James DeSouza

So yes then. I don't know why you are so incapable of admitting to being wrong :D. Also the problem wasn't you insinuating cheating, the problem was that your insinuation is nonsensical.

My apologies, you are right about this part. I just looked at a tutorial about FOVs (it's not something I bother with myself) from a channel that is supposed to be good and they said 109 is the default (they actually complained about it being the default in fact, though this was a year ago so maybe it changed since then?). As for your rambling about the dots. None of that matters my friend. A different line of code firing off to create the same effect does not change that it is the same effect. Is it a giant, visually identical, dark blob that is near or on distant aircraft so you can see their position? Y/N? Also you are insinuating that anyone who doesn't like this change is a cheater while this change is quite literally forcing a cheat to be permanently on. You need to sort yourself out.

UPDATE for anyone else who might want to use a vive tracker glove: While it is true that editing anything in plus X makes the tracker flip 180, editing plus Z is different. "plus_z": [ 0, This flips your tracker upside down for some reason 0, This does allow you to rotate the tracker on a single axis, read below -1 This also flips your tracker upside down I had thought the middle one simply did nothing, as I was putting small values (0.1 and such) in because values like that are what the default values on this and my other VR controllers. It turns out these small values ARE rotating it, just so slightly I didn't notice and thought it did nothing. This setting rotates it along an axis which essentially cuts through the tracker from the charging port to the other side of the tracker (lets call this X for the sake of discussion). By setting this to 1.5 I can allow the tracker to rotate enough that the pointer finger in DCS roughly matches my pointer finger and so it is usable. You can get rotation on the axis of the screwhole (let's call this Y) by just rotating the tracker. Rotation along the Z axis in this context is something I can't figure out, as every other setting just 180's your tracker as soon as you change it, no matter how much you change it. This means the ingame hand and my hand are out of synch about 45 degrees along the axis of wrist rotation. It's not the end of the world but it is undesirable. I'd like to figure out a way to avoid this. UPDATE 2: The way to get it so the laser pointer is always on is to take another controller and bind one button on it as a toggle action for "Left grip button" and another button on it as a toggle action for "Right grip button", these toggles make the button stay on and the toggles persist even after the controller is turned off (though as I currently only have 1 tracker I do not know what will happen when I get a second tracker that replaces the controller I used to toggle these on) Hello, I have been wanting to make a pair of tracking gloves for a while, so I figured I'd get a vive tracker (since I saw someone on this forum suggest it). Unfortunately the tracker does not work with DCS as a tracker. This is fine because you can edit its config json to get it to register as a controller, which now makes it work with DCS unfortunately the angle of the hand is completely wrong. Now there are coordinate information on the tracker's config file, however they do not seem to do anything logical The layout is; "head": { "plus_x": [ 1, (Didn't seem to do anything). 0, 0 ], "plus_z": [ 0, (If you change any of these, the controller appears inverted on the vertical axis, that is all any of these do) 0, -1 ], "position": [ (As the name suggests, all of these are positional offsets, one for each axis) 0, 0, -0.005000000013038516 Unfortunately every time you want to edit it, you have to come out of steam VR, unplug your headset, plug in the tracker, then upload the new config file, then plug your headset back in, then see what effect it had. This is wearing out the sockets and causing odd behaviour in my PC from doing it so rapidly. It is wierd as well, since there is a valve dev page describing the JSON, and the way it describes these is that they're simple -1 - +1 rotation and position values, so you should be able to rotate the controller by changing them, but any change from the default on the Plus X or Plus Z sections just makes the controller inverted. It doesn't make sense. https://github.com/ValveSoftware/openvr/wiki/The-JSON-File-(Lighthouse-Devices) I am wondering, does anyone have any idea how you actually reorient a VR controller in this game? Also is it possible to have it so a VR controller's laser pointer is always active while the controller is visible? Since it is a tracker it has no buttons.

The default DCS FOV is 109 degrees, and it is 109 degrees without being 109 degrees on the human's own field of view. It won't match up perfectly, but is isn't awful, arbitrary and artificial like forcing the dot labels on is. People can zoom to get an artificial advantage (assuming they can actually make the pixel out themselves) but at that point it is so minor that it doesn't matter. No different than the guy having a bunch of extra hats to do more things HOTAS.

That is what it is, that is what I have been saying all along in this thread. They just forced dot labels on and slightly changed their position offset. That is all this is. To be frank the only thing that makes sense to me is that everyone else already figured this out and that everyone who is saying this is a good change just wants to "cheat" with the dot labels on with the excuse that they have no option not to. I cannot fathom why there isn't a greater negative response otherwise.

nullSorry, but I couldn't help myself.

