Rosebud47

Das war jetzt eigentlich eher scherzhaft gemeint, dass für jeden Flugplatz extra Gebühren anfallen , wenn dafür animierte Bodencrew kommt. :) Was ist eigentlich mit den anderen hier los? Hat hier jemand Poppers verteilt, dass die so aus dem Häuschen sind? :book::music_whistling:

jo, wenn´s dann nicht für jeden Flugplatz extra kostet :-)))

Schiffssimulatoren sind jetzt nicht gerade in Mode, stimmt, aber früher auf dem C64 hatte ich auch Kriegsschiffsimulatoren. Später auf dem PC dann auch einige Teile aus der Silent Hunter U-Boot Simulator Reihe. Abwegig ist es nicht, zumal tatsächlich nur noch eine simulierte Brücke beim Supercarrier fehlen würde. ´Computer-Simulation´ ist aber auch ein ziemlich dehnbarer Begriff, worunter man sich natürlich auch illusorische Vorstellungen machen kann. Edit: hey, wart mal, Microprose hat doch neulich genau das angekündigt... Aber wenn ich mir Combined Arms in DCS anschaue, was ich mir nie geholt habe und auch nie holen werde, bleibt eine Supercarrier Simulaion tatasächlich nur Illusion. Im Grunde ging es mir bei dem Gedanken auch nur darum, den Wert vom kommenden SC preislich einzuordnen. Der imaginäre Wert ist ja bei jedem sehr unterschiedlich.

cool wäre ja, wenn auch irgendwann die Brücke dann voll simuliert wäre, also alle Stationen funktional und optisch, so wie ein Cockpit. Mit Radar, Navigation, Turbinenverwaltung, Staffelverwaltung, KI wie Jester auf den unbesetzten Stationen etc. Also praktisch eine richtige Flugzeugträgersimulation, was für mich dann auch den Vollpreis einer Simulation rechtfertigen würde. Wer weiß, vielleicht kommt das dann auch noch irgendwann - wäre echt super. Ich freu´mich jedenfalls auch auf den SC und dass es mal was Neues in DCS gibt. Die F-14 und F/A-18 halte ich mittlerweile auch für die besten Module in DCS, insofern passt das schon. P.S. Wie man seine Maschine in DCS an macht, ist eigentlich das erste, was man lernt - ich glaube, das hält fast jeder so.

Die 25,- für den SC sind gerade noch ok, wenn man begeistert ist; auch und gerade weil sich der SC nur mit zwei Jets wirklich nutzen lässt. Blöd ist halt, dass sich der Supercarrier als Modul allein kaum mehr als bisher nutzen lässt - ist tatsächlich nur ein Update der Spielumgebung. Wenn sich das grafische Modell auch nicht deutlich von der Stennis abhebt, hätte man das Modul ohne viel Trara auch mit einem kleinen Patch ins Spiel bringen können. Bin auch mal gespannt, ob die SC KI die Performance in VR weiter in die Knie zwingt, was den Spaß daran dann wieder verderben würde. Bleibt abzuwarten, dass sie wenigstens den Supercarrier bugfrei auf die Reihe kriegen, weil sie ja immer sooo hart an ihren Sache arbeiten...

Hi Alpenwolf, now I feel a bit guilty, as I took part yesterday on the cold war server, but did not pick up the communication. Actually it was surprising for me to find communication at all on a free for all online server, but I´m rarely into multiplayer business and if, then only late at night, when all people are gone. So it was kind of new experience to me to be welcomed to join the company on a free for all server - my apologies to not handled it this time. I will do next time.

Gut ist aber, dass die Thrustmaster Warthog und F/A-18 Grips in der Virpil Software hinterlegt und auswählbar sind. Trotzdem muss ich beim Grip wechsel auf der MongoosT-50Cm2 base immer erst die Windows Joystick Neukalibrierung machen, bevor man ein neues Profil für die neue Kombination in der Virpil Software einstellen kann.

No such issues here.

Hi darkman222, the Vive DAS is excellent to replace the cheap original strap. To connect the Vive DAS to the Pimax, there are some 3D printed adapter needed. I´ve enclosed the files for a 3D printer in the zip file below. For left and right side, there are 2 parts each ( total 4 parts ). For the center strap there is only 1 needed. Also attached sime images how the 3D printed parts should look like. files.zip

Nach dem x-52 HOTAS --> WARTHOG HOTAS ---> Virpil WarBRD Base mit verschiedenen Verlängerung, finde ich die VPC Mongoos T50 CM2 base mit 15cm Verlängerung mit Abstand am präzisesten - der Spaß, damit die Harrier oder Hornet zu steuern hat sich gegenüber der WarBRD base verzehntfacht. Die Mongoose T50 base macht aber wirklich nur mit mind. 10 cm Verlängerung wirklich Sinn.

