Maksim Savelev

4096

Есть ли такой роутер, чтоб про него было известно, что у большинства пользователей VD с ним нормально работает?

Что-то не так, это то почему я его долго не использовал, на самом деле все наоборот. Вы спроводрм ethernet шлем подключали? GodLike пресет?

Клянусь, я был самым лютым противником ВД и адвокатом Квест-линк, кто меня знает, тот подтвердит. Я не знаю, как это делает ВД, но по крайней мере по проводу Ethernet по сути это то же дата-канал, как и USB (только через одно место), и кодеке H264+ с битрейтом в 500 он передаёт картинку по чёткости, которая НЕСРАВНИМО ЛУЧШЕ, чем Квест-линк с битрейтом 900 и кодеком Н264. Я это прям только что снова сравнивал.

Disregard my last message))) Попробовал H264+ на битрейте 500 - это просто отвал башки)))! Пошёл стопану видео на Ютуб)

Не могу знать, не тянет. система. 5800Х3D Rtx 4090, не могёт более Так ничего не понял, что поменять)? Роутер нет возможности, вместе с контрактом на съемной квартире такой стоит. Ну он по сути ведь просто коммутирует (соединяет) одно устройство с другим по проводу? Пропускная способность провода Cat 6 1000мб/с вроде? Как можно 2400 получить? Научите? А я думал вся фишка в кодеке Av-1, просто Квест-линк по 264 даёт 900мбит/, что больше, чем 450-500. Где тут подвох, научите)

Глядя на общественность и под воздействием инженеров Мета, которые поломали КвестЛинк для DCS, пересмотрел свои взгляды возможность применения VirtualDesktop. Буду рад, если ещё типсов накидаете

К сожалению "рассинхрон" головы для меня также заметен и критичен, как для вас контроллеры Вот какой еще момент: Кстати, несмотря на то, что удалось победить OpenXRToolkit, откатом на прошлую версию софта Мета и вернуть отсутствие микростаторов с помощью ТурбоРежима, остался еще один неприятный момент, который ускользал от меня пока я летал на поршнях. Начиная с прошлого или теперь уже позапрошлого апдейта DCS, в ВР при перемещении курсора возникают микростатеры, раньше казалось, что это только происходит в разных меню, но включив "сложный" самолет и попытавшись понажимать кнопки курсором мыши обнаружил, что картинка начинает "статорить". Как только курсором прекращаю управлять данный эффект пропадает. Подскажите, есть у кого-то что-то подобное и как при этом у вас запущен ВР в DCS? Мне кажется это видео может немного помочь разобраться:

К сожалению, я считаю этот софт абсолютно бесполезным для задач ВР в DCS. Во-первых, отсутствие работы по проводу, зачем-то преплетение работы через роутер, во-вторых отсутствие прямой жесткой связи между перемещением реальной и виртуальной головы (алгоритмы работы, как у мыши с ускорением), в-третьих, слишком низкий пропускной канал 200мб.с кажется максиму, что просто даёт сильное деградацию картинки. Ну короче - баловство. Моим требованиям не соответствует капитально. Первый и второй пункты, считаю абсолютно неприемлимыми, особенно, как человек использовавший ВР по дисплейпорту с 2017года.

Спасибо! И вот это нечем заменить! ничем больше, никто ничего в этом не понимает, кроме автора OpenXr Toolkit Первое - это просто побочка или следствие, но не суть Второе - полностью не согласен

Супер! Спасибо большое! У меня вот такой вопрос в голове, что делает Турбо режим, который очень сильно спасает от микростатеров, и почему никто не делает ничего подобного внутри симулятора как такового для ВР, просто без него микро-дёргание - это просто конченный момент, разраыв погружения, просто ужасная и недопустимая вещь. Как обычно всем норм, а меня парит неприемлимость подобного. OpenXR Toolkit больше не поддерживается, как потом будем симуляторы летать, когда он окончательно перестанет работать. Как интерсно Pimax Crystal Light этот момент обыгран? Потому как сейчас я не вижу будущего у ВР, так как производители поняли, что массовый пользователь не видит ни проблем оптики ни статров и вообще с отвратительной производительностью летают в MSFS, что просто не примлемо плохо в ВР и можно гнать абсолютную лажу типа Somnium и Pimax Crystal (не Light), Vаrjo Aero и прочее. Почему- то в крайнее время энтузиазм сильно поубавился у меня по итогу всего происходящего...