So having an actual model scale with distance the same way it just always does and not showing it when it is smaller than a pixel has you see models too far out vs having a magical permanent hovering cargo container that is always over the aircraft no matter how small it would actually be on your field of view..? What?! It being unfair doesn't really matter though. It is unfair, but it is also unavoidable. There's never a solution for everyone. For example this awful mechanic which sadly is probably going to stick in the game, even if they give it a toggle off, which on the face of it seems like a solution for everyone, will actually put those who refuse to use it at an incredible and permanent disadvantage.

It is not attacking a different problem. It is attacking the same problem. And this approach it will never be a solution to the problem wither because it is completely arbitrary. The only actual solution to the problem is to have models fade out until they take up the space a single pixel would be on the screen, then do not render them at all once they are at a distance where they would take up less than a single pixel on the screen. If the distance scaling is accurate then this is a completely objective way to handle the problem. The only argument against it is that it puts people who do not have the money to buy higher resolution screens at a disadvantage, but every single part of this game puts the people who have less money at a disadvantage (ie joystick vs keyboard and mouse, track IR vs viewhat, thrustmaster HOTAS X vs Virpil CM3 and whatever joystick, guy with 5 fps on a 1050 vs 144 on a 4090TI, etc.) so bodging an awful "fix" to try to level the playing field in this specific context when the entire rest of the playing field is nonsensical, especially when the fix has an awful effect that you could already get if you wanted it through the dot labels as you yourself prove in this post; Zoom actually is realistic in this context as it gives you a rough visual resolution per degree field of view closer to what your eyes are actually capable of. It is an unrealistic way of achieving a realistic end goal

Why even have radar Also the hornet is in Nm isn't it, so that 24.2 would be near 30 normal miles. Also with 1200 knot closure the guy has to be nose on to you, so you absolutely should not be able to see anything at those kinds of distances.

No. I don't have exact figures but a nice example is that of a British F4 pilot I was listening to, who had above average eyesight, he said the furthest he ever saw a fighter at was 8 miles for a regular phantom and 10 miles for the German F4F phantom and in both cases it was because he saw the engine smoke rather than the aircraft themselves (and the German phantoms apparently smoked more). And he treated seeing them at this kind of distance as if it was an achievement. The Phantom is gigantic (same size as an F-15) and spews out smoke, and you're at a best case seeing it (already knowing the rough area it is in) is ~16km. Every fighter I have seen makes a point of how important the radar is even up close. For instance I was listening to an F16 pilot who said dogfight auto aquisition modes are important in BFM because they put a box around the target that lets you spot them more easily, and F16 dogfight mode only locks to something like 4 miles. I can't see why that would be if you have giant black blocks floating around which is the current system. Aircraft are difficult to spot. I still don't understand why they added this. There's been a dots only label option for ages (forever as far as I know) that puts dots over things so you can see them more easily. It does what this does, it already exists, why make this change?

No, they are just massive in general. Look at This for instance. From 1.8km to 10km you're looking at a dot of functionally similar size. You should barely be able to see anything at 10km. A 20/20 eye has a rough minimum visual resolution of ~40 arc seconds, which equated to roughly 0.01 of a degree (and this is in idealized perfect contrast, in reality it'll be lower). At 10km this means you're limited to a minimum visual clarity of 2m objects. 2m sounds like a lot but it really isn't, an F-15 which is goddamn titanic is 6x20x13 (and because it's not a solid block in reality it's harder to spot than that might seem), a 109 is 3x9x10, a ju 88 is 5x15x20. Running the minimum of what your eye is capable of in perfect situations. It's why actual fighter pilots make such a big deal of radar even up close, it's why they make such a big deal of planform vs blade, etc. You should not be able to see as clearly as is in these pictures.

You're supposed to have a good chance of losing track of things when you go heads down, it's legitimately the entire reason HUDs were invented.

That's the thing though, the idea that it is "just what you're used to" doesn't apply to the western style of artificial horizon. The western style of artificial horizon just simulates looking out a window. You see the horizon move like you would see the horizon move if you were just looking out. Anyone can figure that out, even a 70 year old who has never seen an artificial horizon before. The Russian system requires conditioning or interpretation, the western system just works based on what you expect to see.

Hello, the Russian style of artificial horizon has always struck me as being objectively worse than the western style as, because it doesn't simulate looking out of a window like the western style does it is not intuitive and so requires extra thought. But obviously it must have had some kind of advantage or the soviets and russians wouldn't have kept using it, so I am wondering if anyone knows what those advantages are.

