Rosebud47

Will it have a proper implementation of Force Feedback simulation, like Aerges´s Mirage F1 and Heatblur´s F-14 and F-4?

@SnowTiger Can't say anything about Quest3 or Meta headset, as I've never owned one. But I also used a Reverb G2 for the last years and received my Somnium VR1 just last week, so I could give some first impressions. Regarding Pimax, I had the 5k, 5k+ and the 8KX from Pimax before the Reverb G2 and I won't ever buy any Pimax again. The Somnium VR1 is a big step ahead from the Reverb G2 and probably as well a big step ahead from any consumer VR headset currently on the market. At the moment I'm still figuring out all the functionally it provides. First of all, you don't need the more expensive Titan or Ultimate Edition of the VR1 unless you're in particular interested in gthe additional features of the more expensive editions, like UltraLeap hand-tracking and mixed reality pass through cameras. Mine is the Vision Edition which only has got eye-tracking, which is totally fine for me ( don't need hand-tracking or pass through cameras for VR flight sims ) - but you could do some interesting things with features like hand-tracking and the mixed reality pass through camera. Maybe, when the DCS F-35 gets available, hand-tracking might get very interesting to use the touch screen in the F-35, we'll see ... The optics of the VR1 are really impressive - so far the best I've ever seen. I can say right now, that I won't need another VR headset in the next 5 - 8 years. FOV is good, better than the Reverb G2 anyways and any other headset on the market, except Pimax. A big FOV always was Pimax' approach, but Pimax lacks massively in terms of quality in my experience. Just another word about the optics: brightness, colors, edge-to-edge clarity, lenses, sweet spot, FOV, render resolution is all top notch! Tracking is via Steam light house tracking, so you would need to buy additional Lighthouse tracking boxes with an extra cost, but finally the light house tracking is superior to inside-out-tracking once setup correctly. Now here is one of the best things the Somnium VR1 provides: Functionality! You could set the VR1 to SteamVR ( OpenVR ) API or OpenXR - it works with both APIs. Dynamic Foveated Rendering only works with OpenXR, so far I could have figured it out at the moment. One of the best things: Since I started VR with the original HTC Vive headset, I always wished to have a headset which let's you adjust the render resolution in the headset. The Somnium VR1 finally let's you adjust the render resolution and it's great. With that you could easily run it absolutey smoothly and with high frame rates in every application. I'm currently experimenting with it, but DCS runs more smoothly than the Reverb G2 with much, much better graphics as I run the VR1 currently at 65% render resolution, which is lower than the Reverb G2's 2180 x 2180, but with the impressive graphics of the VR1. There are lot's of adjustments in the software tool, which make a lot of sense. I guess Somnium made another approach into the market than its competitors, like Somnium provides a really enthusiast's headset, which gives you high quality optics and tools to adjust the graphics to the performance of your PC, while the competitors sell headsets, which are slightly better than their previous iteration, having in mind to force the customers to buy the next iteration of their product, because of a little improvement. As said before, with the VR1 I could be happy and state of the art for the next few years with regard to the slow development of the technology. And the VR1 is perfectly downgradable by the tool as it probably can't reveal it's full potentional at the moment. Hope I could give some impressions to make your choice reasonable.

That's a good point and an option to have for the Apache monocle. With my Reverb G2 the offset of IHADSS symbology for sure has to do with VR-headset itself. It was very much visible as I recently jumped in to a cockpit of another sim, which name starts with an "I" and ends with "l2-Sturmovik"; the left eye view was completely distorted. So, the solution found to this, was in windows settings/ mixed reality --> headsetdisplay--> there is a pull-down-menu, which gives the option to "let windows decide", "best visual quality" or "best performance". Switching to "best visual quality" solved the problem in IL-2 for me, but still there is some offset of the LOS from the heading tape to the left in the Apache. Didn't noticed it before, but the slightly offset is also present for me in the HMCS of the Viper, which doesn't bother. The internet said, when the USB port of the Reverb G2 was changed, windows switches back to "let windows decide", which causes some problems in the Reverb G2. Using the gun in the Apache with the IHADSS works fine and with precision meanwhile, so this VR-headset offset issue doesn't bother me in the Apache neither. For sure, the option for vertical / horizontal adjustment would be great to have, as an individual adjustment of the IHADSS for the VR-headset in use.

Great improvements with this patch! I only flown the Apache so far, but it now flies like a charm. As far as it belongs to me, the Apache is in a really good shape now. So much fun and sensation to fly, just like back in the old days of Jane's Apache Longbow 2. If it wouldn't cause an impact on the overall performance of the module, I would wish ED would bring back the head-movement of the CPG and TADS movement, as it brings a lot of life into the cockpit. Wishing happy holidays and all the best in 2025 for DCS!

@Bucic @VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants 3D printed is an option, but I like the look and feel of a solid metal extension more, but that´s just personal preference. Anyhow I´m done with my setup and quite satisfied with the result.

