darkman222

So what a surprise. You dont have to rate fight if you have 9Xs.

I am running a 4090 and VR and I have a pretty sweet spot between VR resolution and GPU frame time. Its again the CPU that struggles. Even with MT. I did a test back then with my i9-12900KS and people said that W11 will be able to squeeze more performance out of it than W10. So I installed it and the performance was the same if not a little bit worse on W11 compared to W10. So I went back to W10. At least as long as I have my i9-12900KS.

Using a Intel Core i9-12900KS you would recommend staying on W10 @Dragon1-1, correct? What if I wanted to spend some money upgrading to a Intel Core i9-13900 together with W11? Do you see any big improvements? Or would it be a waste of money? I mean I did some tests on W10 vs W11 but that was a year or more ago, long before Multithreaded DCS.

Sorry for bumping the thread. But are there any plans to create that mod in a way it does not overwrite the regular f16c? I would love to jump in the sufa time and again, but losing the regular f16 quick missions etc is no option unfortunately. Another question: What is the amount of afterburner thrust the SUFA is modelled with? A quick internet research just shows it has the same thrust as the f16c which is 129 kn.

Growling sidewinder likes to have g effects off. So he gets the performance from the F16 that ED emphasizes to meet the EM charts. Put the unfit DCS pilot in the F16 and now you have a limiting factor that is not in the EM charts. Of course that's not THE solution for the discussion here, but an easy to identify factor why the F18 out rates the viper, while it's pilot struggles to stay awake, at the same time the F18 pilot chills at 7.5 G .

The original post is about out rating an opponent, and g modelling plays a part for these reasons: 1. The viper's peak performance is in the 9g regime. 2. It does not matter if there's a public available HUD Tape of a viper pulling 9g or not. Read the EM diagram. It's available to the public. 3. Nobody needs to pull 9g for 60 seconds. But the current g modelling does not allow for a long enough 9 g usage to use the strengths of the viper. You rate around with sustained rate at 7.5 g and for the final higher Gs to pull the bandit in the HUD, the DCS pilot blacks out. That's part of the problem. ( Yes you will be slow then, but you will also have a kill. At the moment, you'll be only slow and sleeping) 4. Question: What's the required time of a Pilot to sustain 9g to be qualified as viper driver? For the German Euro Fighter it's 15 second's of 9g for example. It can't be less for the viper.

I dont know how the AI is with the new update we had. But before it did not obey the laws of physics... at all. Also the G modelling gets into the way of the F16 rating as it should. The pilot is almost at the edge of conciousness when you want to make the final pull of the bandit into the HUD for the gunshot. You basically learn bad habits with the current G modelling, because it turns out to be the limiting factor very often.

Hmm yes. I thought about it, but that would be an extra step during a dogfight. Disabling the axis would be much more convenient. Unfortunately there is no documentation from Winwing if it might be possible to do with their Simapp Software or not.

I have a winwing throttle and I am looking for a way to disable an axis while a button is pressed. Long story short, F16 cursor enable switch slaves the Aim9 seeker to the JHCMS, but moving the cursor enable switch also re-activates the radar and auto-locks the bandit. Result : Stealtiness is gone. So what I tried was to use the switch as modifier. When depressed it changed the axis to a useless axis. A view axis for example, not used in VR. But the thing is, when I assigned the button to act as modifier I could not use it for the primary function to slave the Aim9 seeker any more. It still did show up as button assignment, but didnt work anymore. When I tried to re-assign it, it did not accept the button any more because it was a modifier now. Any idea or help to get the desired behavior is appreciated.

Awesome. Great guide, answering a lot of questions too. Thanks

Exacly my question. Its not I dont use OXRTK. I just cant with DFR. So I will trust what Varjo Base tells me and from my previous experiences with fpsVR which kept telling me the high VB setting is 4148*3556. Would be cool to confirm this with a third party software like OXRTK or fpsVR as well as CPU frame times for comparison.

I would love it if you touch the tape with the VR Controller hands and it started to stick to your virtual VR hands.

Yeah, I totally understand that MP can lead to a lot of social interactions. Some people like it, others dont. Nothing wrong about that opinion. Not being able to use pause is a thing too. Just plugging in the auto pilot while brining the kids to bed is not gonna work I guess

Thanks @Supmua So what youre saying is when using DFR there is no way to read out the CPU frame time as in fpsVR any more. There is no third party tool or anything. Because in fpsVR it was pretty obvious that for reasons, I dont know, at some point during multiplayer, when changing aircraft I got CPU frame time spikes. Well I might need to revert to steamVR and capture fpsVR for ED as a bug report, that it does not get lost.

Singleplayer mission will always be a limited amount. But if you play Multiplayer, the missions are limitless. I highly encourage everybody to start playing Multiplayer. You'll never go back to play SP missions again.