Meanwhile me too make the graphics settings depending on my personal impression in VR, means when I´m happy with the experience in VR, I don´t care so much about about FPS or this and that. Finally I want to enjoy the simulator. This should not diminish the issues DCS World got in terms of VR performance, but there are compromises to make in VR anyway. The point of ASW and reprojection is not to get higher FPS, but to make the VR experience comfortable and smooth without causing nausea by providing a high FPS frequence with less workload for the system. I don´t know if or how the FPS limiter affects the VR experience in anyway, as it is meant for monitor FPS limitation and not for VR in particular, but to be on safe side and not to influence the VR experience in an unintended way, I left the limiter to the FPS/Hz the VR headset should provide with or without ASW or reprojection. The new GPU catalyst didn´t do any good for me so far, but by Reading here in there Forums, Ive recently learned that the System need to be rebootet after changing the catalyst setting - so I´ll need to check next time if setting up the catalyst function makes me happy after rebooting.

I would set the the FPS limit in Nvidia control Panel to 120 if you run 120Hz in Pitool. If reprojection cuts the FPS into half ( 60 FPS ) means it only renders 60 fps instead of 120, but extrapolates every 2nd FPS and fills the gap with a copy of a prerendered frame in order to reach the target FPS/ Hz of 120 while only half of it ( 60 frames ) are actually rendered.

With regard to VR the problem in DCS is it´s respectively old graphics engine and meanhwile high workload for CPU and GPU through high demanding effects which are constantly added to the engine, what might be an explanation, why IL-2 runs much better in VR than DCS. For the Pimax 5k+ I enjoy much more the higher Hz option of displays, which gives a much more clearer and calmer image to me. For 110 Hz or 120 Hz surely the graphical options in DCS need to be reduced, like no shadows or no mirrors etc. pp. but overall I feel the experience in VR much better. In anyway on every VR headset Reprojection or ASW kicks in in DCS. It works with a minimum value of Hz, which has to be undergoing to enable reprojection or ASW. I don´t know the current value of each API, but it´s something around 70 - 80 FPS, below, reprojection or ASW is automatically enabled. If the Hz of the Pimax is raised through the options to 110 Hz ( for the first 5k+ batches ) or 120 Hz for the later product batches, the value to enable reprojection is as well raised which causes reprojection to be enabled always and there is no situation which causes stutter, because of reprojection get automatically enabled or disabled because the System is running around the border value, sometime above, sometime below the threshold.

Before VR came up in 2017, I didn´t played computer games at all for years, but the new technology and what was possible through that, really pulled me back into pc games. As I don´t feel satisfaction by jumping around in my living room with VR goggles on my head, cockpit sims became advanced by the new technique. I love the study level of DCS and its level of detail and accuracy, which gives me fun and satisfaction for years in conjunction with VR.

I would say, your argument is DCS related only. With "Beat saber" I could max out everything including large FOV. At this point I would start to differentiate, as on some pc hardware, DCS couldn´t be maxed out for monitor flying as well.

Is DCS really so much better on a monitor? Never tried to fly on a monitor, as it makes less sense to me than with VR. Recently I got a Wow-moment at the first flight with a new module - it´s so vivid in dimension and detail... yeah, simply wow.

