av8orDave

Is this fixed? Will It be fixed?

This. Somehow it seems many seem to conflate "they are smaller" with "they should be paid no matter what." If there was a breach of contract, size likely doesn't mean anything. For those who are about to chime in asking "how do you know Razbam breached contract?", save your breath. You could just as easily ask how you know they didn't.

Man, performance on this one is bad. I have a 4090, 7950x, 64G DDR5, and VR in the Chinook is still nearly pointless. I see they were working on it in September. Still working on it?

When you say “optimizing windows 11”, to what are you referring? Genuinely don’t know if my Win 11 is optimized or not.

I just flew the 47 for the first time in a bit. If the CD REL trim command is working, I can’t tell. It seems to have no effect. Very annoying.

Really nice job on the tribute! I'm a grown man, private pilot, real-life aircraft owner, and DCS enthusiast, and I owe much of it to the inspiration from Top Gun. Val Kilmer was a legend, and is gone far too soon.

Just as a quick note, in your example you say that 90 knots equates to roughly less than 80 mph... you have that backwards. 90 knots is roughly 104 mph, and 80 mph is roughly 70 knots.

I once struggled with this... make sure you don't have your weapons-mode switch either aft or forward. If you are cueing a sidewinder or amraam with your control assignments, you won't be able to change master modes. Not a bug, but as intended.

This. SteamVR is a dealbreaker for me.

I had the same issue tonight. Will this be fixed or no?

Giving this the monthly bump...

Yeah, great… however @NineLinesaid he was looking in to this. Curious what he found…

Correct, looks like you’re getting it figured out. Unfortunately the settings in Oculus Debug Tool are not “sticky”, i.e. you’ll have to enter them each session. For the bitrate, you can run up to 960. If you want to try this, you have to type “960” into an app like notepad, copy the 960, and paste it in. It is a workaround. The Debug Tool won’t let you type a number that high directly in, but will let you copy it. I do run 960, although any benefit over 500 is pretty negligible, if perceptible at all.

I’m not worthy of being hired, but I have basically your system and I’m glad to share my settings. I have a Q3, a 7950X, a 4090, and 64G of DDR5. I generally use the link cable, but sometimes I use Virtual Desktop. More on that in a minute. When using the link cable: - fire up the Meta app o your desktop and make sure the Q3 PD is set to 1.0 and 72hz. - fire up Oculus Debug Tool; set PD to 1.8, turn off ASW (disabled), set bitrate to 500. - in DCS, use DLSS quality, high textures and high terrain textures, medium water, high visibility distance, medium shadows, medium clouds, and play with the other settings to your liking. See how it looks, monitor and adjust. If you want a much simpler experience, you’ll need a dedicated router, download the Virtual Desktop streamer app, and Virtual Desktop. With your rig, you can then pick the H264 codec, run it at about 300 bitrate, set it at “godlike”, and enjoy. Hope it helps. If you have questions, I’m glad to answer.

This is very accurate. The Pimax Reddit channel looks like a quality assurance forum. It’s basically just a page of people complaining that their Pimax headsets don’t work, have bad lenses, or generally suck. Understand that I say this as someone REALLY WANTING the Pimax product to be the answer to PCVR for flight sims. It would be incredible to have a high quality, high performance, display-port-driven option for PCVR, but the Pimax falls well short.

I know I probably sound like a broken record, but I’d advise against Pimax if you have experience with a Quest. I got very used to a huge sweet spot with the Quest, and very little (if any) chromatic aberration. I’ve also found all of the Quest models to be comfortable and generally work with my head shape and size. The Pimax, on the other hand, is plagued by quality issues (many receive multiple sets of lenses before getting any that are satisfactory), is very, very uncomfortable, and has a tiny sweet spot with a ton of chromatic aberration. Just one person’s opinion. I honestly don’t believe the is any comparison.

This sounds like the info I needed. Thank you!

I’ve used both the “Quality” and “standard” settings for sharpening in oculus debug tool, as well as “default”. All of the options result in a better image than with VD right now. That didn’t used to be the case.

I was flying an air assault mission in Retribution yesterday evening on the Afghanistan map. As I was landing, I was getting all shot-up by the DShKa’s in the landing area while my door gunners stood there like slack-jawed mouth breathers doing nothing. Is there anything you have to do to get them to fire back? A command, a menu option, anything to make them useful?

Does the PCL have the same chromatic aberration as the original Crystal? I found that intolerable and preferred the Q3. Also, is the sweet spot any bigger than on the original Crystal? Does it still feel like you’re wearing a medievel torture device?

I really want VD to provide better visuals and performance than the link cable and Meta software, but for me it currently doesn’t. I am on a dedicated 6e router, 4090, Ryzen 9 7950X, 64G DDR5. Ive tried every codec, and everything from maxing bitrate, to half the max, to auto adjust. Even at Godlike, and with a slight PD increase in the DCS options (1.3), it is a bit “blurrier” than the link cable is right now. Additionally, the link cable currently provides a silky-smooth experience at a PD in oculus debug tool of 2.0, while VD has a slight “micro-stutter” or “judder” much of the time. I’m using the latest Nvidia drivers, which I think the VD team discourages, but it is what it is. I’m not running obsolete drivers for one game and one piece of VR software. It is a bummer because VD once outperformed link by a long shot, but that isn’t where things stand right now, at least in my experience.

While it would be easy to assume they're done with RZ, I was once leading a business that got into a contract dispute with a customer. They didn't hold up their end of the deal, so we stopped holding up ours. After about 18 months of lawyers, we reached an agreement that neither side liked, but continued to work together, as we needed each other. Granted, these were both very large, fortune 200 businesses, so egos were possibly less of a limiting factor than just doing what made business sense. All that to say while it seems like they'd be done with one another, if working together makes sense, it makes sense.

Of course not. I also think it's a real shame they haven't been compensated. Having said that, and as has been rehashed over and over again in this thread, we don't know the full picture, and my own personal opinion is that it is unlikely that ED just woke up one morning and said "let's not pay Razbam." I continue to be surprised that so many seem willing to think that is what happened, or at least are willing to discount topics like IP protection when considering the whole conversation. That aside, learning that developers (contractors?) working for the third party built "time bombs" into the software in the event they don't get paid is a really bad look, and at least somewhat telling, either about the industry as a whole or the company they work for on it's own. At best, learning this serves to break a consumer's trust.

It's a shame, really. For a long time I was unsure of the quality of their products (not only for DCS but other sims in that conversation as well), but they arrived at a really good spot with the Harrier, M2000C, and F-15E. With the way this whole thing has gone, I'd be very hesitant to buy anything from them in the future, especially as a result of how they've communicated during this, the whole "radar time bomb" thing that one of their devs built in, etc (I was already hesitant having lived the history of their company already but it seemed like they had changed).

Sure, you are absolutely right. Having said that, there's only one way to read or interpret “all that is canned, so don’t hype please, not going to happen” when the CEO of the company in question is referring to new module development, and there's only one way to read or interpret "absolutely everyone is looking to keep these modules alive and kicking" when referring to existing modules, so I don't think anyone is reading in to anything. Now, as I said in my prior post, the real problem and a real complication is that one party in the dispute pops off with comments like the above through non-official channels on a pretty regular basis since the beginning of the dispute being public, which is not only a bad look for their side of the dispute, but in my experience can tell you a bit about how a company is run/managed. Just my thoughts. Thanks for leaving the conversation open for discussion! I know it has to be a headache to moderate.