Jyge

Graphics are not what they should be? The resolution of the Quest is not going to change, you can tweak with pixel density but the gain is still limited. You can also bring up the PD right now, and see how the game looks like. Just don't expect frame rates or stutter free experience, but even on pause in the cockpit you should see what to expect. Now I don't have G2, I have the second release Reverb, which has been a very good headset for me. Before that I had Samsung Odyssey+ and I can say coming from Odyssey+ that I had the feeling that my VR performance actually improved with Reverb. The explanation is really simple. I had a pretty high PD on Odyssey+ and now with Reverb, I use none. I have 1080ti, so I can't speak about 1070. I am holding back getting a G2, as there is only marginal gain and I expect that there could be again a second updated release once HP again sorts their headset out.

I have this problem that sometimes I loose the mouse in DCS using VR. I have the mouse also mapped in Warthog slew control and it works, but the "real" mouse does not work. If I take off the goggles, point them still to window I can move the mouse also normally, only wearing the goggles the "real" mouse does not work. It also depends on several factors, I need to have everything up and running, DCS Updates and TARGET and only then can I start the Steam VR, then the mouse will work. Sometimes very seldom when playing it might get lost, then the only way to reacquire it, is exit DCS, stop Steam VR, restart Steam VR and then restart DCS. I know there are people who experience this, it is apparently a Steam VR or DCS problem or a combination of them together, only exiting both works for me. Is there another way of reseting the situation, maybe doing something in Steam VR, without killing it, so that DCS does not crash in the process. I would be much happier if I could do something also during the flight if this happens. I rely on clickable cockpit in some places and if I loose the mouse it gets tedious.

Indeed I have - I need to check it again as there has been changes apparently and I have not recently played with Mig-21bis. Last time I tried was that some switches at least reacted to left or right mouse click with toggle, in that case you can not use dedicated value 1 or 0 for on or off. I think there was a discussion way back about this. Unless it has been changed it is no-go. I will try to recheck it in the coming days, if I find time, then we can discuss a concrete example. It is not all switches, most important ones, like rotaries IRC, have dedicated positions - so basically the module is very much playable for primary functions. The On/Off switches on the right wall are one that gives you problems, but you need to switch them on or off once in a mission...

I am missing the dedicated On and Off positions and keybindings. Most of the keybindings are toggle switches. It is a real pain to map the stuff in something like Warthog HOTAS where I would like to have the switches always synchronous between my Joystick and the virtual cockpit. It is also that Mig-21bis lua(s) seem to be impossible to adapt to this logic.

You really think that you can omit a proper graphic card? Link is just means of communicating the signal wireless, something still needs to fill and render those pixels - efficiently, I might add. I don't think there is yet a free lunch, particularly not from Zuckerberg and the likes.

The next bottleneck can always be God knows where. I have a system running 8700K with 32 GB Ram and 1080ti - it is ok with Reverb, not stellar, but it is playable. I do not know if I can expect a full boost going to 3090 or whether it would be better to settle with 3080 as something else might be already on the limit...On the other hand I have a mind to get Reverb G2 first and worry about the GPU later :D

Whereas I find the new mesh and stuff nice and helpful for VR and truly appreciate it all - I am equally annoyed by the keymappings (not having dedicated On and Off functions for switches) which make keybindings for switchboards and stuff suboptimal - which again is a certain difficulty in VR. Is there a hope of getting the actual keymappings revised and get the dedicated On and Off bindings?

Yes, I am doing the whole mess with the matrix, using the buttons and diodes, but I really can not speak of "reduced" wiring. I assume that with shift-register I could pack all four sides of the MFD buttons each in its' own register and then chain them up one after another. For the connection between the registers I only need five wires and only 5 to the controller... I found this discussion and this could lead to something. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=120049&page=5 post #46 shows a board for a single shift register I could adapt that... My idea is to make a PCB for each register, where I can directly solder the buttons - at the moment I do not have any PCBs I only have the buttons directly on 3D printed parts and then connections are done with wires. Of course, I would already reduce the wiring quite a bit if I went to own PCBs for the matrix and packed the buttons and diodes on the plate as well.

Yes, d4mn - there is this discussion on SimHQ - it is just well over 100 pages, full of information but I just need one tiny bit...

Heh, I am actually starting to build my own CNC with 3D printed parts. Sure would be nice to see a picture, but my main concern was reducing the cabling and perhaps for that end use a shift register instead of a matrix. I am not sure which components I need for a shift register. I think that I would need four shift registers, one for each "side", then I could do the connections to proMicro with 4 (or was it 5) cables and 5 between each shift register. The downside is that each shift register needs its' own chip (not sure which one it was) and what else I need for one shift register...