Hi Gryzor, yes, observed the same in VR more or less. I have no idea, what a shader is or does, as I´m just an average DCS pilot and not a game developer, but my conclusion is, that these effects are defined by shaders, which are not adjusted or recoded for VR or in particular to work with the VR API. There is progress in fixing these effects for VR, but my assumption is, that the developers need to look for each effect in DCS separately to recode and fix it for the current active render pipeline for VR. Progress in that could have been observed on my side with the fix of VR zoom for the large FOV headsets, which was a big issue in the past, but could have been fixed with one of the last updates. The clouds and contrails issue is still there and not rendered correctly for both eyes, what causes clouds and contrails in the distant to disappear, when looking at them from specific angles / point of views. But I do have understanding for the situation of development in the way, that a new cloud system ( which might include the presentation of contrails ) is in development. The developer surely work on programming the shaders for this new cloud system and therefore would have doubled workload, if they would now have to fix the shaders for the present "old" cloudsystem or let´s say less motivation to fix issue for an old system, which will be replaced in anyway sooner or later, like plugging holes for a sinking ship instead of working for the brand new ship. Same with regard to the portation to the new Vulkan API. I remember, don´t ask me for a link, that ED once mentioned, that the most workload for the developer to port DCS from the current graphical engine to Vulkan is at recoding/assembling every single shader to the new graphics API. With this in mind I do have understanding, that there is less effort to fix for VR broken effects, which will be in anyway replaced completely. I could live for now with these broken effects in VR, as long as the developers put their energy and focus on to programming for the new API without issues or broken effects in VR. Also need to mention that most of the issues we are talking about are minor issues, which partially only could be observed, if you close one eye in VR and only look with one eye at it, what is not the case on how VR is commonly used. Do hope we get Vulkan soon and get rid of many issues in VR, we´re facing now. BTW: I love Valencia! Am at least two times a year there and would have been there at the moment, if the situation would have allowed and my flight would not have been canceled. Hope it gets better soon...

Don´t you guys have google? There is no secret knowledge about Vulkan.

No, it always stays at false for long time. I assume this code line function is of the earlier days of VR implementation in DCS and not of any use, since the distortion is controlled by OpenVR in correspondance to the headset driver.

Did the same and split chuck´s guides into 4 to 7 separate chapter, depending on the module, to load into the kneeboard. When not splitting the .pdf files up, they don´t show as a whole in the kneeboard, only approx 70 pages. Guess sooner or later someone has to have a look into it, as it seems some cache for the kneeboard files is very limited.

Experienced the light only rendered in one eye, right after the patch with new lighting system. Deleting the fxo-, metashader- and metacache-files of the terrains and letting DCS recompile the shaders, did fix it for me.

Maybe the issue appears, as I got DCS installed on D:/ drive and some kneeboard files are somewhere saved on c:/. I don´t know...

Always got this screen by using custom kneeboards with the kneeboard builder. The loading screen appears on my side, when switching from the default kneeboard files to the custom files. It only hangs at flipping from one page to another - after pressing a few times the "next page" button flipping finally works and from that point by regular one hit to flip through the custom kneeboard pages.

Vulkan will be a huge step in terms of performance gain for DCS, not only for VR, but as well for conventionai monitor performance. Vulkan is much better optimized for the use of multicore CPUs than EDGE is. Nowadays, everyone has got a multicore CPU running, which could use its potential for a Vulkan engine far more better than with EDGE. In particular for VR Vulkan will be the most prefered engine to use, as it got implemented the newest openXR technology as an upcoming standard to run VR application from scratch with all VR headsets from different manufacturer. It surely will take some time, as everything regarding VR is in constant development. But signs, like Oculus is now starting to implement OpenXR to their VR headset drivers, show that it will become a standard, like DirectX had become for graphical applications on Windows Systems. Vulkan goes far from this, as not being limited by Windows but more open to be used for the developer and user. The implementation of VR in DCS is very good made by ED, I would say. But it surely took a lot of coding and time to deal with it for the devs, especially to adopt the VR functionality in DCS to the current different standards of the manufacturer, like SteamVR/OpenVR, Windows Mixed Reality and Oculus. Vulkan surely will make life easier to the devs, when all manufacturer switched to the predictable common standard of OpenXR, where all newest technology to run VR headsets are bundled and updated for best performance and visual quality on base of Vulkan API.

Love my 5k+ too - meanwhile Pitool has become very stable and widely configurable and compatible to SteamVR. Euan is completely right, with the basic resolution and options to increase visual quality, you could easily overwhelm every system. The observation of jagged looking objects at a distance is the only real disadvantage of the Pimax first generation headsets in comparison. It results of the displays used in the first Pimax 8k / 5k headset. I would expect the new 8kX and newer Pimax generation headsets to not show this behaviour anymore. To counteract it is recommendable to increase the displays Hz: for the 5k+ with serial number starting with 202(...) to 110Hz with the special Firmware for this serial number. For ongoing serial numbers starting with 203/204 with newer firmware to increase the display frequency to 120HZ ( 144 hz with the newest Pitool/Firmware I would consider too high to handle DCS ).