Damocles

I seem to find lightly dancing on the rudders, as "Chief Instructor" said, like they're hot coals, regardless of whether I need them or not, tapping them back and forth and then as speed picks up and noticeable swing kicks in I give a little extra touch on the opproriate pedal. If I wait until I notice the aircraft yawing it's often as not too late. It's probably not strictly correct but seems to help me at least.

Yes, me thinks that the damage model still needs a little work. 1) Unattached tail sitting on ground but also still on aircraft. 2) Wing and corresponding gear wheel unattached (AI) but aircraft otherwise sits on ground as if still there.

Ok so I'm starting to get a hang of the nose coming up on take off or a bouncy landing, I'm not sure why I don't stall out, crash and burn more as a result though. Having a better handle of what I'm doing I still find it odd though that during take off I can find myself flaring up , 200-300 feet, before I know it. Even given, what appears, to be a very short take off roll I find that the aircraft, if not restrained, will positively shoot/flare up with little encouragement. I find it disconcerting to be at two-three hundred feet above the runway in such a short space of time.

Yes, why doesn't the grounded wing tip pull the aircraft back around in that direction. I appreciate grounding a wing tip isn't good practice but I would have thought it would, if not neccesarily making things a whole lot better, at the very least go some way to counteracting the opposite loop, especially at slower speeds.

109's ? Could have sworn they were 190's. The biggest problem I have is trying to keep tabs on the enemy on my tail (VR) while I deal with his mate, before he shoots down my wingman. The 190's seem to positively beg to be shot down. The biggest concerns are the aforementioned check six (in VR) not burning out the motor (high rpm/low airspeed) and not blacking out from overzealous yanking (but maybe that is a private issue that has nothing to do with flight sims forums) My only thought about your predicament might be that you should maybe try not to turn directly into your opponent so much, but instead plan ahead and arrange to meet him somewhere more convenient, at a later date. Find out where he's going and then cut him off at the pass, don't just try to put your nose on him, even if it takes a little longer.

When a wing tip hits the ground (often) why doesn't it drag my aircraft back around the opposite way to my ground loop ? I' m not suggesting it's any more desirable, I'm just curious.

Or, given the time of year " Lords a leaping" or for those of a certain country and a certain vintage " Get down Shep". :lol: The nose of the Spit, if not the Spit exclusively, seems, at times, to be helium filled. While there are circumstances where this is benificial, such as reducing the opportunity for embarrassment during take off runs and assisting with "go arounds," after yet another bouncy landing, it does seem as if the Spit is a Harrier/ rocket wanna-be. I'm constantly surprised that I don't stall and crash on take-offs given the attitude I seem to often find myself in. Why do I seem to have to expend so much effort (forward elevator) trying to keep the nose from pointing straight up during takeoffs ? ( Regardless of nose trim position). Is it simply a matter of the flight attitude, as perceived from the cockpit , appearing far more dramatic than it actually is ?

The difference between a game and real life. In DCS only a kill counts, in real life hampering ( such an underwhelming word to describe death and destruction) enemy operations was just as, if not more important. Although every pilot would like to claim a kill, tank crews were't going to hang about to test any half baked theories about penetration values. Any Allied aircraft flying overhead was potentially leathal, even if it wasn't. Rockets or even badly placed bombs rattle the nerves, if not the armour plating. Nobody was going to expose themselves, even to 0.5 cal willingly, just in case something heavier and nastier followed or just in case the mosquito had bigger nastier friends waiting in the wings. I wonder how many perfectly serviceable Tanks in Normandy were abandoned by terrified, demoralized, crews not wanting to test Lady Luck one more time.

Helicopter flight is far better in VR. That said the very thing that makes helicopter flight better in VR also has a downside, if you start doing anything unexpected or un-commanded it's far more likely to make you feel sick, pretty darned quick. I think, because a normal aircraft tends to go in an expected direction, more of the time, it is far easier on the stomach. I haven't got far enough, or been tempted to test whether helicopters and VRlegs improve with experience.

.....is a drinks holder attachment with straw. It saves accidentally knocking over that can of pop/beer onto your computer as you reach for it and ruining your day.

What are the chances of something like this being done in-house ? I think I'm right in understanding that Wag's said there will be, in the near future, a GUI option to increase pixel fidelity, thus improving image quality by using some pre-rendering software jiggery pokery. Nvidia's VRworks has as part of it's API "Multi res shading", which if I understand correctly is a bit like foviated rendering. Without using Nvidia's specific API's and in order to reduce the graphics work load on the GPU could Eagle Dynamics not implement something like this themselves, only rendering a portion of the screen with the increased pixel quality ?

