av8orDave

I love the thread title. In my experience, "Hunting for the stutter-free VR experience" in DCS is akin to hunting for bigfoot. Sure, you might be able to find some evidence that it exists, but it is scant, poorly documented, sometimes appears doctored, and the overwhelming majority of evidence would incline one to believe it is a myth.

Am I the only one who has a ton of trouble seeing where the landing area markings are on the supercarrier in VR? When I roll into the groove (or attempt to), it is very difficult to judge the initial lineup because the deck markings are almost invisible. Anyone else have this issue?

Thanks for checking. I don't have any mods running and I haven't edited the mission. I'll have a look this evening and make a track file if it is messed up.

In the runway start Afghanistan instant action mission, as soon as you spawn into the CH-47, the AI CH-47 on the runway behind you immediately taxis into the back of your aircraft. Not great. Just a heads-up.

Very cool. I think this has been one of the best module launches in my years of playing DCS. Nice work to all at Polychop.

Only thing I will add is that for hardened targets, for example the DCS Ammo Dumps, you'll need either the GBU-24 with delayed fusing or the GBU-31(v)3/b. Now, whether the delayed fusing on the GBU-24 or the tail fusing on the GBU-31(v)3/b is working properly on a given DCS build is an entirely different story.

Are you asking how to configure a network for Virtual Desktop or just how to fire up DCS using the program? If the former, I leave the answer to someone else. If the latter, see below. Step 1: Open the Virtual Desktop Streamer App Step 2: Select the codec and various other options you'd like to use on the Streamer App Step 3: Power on the Quest 3 Step 4: Select the Virtual Desktop icon on the Quest toolbar Step 5: Right click on the Virtual Desktop icon in the Windows tray (it looks like a green monitor icon) and select "Run Program" Step 6: Select the DCS shortcut Notes: - Steam VR doesn't need to be open or active, as a matter of fact it shouldn't be open or active. - Quest should not be attached to the computer via the link cable. - There are a number of settings to play with in Virtual Desktop. Youtube is full of tutorials.

The NVGs seem positioned a bit too high for me as well (Quest 3). Not sure if they are 20 - 30 degrees too high, but I definitely have to tilt my head down and look up to see out of them. It would be a great option to be able to adjust where the NVGs sit vertically.

I’m having the same issue. The D-model Mavs don’t want to lock against a sandy background. Not sure if a bug or “working as intended” but very annoying.

I'm all for "easy" options that make the game enjoyable for new players. It is an eye-roller for me when people use arguments like "if you spent half the time..." and "it is DCS not War Thunder..." in threads like this. If you don't want to use an option, don't use it. It shouldn't be offensive or "toxic" if someone else requests those options. While it remains that DCS is focused on "realism", we're talking about sitting in your living room "flying" a jet. You don't have to pass the physical standards, education standards, or years of training to do so. Ultimately, even DCS isn't very "realistic", so what's the harm in someone else wanting an option for easy refueling?

Ok, just for fun and to nerd out a bit, I'll take the bait... - While an interesting concept and a nice homage to everyone's favorite plane, the F-14, a swing-wing F-22 would be completely unnecessary because... - One function of the swing-wing design was to reduce the approach speed for a safer, easier landing on the carrier. Given modern advances in avionics and flight control systems, this is unnecessary. The F-35C, for example, can almost completely land itself on the boat and relies on the pilot to a far lesser extent than the legacy fleet. Next-gen manned carrier aircraft will likely land themselves much of the time (incoming eyeroll from Navy pilots). - Stealth: A piece of the swing-wing design was to improve low-speed maneuverability while maintaining the ability of high-speed flight. Again, if next-gen carrier based fighters find themselves in a close-in dogfight, something has gone wrong much earlier in the battle. Likewise, speed is de-prioritized in the interest of stealthiness, better sensors (and sensor fusion), and better weapons systems. - It would be unnecessary because it will likely be unnecessary; the F-35 will be the core of the carrier fleet for quite some time, and will in all likelihood be augmented by unmanned aircraft. Many reports of how the F-35 is operated go something like this: - The pilot takes off, engages the autopilot, and focuses on a nearly perfect picture of the battlespace based on a networked view provided by a number of sensors (many report that it is a better picture than a modern AWACS has). The pilot then leverages the stealth capability of the aircraft to sneak in on the target and employ weapons without the enemy ever knowing they were there. Upon return to the ship, the autopilot lands the plane while the pilot monitors the systems. No swing-wings necessary!

You're running a top of the line system that most playing the game don't have. Additionally, you don't appear to be running VR. Throw VR into the equation and your tune will probably change, even with your system. Again, I run a Ryzen 9 7950X, 4090, and 64 DDR5, and DCS in VR with any reasonable number of units can bring my system to a crawl. Running on a monitor, few if any issues whatsoever. I've posted my specs, logs, etc ad-nauseum over the years. I actually don't believe they are that helpful, to be honest.