Thanks for pointing that out @dburne. I was about to miss DFR while experimenting with Fixed Foveated Rendering.

@SupmuaThanks a lot for the quick summary. I was about to miss out on DFR at all. It works for me now. And I can see sh**t now! Amazing. I was experimenting with FFR via the OXRTK but this seems to gain even more GPU performance. Cant tell it in numbers, because I cant use fpsVR nor the OXRTK overlay. But it feels like I gained at least 10 fps on the GPU frametime side. I mean like 10 fps more compared to fixed foveated rendering via OXRTK. On some occasions, winter in Caucasus for example I can see the high resolution rendering square jumping around but you get pretty quick used to it. Any way to read out the CPU and GPU frame times with DFR now? (except the weird DCS fps read out which is quite unintuitive)

How do I get into quad view mode in MT with the Aero? I can get it to work with the singlethreading version of it if I just start it without modifying the shortcut like "E:\DCS World OpenBeta\bin\DCS_updater.exe" as it comes per default. If I want to start it in MT "E:\DCS World OpenBeta\bin-mt\DCS.exe" it does not give any output image. ( It catches the mouse cursor though, so I know the VR view is there) Varjo Base is set to openXR:on openVR:on Tried openXR:on openVR:off - same result .... tried a slow repair, didnt help either.

Okay, but to sum it up and for my understanding. The upsampling of 1.89 times higher than the Aero physically can go is an imaginary value some of the technicans at Varjo found to be the best value to get the sharpest image out of the Aero while keeping the resolution at a reasonable level. Could it be put that way?

Thanks for all the replies. I am getting little lost here. What is quad view for? Some months ago I was glad I could get rid of it because of the lower performance and the double cursor.

You are out of range for guns for sure. I had done a similar post a year or maybe more ago. The circle around the designated target unspins counterclockwise. I think at a distance of F 045 which is the 3 o clock position in the circle youre slowly getting in range for guns. Put the bandit on the minus symbol (which is for him doing a max 9 G turn) and fire your gun. You'll see in Tacview that all your bullets will fall behind him. Even if you shot at the maximum plausible amout of lead ( 9G) at him. Get closer to the bandit (in one of your screenshots), you'll see the pipper slowly creeping up from below the HUD. In the F16, the pipper creeps up the HUD from infinity below through the 9G minus symbol and up to a position between the plus and the minus symbol in the funnel to meet the real G the bandit is currently pulling. What you are expecting is the behavior from the F15 or F18. Where the pipper stays visible all the time in the HUD even if the bandit is out of range. This is when you see people firing at the back of some other aircraft thats running away (on the dogfight, guns only servers). If you see it from the side view, you'll realize the bullets fall behind the target. But for the F15 or F18 pilot who is shooting, the pipper is on target, so they fire their gun. I never got an answer why the pipper in the F16 behaves differently from the F15 or F18.

Bump, because it was tagged while I was editing. See edit above for behavior in ACM Boresight too.

Reproduction: DGFT switch to DGFT TMS up (activate Radar) TMS up (activate JHMCS) Look at target ( auto lock) Look away from target TMS up ( to reacquire new target) Look around, radar elevation follows as intended, radar azimuth scans the full radar azimuth. Expected: TMS up should slave the radar to the JHMCS in elevation and azimuth. Not in elevation only. Plausibility: See at the end of the video while looking right, target on the left gets locked. Seems not to work as intended or practical in a dogfight. If further doubts exist, I am sure it behaves the same without the JHMCS with normal ACM radar boresight modes. Will add that later. Video: Track: LOCK3.trk ******* EDIT: ******* Same for DGFT Boresight mode. Elevation stays in boresight center, azimuth scans full azimuth range if going TMS up with a locked target and if not being cancelled by a TMS down before. acm azimuth bug boresight.trk

Yes, thats where I am pointing my question into. Looks like the Aero does 1.89 times in the highest preset

Okay thanks for the hints. I have to look into that quad mode too. I just forgot about it as I used the openvr_api.dll that basically disables quad view. But my point is, how can Varjo talk about PPD aka pixels per degree if they start upsampling or you may call it oversampling an image? I mean, the headset has a physical given amount of pixels it can display. If you choose a setting thats below this physical resolution it will lower the PPD. But if you go higher than the physical resolution of the headset you dont increase the PPD. Only the image gets clearer by rendering at a higher resolution, smoothing pixels out. Found this in another thread: null Compared to the technical specs somewhere between medium and high is where the real resolution of the Aero sits. Talking about a higher PPD is only done by rendering a higher resolution that smoothes out the image from there on if I understand correctly. Very high and high already are higher than the Aero can display. But if the aero cant display more than the high setting, why was the the decision that highest is the best achievable quality. this could go on forever I mean. Just to throw stupid numbers, but why is not there an "ultra" setting with 70 PPD at 8296x7112 Of course no GPU can process that, but with that definition in mind there is no upper limit.