I got myself a 3D printer and I am in a process of building my own MFDs. I had TM Cougar MFDs but I already sold them. I did not like the feel of them and they were too small for my sausage fingers. I also decided that I would like to have a bit more of this and that (rotaries and so on) and I went for a mix of F/A-18, Harrier and A-10C in my design. This is a prototype: but inside it looks about this: So I am kind of asking whether I should have gone for shift register(s) instead of diodes and a matrix. I am toying with an idea of designing my own PCBs and ordering them online, so this would be a nice place to try something like that. I have 4 rows and 9 columns matrix with 36 buttons and no axis...In the end I want 3 of those MFDs but I figured I make each one a standalone with an own proMicro-board... Designing - what software (free) can I use for designing PCB? I am currently residing in Germany and I found some recommendation in Youtube for a online shop that should work https://aisler.net is this ok or are there better recommendations? I am no electrician or so - all I know is that electricity works with smoke - I know that the stuff usually does not work if the smoke escaped the gadget. I would like to reduce the cables, but such an MFD is also rather space limited...at the moment my design is not suited for a screen as my board and so on reside in the middle of the panel. I only intend to use the stuff for VR so it is really not my aim to adapt a screen

...or maybe it is just me. When I trim in UH-1 for instance, I can center the stick afterwards and it stays trimmed. With Ka-50 I have this feeling that it is always a little bit more than I bargained for. After trimming I always need to trim back a little bit? I have tried the Default option and the centre based. I might also see it in control indicator, but for some reason the R_Ctrl+Enter does not bring it up for me in Ka-50!?!

The thing is - I bought Simped pedals some 20 years ago. Still using them, great value for the money. At that time it was a one man company and I guess he has already passed away. I am in a process of building myself a new set, just for fun - nothing wrong with my Simpeds (although I was too cheap to buy the ones with toebrakes - ever since I built my own expansion). I am going to power it all with Pro-Micro board and reprogram it with MMJoy2 Now my question is - if it turned out to be a great set, what is keeping someone like me from starting an own garage start-up and offering such things for sale? I do not think the actual offer on pedals is that great (definitively mostly not something I would take over my trusty Simpeds). Other than registering a company, paying taxes and stuff like that. What is the legal take on using something like a cheap Pro-Micro board and modifying the stuff with MMJoy2. Is it something where you would need to start paying somebody copyrights or something? Asking just out of an academic interest...

I fired up mig-21bis again and I noticed that my warthog profile is again shot to hell. I tried some reconfiguring and checked out the Input/keyboard/default.lua again. I have no joy with these On/Off bindings. You can not really bind them to the Warthog switches, as you will never know if the switch is currently On or is it Off. I could easily group the weapons systems switches to one warthog switch if there was a instinctive On and Off Key-Binding. It is possible in most of the other aircraft, for some aircraft a bit more difficult, for some it is easier. Mig-21bis seems to be totally different. Whereas I was successful with some weapons systems switches with a distinctive Off function - I have absolutely no joy with On function. Here is an example: {combos = {{key = 'B', reformers = {'RShift','RCtrl'}}},down = device_commands.Obogrev,cockpit_device_id = devices.WEAPON_CONTROL, value_down = -1.0, name = _('MSL Heat Off'), category = _('Modded')}, {combos = {{key = 'N', reformers = {'RShift','RCtrl'}}},down = device_commands.Pusk,cockpit_device_id = devices.WEAPON_CONTROL, value_down = -1.0, name = _('MSL - RKT Launch Off'), category = _('Modded')}, {combos = {{key = 'M', reformers = {'RShift','RCtrl'}}},down = device_commands.Pitanie12,cockpit_device_id = devices.WEAPON_CONTROL, value_down = -1.0, name = _('1-2 Power Off'), category = _('Modded')}, {combos = {{key = ',', reformers = {'RShift','RCtrl'}}},down = device_commands.Pitanie34,cockpit_device_id = devices.WEAPON_CONTROL, value_down = -1.0, name = _('3-4 Power Off'), category = _('Modded')}, {combos = {{key = '.', reformers = {'RShift','RCtrl'}}},down = device_commands.GS23,cockpit_device_id = devices.WEAPON_CONTROL, value_down = -1.0, name = _('Gun Off'), category = _('Modded')}, {combos = {{key = 'V', reformers = {'RShift','RCtrl'}}},down = device_commands.ASPon,cockpit_device_id = devices.ASP, value_down = -1.0, name = _('ASP-17 Sight Off'), category = _('Modded')}, {combos = {{key = 'X', reformers = {'RShift','RCtrl'}}},down = device_commands.ASPpipperOn,cockpit_device_id = devices.ASP, value_down = -1.0, name = _('Pipper Off'), category = _('Modded')}, {combos = {{key = 'C', reformers = {'RShift','RCtrl'}}},down = device_commands.ASPnetOn,cockpit_device_id = devices.ASP, value_down = -1.0, name = _('Fix net Off'), category = _('Modded')}, Everything else works, except the Sight Off, strangely that keeps on flicking On/Off also for the Off binding. Similarly I can not create the On bindings as with down = 1.0 everything will be again just On/Off toggle. Similarly all of the other switches Inverter, Battery, Generator, Giro and Pumps that I would like to switch On once and be done with them are stubbornly On/Off toggles, nevermind what I do. Has anybody had any luck with this kind of endeavor for Mig-21bis - I gather there was some discussion with the dev in the past and even protests about going for toggle bindings. What is the status? Is there any hope of getting the distinctive On and Off bindings, maybe in the speculated cockpit upgrade?

