James DeSouza

I was hoping to use the quest 3's hand tracking with this game and a couple of finger mice however the hand tracking has an innate jitter which combined with my realworld tremors makes it unusable for most things. I can get good enough tracking using the hand controllers since their added jitter is fairly minor and can strap them to the back of my hands so they do not interfere with the controls. This however means that the left controller is on my right hand and vice versa. This is reasonable enough, but it means my hands are "backward" when interacting with the cockpit which is a minor annoyance. Is there any way to flip the hand models around, so that it puts the right hand model on your left hand and vice versa?

I don't know if the FFB settings work differently for each of us since we use different sticks but I have two settings (in DCS) one is called Trimmer (I assume your compensator) and the other is called shake. Lowering the trimmer setting just reduces the strength of the stick's force feedback universally which does help with the problem by letting you just overpower the stick trying to move itself but it doesn't fix the problem itself. The problem being that the stick tries to move further than it should because the stick seems to treat it as if the force feedback axis has larger throws than the stick input axis. Are you saying the MSFFB also has this same problem? I was thinking of getting one of those if the problem continues to get worse in the 940, but if that also has the same problem I suppose I might have to try to get one of those rhino sticks, or maybe a brunner one. Also what is "inter axis"? I don't think I have seen that setting. Is it in the FFB tune menu? I only have the KA-50 and the MI-8, so possibly it is module specific?

Hello. I have been using a logitech G940 for a while now because force feedback is amazing, however because it was something like 12 years old when I got it there was a bit of a disconnect between where the axis was reporting itself as being in game vs where DCS puts it when I trim a chopper (and presumably where the force feedback mechanism thinks it is) and this has been getting worse with time. For example when I move the stick to the right of its axis along the X axis it reaches 100% with about 1 inch's worth of travel (as measured at the top of the stick) but when I trim it in a chopper to get that 100% position the stick moves itself that extra inch to get full travel. And the same basic thing happens on both axis and in both directions just to lesser severities (to the right on the X axis being the most severe one). It's nothing that makes the stick unusable, it's just a minor annoyance. I am hoping there is some way I can change what the force feedback thinks is the limits of its potential travel in order to sync it up with the joystick. Thanks for any answers.

But hey, I have it on good authority that a nose on aircraft should be a highly visible blob out to 40km... hmmmmmmmmm.....

It's not a quote from this game. It's one of the results from an realworld experiment I mentioned. I am curious how such a low result came about. They always used to use spotting dots back in the day. But the excuse back then was because people were rocking 800 or 1280 screens and dots genuinely were the only approach to get practically reasonable spotting distances (though they were of course still ugly). That isn't the case anymore, which is the point, but people who have become accustomed to having functionally superhuman sight in flight sims because all combat flight sims have kept this mechanic in place in some form or another are averse to having it removed.

I am more curious about that guy who could only manage to see an A-4 at 0.38 nmi. I know A-4's are small, but that sounds kind of silly.

It's not even about competitiveness. It's about realism (or maybe authenticity would be the correct word). If you want a game where you see everything all the time so you can have all of your epic dogfights where you never get lost and no one ever gets the drop on you there's plenty of games that offer that experience such as; https://store.steampowered.com/app/502500/ACE_COMBAT_7_SKIES_UNKNOWN/ Meanwhile some of us want realism/authenticity, and the closest thing to actual realworld visibility is just not having spotting dots. It's actually almost a 1:1 match with maximum theoretical human visual fidelity at DCS's max zoom on a 4k screen, less with a lower resolution or without using zoom. But the important thing is that you don't have ugly black blocks flying around. The old system wasn't as bad as the new one, to the point where you could mostly ignore it, but it's still ultimately the same problem.

Spotting aircraft IS HARD. That's the whole point. "Lose sight lose the fight". It's hard to lose sight when the opponent is a giant black blob.

