av8orDave

While I agree with you, you may be missing that two things can be true at the same time. I can, and do, do a million other things, breathe fresh air, indulge in other hobbies, go to work, enjoy my family, AND take the 30 seconds required to pretend to understand the complexities and have meltdown over a video game.

I agree with the OP. I fly in VR and I have the HMD set to render in only the right eye. Having said that, the targeting cross is rendered to the left-side of the lens, meaning you need to look out the side of your left eye to align it to your target. Doesn't seem quite right.

I'm enjoying the book. Thanks for the recommendation!

I'm still getting crashes, for what it is worth. Flew a mission in the PG map. Fired up the TPOD, selected LMAV, armed the laser, then used WPNDESG on the HSI to slew to the waypoint. As soon as I clicked WPNDESG, I got a crash to desktop. Annoying. Edit: I was dumb enough to try again. This time I didn't arm the TPOD laser until after I slewed the TPOD to the target using the "WPNDESG" button on the HSI, since that is where it crashed before. The TPOD slewed to the target successfully. I sweetened the TPOD lock with the TDC, redesignated, then clicked the switch to arm the laser... and as soon as I did, it crashed to desktop. Whatever the "fix" was in the hotfix didn't "fix" the problem.

Sorry to be blunt, kind of frustrating. The only real selling point of the new launcher as best I can tell is that it is a quality of life improvement for VR users (I am one), but it is mega-frustrating to have to disable easy comms every time you boot the game. I had hoped based on the numerous bug reports about this that it would be fixed for the hotfix... apparently unfixed, however.

Well said. I agree.

I know you said that landing on the carrier is a separate issue, but i'm gonna drag the conversation there anyway. Both aircraft are easy to fly, and both have relatively easy systems to manage. The F/A-18 has more weapon types in it's arsenal, so there is a bit more to learn. The F-16 has the HARM Targeting Sensor, which is one unique system, but really both aircraft are pretty straightforward / easy to learn. The difference between these two aircraft is that one is carrier-capable, the other is not. Learning to launch & recover is really very gratifying. Mastering a proper CASE 1 and CASE 3 approach is basically a whole world in itself, so whether you want to do this probably ought to dictate which one is the appropriate module to try to learn.

Now, this is thinking in four dimensions. Why did I never think of this?

I agree. Nothing is more immersion-breaking than moving your arm and seeing one visualized on the screen remain static. Or looking down at your legs, which are occupying the wrong position in space compared to your real legs. Yuck.

For those of you who fly with the pilot body visible in VR, how do you use the stuff on the side panels or anything obscured by the pilot body? Do you have the “hide” key mapped to your HOTAS?

Cool idea, I second it. Might be cool to include modules I don’t own as well, to inspire future purchases.

Perfect! Thank you for the response. Count me in for early access.

I was wondering if it was just me. Seems like a "fix" would entail the radar working without me messing with my system date (and then correcting whatever havoc that might create).

A few things here: First, ED called it "force trim" themselves, so if anyone is creating confusion, it might be ED? Exact verbiage from the newsletter was: "After Early Access Launch Features DAFCS trim system and force trim." Second, a few people have requested clarity on what trim function exactly will be included in Early Access, but no moderator or official source has responded yet. Doesn't exactly instill confidence.

Thanks for the response. For those of us considering pre-purchase, can you elaborate on what “basic trim” entails and whether force trim in the traditional sense is what will actually be missing at initial release?

I agree. Maybe there is something I'm missing, but if they truly mean that force trim won't be available upon early-access release, I'll be holding off until it is available. Seems like a very weird feature to leave out of any type of release. The early-access feature list overall looks a bit too "bare bones" for my taste, which is a shame because I'll definitely buy the Chinook eventually, and I've yet to not purchase a DCS module on day one.