While the Rift puts you in the "Pit" like never before, and is a fantastic experience, jaw droppingly "Wow" I would be reluctant to recommend it for prop combat. FOV isn't an issue for most flying and the limitations aren't readily apparent, I also notice far more of what actually goes on in my FOV than I ever did with TrackIR and triple screens. The big issue is for bread and butter knife fights, checking six, especially when switching from side to side just isn't adequate. Cockpit canopy limitations excluded, 130- 140 degrees is what you can expect to see, maybe another 10-20 if you exploit a swivel chair but less than periferal vision would give in real life. Along with resolution limitations it can make dogfighting harder than it needs to be. I also find the low resolution does't give adequate distance que's, anything outside a couple of hundred yards and the target lacks enough definition to judge distance/depth. I appreciate that might not be what you want to hear. There are positives though. Judging where a target is, in 3D space, relative to you as you jink about is far more natural than with TrackIR and despite the FOV inadequacies it does make you fully appreciate what it must have been like to try and fight with restricted canopy views to the rear, in a way that TrackIR never could (yes 109, I'm thinking of you). Hopefully eye tracking, along with foviated views, CV2 (fingers crossed) will make all these deficiencies a thing of the past, we just have to wait a little bit longer. That said the Rift/Vive still provides a great, unparalleled, experience in DCS.

I'm obviously not making myself very clear. I would far prefer to play without icons, but without using modern, radar equipped, aircraft it's probably not feasible at the moment. What I am trying to get at though is that regardless of range the labels are legible, while the actual aircraft itself may only be an indistinct smudge. I've also never thought that the label is hovering somewhere, mid distance, half way in between, so that I can read it, it always seems to be, spatially, where I would expect it to be. Would it be possible to use the same methodology for the aircraft so that we can do away with the labels altogether, if wanted ?

Maybe, rather ironically, reality. Much as we accept we can't jump into a real aircraft to play at being a combat pilot we also have to accept the limitations of the tools that we do use. At present a very obvious limitation with this generation of HMD's is poor resolution. A lot of aspects of VR are great, really great, but low resolution is very limiting at the moment. For this generation, and possibly the next, of VR HMD's, labels are probably a necessary evil, whether you like them or not. Maybe not for every scenario but certainly many. I wonder how many, who profess a dislike of labels are talking from, or have experienced, DCS using purely VR. My experience suggests that anything outside of 0.3 nm very quickly becomes nothing more than a greasy smudge. My point, anyway, is less about labels, for labels sake, but more because while the target aircraft is often barely visible or an indistinct smudge the label is, providing several aren't overlapping, perfectly clear and legible, despite using several characters to convey Object information and regardless of distance away. I also never question that the label is at the distance, or position in the 3D environment, it says it is. What I really wondered is if there is some way of making other 3D objects, such as other aircraft, as distinct as the labels, instead of a greasy smudge, without the need for labels, possibly using the same techniques as that employed by the labels.

First and foremost it would be nice if there was an official, easy, way to adjust labels. Dot, dot + range, dot + range + type, etc etc. choice. Secondly it would be really nice if labels were occluded by aircraft structure rather than omnipresent. Thirdly ( was flying 1.5 ). Spotting without labels is obviously Vhard, just as bad is trying to get, identification or manoevering que's, even from close range. When testing, my opponent really needed to be within 200 meters for visual ID and 100 meters for good, worthwhile, manoevering que's. Although general features and aspect can be gleaned, at 200 meters the image is still to vague to offer subtle, but important information. Ironically, while the aircraft Sprite is often a blurry, indistinct mess, the label, which is relatively complex, is always comparitevly clear. Maybe something could be done to use the way labels are displayed to make other aircraft sharper and more distinct at ranges outside anything but very close range ?

Maybe, I'm no expert, but ! Nevada, Cockpit and player aircraft (F2) are Ok, no ghosting. Terrain textures seem Ok, no ghosting. Should I be getting the same, or similar, FPS in both versions ? Cacti and buildings and I think other objects such as AI aircraft ( I've only tested over airfield) ghosting. In game FPS counter displays a steady 57-63 FPS. Caucasus, Solid 90 FPS, No issues, no ghosting, at all. Both versions use the same graphics settings. I5-6600K Skylake GTX 970 16Gb memory SSD drive Win 10 64bit

I've just been flying the F86 over Nevada, Quick mission, Intercept, when I noticed the cacti where not quite aligned (Ghosting), producing a double image. I then looked around further and I think the other aircraft flying about me where the same, which might be why they always look so blurry and indistinct. My cockpit meanwhile is perfectly normal with no ghost imaging that I can detect at all. Airfield buildings and roads/runways meanwhile also looked, from what I could tell, to be perfectly normal. Win 10, 64 bit GTX 970, Driver 368.22 Oculus Rift

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting an accelerating view, as in TrackIR (although I suppose I am but only in as much as adding a couple of degrees rather than a speed multiplier) yes, that would probably make you green about the gills fairly quickly. The question is, if you moved your head 10 degrees but your view changed 11 degrees (10 deg head, 1 deg simulated eyes), would you notice ? If you moved your head 20 deg but your view changed 22 deg (head 20 deg, 2 deg simulated eye travel), would you notice ? How about if you moved your head 100 deg but your view changed 116 deg (head 100, simulated eye travel 16 deg (1 deg for the first 40 and 2 deg for the following decades)), would you notice ? The other option might be just to press a button so that it artificially pans your view further back once you reach your limit but that sounds even more horrible. The question is, do we accept the limitations that we have now or do we try and think a little creatively, even if every avenue, along the way, doesn't necessarily lead to where we want to go ?