2-10 miles with a rough average in the 3-5 range is actual spotting ranges. The guy you are arguing with just wants cheats with the flimsy justification that they're bundled with the game by default. Several investigations have been made to determine aircraft target acquisition capabilities. A total of 759 training engagements at the Naval Air Station Oceana Tactical Air Combat Training System (TACTS) range revealed that in 624 of the engagements the pilots first sighted the target as a dot against the background at an average distance of 5.67 nmi (Hamilton & Monaco, 1986; Monaco & Hamilton, 1985). In the remaining 135 engagements exhaust smoke, contrails and sun glint off the aircraft allowed the pilots to detect the aircraft at even greater distances. In the 122 engagements where exhaust smoke was the primary cue, detection distances averaged 7.64 nmi (This was with an F-14 squadron as an aside, F-14 being the size of a small planet.) In 1983, Kress & Brictson studied 87 air-to-air engagements at the Yuma TACTS range. Average unaided detection distances for the target F-5 and F-4 aircraft were 3.1 nmi. When the pilots were aided with a head-up display (HUD) symbol that cued the pilot to the target’s location, the mean detection distance grew to 6.8 nmi Another study that investigated detection distances was Temme & Still (1991). They measured air-to-air target detection distances at the Naval Air Station Oceana TACTS range to see if there was a performance difference between those pilots who wore corrective eyeglasses and those who did not. Those with eyeglasses did not detect the targets until they were about 10% closer than those with unaided vision. Two very closely matched groups of eyeglass and non-eyeglass wearers had average detection ranges of 4.52 and 5.64 nmi respectively when using all detection means including aircraft sighting, target glint, contrails and exhaust smoke. When limiting subjects to aircraft-only detections, the corresponding distances were 4.35 and 5.54 nmi respectively. Another study by Hutchins in 1978 at the Air Combat Maneuvering Range (ACMR), which is the earlier name of the TACTS, involved 45 air combat training engagements. The mean detection distance of the A-4 targets was 3.09, with a range of 0.38 to 6.23 nmi. Other studies were done using observers on the ground. With visibility conditions spanning 7 to 10 miles over an 8-day testing period, O’Neal & Miller (1998) found detection distances for approaching T-38 aircraft to ranged from 4.77 to 6.73 nmi. Another ground observer study used 400 visual detections of a T-38 aircraft (Provines, Rahe, Block, Pena, & Tredici, 1983). The aircraft was approaching from a known direction and a distance of 9 miles and mean detection distance was 4.55 miles over the 400 trials. A final note about detection distances is that actual detection distances for target aircraft have been found to be considerably less than would be predicted theoretically. For example, the previously mentioned Hamilton & Monaco (1986) and Monaco & Hamilton (1985) studies found that the exposed amount aircraft needed for detection was about four times larger than mathematically predicted based on the subjects’ performance on two vision tests for high contrast acuity and visual detection thresholds. Several environmental, vision and flight performance factors were believed to account for this disconnect. The spotting dots and the "smart scaling" crowd are arguing for unrealistic spotting distances based off of hypothetical maximum performance for the human eye and then adding more on top of that for no discernable reason when the simple fact is that in reality you never get that.

Using the mouse is undoubtedly a more effective method. I am more wanting to physically interact with the cockpit in VR in the most effective way however. The ability to "reach out and touch", as limited as it is, is part of my enjoyment. Maybe one day we'll get haptic powerglove support

If you're comfortable with using mods I did see this mod a while ago but I am personally hesitant about mods. Also I don't know if it will allow you to transfer mouse inputs through to where the motion controller is pointing which is the approach I am wanting. I am using vive trackers as these let you track your hands without needing to continually drop and pick up a motion controller to also use the HOTAS.

Just in case no one has shown you this yet (I didn't notice anyone doing that) this product offers what you're asking for, though I don't know how widely compatible it is. It works with steamVR at least. https://store.steampowered.com/app/1844610/Reality_Mixer__Mixed_Reality_for_VR_headsets/ It was specifically designed for people with racing cockpits from what I understand, but you can use it for anything (I use it to see my treadmill while watching things on a cinema screen which is very nice.)

I am considering getting one of these since my index's cable is damaged and the cost of a new cable is about 1/4 of one of these so kind of silly expensive. Is there much graphical artefacting? I didn't notice any when using the Quest 2 (which I bought for someone else) but at the same time I haven't played a game with miniscule details like a flight sim on it. I am looking through the rest of the thread to see if this has already been mentioned, but there's a lot of posts Also does anyone know if there's any kind of standalone router system so you do not clog up your internet router with the quest 3's wireless if you choose to go that way? Also since it seems like the best way to use this is through open XR and the openXR toolkit, can you get preexisting lighthouse infrastructure like vive trackers working through openXR? It's not something I have ever played with.

Just in case you're still looking for a solution I have had the same problem and I have solved it by clearing the axis bindings from the motion controller. Even though the motion controller did not have any axis bindings showing on the control bindings menu (and my motion controller doesn't even have any axis), they were actually in there and just reporting being at center continually, which then confused DCS. Clearing all of the axis bindings fixed it.

Hello; 1) Is there any way to make the cursor for your VR stick to an interactable in the same way a mouse cursor does when you hold LMB/RMB? The jittering in VR causes me to "slip off" buttons and switches that need to be held. 2) Is there any way to have both hand's laser pointers active at one time and have each hand tied to a different mouse device, for if you have a ring mouse on each hand for example, allowing you to interact with more than 1 button at a time? 3) This isn't specifically VR related, but is there any way to have the game multiply the number of mwheeldn/up operations you do (so that one physical click/notch on the mousewheel registers as more in game)? Voice attack gives you this functionality but a large portion of the mousewheel inputs that voice attack is sending to the game don't get registered. Alternately is there a way to reduce the amount of mousewheel inputs needed on modules which have obscenely large amounts of mousewheel scrolling to rotate dials (the P-47 for example). Thanks.