Cytarabine

I think in part because you have to do a little more to get the most out of the Hornets radar, but if you do that more you get a whole lot more back. The Vipers radar is pretty good with doing nothing (though I hate the way TWS works in it), while the Hornet you have to deal with its quirks a bit.

Not sure if this is a bug or it was some form of damage from over stressing the airframe but after pulling behind a Mirage 2000 in BFM and destroying it with guns (and not as far as I could tell hitting any debris) my F-15E continued to oscillate like it was still in the wake turbulence no matter what control inputs I made. I've included a track file of the incident (including my horrendous BFM skills). Anyone noticed anything similar? Edit: To save having to watch the whole track it is right at the end in the last minute or so. wEIRD.trk

Yeah I have to agree. It just feels amazing. I particularly love how clear the HUD is and the UFC is so good (I am starting to love the old school UFC). Yes there are some issues, and it's far from complete, however it's a great start.

Thanks @mbucchia for your work on this. It is fantastic, running it with my Quest Pro gave me a nice performance boost, and enough that I have gone from 90Hz forced to 45Hz to 72Hz with ASW switched off which is nice. Even over Sinai in a Mudhen with stuff happening all around. Still tweaking the settings a little bit to find the exact right balance, have turned up the render scaling in the center a bit and down in the peripheries (it's so rare that I actually catch the foveated rendering missing). It also makes me feel better about the Quest Pro compared to the upcoming Quest 3 so that's a bonus.

I replaced my warthog throttle with a winwing Orion 2 recently and while it’s a nice upgrade, it doesn’t really compare to the difference the QP makes over the Reverb G2. It might be worth waiting to see what Meta announce at the upcoming event, the Q3 might be most of the feature set for a more reasonable price, particularly as some of the features (like DFR) which might not make it to a consumer level headset don’t work in DCS. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Could just restrict mobility no matter how much you move… which would add some nausea so make it a really visceral experience. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the variability of DCS will keep VR a relatively niche area for the foreseeable future. People can post their performance optimizations (speed-of-heat did fantastic work with his guide, which even if not following verbatim did provide useful tips) but ultimately individual users have to decide which trade-offs they find acceptable and what their scenarios are to find their own sweet spot. Some users are entirely multiplayer and fly on Caucuses all the time, and what suits them might be very different to someone who does lots of Liberation campaigns on the Syria map for example. Ultimately DCS (like other flight sims which are similarly cursed) is not designed as a VR title, it's a flat screen title you can play in VR, and so there are always going to be compromises even with the best of hardware. I'd probably rather ED spend their time getting features in to the engine that will help VR users (DLSS/DLAA, Vulkan, ongoing MT work) than spending time on creating a moving feast of VR presets which will ultimately keep nobody happy.

