Rosebud47

It was the right decision by ED to give green light for the release to avoid damaging ED and other 3rd party developer quality releases. Now RAZBAM can put their little hands on the module to bring it to a DCS quality module. Personally I don´t buy any other RAZBAM module, before the Eagle has reached this, but that´s just me. The graphics are really, really good. Even the 1st person pilot model is great and included into the early access release, so thumbs up for this.

... exactly!

I´m happy, when I get in expected and reasonable time, what I´ve paid for. Delivering the bugs before delivering the module is ridiculous.

@AhSoul Appreciate your polite communication, even we´re not of the same opinion. There are always people, who push the limits to exploid others.

Go ahead, if you want to spend hundreds of dollars to have a bunch of incomplete and bugged flight-sims after 10 years.

What a naive comment. People already paid due to the long time ongoing marketing campaign. Don´t get me wrong: I do love to support start-ups by kickstarter campaigns, but this is not what we´re dealing with here. My critique focuses is particular to some 3rd party developer. The newer ED modules in early access are, maybe with minor exceptions, bug free, while not being feature complete in early access release, what is to be expected and fine as it is. Again it is obviously, that some distribution is focused on money as soon as possible and not on delivering a complete product in time as expected. After the release of the F-15E you will see a significant stretch in time to complete the module, even and BECAUSE it is already paid by the people. Why streching the development after release? Because resources are taken away to develop new graphics, announce and sell for another product long before in advanced of early access release. ED should urgently sensibilize the 3rd party devs. to not even meet solid standards with their products, but also sensitize them to solid and reasonable standards in the marketing-, release- and completion process. Thank you.

Already regret spending good money for this again. Now the modules are bugged even before they get released into early access. No complaint for the graphic designers btw.

@Gripen 4-1 In my experience by testing out MT, there seems to be an issue with MotionReprojection through OpenXR using OpenXR developer tool in combination with the OpenXR Tool Kit with the Reverb G2, RTX 3090, i9 tenthousandsomething 10 + 10 Hyperthreading cores @5GHz and the -force Vr --force openXR addition in the bin-MT/ DCS.exe file I could have forced reprojection by the OpenXr tool kit, but the FPS weren´t noticable improved in comparison to the ST DCS.exe. After deactivated the OpenXR Tool Kit, the FPS increased in the range many people reported and on top the image quality ( without any NAS or CAS sharpening ) is much better, just by setting the renderscale in the OpenXR developer tool at 100%. Therefore, because MotionReprojection isn´t working without the Tool Kit ( even it ois activated in the OpenXr developer Tool ), there appears stutters in the cockpit view, while moving the head left to right - this is to be expected as the point of view on to the cockpit panels changes the content of each frame much more significantly, than a point of view in the distance of the landscape, where the content of each frame doesn´t have as much details to change per frame than the view on to the cockpit panels. As the visual quality without motion reprojection ( in Monitor:Stereo mode ) is much more better and now by MT playable, I´ll leave it like this and live for now with some small stutters while looking on the cockpit panels and moving the head. In normal flight it is barely noticable, as when looking to the cockpit panels, I used to focus a particular instrument or gauge and then look up in the HUD again. The FPS vary a lot depending on which module and which map the flight takes place. Happily surprised that the Harrier ( which was always one my best performing modules FPS-wise ) reached 90 FPS on the NTTR map for a short moment, but is mostly between 60 and 80FPS, what is very good. With the Viper over Syria there is only a little bit increase in performance noticable. I do hope, when the modules got adjusted to MT ( like Radar telemetry, MFDs, TGP, etc. got an separated CPU thread ) the performance with regard to modules will be significantly increased. So my recommendation is to leave MotionReprojection off ( it anyways creates a blurry image and artefacts like blurry edges, especiall at the rotor and propeller animation ) and adjust the performance by the graphical settings like reduced shadows/ flat shadows only, view distance, etc. in the DCS graphics option menu to your liking.

@BIGNEWY Heatblur recently mentioned, that their F-14 Tomcat module was adjusted to MT processing, does that mean, that MT is currently implemented into the EDGE core code only and we will see further improvements in performance, when the module´s codes are adjusted to MT? Will the map´s performance also benefit from MT, if the map´s codes are adjusted to MT? Thanks in advanced!

Thank you for clarification, Mrs. Perederko. By far the most honest comment, I´ve read in this forum for years ...

I´m also not sure or better said: I have no idea how the new terrain creating tool works. But I could imagine that it is setup with that whole world concept in mind. At least the ground work and probably asstes of The Channel map could be useful to recreate it within Normandy 2.0.