Even outside of VR, you shouldn't be seeing black dots. I just don't want any of that artificial spotting at all. I mean even if you have perfect eyes you're not going to be seeing a fighter at 10nm. Minimum size you can differentiate at that distance with perfect idealized 20/20 and absolute black-white contrast is a 10 foot object, never mind looking at a greyish jet against a greyish sky. It's especially bad in VR yeah, but just in general it's bad. Ultimately though if other people want it that's fair enough, but just give an option to disable it.

I am amazed the amount of people saying this is good. You could get the exact same effect as this by playing with labels on. Why force this awful thing on to other people? "Hey you know what would make this game better? Have everyone's positions constantly broadcast to you by giant floating blocks!" On an index, 150% resolution in steam VR (the default) and 100% resolution in DCS. Hell I don't care if it puts me at a disadvantage. Just give me an option to disable this ridiculous eyesore. options.lua

Hello, I have been listening to some audiobooks of WW2 allied pilots and one thing that I have heard mentioned a couple of times is "freelancing", which seem, from the descriptions of it in those books, to be lone German fighters loitering in an area and attacking anything they see. How common was this? Why was it done? It seems dangerous and inefficient.

I watched a video about dive performance that talked about mach limits and critical/compressibility mach. I am wondering what the mach limits on the mosquito are, as i can't find them. Also what happens when the mosquito exceeds these limits, does it lock up due to compressibility or does it break to pieces since it is made of posicle sticks? Also another question that I forgot I was curious until I posted this. Does anyone know what the rationale for them putting the gunsight between the pilot and copilot was? Since the pilot is the only person that can aim the guns it doesn't make sense for it to be anywhere but right in front of him.

I was more meaning an absolute babies first steps kind of tutorial video series on youtube if you know of any good ones. Like I know what soldering is conceptually but have no idea how to actually do it. Or buying parts, I have no idea what parts are right or how to tell (I am actually trying to replace a wire in my throttle and not knowing what parts are right is a stumbling block :D) I am looking at video tutorials myself but recommendations for good ones is alway useful.

I am interested in trying to put one of these ring mice together, but I have absolutely no knowledge of electronics. What would be a good starting point?

Did you actually buy a mouse like that? They're potential malware vectors so I am hesitant about it, but at the same time I need a second finger mouse so I can have one functioning on both hands.

I am curious, do you shake in reality or something? Because I personally do a fair bit but never noticed the quest 2 being more shakey than I myself actually am. Or is it a DCS specific problem, I never used the quest with DCS. If you do shake, does removing the shaking in the headset not "feel wierd"?

Just cheap ass nylon straps. One around the bottom to keep it steady on my wrist then a cross around the top of the grip section on the index to keep it on the back of my hand and also rotationally stable. Means my index controller stays (mostly) rigid on my hand and tracks my hand movement, I then use the little ring presenter to simulate pressing buttons. Costs like £25 per hand (assuming you already have motion controllers obviously, much more if you don't). Being able to fix those two problems, and maybe get a lower profile ring mouse/presenter, would make it almost perfect. You're actually the guy who gave me the idea. It's such a simple concept that I am kind of embarrased I didn't think of it myself though. I want the handset fixed to the back of my hand just so I don't have to flick my hand to get the handset in place. It breaks my "immersion" so to speak.

Doesn't inside out stop tracking properly if your hands are outside of a rough cone from the front of the headset? That's what I had been told but have never tested it. If so, lighthouse allows you full tracking so still might be better for seated.

Point Control at home: Nah but seriously this system works pretty well. I have two issues with it at the moment that I was hoping I could get some help with. 1) Since I couldn't find any ring mice, I instead decided to go with a ring presenter. However as a presenter its buttons are hardcoded to be key combinations for Microsoft Powerpoint. Bottom (as aligned in picture) is B, left is page down, right is page up and top is Esc, F5, Alt, Shift and CTRL all in one button. Binding B to left click allows you to navigate the menus with it pretty easy and also interact with the cockpit. The page up/down keys don't interact with the menus well but are fine in cockpit. The top one is just a disaster. I would like to know if altering the actual hardware bindings, as in what the system sees the buttons as, is possible for such a device. Particularly as DCS treats it as if it is being input from my actual keyboard so there's no way to differentiate left and right (though I don't know if it is possible to have two hands interact with different controls anyway if you are simulating a mouse press to do it...) 2) It is positioned so that as long as my hand isn't roughly straight aligned with my forearm, the trigger is not depressed. If I move it further the trigger is depressed, which is bound to be the grip button so the game can activate the pointer. Unfortunately it is not 100% reliable and I accidentally fire the pointer off at times. This means there's a potential for me to accidentally interact with the cockpit if my digital finger gets near an input. Is it possible to disable the digital finger pressing mechanic without fully disabling the digital hands? Thanks for any answers.