I was searching for 10cm swan neck extension, which would have fit nicely in my setup, but couldn´t find any available. Well, the 7,5cm is okay, it´s just the original issue we were discussing, that the massive base extends the distance to the seating position.

@Scott-S6 You could buy my books at Amazon. Speaking of a bunch of code-lines to make a little servo move a stick in a toy as intellectual property, is so much low-level, that I already regret being involved into that discussion.

It would be great, if there were some sense to the stick for the helicopter, when entering a vortex ring state, ground effects and transition from hovering. Regarding the shaking in the cockpit of the Huey, there seems to be quite strong forces pushing on the airframe. But if have no idea, how it is in real life.

Let´s go ahead @Aapje and sue them and we´ll see, if your ambition and caring is genuine or we are dealing with another bigmouth seeking for attention in the internet. Rosebud still doesn´t care for this nonsense and is busy for the rest of the week with "Apaches in the fog"

Seems like that desperate outcry in FlightSim forums for low-level software development has more to do with some fear, that some people soon will be replaced by AI. And oh..., I´m sure we are all baptized, if that´s the concern. For DCS with native ForceFeedback support, the software modifications for the Moza base is not needed. Just the calibration and you´re good to go. But for games without Forcefeedback support, like MSFS, the software is really useful and needed to make the base work in the flightsim.

Let´s sink that discussion in, friends. I´m as well here, to share some joy for our hobby, not to make the world a better place or worse. @Mr_sukebe Finally I´ve mounted the Moza base straight, what was better feasable. The base is now fixed to the seat and stays in place, when the seat is moved back and forth. In addition I´ve put some seat cushions in the back to move the butt closer to the stick - works totally fine. Finally a 7,5cm extension puts the grip in the right place. I´d say, if someone is really interested in flying helicopter in DCS, ForceFeedback is a must have to fully enjoy!

@Feverdog You won´t regret! After 10 years of flying the Blackshark, I could now fly it as it should be and it is so much better - this counts fo all helicopter in DCS! Even the Hornet feels much more accurate with ForceFeedback and "as it should be" despite its fly-by-wire system. It´s a great piece of hardware, even it´s still quite expensive. Regarding the software, well, personally I´ve set it to direct input, which works totally fine with DCS as it natively supports ForceFeedback. There could be done more by the DCS developers to make use of ForceFeedback for the modules, but that´s in their hands. I don´t have the time to fiddle with the ForceFeedback software and to me it feels stupid to have the stick rumbling like crazy, when I fire the guns, but well, everyone to their liking. @Aapje @Scott-S6 got your points and you are right regarding how IP is treated, but Moza does not make business with the software, they sell hardware. Who knows, if the software wasn´t written by ChatGPT for that additional functions for the hardware. Personally I don´t care for the software, but I am with you, if the software would have been the selling point. On the other hand - and that´s just my personal opinion - it´s more user friendly, to have additional software functions for hardware of different manufacturer more in line to each other ( I was so happy since BMS has the keymapping functionality orientated on the keymapping function in DCS and recently I also was happy, that MSFS2024 orientated their keymapping as well more to the functionality we got in DCS ). I´d say, Moza is in competition with other ForceFeedback hardware provider, about the quality of the hardware and the price. Discussing intellectual property is a rabbit hole, I won´t follow with regard to the hardware discussed here.

Let´s hope WinWing does not have a code-line similar to one in Moza´s software - people might never get to level up their system and enjoy the advantage of Force Feedback.

Dear ED, I´d like to wish for a standardized advanced implementation and setup for Force Feedback joysticks/bases/rudders in the DCS special options menu for the aircraftas, because the FFB technology now is developed and offered on the flight-sim hardware market on a large scale. As the flight-sim hardware provider are currently reacting to the user demand and developing, respectively offering Force Feedback technology to their devices, it would be great, if Eagle Dynamics reacts to the hardware market and user demand likewise. Force Feedback is not only a gadget, but a technology, which advances the flight-sim to a level with more precision and accuracy in the experience and from my point of view, flight-simming is all about precision and accuracy to the real flight experience. Heatblur and Aerges as 3rd Party delevopers for DCS World already implemented Force Feedback to their modules in an enjoyable way for the users to take full advantage of the FFB technology. I wish every DCS aircraft could reach that level, those two 3rd party developers has reached in the use of FFB technology. Another reason is, that the hardware developers ( Brunner, Moza, WinWing? ) have all their own software and partly "interpretation" how FFB might be used for specific modules, but it is assumable, that the DCS module developer know better, at what point and strength the feedback forces on the stick and rudders should be applied in accordance to the real aircraft or helicopter, which is simulated, in order for us, the users, being able to just set the various hardware manufacturers software to ´direct input´ and rely on a proper force feedback implementation by Eagle Dynamics and their 3rd party developers. Would be great, if Force Feedback would get more prioritized attention by the developers to reach a standardized level of implementation in DCS World.

Can´t wait to test things out, when received my Moza order.