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.

It is not possible to force spotting to be similar across resolutions. For example even if you have two players who have the exact same screen size, the exact same display settings, the exact same eyesight and distance from the screen etc, the player with the more expensive screen will have an advantage due to better pixel response times (ie less ghosting) (or possibly the artefacts from the lower quality screen will give the lower quality screen user the advantage, I don't know). And this is just one very specific issue. Instead of focusing on attempting fairness in a game simulating a scenario which is inherently unfair, on hardware that introduces unfair advantages based on dollar amounts, with players who are inherently advantaged or disadvantaged due to their physical capabilities (ie eyesight) the focus should instead either be on a system which looks visually best (ie closest to reality) or on a system which involves no arbitrary determinations and so is objective (which would be just models scaling into invisibility according to the game's perspective). Except this reasoning is inherently faulty. When you have, for example, multiple F-15 pilots saying that the absolute maximum they have ever seen another fighter, which happened to be another F-15 and so a very large fighter, was 15 miles during training and they say even then that the only reason they were able to see it was because there was a HUD box around it (or words to that effect) then the game showing you highly visible dots out to 30 miles obviously does not match and so there's something wrong with the videogame. The game already let you see targets out to distances beyond which fighter pilots actually can. The thing that the game actually has difficulty with is that once visible it is possible for real pilots to determine things like aspect better than you can in a sim, but that is something that the dot system specifically hurts rather than helping because it covers or obscures a visible model at distances where a visible model would actually be discernible. (though that part at least can be tuned). Hot diggity daffodil!

No, it's because I am only half blind and not fully blind. Also some of those dots are not easy to see (some are), but the main issue is that none of them should be easy to see and most of them should not be visible at all. Like the other guy accidentally showed the game is displaying aircraft out to 90-100km. You cannot visually see aircraft at that distance. A reminder that cruising airliners overflying you are both larger and less distant than even the closest range band in that picture. How visible are they? They're not. Also like I said to the other guy, I haven't changed any settings. Every setting is default. Also I am not wearing glasses, every optician I have been to gives me a different prescription and none of them help my vision in any noticable way while all of them give me headaches, so I gave up on the whole thing. It's actually kind of annoying, they don't seem to be able to respond when the answer to "Number 1 or Number 2" is always "they both look the same". But the main thing about your speculation regarding me and my screen is that you're doing it. You have been presented with many screenshots of the system being broken, even one of the guys arguing against it has presented a screenshot showing the very thing he claimed wasn't true, and instead of acknowledging that the system needs to be torn out you're trying to make guesses as to why I am able to (presumably) see better than you. It's fallacious "reasoning". As for giving you options to adjust the dot size. They already do, it's called labels. It's been in the game forever. Finally coming to realise the new system is broken Yes, yes... *villainous hand rubbing*. Leaked image of the upcoming B-21 raider module for DCS;

4k TVs are dirt cheap now, I got mine for £350GBP (about $20,000 USD) and I could have gotten cheaper ones, just the cheaper ones had worse reviews. I actually did buy an even cheaper one (~320) but it was dead on arrival and so I didn't bother getting the same brand just in case when I refunded it. They aren't especially high quality screens mind, so might not be the best for a pixel hunting game, but they're usable. The "put a silly amount of USD after you mention GBP" joke doesn't work as well nowadays that the two have almost the same value. Sad.

Are you in VR? Flat screen does seem to "sort of" use appropriate colours, though even there it is obvious. VR though it is just black for some reason.

The only reason I use the screen is watching youtube, netflix and things like that. Picture quality doesn't really matter. Actually the picture quality on this screen is ass compared to the older 1080 monitor that I have, but I have a goddamn 3090Ti so I am going to have a goddamn 4k screen and play games in 4k! This next bit isn't addressed to you specifically though Okopanja, but so far in this thread we have had: -Multiple people claiming that the new system allows you to see planes out to 30 miles. -Multiple people counterclaiming that you can't. -Multiple people then bringing up screenshot evidence showing that you in fact can. -A guy bringing up screenshots that he thinks proves that you cannot but actually again prove that you can. -A guy unintentionally editing the image to show that the game does not in fact show planes out to 30 miles but instead shows planes out to ~60 miles. What a beautiful mess this thread and indeed this entire spotting system is.

Here is an illustration of what I can see and when I can see it on that image, just in case you need it. As for what device, a "Vestel 43 UHD_LCD_TV" (the cheapest 4k tv I could get that didn't have awful reviews) with every setting on it stock. On an Nvidia card with all of the Nvidia display options also stock (I recently reinstalled windows and felt no need to edit any of it).. Looking at the picture exactly as it was uploaded. null And seriously, I have very bad eyesight, 6/12 (6/15 in my left, but I do not know what that actually works out as in terms of bino so lets just go with 6/12). If all you could see was that one dot then... Well. You need to see an optician. Though now knowing that they're there, I only need the zoom to see the 60km line, but that is because it is easier to see things where you have a rough idea where they are. An extra thing that just occurred to me is that there's multiple lighter dots in that "possible 60km line" which are vertically offset, which might mean you can actually also see the 70km line and perspective is shrinking the vertical spacing, but it's hard to tell just with a picture. An additional thing is that your ultra high contrast image shows that the game is actually rendering the planes ages into the distance, so someone with exceptional eyesight could potentially be seeing these planes up to I think the last one would be 90km. Crazy.

Your eyes very clearly are not fine if you can only see the one dot. There's a dot that is only marginally less obvious than it in the same cloud on the other side for instance, you should at least be able to see that one but can't. You really need to get your eyes checked. You might think your eyes are fine, eyesight degradation is (normally) so gradual that you do not notice it, but your eyesight is not fine.

Where exactly are you meaning? There's lots of aircraft in the picture (there's 4-5 rows of 4 aircraft visible). If you are meaning the 60km line, what I am talking about is the way that there is a lot of inconsistent variation in the pixel colours, that is how you spot aircraft when you "pixel hunt." If you look at the red line I put in, there's a very bright pixel just above the last pixel in the red line, and also a very bright pixel down and to the left of the last pixel in the red line, and there's a few other abnormally bright pixels (compared to the general background colour) in the same area. In the actual sim you'd be able to differentiate them from the clouds by parallax, but you do not have that in a picture. Unless you mean you literally cannot see any of the dots other than the very obvious one that is directly in a line above the red and white tower, in which case you might want to see an optician (not a joke or an insult, you should be able to see more even with fairly bad eyesight).

Why? Because it is advertised as "lossless". God. I can't be bothered with that one lmao.

No I didn't..? I said you didn't give ranges. When there are multiple arrays of objects giving a start and an end value is not enough to determine what the interval between the arrays is, especially when you also have an unknown number of arrays. My friend you shouldn't need this explained to you. And variations in colour and brightness are how the human eye works, yes. Though you have basically tipped your hand that the entire reason you think this system is acceptable is because you have severely deficient eyesight. Lmfao. This thread. "You can see aircraft out to 30 miles, they're obvious." "No they're not, here's a screenshot with obvious aircraft out to 30 miles to prove that they're not there." "They're there though.?" "You're a liar! Own it!!" We need apophis now more than ever.