In my experience with keeping resolution set to maximum in the Oculus software with no addition multiplier in OTT and shadows at medium instead of high I can maintain 72Hz the vast majority of the time on any map except Mariana which still kicks me down, which is fine as it is the map I fly least. I’ve found the Turbo option in OpenXR toolkit to help a bit here. This is how I have things set now and I am really happy with it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah night flying is one of the reasons that an OLED based headset would be fantastic. The local dimming is better than muddy grey even with the blooming but I would still love to see a similar headset with OLED panels in it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For me the answer was yes because with the G2 I was always feeling like I was missing out compared to flat screen flying, and with the QP I don’t feel that way anymore. Having blurry vision outside of the sweet spot was for me always a deal breaker and in a way the G2 exacerbated this vs for example the Rift S because it was so sharp dead centre and so blurry out or centre meaning head movement was needed to look at instruments as opposed to just glancing down. Currently all of the headsets on the market are a compromise. If a headset combined DP input of a G2/Aero with Meta’s ASW, the QP lenses, the FoV of the Aero, OLED display of the PSVR2, comfort of the QP and the resolution of the Aero it would be perfect. Right now you just have to choose your compromises and it’s either the best optics, tracking and reprojection (QP) vs uncompressed video, higher resolution and field of view. The other factor is cost. The perfect DCS headset is always going to be expensive because it will always lack the mass market (such that there is in VR) appeal that the stand-alone headsets can offer. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’ve found it really comfortable, one thing I did listen to was not over tightening it so I don’t get the forehead discomfort others have reported with it. I find it more comfortable than the Pico 4 (with the facial interface on that being rather uncomfortable). I guess it is kind of a suck it and see. If you find it uncomfortable then trying the head strap idea to improve comfort. It’s actually the first headset since the Rift S that for me I’ve found it comfortable without after market add ons (I use an elite strap on the quest 2, a custom facial interface, strap and weights on the Reverb G2 and custom facial interface on the Pico 4. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So mine arrived and… well I guess I won’t be sending it back to Meta much to my wife’s disgust. Having used the Reverb (original and G2), Rift S, Quest 2 and Pico 4 gives a bit of perspective on this. I never really liked the Quest 2 in DCS, was not sharp enough compared to the Reverb G2. The Reverb G2 is very sharp in that narrow sweet spot but outside that is quite blurry such that you can’t really glance down to read an MFD or instrument you had to move your head. The Pico 4 resolved that issue by being somewhat sharp edge to edge, with a really nice FoV, however even with godlike setting in virtual desktop a few things are apparent vs the Reverb G2. Firstly it is a bit soft across the whole image. Like watching something upscale rather than native resolution. The colours are lacking in dynamic range. Looking in the direction of the sun things get washed out heavily. It’s like watching TV on a cheap 4K panel. Then the Quest Pro. Vs the Reverb it is not quite as sharp dead centre, but it is almost as sharp across the whole FoV which is better than the Reverb G2 and similar to the Pico 4. The sharpness is really apparent in things like MFD’s where every letter is readable in much the same way as looking dead on to it in the G2, just it can be that with a glance. Meta also know what they are doing with motion reproduction which cannot be said for WMR headsets, and it is better than in the Pico 4. The thing that stands out above all are the colours. It is night and day compared to the Pico 4, like looking at a good quality TV in comparison. I also kind of like the open bottom. I can look down onto my HOTAS and MFD buttons to see what I am pressing, and as I have them in positions that are pretty good for the F-18 cockpit it is kind of an AR experience. So right now I’d say the Quest Pro is the best headset I own for DCS. The Reverb G2 is being packed away, and the Pico 4 well it might make a good backup headset. Could the Varjo Aero or Pimax Crystal be better? Absolutely, am I going to spend $3000 AUD to find out? Not if I plan to stay married. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Similarly waiting for mine to arrive in Australia. After seeing the reviews and contemplating a Varjo Aero I figured not much to lose given if it’s not worth it I can return it. Will be interesting having used the Rift S (which to be honest was a great VR experience in DCS), Quest 2, Reverb, Reverb G2 (both of which are great in the sweet spot but a blurry mess outside it and moving your head to glance at instruments just feels wrong) and Pico 4 (which has OK edge to edge clarity but has some issues particularly with dynamic range and text reproduction). Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you want a USAF jet that can sling HARMS get a Viper. It’s what they use to do it, and it has the HTS to do the job properly. RAZBAM are already adding stuff from across the service life of the mudhen with the USAF and that is great. There’s a lot of varied ordinance to carry, and even if you can’t be a HARM shooter there’s more than one way to nail a SAM site.