Here’s the simple answer: if you spawn into even just a scenario that will make the mission look “real”, it’ll be a stuttery mess. If using VR especially, you basically have to spawn into an empty, lifeless airfield or your framerates will be jumping all around. We’re talking basically ANY aircraft on the airfield. And it won’t matter what your graphics settings are. I have all the headroom in the world, but if I spawn onto Kandahar with the AH-64 or CH-47 and there are any other planes or choppers present, it’ll stutter. It is entirely unrelated to settings and entirely about CPU usage.

And how would a campaign creator do that? They design the campaign to run in the environment it currently operates in, I assume. Should they dial the demands of their campaigns back to accommodate some future yet-to-be-determined performance-impacting change coming down the pipeline in some future update? What is your solution here? I've run similar VR settings for a while. As the game changes, I should dial the settings back? That, or should ED optimize their code to accommodate their planned changes? While the campaigns may be designed around 2D, which I don't know to be factual but is your assumption, the campaign in question ran fine prior to the last update, so what does how it was designed have to do with anything? Seems like a stretch, sir.

I know it has already been said, but I also think you're missing the point. Retribution ran just fine prior to the last update. Additionally, it isn't just Retribution that is currently screwed up, it is paid campaigns that have taken a performance hit. Set Retribution aside for a moment; Prior to the last couple updates, I could run the paid First in Weasels Over Syria campaign with no issues with more than acceptable framerates. Now, it is a stuttery mess. I run a Ryzen 9 7950X, RTX 4090, 64GB DDR5, and a Quest 3; my system shouldn't be the issue here.

I kept it. It is as functional as most planes in DCS. If it breaks at some point, I've probably already got my money's worth. It has made me rethink early-access purchases (again). You really do have to buy as if all you're getting is what is completed at the moment you buy. It is indeed a small, niche hobby where developers or the game itself could go belly up or change the program at any moment.

That was my first thought as well. What a beautiful country. Really kind of sad that it has been war-torn for such a long time. To the OP, great photos! Thank you for sharing!

Yeah, I’m aware and agree with your points from a general sense. Heck, you even just restated my first point (which by the way is an “official” recommendation from the ED team, so yes, the program should do that automatically). But the point is… it is no longer an “open beta” branch. The game ran fine enough til the last update, and then bang, were trying to troubleshoot so that paid campaigns are playable. Ugh.

This is the correct ranking. Only thing I'd maybe debate a bit is whether avionics accuracy & completeness should be rated ahead of or behind physics in ordinary flight regimes. They're close. Let me explain. DCS and most of the third party developers often cite lack of available information for a specific aircraft avionics system as a reason they don't model the aircraft. There are aircraft that I have a specific interest in, both due to the airframe and the mission profile, where I could live with "best guesses" or "compromises" if the avionics are maybe 95% accurate. It is a game, after all. I'm not suggesting DCS turn into War Thunder or the such, just that the quest for 100% accuracy where 97% accuracy might suffice might stand in the way of progress.

It's a real bummer, indeed. All the tweaking and tuning wears you out. Stuff like "delete your FXO and Metashaders" after each update (which I think is a "wive's tale" anyway)... if it is that important, why doesn't the program do it itself during the update process? "Upload a trackfile" and "submit your dcs log"... for crying out loud, my computer is a top-end system, what the heck? The game ran almost fine until the last update. The only thing that changed was the software itself. "Turn on vsync", "Turn off vsync", "Turn down the shadows setting", "turn textures to medium", "turn terrain textures to low", "reduce your PD", "Have you looked into core parking?"... It's exhausting. It really makes you question your own sanity.

Yeah this didn’t do anything.

Anyone using VR noticing that just loading the textures in the CH-47 takes like 30 seconds or more in some cases? Once you drop into the cockpit, you have to sit and wait for an extended period of time while textures load. I don't seem to have nearly as long a wait in other modules. Something seems amiss.

Well, just wanted to report for anyone with an AMD processor that is FPS-challenged, the reports of the increase in FPS for Ryzen processors with the Windows 11 24H2 preview build seem to be accurate at least in my case. I updated this evening and the performance increase in indeed noticeable, although I think ED still has quite a bit of work to do to make the game perform as it should. The preview build is not a "beta" or anything like that for those wondering... it is more like an "imminent release" candidate.

In VR, the CH-47F cockpit textures sometimes take a full minute to load. No joke. You'll drop into the plane, sit there before clicking "fly", and watch while the textures crawl in. It is crazy. How someone equates that to a portion of the Sinai map being deleted is a mystery to me. Just to put it into a different context, I'm a long-time, avid user, and I had no idea there was a Sinai "outcry" over the deletion, but was well-aware of the outcry over the performance issues. Hey, to each their own.

Thanks @Glide, I'll give your mission a try, both to gauge performance and for some fun.