No, I didn´t. In contrary! Your campaigns and of other content creators would be still available to buy for The Channel only, if Normandy 2.0 would be merge together with The Channel and The Channel map would be made for free as a single map. The point is, that The Channel if being a free map for WW2 like Caucasus, could lower the barrier for new players to enter into a WW2 scenario. Same as for Caucasus, all campaigns made for The Channel so far still would have a selling point, as the map itself is for free. On the other hand, if The Channel would still be sold as a single map and Normandy 2.0 includes The Channel, there would be no selling point anymore for the campaigns made for The Channel so far, as Normandy 2.0 and its campaigns is the way to go if to spend money for a WW2 map. ... but that´s only theoretical thinking. My critique on the model of Normandy 2.0 we´re currently debating is more concerned with the concept of a whole world in DCS in mind. Personally I would love to see such concepts being created userfriendly and not turned into a cash cow from start. The idea of having Normandy 2.0 as ´whole world´ scenario for WW2 is great, would love to see that coming true and expansion of that ´whole world´scenario in a reasonable and truely userfriendly manner.

Thanks @NineLine for giving this a good direction. Alternatively The Channel could be still serve a purpose as a free map including purchasable campaigns, when Normandy 2.0 is released and make WW2 more attractive for new players coming to DCS.

While appreciate the new map, better graphics, wider areas, London, Paris, the discount for owners of old maps, the bad taste which accompanies does not go away. The NE area of Normandy 2.0 is not by coincident left in low graphical fidelity. Remind that a new player has to pay full prize 59,90 $, but gets a map with 1/4 of the area in low quality. More than that, the low quality area in Normandy 2.0 obviously is a placeholder for The Channel map, because there IS a Channel map on sale and not any other map and not any other low quality area on the new Normandy 2.0. That means, that sooner or later the low quality area on the Normandy 2.0 map will be filled by this one Channel map - could be filled immediately or in 1 or 2 years - it´s just a decision, not a technical issue. The difference between a serious business and a scam is, that the scammer will always try to pull out the sense of any discussion or critique by saying: "Take it or leave it". Well, thank you.

@NineLine but that makes it tricky for new players, who don´t know, that they have to buy The Channel first ( for full price )to get the discount for Normandy 2.0. But if a new player buys Normandy 2.0 first ( for full price ), he got to pay the full price for The Channel anyways. But to be honest, i think ED will discount the price for The Channel anyways, once Normandy 2.0 gets released. Still a lot of water will run down the river until then.

You made a fair point. Would make sense, if you buy the new Normandy 2.0 map first, there will be then a discount on The Channel map to purchase for 14.99 $.

The interesting thing about the Normandy 2 announcement is with regard to the concept of a whole world for DCS. It was several times commented, even by Wags, that ED has plans for simulating the whole world, but so far no indication on how the whole world would fit into the concept of creating isolated maps so far. Also how would the whole world be sold? Approx 50,- $ per 500 squarekilometer of land? Maybe Normandy 2 is also kind of testing a concept for a whole world simulation in DCS. So, with that in mind, it is interesting, that it was said, if you got the old Normandy map and fly on a server with the new Normandy 2 map, the areas, which are extended and modeled in the new Normandy 2 are there too if you only got the old Normandy map, but with lower fidelity ( probably procedural generated and not handmade ) - this could point on how a whole world in DCS might be realized, in particular: the areas in the world, which are not handmade are of very low quality in comparison but free of charge. That leads to the next point, how a whole world in DCS might be charged. I think it will follow up the concept we´re seeing now with the Nomandy 2 expansion/upgrade/standalone map ( call it whatever ), that a fair payment concept will be included into the concept for a whole world in DCS, as well as the options to buy handmade high quality areas for the full price of a map to upgrade parts of the whole world, while still being able to fly across the whole world. I think the prizing for Normandy 2 is pretty fair and well created, same could be applied for a whole world concept and would be fair as well. The only drawback in regard for a whole world would be, that it will be mostly of low quality unless ED and 3rd parties would have created high quality handmade areas for every part in the world ( counting in decades of development ) and people pay the full price for upgrades of areas, what might get insane, when looking foward for the whole world as full quality handmade. Would be really interesting to have a look on the low quality areas we get introduced on the old Normandy map with the release of the new Normandy 2 map.

Yeah, uninstalling the old normandy map and The Channel to save some disk space, is what I think too to consider. For me it only depends, if going on with a campaign, which is not ported to Normandy 2 and if the performance makes it reasonable for public server to switch to Normandy 2 from Normandy 1 or The Channel map. I mean why the confusion? Practically everything between London and Paris is on the new Normandy 2 map ...

Coolest thing with Normandy 2 is, that both maps merged together as one. Hopefully performance will not be degraded too much. Cleaning and refuelling my warbirds now ...

