LucShep

Yes, that is correct. I'm very sorry if I created expectations but, right now, it's impossible to acomplish. As said on that thread, while readjusting the vfstextures I discovered that, afterall, there are more concerning issues, namely with (I'm 99% sure) the Clipmaps and/or the Terrain.CFG.lua, and both of those are non editable (encripted). What happens is that, with the experimental textures it only works from certain altitudes, no difference once you get nearer to the ground, and it's still the same ugly saturated red/orange tones.... To resume, it would be a lot of trouble to acomplish nothing.

Intel is far more "memory agnostic" when it comes to RAM (if compared to AMD Ryzen), especially from 6th gen up to 11th gen. On these, DDR4 3200 CL16 is still considered excelent, no perceptible difference from DDR4 3200 CL14 - even if with an RTX4090 - certainly not with DCS. As said above, what you'll imediately notice with the bigger capacity RAM (64GB instead of 32GB), doing complex missions and MP in DCS, is that it feels a lot smoother, and most stuttering issues are gone (MT issues with VR aside, those are a different story), even if with no difference in framerate. The bottleneck by the limited (lower) memory capacity is no longer there, as the bits that are expected to be worked by the fast RAM speeds now are always so, and no longer swapped onto the system page file on disk (much slower even if that's on an NVME, and what causes stuttering when things get complicated on RAM capacity limited systems). In this specific case, it's all benefits, and no downsides.

Yep. That and Taz's Optimized Textures (which became essential for DCS) should be incorporated.

Sorry @JesterIsDead only now noticed your post. I don't have an Oculus VR headset, so can't specify best solution for you. I use HP Reverb G1 Pro (WMR headset). I use SteamVR and that's what DCS 2.5.6 opens by default. But one can run it instead with OpenXR (also with OpenXR Tools), if prefered. For that, this mod will do the trick. You can use a mod-manager (such as OvGME) to install it into DCS 2.5.6. Or you can manually install it, by entering that mod's folder structure, copy all files inside its "Bin" folder, then paste them into the folder with same name in DCS 2.5.6 (i.e, where the game executable is) and overwrite files when prompted (better backup original files first).

That path is a good alternative, or an atempt to circumvent an issue with something that should be harshly contested and not accepted by paying customers. If people are expected to buy 2000€ GPUs (RTX4090! lol) and/or upgrade (again!) perfectly capable systems just for an "enjoyable VR experience", then something is definitely wrong with this game/sim. Luckily there are older versions of DCS to revert to. Otherwise, I'd definitely be abandoning and jumping ship, straight onto the next best competitors.

I can run DCS 2.8 at 4K high settings in my 2D screen and, yes, it looks awesome. But can no longer go back to it after using VR. The immersion with VR is simply too good, and there is no replacement for that. I do have a major problem with VR in DCS that I can not make 2.8 MT run smooth, even after lots of tinkering and using every trick in the book, micro-stuttering is always present. Using 2.8 ST the stuttering issues are almost gone, but then it runs so poor that settings have to be drastically decreased, to a point where it looks downright ugly. The problem got even worse after one of the 2.8 OB updates (in last May, I think?), and hasn't improved since. Yes, we all know enjoyable VR in DCS is not cheap (etc, yata yata) but it should never be like this. It just got silly, ridiculous really. My solution was to revert back to an older DCS release (version 2.5.6, in my sig) for VR. It's like a dream if compared. Now VR in DCS looks absolutely stunning and runs really smooth. I can use higher settings, plus custom shaders and mods to it make look and run even better. No dreaded stuttering, performance is great. On top of that, I can even run my Reverb G1 Pro at 150% res., so it's at a point where I find it ideal. Honestly, I don't care about losing the new clouds, or recent and upcoming modules (whatever), if all I invested in can finally be used the way I intended it in the first place. I'll try newest versions again when Vulkan is finally released and VR with MT issues are gone (had enough of this BS) but, until then, I'm well served. I definitely recommend trying that before you decide abandoning VR for DCS.

GTR2 with the Power&Glory mod imediately springs to my mind. Was in the dev team and ran that sweet lovely thing for nearly 8 years straight, but then a variety of things were ocurring in my life and it ran its course. I suppose I could reinstall it (like so many other games) but, it's just one of those things I prefer to leave in memories, like a good read from an old book years back.

