Eagles787

VR issues are hardly responded on by ED. I guess there are not enough users on VR yet to make it worth their time. It's a pitty, 2.5.5 ran quite well besides the spinning clouds issue. Since 2.5.6 it's a mess and it hurts your eyes seeing things only in one eye, it basically brakes the whole VR experience. Since VR is a free feature i don't expect it to be improved anytime soon.

I think as well these two mods are better separated as they serve different purposes. Or it could be zipped into one archive file but with two folders indicating which one is the shader and which one the shadow mod. I like the shader mod, but the shadow mod makes almost no improvement on my system so I prefer to keep the flat shadows.

Thanks makes perfect sense now, i never noticed this in the other aircraft that had pilot reflection already. I do like the new pilot reflection though and especially in VR it adds to the immersion.

I'm not sure if the latest OB update changed something to the cockpit mirror but i can't remember seeing the pilot from this angle. Just noticed now that the mirror image moves in reverse to the actual pilot. When i move forward closer to the mirror, the mirror image moves backwards.

I run a Valve Index and have some clouds in the distance rendered in one eye only. It's not for all clouds, it depends on the distance i guess. I could take a screen shot but that is only from one eye and won't show the problem. It's quite disorientating to have object only rendered in one eye in VR, i usually make missions without clouds now. This has been reported already for a while and basically means VR is broken if you use clouds. Still OB branches are being pushed to Stable with these kind of errors in the software. Please look into this, it's bad enough we're having to do with such poor VR performance in general, but having this kind of errors makes VR simply a broken feature.

Awesome that works perfect! I didn't even know you can run the same build as a stand alone server and client at the same time, i was able to delete my dedicated server install now and just use my normal builds :thumbup: I guess i can only run one dedicated server instance at a time, since there is only one custom write folder line under dedicated server options?

Sorry i never noticed there is dedicated server setting button in the Utility :doh: How do i set this up, do i need to add my DCS dedicated server install to one of the empty build slots? And then i can launch the server via the Home screen of the Utility? And with my server running i can then still start my selected DCS client build?

Thanks :thumbup: Another small issue i have is that i run the DCS standalone server and DCS client on the same machine. The server runs continuously, but when i want to start the DCS client to play DCS i cannot launch it from the Utility because it thinks DCS is already running. I need to close the server first and then launch DCS and launch the server again. Would be great if the Utility can distinguish between DCS client and stand alone server. Thanks!

Hi Guys, can someone maybe help with this: When i have SRS automatically start up as an external application when i launch DCS in the Utility, none of my SRS settings are there, it starts like with an empty config. While if i start SRS via my desktop shortcut or even the SR-clientRadio.exe directly it opens with all my current settings for PTT buttons etc. Any idea why the SRS config is not loading when the Utility starts it up? Thanks for the help!

This whole OpenBeta shambles should be abandoned. Beta testing should be done by a selected group of testers only for bug finding. As soon as a new module or feature is tested in Beta and found sufficiently stable, it should be added to the Stable branch. The general public should only have access to Stable, so that also the multiplayer servers can only run Stable. A new module should only be released when it can run reliably on the Stable branch, sure it can still be in early access with not all systems working, but it should be able to run without major issues. Right now what is released as OpenBeta are experimental builds that belong in Alpha releases, and should not be released in public. Since ED only updates the Stable branch from the latest OpenBeta it means that it can take ages for normal small bug fixes and new features to make it to the Stable branch. The Stable branch should receive those as soon as they are tested, and not linked to the experimental Alpha releases which they are calling OpenBeta. It's a completely stupid way of software development and the game has the reputation now of being unreliable and often broken. The only reason they are getting away with this is that they have zero competition.

Thank you for your help. We did check his port forwarding and he has 10308 enabled on his router to his pc. What puzzles us is that he can't see my server either when i host it, while the other team members can see it and play on it. It doesn't show up on his server list and when he tries via ip he gets the "server offline" message while we are actually playing on it. He is able to connect to all the other public servers like AO or Hoggit etc without a problem. Literally the only difference we can find is that he is on Steam. Does Steam maybe require another port to be opened? Although since he can join AO i don't see how that can be the problem.

We are a team of four pilots and have a consistent problem that one of us can't see the hosted server by one of the other members, and when he hosts a server we all three can't see his. When we try to connect by ip he is the only one getting the "Server offline" message, while the other three are actually in the server. We are all four able to join public servers like AO. This drives us nuts and no idea how we can solve it. We all tried both openbeta and stable at the same time, the only difference is that he is on the Steam version while the other three are on stand alone. Can this be the reason, is Steam and stand alone not compatible for multiplayer? Thanks for any information!

As you can see in both those examples, the human pilot is not able at all to stay in close formation during anything but the shallow constant turns. During the loop in the first video the AI pulls completely away. For us guys who do formation aerobatics, there is a lot of finesse in how we enter, hold and exit maneuvers, and do this within a few feet from each other. The AI makes instant flight path changes that we can never follow. I'm sure that's what the OP was asking about. Being able to fly against a recorded track would be an amazing training tool for formation aerobatics guys.

I guess the utility copies stored preset settings to the corresponding DCS settings lua files before it launches DCS? But i have no idea if that can influence the input settings from DCS.

