av8orDave

So to directly answer your original question: - The F-14 can only guide Sparrows at one target at a time, but multiple Sparrows can be fired at that single target. Firing a second Sparrow at a single target won't trash the first missile. - The F-4 can do the same. It was common practice in Vietnam due to the low reliability of many aspects of the Sparrow. Sometimes the motor wouldn't fire, sometimes it would fail to track, etc, so pilots started launching a couple to try to up the likelihood of a successful shot.

Where'd you get the idea that the F-14 can't guide multiple Sparrows to the same target? To the best of my knowledge, nothing prevents this. It just can't guide multiple Sparrows to different targets simultaneously.

Great review! Out of curiosity, what are your system specs?

I'm seeing the same thing, and coincidentally I have very nearly the same system (Ryzen 9 5950X, Vengeance Pro 64GB DDR4, 2TB m.2, RTX 3080). Getting 90 FPS in Persian Gulf, 60 - 70 FPS in Syria. I was getting really consistent framerates in Syria prior to 2.9.

The only meaningful changes I've made in the ODT are turning off ASW and increasing the bitrate to 940. One suggestion: You said you're running textures at high; I'd consider changing this to medium. I really don't see much of a visual difference, and it definitely really hits the framerate in a negative way with the setting on high. Syria and Apache both definitely need improved performance. Syria is about 10 fps lower than the Persian Gulf map for me, and the Apache is probably about 10 fps lower than other modules. Yes, it definitely provides a performance boost. It runs in "fixed" mode since you don't have eye tracking. My understanding (and I am no expert on the topic) is that the Quad View application puts the load for the foveated rendering on the CPU, so if you have a good CPU with some headroom, I think you see a decent result.

Many thanks! Somehow I had no idea that SCS toward the HSI/SA page swapped them. Admittedly, my I am far from a master of the Hornet HOTAS. Too much time with the A-10 and F-16 systems.

Does anyone know if it is possible to get the launch zones for JDAMs, JSOWs, SLAM-ER, etc to show on the SA page? All of this stuff shows up on the HSI page, but not on the SA page. Meanwhile, the SAM threat rings show on the SA page, but not on the HSI. Thanks in advance!

What are the advantages of Virtual Desktop vs Link? I’m willing to try about anything.

I’ve been using a Reverb G2 for the past year after upgrading from a Quest 2 that I really didn’t love. After reading some reviews of the Quest 3, I picked one up yesterday. My system specs are Ryzen 9 5950X, RTX 3080, 64GB DDR4, SSD. I have to say the reviews of the Quest 3 are pretty much on the spot. The lenses provide a basically edge to edge consistent sweet spot, unlike the G2. It’s a big upgrade in this respect. The Quest 3 also seems to provide a much “smoother” experience. I have to admit I was concerned about the amount of fiddling that would be required to get things dialed in, but it was surprisingly minimal. I’m running the headset at 72 mhz, max resolution in the Oculus software. I increased the bitrate to 940 in the Oculus Debug Tool, and run the headset off of the link cable. In DCS, I’m running DLSS, med textures, high terrain textures, med shadows, med view distance, and low clouds. Also, running MBucchia’s Quad View Foveated Rendering provides a major performance boost and a sharper image. Overall I’m very pleased. I’m getting a consistent 72 fps in DCS Liberation with a much larger sweet spot than with the G2 and a silky-smooth experience.

On an HP Reverb G2 driven by an RTX 3080 and Ryzen 9 5950X, I run the Reverb G2 at 150% through OpenXR and DCS pixel density at 1.0.

On the contrary, I don't notice any stuttering with the FPS fluctuating between 60 - 80 fps; maybe there is an occasional hiccup, but pretty rare. Interesting. I haven't tried 60mhz in a very long time as it drove me nuts the only time I tried it. Maybe I'll give it a shot and see if things have changed.

To follow-up, it shows my VRAM at 7.0GB of 9.3.

Nope. It is compatible with OpenXR Toolkit, but it isn't required to use it. You just download the quad view program, install it, and launch DCS.

I haven't tried the F-14 since the 2.9 update. I've flown the F-16C and F-15E extensively, and the AH-64 and Mi-24 a bit. No issues with MFDs in any of those modules. I really think the trick to getting acceptable quality with DLSS turned on is to increase the resolution of the headset (I'm running my G2 at 150%) and to turn sharpening all the way up.

The Quadview program works in Fixed Foveated mode on the standard G2. It provides a significant performance boost compared to the foveated in the OpenXR Toolkit. Yes, I have the basic RTX 3080. No idea what my VRAM usage is, but I'll have a look this evening and report back. I run medium textures as well. If I run high textures, it bogs things down quite a bit, but I haven't noticed any issues with running high terrain textures. I can't comment on multiplayer, as it really doesn't interest me, but I believe Liberation and Retribution are similar environments in terms of scale / complexity, and I use those programs all the time.

