back the dcs.old folders (empty) to dcs, right? Thank you again

In case someone had already renamed the terrain "dcs" dirs (emptying them and for example renaming to "dcs.old"), should we need to rename them back to "dcs" or it's still fine like that, with current shaders? And also, the day I'd like to stop using the shaders, what about these terrains "dcs" folders? Thanks

Fantastico, complimenti vivissimi per l'enorme e pazzesco lavoro, nonchè risultato a cui siete già arrivati col 339 che tanto amo e tanto volo in DCS!❤ E a questo punto rimaniamo tutti estremamente curiosi del prossimo capolavoro a cui state lavorando.... GRAZIE!

Sicuro! Facile non è, ma guarda la meraviglia che hanno realizzato col 339 e sicuro anche col prossimo G91. Se un domani facessero anche il 104, per quanto complesso, sono sicuro che farebbero un capolavoro. Infine - scusandomi perché sto andando off-topic da questo thread - sono anche sicuro che se lo facessero pagare lo comprerebbero non solo una valanga di simmer Italiani ma anche di tutto il pianeta...non ho alcun dubbio a riguardo, stiamo parlando dello Starfighter e di un simulatore DCS che non ha eguali!✈❤ Attendiamo fiduciosi il meraviglioso G91 intanto!!!

...sono quasi certo che il G91 sarà fantastico ed assolutamente reale come lo splendido 339. Non vedo l'ora. P.S. DCS ha anche e da sempre struggente bisogno di un 104 fatto bene, a quel punto sarebbe l'apoteosi (per me????)....chissà se un giorno arriva anche lo spillone✈!!!

Yes of course.

Sure, like you I do exactly the same with P3D and before with FSX of course. After a mission, the track is there and someway available anyway, so for sure data are kept saved someway, somewhere. Now, I do not have the necessary knowledge to really understand the difference between elaborating the track as a whole one after a mission and doing it on a party of that in "sim paused" + "instant replay" situation... Again, I certainly believe that all this is complicate, but I also believe it would make the sim really top!