Well i seem to get discrepancies between presets with regards to input settings. I noticed this on the P51 and L39 now. The latest 2.5.6 OB is giving me lots of weird stuff lately :cry: It seems ED added the possibility to save different presets within DCS, maybe this is causing issues with Updater Utility now?

The aerobatics figures that are in the mission editor for AI are not usable for formation aerobatics practice. Their maneuvering is not based on an actual flight model, but just pre-programmed tracks. An AI will pull instantaneously from level flight into a 7g loop for example. These maneuvers are just suitable as background traffic in your mission. The possibility to record your own track, which DCS does already, and then use that for an AI to fly should be very easy to implement, and i think could also be very useful in combat mission creation.

I have a question regarding presets. I use one preset for track IR and one for VR. I usually setup a new module in track IR first before i fly it in VR. Yesterday with the P51 module i noticed that the input assignments i made in the track IR preset were not there in the VR preset. I always assumed that only game settings are individual per setting, but that input bindings are shared, is this correct? Is there a way to copy input bindings from one preset to another if this is not the case? Thanks for the help.

I asked the same question in the mission editor sub but no answers. I tried changing track files to mission files with all kind of options regarding AI aircraft but could not make it work. You are not able to fly an aircraft during replay of a track, and i could not find a way for an AI to fly a recorded track in a mission. So if anybody knows a way how to do this, i would love to know. I guess we need a new option which is a combination between flying and replaying a mission.

Hi guys, Is there a way to replay a track file as a mission? So i can be an active player in a mission where the AI aircraft fly the recorded track file? I know you can change the track file into a mission file, and it seems to take a longer time for the mission to load, but i can't get any aircraft to fly the recorded tracks. Thanks for any info.

Sorry if this looks like off topic, how ever this discussion is about the promised improvements to the core simulator, not if a subscription or other payment model is better or worse. I think this topic should be able to discuss this.

That's why i'm saying the funding for DCS world and the aircraft modules should be separated. Once you buy an aircraft module you should be able to keep using it in DCS world unless there is a big upgrade to the module. But a separate way of funding DCS world, either by subscription or a one time purchase, would maybe give them the resources to really give the core simulator the overhaul it needs and keep it updated. Other flight simulators are taking big leaps forward right now, while DCS can barely run properly in it's current state. And still people are asking for more new features, better graphics especially for VR, better weather, better AI, better MP performance, better dynamic campaigns while the core sim right now can not even handle the current feature list. All ED is doing in my opinion is promising new features that take so long before they are realized, hardware has improved and keeps allowing them to stick with their old code. Sure we can all drop $$$$ on the new Nvidia 3080ti and the newest $$$$ Intel CPU's at 5.3Ghz to keep the thing running on 1 core. I'd be more happy to see more development to the core simulator, even if that costs a few $ per month.

If they leave the modules aside for a while, where is their funding coming from? Why would they even bother upgrading the graphics engine for free? Or add new features to DCS world, or even clearing up all the old bugs that are there? It is clear to everybody that the current financial model of just selling new modules is the reason the core game is in such a state as it is. So the only solution eventually is to stop making DCS world for free. I'm sure this was a marketing decision when the game came to the market, but right now the resources that are needed to work on such a complex program is not sustainable anymore by selling flashy aircraft modules alone. Now of course they can charge a one time fee to lets say purchase DCS world 3.0 and for that amount they promise a certain time of bug fixing. After that when 4.0 comes out, you'll be charged another update fee etc. It used to work for most paid software packages like this. However more have switch over to a subscription model now which i think is much more affordable for most people, and guarantees the developer a more steady funding. Look at how the music and movie industry changed by going to subscription based solutions instead of purchase. I think gaming should go in the same direction. It's just weird to see that so many people are against funding DCS world, while we all need relatively high end hardware to play this game in the first place. Whats the point to spend high $$$ on hardware when the software runs like crap?

I think it's best to let the operating system be in charge of the core scheduling. Windows seem to have improved with the new higher core AMD CPU's being available. Locking manually several cores to just the DCS thread is not necessarily best for performance. Their are other high priority threads from the operating system and video drivers etc that are equally important for game performance. Core scheduling is therefor a dynamic process, and should not be manually assigned. Until DCS is starting to take advantage of the available cores with multiple treads, this is about as good as it gets. Many people on here are hoping Vulkan will make a big difference and that Vulkan will make DCS "multi-core". This is not the case, Vulkan is just a more efficient graphics API where the game can access the graphics card more directly instead of via the OpenGL or DirectX API. This would allow the game to have more control of the graphics process, but only if the game engine is setup for this. There is a video explaining how another flight sim is taking advantage of Vulkan by intelligently pre-loading renders directly into VRAM via a separate thread. Just changing from DirectX to Vulkan API alone is not going to gain that much i think, but we'll have to see how DCS will take advantage of this.

When you buy a module, you buy it for the current state of DCS World. We can't expect software to be continuously updated from a one time purchase. All they have to do is when DCS World 3.0 comes out to make it a subscription. People who don't want to buy into that can perfectly keep using their current modules under DCS 2.5. The continuous evolution of the core software needs to be separated from the module purchases. Right now everybody is frustrated with the state the game is in, and if they continue like this it will just got worse from here on.

Windows has made changes to the multi-core scheduler in recent updates i think.