Приветствую! Нужна ваша помощь) В крайнем апдейте дров для Окулус линка появилась несовмеситмость с запуском DCS с включенным Toolkit. Без Турбо режима летаать не могу - сводят с ума микростатеры при пролете близко с объектами. Знаю, что обычно имеете архив прошлых версий софта и отучалку автообновлений. Можно попросить ссылку на прошлую версию дров Окулуслинка, до сегодняшнего апдейта

Позвольте поинтересоваться. До недавних обновлений F-18 имел определенную эффективность stabilators, которая определяла на какие углы атаки с определенной центровкой и скоростью самолёт был способен выйти при полностью отклоненных рулях. При этом, таким же образом определялось на какие АОА самолёт мог выйти с полностью отклоненным рулями в посадочной конфигурации. После апддейта, при полностью похожих условиях в полётной конфигурации самолёт может выходить на значительно гораздо большие углы атаки, а вот в посадочной конфигурации я не сумел заметить отличий. Ожидается ли соответственное изменение поведение самолёта в посадочной конфигурации? Или раньше просто считали правильно, а нынешняя правильность "возросла в 2 раза" для полётной конфигурации только. Это нормально, что всё в процессе проходит, так сказать, fine tuning, но просто изменения для полётной конфигурации были настолько драматическими, что невольно возник вопрос про посадочную конфигурацию)

Oh and that's really important one and hard for me to explain, but here it is. In first example with FFB and real airplane this difference between your stick big green diamond and "trimmed center position" small green diamond is just a math expression of how much force you need to apply to keep this displacement. And yet again displacement is just a calculated force required. There is no flexibility or physical displacement and that's why your orange diamond (3D stick and stabilator) is always stays align with the big green diamond (your FFB stick). And for the spring joystick they wanted you to have this Physical displacement as a representation of calculated force (math expression) because the only way you can feel a force on spring joystick is by displacing it from the center. And this causes decoupling. I believe I can't explain any better than this, sorry... Everything else, the way how everything moves during and after decoupling or all of the oscillations after joysticks inputs or without it is just a consequences of such modeling.

@FusRoPotatoI don't think that there is a space left for guessing what is exactly happening. They did exactly what I explained in my video in details. Either I'm really bad at explaining complex things or it wasn't interesting to watch. But could be both))! They have modeled the system itself that way that the "force center" or "balanced trim" position represented as a small green diamond moves and works as designed according to schematic. That means if motors of your FFB device are powerful enough your stick will always move with this small green diamond if you're not holding it. just put your aircraft vertically let go of stick and see how the magic happens. All of your force inputs are measured from this start position. When your hold your stick firmly in one place and at the beginning all of the diamonds are align, but due to speed or G changes small green diamond shifts away you will feel the force proportional to this displacement. The same way it will work in a real aircraft, despite the thing that self dampening of the system will be more pronounced. So the only time you can feel force or tension when this small green diamond "balanced" trim position is not aligned with you FFB stick. Problem is, that they left everything to be working exact way but for the non FFB joystick which is unable to move and its physical center always one place. But HB wanted to keep theirs simulation anyway. The only way to do it for non FFB joystick is to give you an authority of the displacement from "balanced" trim position. So simulation of the center is jumping back and forth, based on schematic and you can only make an adjustment on top of it. What brakes the control system completely. Well I've tried my best to explain. Please process it carefully and I believe you will get it easily, because as I've seen from the graphs you're capable to pull out, you're way smarter than me)).

Well, not really. 32 as I understand is a weakest option. With the most powerful motor, slightly different gimbal, and arm of 45cm (length of stick + half length of grip) I’m getting max of about 55 lbs in a pitch channel.