I understand this entirely. I used to be a 100% VR flyer in DCS (to the point where I didn't even have a monitor facing my setup) however I have recently moved to being perhaps 80% flat screen and 20% VR. For my flat screen flying I use a 49" 5440x1440 panel which I have on a monitor extension arm so it can be quite close to me while I am flying. For me I found increasingly I was spending more time playing with settings when something went too way one way or the other (either putting things too low and struggling to read MFD's or hitting some stuttering mess point) than I was flying and enjoying my time. It's not like my setup is underpowered either (Ryzen 5800X3D, RTX 3080 (though that VRAM limitation ), 32GB of RAM) Over time I've found the 3D illusion of VR to be less convincing (I remember when I first put a VR headset on thinking "wow", now not so much) and with the super ultrawide display my whole FOV is occupied by display rather than restricted view in VR (with a Reverb G2, which I know isn't the best FOV). I've also come to appreciate the comfort of not having a pair of screens plastered to the front of my head for extended periods of time. The main thing I miss is the 1:1 head movements which is great particularly for HMD's, but I've gotten better at using headtracking in 2D. Each way is trade-offs, and right now the trade-offs for using VR just aren't worth it for me, however I totally get why for some it would be and for a long time it was for me.

So by that we can take it there has been no progress worth sharing in 4 months?

I know it will. Which is kind of sad given how long we have been waiting for a completed Hornet. At this stage it seems complete will be perhaps ACLS and a trailer on YouTube to say “out of early access” and then maybe a couple of features trickling in if we are lucky over the next couple of years.

So we’ve had 6 mini-updates on the Viper this year (which is great) but nothing on the Hornet since November. Is it possible we can get an update on what work is happening on the Hornet? When we might see the ACLS implementation?

Yes though even the RAAF default liveries are similarly rusty (and those jets never see the decks of an aircraft carrier). Right now the default Hornet liveries are kind of like when someone is making a plastic model and they go overboard with the weathering effects.

I know it has been raised before but given the Viper is getting it and it exists in the real Hornet any plans?

I don’t know what I am more excited about; - the fact we are getting a phreaking phantom! - the suggestion of more variants (which has to mean a naval variant right? F-4J??) - that Heatblur are the developers

Too bad the GEN-X decoys appear to be off the table currently, because yes they would make engaging SA-10's a much more realistic proposition. Currently my approach if going solo against an SA-10 with SA-15's or SA-19's involves a lot of prayer and low-level flying with firing off my HARMS just before I get within the engagement radius of the close in defences and hoping one slips through to take out the radar. I set myself up a little scenario to practice this on and got reasonably good at it, but it was far from a sure fire thing. This shouldn't shock anyone that an SA-10 properly setup is a tough nut to crack, it is doing exactly what it is designed to do. One of the weaknesses of the current DCS arrangement (in the absence of Skynet of course) is that the radars will stay on the whole time rather than switching off when under attack by a HARM. To be honest the F-16 with the HTS and WCMD's and a HARM is probably going to have an easier time with an SA-10 site than a Hornet is (once it gets the HTS of course).

Just to clarify OLED TV's are great for gaming, however they are not ideal as general purpose monitors (due to their subpixel arrangement and of course burn in issues which are an inherent part of the technology). Some modern TV's are great as monitors, but it's about getting the right one. I use a 49" 32:9 ultrawide and it is great for DCS, the additional horizontal FOV makes looking side to side with track IR feel less janky that it does on a 16:9 screen. My monitor also serves as my workstation when working from home and an OLED TV would not fit the bill for that given there are often static images on the screen for extended periods of time, and a lot of my time is spent reading text which is where the subpixel arrangement on OLEDs is less good. If I was buying a display purely for gaming though it would be harder, an OLED TV is amazing for that. Horses for courses. Personally happy with my choice, it suits me (and has freed me from spending my time tweaking settings to get VR playable).

Yeah with TOO mode and a TGP you basically have a poor mans HTS in the Hornet with its magic TOO mode. Hopefully they make it a little more in line with HAS mode in the Viper in the near future.

Absolutely. The HSD page should do a whole lot more but it doesn’t. My vain hope is that with relatively few weapons systems left to implement (JDAMS, JSOWs, WCMD and finishing off the HARM) the systems in the Viper can get some real attention fast after the Hornet leaves early access. The HSD, HTS pod and the ground and HTS features for JHMCS will hopefully get some much needed love (along with all those missing pages, oh and a DTC (which will further augment the HSD))