I'm not convinced it's quite so cut and dried as you suggest, unless you have evidence to the contrary ? Let me explain. When yo look around in real life your head position and view are not one and the same. Why not, I hear you ask ? Because your eyeballs also move, adding possibly another 30-40 degrees, either side, to your range. Consider the adding of 1 or 2 degrees per 10 degrees, for example, as outlined in an earlier post, as mimicking moving your eyes, cumulatively imperceptible, but not unnatural. To much and I agree it could be barf inducing but if kept within real life expectations then I wonder if it really would be any more problematic than symptoms that might be felt, normally. I think uncommanded fluctuation, as in attempted hovering in a helecopter, and driving around hilly roads in Project Cars far more problematic. To recap, I don't think view angle and relative head position need to line up perfectly, it can be played around with and wouldn't neccesarily be as obvious as you try to claim. I certainly think it would be worth a little experimentation, I can't imagine it would be that difficult to try out . As I mentioned earlier it might even be advantageous in that the added degrees can be limited or nullified when pulling G's, mimicking the difficulty of looking around in that real world situation.

That's not the suggestion at all. The idea is to cancel out the hardware imposed restrictions and increase FOV to conform with real life expectations. If I sit in a chair and look behind me, without the HMD, I can see about 200 degrees .Much of that last 40 degrees is increasingly periferal vision, but it does exist. Not in a HMD though. It might even work to our advantage in adding realism. The larger the "G's" pulled the smaller the multiplier, if any, and thus a more restricted FOV.

Nice idea of grab handles, but I suspect it's just one more real thing you can't actually see when trying to grab it. If the handles line up on screen then perfect but it's already a job to remember VR things don't exist, or in a different position in reality. Even with grab handles, it's still a restriction. I'm not the youngest fella any more, but still consider myself reasonably fit and flexible, I do enjoy the physicality of VR but if I look around I can reasonable look 90 degrees L/R (not moving my eyes), by twisting my torso I can add maybe another 20 degrees either way. In real life though I can add a further 70-90 degrees with my eyes and peripheral vision. If the Rift/Vive does 110 deg then looking as far back as I can and twisting my torso I can only get, at most 165 deg (90 deg head turn + 20 deg torso twist + 55 deg FOV ) adding 1 or 2 degrees per 10 degrees might not be noticeable, body position wise, and might not throw the vestibuler system out anymore than it already does (don't like going backwards in helicopters).

Possibly. Then again, maybe subtlety is the key and not overdoing it. It might be worth experimenting to see if adding several degrees progressively might does have any unfortunate side effects.

While there are many advantages to using VR, checking six isn't one of them. I still think it is more realistic than other ways, TrackIR, hat switch etc, but still not perfect. TrackIR uses scaling to translate a few degrees movement in to large changes of view, however doing this with VR might have adverse effects. Such large scale changes however aren't really needed and maybe, just adding 1 degree per 10 degree moved initially and 2 degrees per 10 moved, say from 50 degrees, might help a little without feeling unnatural, or notable,and result in an extra 20 degrees of vision and a more realistic checking six ? Can this be done by ED, or is it hard wired in the HMD ?

Personally, I don't have too much of an issue with reading the gauges and the Hud's seem to be better than I expected, possibly not in a competitive environment, but for general tootling around, acceptable. If there was a surprise, disappointment, it would be, ironically, depth perception of bogies. The 3D effect in cockpit is superb and the feeling of being, up there, in the air is great however, because of the resolution, depth que's for other aircraft aren't as good as I'd hoped. That said, tracking manoevering targets, in 3D space, while manoevering heavily oneself is far easier than with TrackIR. I don't have a problem with FOV, except at the limits of looking up or towards the six, although more would certainly be better. The one big thing I've noticed in this regard is, noticing far more of what is happening within my FOV that weren't obvious with triple screens and TrackIR.

All of the FC3 aircraft seem to be universally good, even better, I think, than the stand alone A-10C. If there is one area of improvement, it would be giving the dials a glassy look. The 3D effect of them is usually very good, but never the less they look slightly odd without the glass. Another minor detail are the rudder pedal foot plates on the F15 which don't match the quality of the rest of the cockpit. I'm going to put them at 7.5 out of 10 for the FC3 aircraft. I have to say I was surprised at how good they are, given that they aren't single aircraft specific. The cockpits really are beautiful, I could just sit there for ages looking at the various switches and dials. It rally demonstrates the amount of work that goes into these projects. The Rift and therefore I assume the Vive really don't do the cockpits justice at the moment, because of the limited resolution, but when the second generation VR headsets come along they really will be superb, pretty much works of art. I just hope that the developers will prepare for that day and give the cockpits that final VR ready polish they deserve.