Thank you! That is exactly what we’re trying to say all the time. It should be zero oscillation. The only reason why this aircraft could be a subject of PIO is because it doesn’t have a «variable ratio» between stick and stabilator which along with the aft CGs and thus a high effectiveness of the stabilator makes it hard to precisely control it at a high IAS. Next gen of jets have eliminated this problem by implementing this stick to stabilator variable ratio based on speed. Of course, inertia of bob weights counts but I believe the major part of it will be damped out by the system itself and the rest will handle the pilot. I also believe that damping conditions are underestimated by HB, because even removing a viscous damper later on, to reduce the system resistance and thus increase speed of trimming, couldn’t be felt by pilots. But nevertheless the small one/two time (one/two period) osciillation or fluctuation is expected when position of the stick is changed, because pilot needs to readjust his pulling/pushing strength wile also dealing with the inertia. But it will happen anyway, even you're using a simple spring joystick, you can see it from the latest FusRoPotato's graph. So no need to bother to fake it through the simulation of flight controls. It would be absolutely great if we can get the same opportunity as @FusRoPotatoshowed here, but with possibilities of old fashion trimming. As I’ve showed in my video, the range of required positions of stabilator required for the horizontal flight throughout the whole speed envelope is very narrow and basically ones trimmed you barely need to touch it again, might be just slightly for the comfort purposes when stabilized on speed in landing configuration Don’t get me wrong I’m talking about light spring loaded joystick. Real aircraft you will need to trim, because forces are not the same. But it applies almost for every aircraft

@FusRoPotato Thank you very much for the Great analysis! It's Big, Heavy, and VERY powerful, but the downside of it it's floor based. It can be used with VPC or VKB grips

You should consider FFBeast - that's the best representation of FFB concept)

Its not happening with FFB, I can confirm that

Извините, видео на английском, так получилось, что целевая аудитория этого ролика была англоговорящая. На русском языке темы про Ф-4 нет(. Вот чего я не пойму, так то, что где-то ЕД ведет себя весьма авторитарно, а тут такое поведение джойстиков внутри их движка, от части под их именем:

HB people here, who are “against” your stick to nonFFB joystick linking, are very much educated and completely understand what is going on with the system itself, and glad you’ve got a deep dive into the simulation of it’s proper work. Please try to hear what we keep saying. There is no problem in system simulation! And it works like it should (well almost) but benefits of the simulation are only could be seen on FFB devices or real aircraft. Spring joysticks require adaptation of this simulation to work in proper way. That’s it. Do you understand that simple statement? All of these kind gentlemen here not only bought your module appreciating by this all of your hard work, but spending a lot of their’s time providing you very qualified feedback and support for free.

Just had to make this video

Interestingly enough is that when you connect FFB decoupling is gone, stick is linked to my FFB. What on earth is preventing you to make it for spring joystick. Just fake it, like its FFB connected to the system and thats it. No trim - its not that a big deal, decoupling is a HUGE deal