The problem is that the hardware switch needs to be synchronous with the virtual one in the beginning. However, I found the solution for Ka-50. I noticed that if the cover is closed, but I still press the switch itself, for example "On", it will open the cover and with the second press it actuates the switch. So the easy solution is to use T.A.R.G.E.T and put the switch On command twice into the switch. So if the cover is closed, it will be opened and the switch is turned on. Even if the cover was closed it will still switch On and the second command is unnecessary but does not cause any reaction. I could add the switch cover toggle command to the CHAIN and then it would close the cover after the action...

Hi, the problem with the first line is that it keeps on toggling the switch open and close. I would want an explicit open the switch cover and keep it open nevermind how often I press it successively...

I am trying to get some dedicated On and Off Keybindings in Ka-50. So far I got already pretty well started, with most of the switches. I am, however, stuck with some switch covers. For example for Battery 1, I would have: {down = 3006, value_down = 1.0,cockpit_device_id = 2, name = _('Battery 1 Cover Open'), category = _('MODDED')}, {down = 3006, value_down = 0.0,cockpit_device_id = 2, name = _('Battery 1 Cover Close'), category = _('MODDED')}, No joy, both keys just flip the cover open and close, back and forth. Any ideas how I could fix it. With the underlying On/Off switch I get with the same formulation the dedicated On or dedicated Off functionality.

Nope, I am in Beta that does not lock it and I have this new keypress TDC depress - I think you mean stable. By the way, what is currently Target Unlock?

How new is the new? I played last week, I think back then I could still lock with TWS/STT - I guess it changed in between. Need to have a look if there is a new keybinding, thx.

Or is it something about my set-up? I move the cursor over the enemy target and press 'Enter' nothing. I can only lock in the automatic modes in short range, long range nothing...I have 530D active and everything. Anybody else having this issue?

O, I post it here too as I got no answer so far in F-14 forum. I am stuck in Mission 06, the aggressor mission. I get no response from ground crew for connecting the electric power nor air supply. So can not start. Can I somehow edit the mission in mission editor so that it is starting with running engines, for example?

I am having a problem with the aggressor mission, is it number 6? I can not get the ground crew to put on the electric power nor air supply...So I am sitting there and getting nowhere...

I wanted to expand my good old Simped pedals with toebrakes. Then I got into 3D printing and found this: https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:3475445 I have now printed the pedals and then I started thinking that I could actually do the whole setup and put it all on one board. I have been playing around with HAL sensors and currently I was planning to put load-cells for the brakes and HAL for the rudder axis. I got myself couple of 20 kg load-cells and some amplifiers from Leo Bodnar. I get some reading out of the axis when putting it all in over MMJoy2, not much but I can not exercise that much force with mere fingers - seems logical so far. As for the HAL - I have these: https://www.amazon.de/gp/product/B07DPVTKBB/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1 I am not very impressed with those, maybe I should get some other higher quality sensors. I do get something when waving a magnet in front of them, I just can not fully figure the logic behind it. I have some magnet and I thought it was more a matter of rotating the magnet field. I get most distinctive response if I take one end of the magnet (S or N) and move it up and down in front of that sensor. So couple of questions: first about the HAL I am not sure if there is some amplifier on that small board with HAL. Do I need one or just the sensor alone? Where can I order simple analog HAL sensors and what type should I look for? amazon is full of these small neodym magnets? Are they ok for the task? How should I move the magnet in front of the sensor? Then about the load cells: I noticed that I get reading (negative axis) from the weight sensor if I pull it. In my plans I only want to push it, so do I "loose" half of the resolution this way? When looking at the MMJOY2 (Spec Function Tab) I have about 25 once the load cell is unloaded. With 1 kg I get 55. With 2 kg I get reading of about 85. By pressing with my thumb I get about 220. I am not sure how much force I want to exercise on those pedals. The 3D printed plastic parts are not that durable. Is this resolution enough or should I have purchased something like 5 or 10 kg load cells instead? I think the brake pedals in car racing games are bigger...

I came from O+ and went for Reverb. I find that Reverb is not one bit more taxing on the performance as the O+, because I could go down in PD. Great Headset...

Yeah, found it thanks. After that it was a nice mission. It would be better if they were using more map references and stuff like that.