DCS may be a bit too "hardcore", daunting and complicated for a begginer with zero experience on the genre. If he's completely new to flight sims, I really think he'd be better starting with something "arcadey" like War Thunder or Project Wingman. Then, when he gets interested on something more advanced (like DCS is) the aproach will be much easier. If he prefers the gamepad, the XBOX based ones are universally the best and easiest to setup for the PC. If he hasn't got one, the PowerA Enhanced Wired is an excelent solution, it's cheap (30 bucks and change) and it's plug-n-play. If he wants to insist on DCS World (and good on him if so) the simpler modules, like the free Su-25T and the FC3 modules, are perfectly doable with a gamepad. Tuuvas got that part covered: That said, I'd definitely recommend a cheap, simple and basic joystick over a gamepad. The Logitech Extreme 3D Pro (30 bucks and change) is awesome for a beginner. And on this one, there are Logitech drivers but you don't really need them for Win10/11, it's plug-n-play.

Yep, the clouds are big graphical resource hog. It's nothing really new, it has been so since their first iteration in version 2.7. I can only suppose the calculations, the diverse textures, their formations and the shadows casted from them, are causing the impact. They can account to as much as 25% GPU usage with my RTX3090, from "Nothing" to "Overcast" (1 to 7), more so if set to anything above "Standard" quality. I always set them at "Low" quality for VR, and also tend to edit the missions (for SP) to change the clouds setting in ME at "High Scattered 1" (then save and exit).

I get both views, of ones that complain about the pricing and of those who complain about the complainers. On one hand, one has to consider the brutal investment on resources, docs and research and workforce, to produce a DCS module. Quality is excelent in most of them, and that has got to cost, no doubt. One thing that I'm trully grateful for is that ED has the trial period, for us to test modules. And, of course, the discount sales periods. Otherwise, I would have never been able to get all the modules that I enjoy and cherish so much. But the point (the other hand) that the OP and a few other of you seem to be missing is, that a large part of the user base does not only use DCS. Or understanding the level of sacrifice people might be making (or not) just to keep up performance, which for quite some years has not improved (doubt me? ...then try a version dated two year plus -prior to 2.7- in VR and tell me I'm wrong. Pllease). I understand there are a small percentage that only uses DCS and there's nothing else in their "gaming life". Good for you if so. I'm sure I'm not alone saying that I also enjoy other flight-sims beyond DCS, and get myself around other genres of PC gaming (racing-sims, mil-sims, RPG, RTS, Action Adventure, etc). Those cost money too, to acquire or to add more content. I had to wait and save for two years to get a GPU that could actually run DCS as it should be. Two friggin years later a second-hand GPU at nearly the price of national mininum wage (and starts to feel that it soon may not be enough). And a better stick and throtle - again second-hand. I tried VR and that was my bane (like a drug, should have never tried it) as there and then I decided I had to get one (a decent one... again second-hand!). I had to add another 32GB to my system, because of DCS and none other sim/game in current exhistence (none that I know of, or own - and got quite a few) requires this much RAM. So yeah. Money doesn't grow on trees, but there's more than one way to skin a cat. I do fine with second-hand stuff, so long as it's good and serves its purposes (and mine). I can live with that. But please don't insult the intelligence of your fellow members with populism rubish like "a much older system with a 1080Ti can run DCS just fine, even in VR" , when the truth is the only way such a system would be running 2.8 in VR is in utter-potato mode, while pretending that there is no st-t-t-t-tuttering. And if so, in all fairness, you'd certainly better be running 2.56 or earlier versions to make that feel right, for yourself as well. Otherwise (in 2nd half of 2023, for 2.8+ versions) you're either ignorant or fooling yourself by keeping standards (even) lower just to keep going with the flow. Yes modules are expensive, rightly or not is another matter. Either way, people have a right to complain about the modules cost, if maintaining the whole thing going (which should be improving dramatically performance wise, and isn't!) every year and/or for the next one is already expensive enough. You don't get it? Well... maybe you should try to put yourself in other people's shoes then.

Mine were only used once for configuring things first time, afterwards got back on the box. I also don't use them while flying.

That's close to my description as well - and of so many in here, I could bet. I'm also few years from 50 and, yes, between lots of work and necessary mundane stuff, the short free time and getting old surely doesn't help the hobby. I also went through the "golden age" of flight sims and had a sabbatical of (way) over 10 years. It was DCS that got me into it again, and quite the shock on first impact. Anyway, my recommendation might go against the grain but... I'd say to start with a Flamming Cliffs 3 aircraft, as they're simplified (far less complex) than all other DCS modules, closer to those sims we used to enjoy in the 80s/90s, and serve as a "softer" introduction to DCS. They'll keep you entertained until you feel that you want something more advanced and complex (and when getting into those, Chuck's Guides are a must). Either the A-10A Warthog (slow, air-to-ground combat) or the F-15C Eagle (fast, air-to-air combat) are excelent choices as a starting point. On these two, you'll notice that neither has interactive training missions by default, but fellow community members done them, see here: CFrag's A-10A Flight School (Training Missions): N22YF's F-15C Training Missions: You'll also notice that the Flamming Cliffs 3 aircraft don't have "clickable cockpits" (no interactive cockpit) but a community member made that also work for them. If it interests you, have a look:

I don't know what's your past with flight-sims. But I think you're at a similar crossroad that many of us got at some point. You'll often hear/read to imediately invest yourself in the aicraft listed in DCS that you find most interesting (in real life). But then that one may turn out as too complicated. I think what you need to decide first is what's the most appealing "stuff to do" with an aircraft in the game, for yourself. Then see which aircraft fits that criteria the best. There are youtube videos (gameplay, reviews, tutorials) for you to check, and find what to expect from each DCS aircraft module. If what you're really interested is modern aircraft and complex systems (post 1990s, like the ones you own) then, from those, I'd suggest to stick with the one that you feel you enjoy the most, and persist with that one. If you're more interested in "driving" a combat aircraft, while also handling some systems but in the least complicated way, then I certainly think the cold-war era (early and middle, 50s and 60s respectively) aircraft are the most interesting, as they have far less systems to get lost into, though they certainly have their quirks (which actually give them some "charm"). If so, I'd say to check some youtube videos on the F-86F and F-5E (if preference is blue) or MiG-15bis and MiG-21bis (if preference is red). Remember, you can always trial a DCS module (up to for 14 days each) before buying.

While that looks better, it still suffers from the overdone (awful) weathering that @probad described so well, and I quote "crudely exaggerated paint chipping effect that ends up making everything look like its made of crumbling concrete instead of painted metal" - exactly how I'd put it in words too. If the MiG-15bis is not enough, the red aircraft of FC3 (Su-25A, MiG-29, etc) can be another example of how it should be (IMO), those look like the real deal. Anyways, I think we're diverging from the main topic. This is about the MiG-17F.

Both in 2D and more recently in VR, yes. It's true that cockpits always look better in VR than with a 2D screen (as the 3D stereoscopic depth makes things "pop", as they became far more "real life alike"). Still, the impressions I described prevail also in VR.

To each his own, but I personallly agree with you. I absolutely abhor the MiG-19P cockpit in DCS - the 3D is average at best and the textures are awful. Which was one among other things that made me not buy it after trialling it (twice, back on its release and another just over a month ago). I sure hope RSS doesn't follow the same ugly aesthetic choices. As old as the MiG-15bis module is, I adore its cockpit (both 3D and textures), actually still one of my favorite DCS modules. I'm hoping the MiG-17F cockpit in DCS will be better, but would be content if at least as good as this one.

Not sure you noticed but the mod is 100% free. When placing the donate ammount you can put 0 (that's right, ZERO), then add the mod to basket and insert your email, to finish the transaction. It's up to you to donate or not, the link for download is still sent to you regardless. (but come on, pay the author a virtual beer!)

Forget high refresh and framerates in VR for DCS. The way things work are completely different in VR... it's far more intensive on hardware resources, you also reach the limitations of DCS itself far sooner (it's not all a matter of hardware muscle). Some things work better or not depending on the PC, the headset, and the user (perception and sensibilities to motion, stutters and framerate are key). For now, one thing I know is for certain - regardless of whatever headset one gets, and no matter how good one may think his/her system can be, you'll be forced to either: Run the game in motion-reprojection (usually half framerate lock of the selected refresh with motion smoothing) to achieve good visual settings. Or you go hunt for those practically impossible high framerates, but at absolutely horrible "minecraft levels" of detail. Which means that, if you're getting a headset with higher refresh-rate specifically for DCS and flight-sims, that choice won't necessarily work (my opinion is it won't at all). Resolution over framerate in DCS VR works better, and is more important (IMO) because you really need the visual clarity along with the smooth experience that isn't necessarily only exhistent at ultra high framerates (again, completely different to 2D). The Valve Index is still a great headset, but for this particular use case I'd rather get the HP Reverb G2. For sure a better choice for seated games/sims like DCS. Maybe wait just a bit more (September/October) for the upcoming Meta Quest 3, see how the reviews and first user impressions here are. VR will never perform as good as in 2D, compromises have to be made for the best experience (be ready for it). But then it's all worth it, DCS in VR is amazing!