I was writing it down at the FFB topic, but this topic is more related. So sorry to all of you who will read it twice: To HeatBlur Hello. I'm participating as a test pilot and some kind of expert in the FFBeast project. It all started more than 3.5 years ago, but the devices are only now getting ready to be delivered to the first customers. We made significant progress by understanding the necessity of a wide range of feedback forces required for correct simulation and implementing them into our products. At this moment, some versions can produce about 60 pounds of force, which makes them a perfect fit for use with the Phantom. I have been talking to other people about how important it is to have such devices. Coming from my real-life experience of flying a wide variety of different aircraft, I was able to replicate the feel of controls of most airplanes and helicopters in DCS throughout the project software. For example, when we’re talking about the Mosquito or Spitfire, very little stick movement is required to control the aircraft in the longitudinal axis. That is why the stick has to be very firm and well-loaded from the first millimeters of movement to prevent over-control. But it would be a very different story for the Fokker A-8. The same applies to different types of jets depending on the type of boosting systems they have, Fly-by-wire, or the absence of any boosters. The main idea behind all of this is that through the control stick and pedals, you can feel the “character” of the aircraft you’re flying. Let’s say you’re sliding the tail down in your P-51 after a vertical line; you should be prepared and keep your flight stick firmly; otherwise, it will probably kick you very hard between your legs. So all of this makes people with flight experience believe that they’re flying the real thing, especially in VR, and teaches virtual pilots what to expect from real controls and helps them better understand the regimes they’re getting themselves into. Using FFB is what makes flying “bright and colorful,” and no matter what, you can’t replicate the same with a regular spring-loaded joystick. Sliding the tail down on a regular joystick won’t give you the feel of airflow going in the backward direction. But it doesn’t mean you can fake this by breaking the linkage between a physical joystick and the 3D stick in the cockpit, letting it go all the way to the pilot seat because you will affect the pilot’s decision, will, and control of the aircraft. It might be that he wanted to have the stick all the way forward to make the airplane fall on its back. What you have done by trying to fake FFB feelings on the stick when using a spring joystick is absolutely unacceptable because the pilot doesn’t have any control over this. No matter what, you’re not allowed to interrupt the pilot’s control input in such a way because it doesn’t work right, replicates nothing except your poor judgment, and brings only frustration and poor flight technique, which is already a problem among virtual pilots. I get your point; I read the manual and went through the schematics very precisely, watched a lot of videos to compare stick behavior, and even though I don’t agree with you on how in a very exaggerated way you wanted to simulate stick rebalancing, on FFB I can overcome it by force, but there’s no possible way to fight it on a spring joystick. Please leave this “rebalancing” feature only for FFB users and don’t try to fake it in a very “arcadic” way for people with spring joysticks. They are at a disadvantage already, having all aircraft and helicopters “flat and grey,” it’s already very difficult. The problem is that this mathematical interpretation of “rebalancing central position” is only can be applied for the FFB users and when you’re applying this approach to the regular joystick you’re breaking the linkage between pilot and control stick. Basically It replicate hands off flying. It’s like pilot has introduced some force impulse and let the stick go completely removing his hands from the control and now the system “stick-airplane” oscillates completely freely. It’s not a case in a real flying. Also if Heatblur had enough experience of flying, that “rebalancing” of control center is happening in every warbird as well, even if the elevator or ailerons itself are perfectly balanced by the counter weight. It happens because when you’re maneuvering local AOA on elevator and aileron changes as well which basically moves aerodynamic “center” causing shift of the stick trimmed position. It could be easily seen especially during snap rolls. And yet it does cost zero troubles for pilots myself including to overcome that and doesn’t produce any oscillation after the breaking maneuver. These effects are more pronounced if you’re flying aircraft with elevator which is unbalanced, meaning the stick will fall forward on the ground with no airflow around it. And yet again- is not a problem or inconvenience in any way. Also interesting facts that may affect this “spring weight”oscillation thinking of yours: On the ground in F-4 stick with 3lbs bob weight doesn’t move forward, because of total resistance in the system (weight of elements, friction, stickiness of grease). All of these are the natural damper. Maybe, and this is the most important one: Override spring cartridge is positioned that way, that when it’s pulled by bellows it can move stick back just on very limited angle and then it’s only pulling out the spring emulating aerodynamic loads. Think, how you can get any loads on the control higher than bob weights? In your understanding what will happen when emulated by bellows aerodynamic forces will be higher than the weight of bob weight? Stick will be spring out of the center? You’ve got a reference that during supersonic flight it might required around 60lbs of force to get a 6G turn; let’s say 18lbs or 30lbs (depends on the bob weight) are caused by bob weight, where you’re getting the rest of the load? Exactly it comes from the bellows and it points towards the center. I don’t know, but my guess is the only reason why the spring override cartridge is not perfectly aligned with the pivot point of the bellcrank is to give some space to the spring to be pulled out to compensate the weight of the bob weight. That means when you’re thinking about oscillating weight and spring, you have to be thinking about very limited range of movement, and it will come down almost instantly because of dampening characteristics of the system itself and because the spring cartilage itself has much more of the resistance than inertia of a 3lbs bob weight. Yes 3lbs or 5lbs whichever you have implemented. G factor doesn’t apply here. Think this way: McDonalld wanted to make a feel unit mimicking the airflow loads. They have determined specific max load by the spring resistance which caused, due to wide range of speeds aft CGs and effective stabilator, very light loads at the takeoff and landing speeds and also which is more critical low forces are required to perform high G maneuvering at subsonic region. So they putted bob weight, just to increase these loads for the G maneuvers. That’s it. You have written in your manual It was designed around carefully balanced bob weight and a spring. To be honest, when I read this, I thought you will fail to make it right, because you have emphasized wrong point. Basically I don’t care how did you do all of this “mathematics” because for my FFBeast I can do everything right through the software. But I insist you have to remove this “feature” from using it with the spring joystick.