It might appear confusing, that some see the difference and some not, but there seems to be an answer to that. In advanced, let´s have a look again on what the "Stereo" option in DCS does, like @draconus quoted before: "Stereo – Pilot video will be split into a stereoscopic pair and output separately. This should only be used by players with stereoscopic display setups." With regard to this my conclusion still is, that if the monitor is not set to "Stereo" for VR, DCS runs in ´single_pass_stereo´or ´single_pass_instancing´ mode in VR ( unless a ED developer does correct this assumption ). Assuming the "Stereo" option does nothing or is "placebo" is nonsense. Also the ED developer did a really good job to provide the option for switching to stereo-mode. Here is an interesting read about this option: Single-pass-stereo: wrong depth cues, discomfort and potential risks Also an intersting read, which could give an answer, why the difference by switching to stereo is obvious for some and not perceptible for others. Single pass stereo: the artifacts with HP Reverb G2 tl;dr: It depends on the headset. No intention to convince anybody! I just want to get the best out of my own VR setup and share my experience by doing so.

@schurem I´m too with a G2, 3090, OpenXR 100% renderscale, but didn´t have the impression that outside things are scaled down...hmm, I have no clue ... are you with OpenXr and maybe set worldscale in OpenXR differently? Dear @draconus, let´s keep discussions civil - I have no idea what you´re demanding with "hard numbers" other than trying to push for winning an argument over someone else. Honestly, that style of internet discussion is too dumb for me. I really don´t want to expose you, by asking you for some more explanation on how that "copy" you´re talking about is processed, but I´m sure you´re not thinking, there is a dwarf sitting in your computer distributing copies of one and the same picture to whatever periferals there are. Be invited to share your observations and knowledge to really get to know, how everybody could improve their DCS experience in accordance to each ones preferences to that experience. I´ve heard as well in the past, that the image on the screen is a copy of the image in VR, while that is true looking on the content of the picture, it needs to be processed anyways to be output on each device. In the VR options in DCS there is a checkbox, which let´s you render the image on the screen with the resolution and format you´ve set for DCS for monitor. If this box is unchecked it renders the image on the screen obviously in a much lower resolution. I have no idea what resolution this is, but it´s for sure much, much lower than 2160 x 2160 I got in VR. I´m not sure if you could see the difference in resolution as you couldn´t see the difference from real stereoscopic 3-D to ´fake´stereoscopic 3-D, but it´s pretty obvious, that it is neither the same format as rendered for VR nor the same resolution as rendered for the VR pipeline. The good thing is, that the image seen on the flatscreen is such low resolution ( if the box in the DCS VR options is unchecked ) that the impact on overall performance is minimized. But I wouldn´t think of something like DCS creates a clone monitor or something. Also I was thinking how other VR apps and flight sims usually handles the image on flatscreen, when in VR. DCS might be very special in handling this, but that doesn´t mean, it´s better or worse.

Couldn´t tell the same for me - looks fine inside and outside with a Reverb G2. Maybe it has to do with the resolution, if you´re running a CV1? ... I mean display resolution, not the render scale. That´s true. Also the mirrors activated/deactivated in the cockpit make a performance difference... was mostly noticable for me in the Hornet. Yes, it helps, as the image shown on the screen, while being in VR, also needs to be processed - the higher resolution the image for the screen is set, the more performance it´ll cost on top of the performance needed for VR. I like the way MSFS2020 is handling this, as VR settings and on screen settings are completely separated, so you could not even lower the resolution for the screen image there, but also lower the graphics setting like MSAA, clouds, shadows, etc. for the screen independed from the graphics settings for VR, what saves some more performance for VR... might be a good idea for DCS to handle VR the same.

Just remembered, a few years ago, there was this "single_pass_stereo" setting hidden within the graphicsoption.lua, which could be turned on or off by editing, but was more an experimental line of code at this time. I think, the "stereo" setting seeing now in the options refers back to that, like @draconus quoted: "Stereo – Pilot video will be split into a stereoscopic pair and output separately. This should only be used by players with stereoscopic display setups." Well, it does exactly this and in result improves the quality of stereoscopic effect in VR. But it comes at some performance costs, as two separated images are processed for the stereoscopic effect and not only one image processed and copied distorted for the other display in VR. Didn´t noticed the performance impact as I´m running OpenXR with motion reprojection anyways, so the FPS stay at 45/46 FPS with or without the stereo setting. But if you tuned the settings for VR to be on the edge of 45FPS, the stereo-setting may have an impact by dipping below. So, in conclusion, if monitor set to "1 monitor" for VR, DCS runs in single pass stereo with a lower quality 3-D effect, but better performance ( on mid- or low-end systems or for higher graphics settings ). Monitor set to "stereo" it will run with a proper stereoscopic effect in VR. Edit: the difference between single_pass_stereo and real stereoscopic view works independently from the nvidia profile inspector setting.

quote-on-quote: it improves the image quality, respectively the stereoscopic effect in VR. Look for the contures of mountains, buildings, objects etc. and their separation to each other in depth, like it is described here: If you see a difference by applying the setting at the nvidia profile inspector, it will be even better then by setting in DCS the Monitor to "Stereo". Edit: Maybe it only works in combination with the nvidia profile inspector... who knows?.

@draconus I wouldn´t care for that setting, if it does not make a difference to you. Anyways it does only apply to VR not to flatscreens.