This USB lapel mic is wireless, and very cheap (10 bucks). Not the best thing out there (not even close to something like those expensive big suspended mics from Shure) but, especially for the price, it does the job. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0C5DDP7B5/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?smid=A35HHLYGU7JAUF&psc=1

So, in recent years there have been discussions about the FC3 aircraft modules (A-10A, F-15C, Mig-29 A/G/S, Su-25A, Su-27, Su-33, J-11A), which are also available as separate modules, and also the Su-25T module included as free content in DCS. Among other aspects, there is one particular aspect that these modules lack, instantly detaching them from all other modules (then makes them "out of place" in the sim), which is the lack of cockpit interaction, as there aren't any clickable switches or buttons. IIRC, E.D. stated that there won't be more development on FC3 aircraft modules and Su-25T, at least not in this aspect, as too many resources (too much work) would be needed. But, as it turns out, a talented community member managed to insert the relevant functions (ones that are modeled for key bindings) of each FC3 aircraft, also the free Su-25T, and made it all work interactively in each aircraft's cockpit. However, there are no button/switches animations or "click/toggle" sounds (with exception of the very few ones that ED has modeled). My "wishlist post" here is just a suggestion to E.D.: contact the author and manage a way to officially adopt his work, and build it up from there. Make the missing button/switches animations and "click/toggle" sounds work, for those that he made interactive/clickable, then update the content of these aircraft in DCS. We all know that these modules are more of a "survey simulation" (simplified) inherited from LOMAC, FC1 and FC2 aircraft predating DCS World, which instead focus more on "study simulation" (all-out complex) modules. They're at the bottom of the priorities list, and considered of less interest by experienced users, all of which is understandable. But it's also true that these simpler modules have their place in DCS - we've read many times how difficult and expensive DCS modules can be for the unexperienced newcomer. Frankly, I think these are the best introduction to DCS for the unexperienced, and really deserve this type of update. I believe this "mod adoption and build up from there" is a great chance for E.D. -as the bulk of the work is already done by this talented fella- to then provide these exhistent modules with a better user experience, for those starting in DCS with these modules, as well as those still using them. The FC3 interactive cockpits mod on the author's page: https://redk0d.gumroad.com/l/fvkodo A couple of videos demonstrating the mod: There's also a forum thread here about it: PS: Sorry if this was already addressed in some other "wishlist" thread, but I haven't noticed any on this subject.

The DCS module of this iconic aircraft is definitely getting momentum. Looking very forward to it!

That DCS World 1.5.8 vs 2.5 side by side video there is an excelent ilustration of the problem. Yes the old 1.5x had the proportions quite right for the Caucasus trees, much better. The Caucasus trees in 2.x always looked wrong, at least 50% bigger than what they should be. But in Syria they look alright, proportions wise (to me anyway).

They actually look quite ok in a good old CRT monitor. It's when you try to recreate the nostalgia on a modern LCD (of whatever kind) that it makes you think "OMG NOO WHY YOU SO UGLY NOW?!?" AAAH... that's a TM Mark II FCS system, you lucky you! Maybe you can resurrect that museum piece: https://www.hackster.io/zachary_fields/thrustmaster-mark-ii-fcs-resurrection-08b793#story

No, nothing to do with "overspend" and DC certainly isn't a bottomless pit. I'd even say, in the mid-long term, that it can save money and work to the dev-team, and make it more lucrative if it's a long-term project (like DCS is, for instances) as it actually immortalizes your game, replayability wise. Because it renders every mission or campaign forever fresh and nearly unpredictable (it's always different, throughout and in the outcome), makes it an unknow "true conflict scenario" instead of plain scripts that always repeat "those two from the left as always, and next those three at the right... zzZZzzZ", keeping interest from players in your own game, on and on and on. It's worth every bit of the investment, IMO. Every one of the "big" flight sim titles went through bad management, and/or horrible aquisitions from bigger greedy companies, bastardising or ending such series. And (directly or indirectly) it broke those teams of hyper talented people, who went to other places (competitors) or quit the genre entirely. ED is probably the sole exception to all of this, maybe the only true survivor today from that era (a feat on its own, and worthy of everyone's admiration). Add to that the market over-saturation and the "consolization" way of things that went on in the 2000s, sadly it was the perfect storm. At some point it happened with racing-sims, isometric RPGs, and even Beat'em up games, no genre escaped it so far (it's happening now with "Battle Royale" games!). Money and business always mess with creativity and passion at some point. That's the cyclic nature of the gaming industry too (it repeats itself), unfortunately. That's why the "Golden Age" of flight-sims ended. Fortunately there has been a bit of a slow resurgence in recent years, and we're all here to savour it.

Dude you make no sense. You contradict yourself in just two sentences. First it's the Dynamic Campaign on that one single game title (and one of the reasons users kept that game alive through modding), so complicated and costly that it bankrupted its developer house. While forgeting that didn't happen with other developers (among others, EF2000 and Jane's Longbow also had Dynamic Campaigns). Meaning, if they did it, then.... btw... have you even tried a Dynamic Mission/Campaign in those old titles, to understand why it's such a big deal? And then the cost difference, they were much cheaper to produce then than today. If it was so much cheaper... why have they gone bankrupted then? PLEESE STAAAP