With the introduction of 2.9 there has been a ton of commentary and debate about what settings provide the best results. I've played about 45 min / day since the launch, mainly tweaking settings, and below is what I've landed on with good results. System: Ryzen 5950X, RTX 3080, 64GB DDR4, SSD, Reverb G2 DCS Settings: - Textures medium - Terrain textures high - Cockpit displays 1024 every frame - DLSS with DLAA - Sharpening full right, set at 1.0 - Shadows high - Terrain shadows default - Clouds low - Visibility medium - Everything else off - Forest visibility 100% - Forest detail 1.0 - LOD 0.5 - Anisotropic 2x - DCS VR PD 1.0 Reverb G2 settings: - Resolution 150% - Motion reprojection off I'm also using MBucchia's Quad View foveated rendering. I've disabled OpenXR Toolkit. On DCS Liberation Missions in Syria with a moderate unit count, I'm seeing anywhere from 60 fps to 80 fps with really solid visuals. The Quad View foveated rendering provides a nice performance boost and I can hardly tell it is on. The combination of 150% resolution on the G2 and sharpening set to 1.0 in DCS takes most of the "fuzziness" and smearing out of the DLSS implementation, while still delivering the performance boost from DLSS. Overall I think I'm pretty happy with the results and can now focus on flying.

I am now using quad view with a Reverb G2. I've also used the OpenXR Toolkit FFR in the past. In my opinion, there's no comparison. Quad View is the winner. It provides a significant bump and you can hardly tell the difference in quality.

Anyone have any idea why the F-16 is the only aircraft in the game that requires the AGM-65 to be boresighted? It has to be the most annoying feature of the F-16. I understand the argument for realism… so why don’t the other ED-produced modules require it?

Just wanted to pop in and congratulate the campaign builder on a really well-done product. I'm really enjoying this one. Weaseling is one of the coolest roles in military aviation, and this campaign translates the job in a fun, engaging, exciting way. I've really liked each of the six missions I've done so far. Mission 6, Metro Indigo, is one of the best missions I've played in DCS. Overall, great work. This one is fun the first time through and I can even see myself replaying it a time or two.

Nope, no issues whatsoever with MFD's. When I have it set to use DLAA, the MFDs look as good as they ever have, probably better. If I use DLSS, I definitely lose some fidelity, but not much, really.

Well, I had a chance to play 2.9 last night for maybe 30 minutes. Overall I'm very impressed and think it's one of the better updates to DCS. System: Ryzen 5950x, GTX 3080, 64GB DDR4, HP Reverb G2 I play in VR and tried both the DLAA option (no DLSS) and using DLSS. - DLAA seems to provide better visuals with no shimmering or jagged edges, actually considerably better than MSAA x2. - DLSS seems to provide about 20 fps better performance, and "acceptable" visuals. There is definitely less visual clarity, particularly on MFDs in the cockpit. Whether or not the performance boost is worth the slightly worse visuals is probably a matter of opinion. I think I prefer DLAA alone rather than using the DLSS upscaling. - I tried both the F-14 and F-15E. I've historically gotten similar framerates in both modules. I flew a couple missions in DCS Retribution on the Syria map, as well as a couple of single missions in Nevada. I have usually averaged about 70 fps with textures on medium, terrain textures high, visibility high, 1024 every frame for cockpit displays, shadows on high, and clouds on low. - I am definitely getting lower framerates with both DLSS or DLAA, but surprisingly, both yield a significantly better experience than the higher framerates I had previously. Whereas the 70 fps I used to get was kind of choppy, with shimmering, textured clouds, the 55 fps I'm getting now seems silky-smooth and with much improved visuals. Overall I'm very pleased. I'm probably also in the minority in that I like the new spotting feature... while the big black dot isn't ideal, I think it's nice to at least be able to spot other aircraft from a distance. Nice job to the team at ED. I'm looking forward to spending some more time dialing things in.

Since the F-15E launched, I’ve been using a JDAM mod to carry GBU-38’s and -31’s, dropping in direct mode within about 7 miles after designating the target with the radar or TPOD. As of 2.9, I can’t seem to find a way to make them work. Are we dead in the water with JDAMs until they’re officially implemented now?

Mind if I ask what settings you are using? Might save some time with dialing in the right recipe. Thanks!

With today's newsletter indicating the DLSS isn't too far off in the distance, does anyone have any insight into what (If anything) DLSS will mean for VR in DCS? Just curious.

It's hard to say what a peer / near-peer conflict would look like for the US, but my guess is that you're point that the F-15E is at its best as a bomb truck isn't that far off from reality. As others have mentioned, and I'm sure additional perspectives will come, the only pieces you're missing are the following: - The most dangerous surface-to-air defenses in a modern conflict would likely be cleaned-up by cruise missiles and hypersonic missiles. This would be one of the first tasks, along with hitting command/control centers. - Remaining surface-to-air defenses would be handled by stealth or stealthy aircraft like the F-35 and F-16, supported by advanced electronic warfare platforms. - Air bases would likely come next, along with shelters housing enemy aircraft. At this point the air defenses would be largely sanitized outside of AAA and shorter range SAMs, and it may even look like prior conflicts. This is where more traditional 4th gen aircraft would come into play, like the F-15E, F-16C, F/A-18E/F, etc. - Any support from enemy air forces would likely be laughable due to a number of factors: first, aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 possess capabilities that are simply unmatched by other systems. Second, they are rigorously maintained, and the maintenance of the aircraft is well supported both financially and through the training of the maintainers. Third, the supply chain to keep the aircraft functioning is well designed, supported, and executed. Last, and maybe most importantly, the pilots of the USAF, Navy, and Marines actually fly their aircraft on a regular basis and train for combat. All of the above to say I'd suggest the F-15E fleet would likely continue to be used as a precision bomb truck, and would be quite effective in the role when supported by other assets.