Every now and then I play around with my VR settings just to see what has changed. A few things I figured I'd pass along: System specs: Ryzen 9 7950X, RTX 4090, 64GB DDR, Quest 3 - I've been using: - Oculus set to 72hz, 1.3 in the Quest/Meta app. DCS in-game PD set to 1.3; DLSS Quality; Textures set to high, terrain textures high, shadows medium, water medium - With the recent update of the Quest/Meta app to v66, I decided to try ASW again. Note that I've always hated motion smoothing. - Using 90hz, 1.5 in the Quest/Meta app, PD 1.3 in the Oculus debug tool, and ASW forced on (45 fps), DLAA rather than DLSS, and all settings to "high", I'm getting a crazy-smooth experience with minimal ghosting. I think this will be my new go-to setting. I think Meta must have tweaked something with ASW, because it suddenly works surprisingly well on my system with very few visual artifacts/issues.

Maybe we can get some clarification from @BIGNEWY? The specific verbiage in the newsletter is that the after-early access release features include "DAFCS trim system and force trim." I agree that without force trim, a helicopter is almost useless.

Today's newsletter seems to indicate that force trim is an after-early-access-launch feature. Is this accurate? Seems like kind of a major thing to not have working at launch.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that the Razbam modules are some of the best for DCS. The Harrier, Mirage, and even the F-15E have been really enjoyable. It is definitely an old and successful partnership between ED and Razbam. Where I'd slightly disagree is on the "pissing competition" point. I have no inside knowledge, and I may be very, very wrong, but the situation does resemble a couple of situations I have seen unfold personally in my own business experience. It appears to me that one CEO took probably a calculated risk to sell a product in a fashion that had been explicitly prohibited by the agreement between the two companies, but figured the enormity of challenging the sale and magnitude of unwinding things he believed would enable them to "get away with it" anyway. ED probably saw the breach as too much to simply watch happen, probably because of the IP protection implications, and here we are. I've seen these types of things go both ways, and I wouldn't venture a guess as to the outcome, given that we really have no knowledge of the details of the agreement, the alleged infractions by both sides, and what either side sees as an equitable settlement. Only time will tell.

The ED side of the argument I referenced is almost verbatim. Look it up. Razbam, for what it is worth, referenced stopping work because of “circumstances completely beyond our control.” Again, look it up. What makes you believe ED has “imposed new terms over an existing agreement”? That’s an honest question; maybe I’ve missed something.

Any idea how long discovery takes? How about depositions, not to mention the preparation that takes place for depositions? Are experts required to sort out any sort of accounting for a settlement offer or for trial?… and on and on and on… “Fairly easy to figure out” is not often a thing once it enters the legal realm.

I for one have finally reached the point of agitation with good ol' Razbam. Looking back, I've purchased three of their modules (Harrier, Mirage 2000, F-15E) and have been very pleased with the quality of modeling and their support of the modules. Overall, I've considered them to be a top-tier developer for DCS. Then all of a sudden they are no longer supporting their modules. I learn there are two sides to the story. I've been around the block in the business world a bit, and can imagine the contractual and business issues that have spun this situation up, but with the breaking of the radar, I guess I'm seeing things differently today. Here are the two stories that have been thrown out there: 1) Razbam says that for some unknown reason, ED wakes up one day and decides to no longer pay one of their most productive and top tier developers. Razbam asserts that it is a total mystery to them why this happened, but basically that ED is awful. 2) ED asserts something to the effect of "Razbam breached contractual obligations regarding legally protected IP rights" and that they are seeking a commercial outcome rather than legal. Which of these stories seems more realistic and likely, honestly? The "we don't know why but they stopped paying and we've done nothing wrong" story or the idea that ED has a good reason to withhold payment story? Overall it irks me to no end and I think Razbam should be very concerned about the damage to their reputation. I won't be buying any more of their products for any simulator until the situation is fully resolved and DCS development is back on track.

I'm personally glad there is no voiceover, and it would maybe be great if it were an option in settings. I like the walk-through style of training missions, but hate the snail's-pace with which most training mission voiceovers proceed. It's kind of nice to be able to read at your own pace, acknowledge when you're ready to move on, and keep things progressing.

So what am I missing… Sometime after the last Oculus update, it seems like it became impossible to disable ASW while using Quest Link. Whether I try to disable it in Oculus Debug Tool or using Ctrl-Num1 in-game, as soon as the framerate gets stressed my 72 fps immediately turns to 36 fps and the ASW artifacting becomes apparent. In anyone else seeing this? Am I missing something?