Rosebud47

´Placebo´ is a different thing, but totally agree to everything else. I would say, there´s no need for the Pitool GUI and its setup parameters, but the hardwaredrivers included with the Pitool installation package is in anyway needed to run the HMD. But the lighthouse tracking could be also detected via SteamVR only, without Pitool executed, what was new to me. I would think that SteamVR - not executed, but running in background - is needed as the API to make the Pimax drivers run with DCS as an OpenVR application... but finally couldn´t confirm if this is truly the case, as I didn´t uninstalled Steam/SteamVR from my system. What I´ve observed yesterday, was, that with SteamVR running in the background and Pitool executed with its smart smoothing activated, there were some random stutter, in the first seconds in a DCS cockpit, but without executed Pitool the refresh rate was more stable - didn´t run fpsVR at this time to detect the frametime and fps figures in particular , but perceived a difference in anyway. Also the P5k+ is now correctly identified and noted by SteamVR, what was not the case some time ago, beside the automatic adjusted resolution with the newest SteamVR update as 2560 x 1616 without the execution or editing of Pitool. So my conclusion is, that with recent updates of SteamVR, the P5k+ is much better supported by SteamVR. I´ll try next time to activate smart smoothing by SteamVR instead through Pitool, let´s see if this works too. I would expect that everything would run more smoothly through one application instead of two mixed applications. @Montrose Oh yeah, at your set render resolution, the image quality is really awesome and perfect in sharpness and clarity, but with the performance of my system, I couldn´t reach your settings without a massive loss in frametime/fps at least while flying close to the ground. edit: @lefenuste Ah, yeah, you mean the parallel projection to be activated through Pitool to make it run with IL2 ...

With the OC 4.2 GHz of the CPU you should be fine. Maybe you´ll running too into issues with Win7 ...

Actually I wouldn´t recommend the GTX 1070 to use with the P5k. I´ve upgraded from a GTX 1080 to a RTX 2080Ti for the P5k+ and the difference performancewise was significantly. The new RTX cards got a much better pixel filling rate than the GTX series, what makes a huge difference in resolutions beyond full HD and for the P5k there has to be pushed a lot of pixels. At least an upgrade to a RTX 2070 is highly recommandable.

With recent update of SteamVR, the compatibility and set resolution for P5k+ in SteamVR seems to be fixed and editing of the profile.json is no longer needed (?). Also I experienced better continuously performance, when deactivating smart smoothing in Pitool. @frogger I think the 4k and Piplay is another story, than 5k/8k and Pitool - I wouldn´t expect much feedback on the issue here, as the 4k is not very popular, but maybe there could be answers found on Piplay in the Pimax forums. Edit later this evening: Seems that Pitool is not needed at all. Still got Pitool installed, but unchecked the "Start Pitool at Windows startup" and didn´t execute it anyway. With SteamVR only the P5k+ runs fine, probably better in the first impression. So I´ve now set in Pitool everything to default and unchecked except "use lighthouse tracking" and didn´t execute Pitool again. Have set the render resolution with SteamVR / DCS PD only.

The magic of VR starts, when you get the impression, that you are really in a 360° computer graphics environment, but in fact there is only rendered the part of the 360° impression, on what you are looking at. This part you are looking is determined by the FOV your headset. A human got a natural FOV of approx 210°. The more FOV the headset provides, the more natural the impression in VR gets. Or let´s put it this way: while in reality and in 360° VR filmed material the 360° environment ( real or as filmed material ) does exist, even when you´re not looking at, in computer graphics VR only exists the part of the environment you´re currently looking at, which is rendered in real time. @Thadiun Okona The industry sometimes used to define the resolution of their VR headsets as combined, like 2880 x 1600 instead of the resolution per eye 1440 x 1600. This is more or less confusing, but 2880 sounds more than 1440 for marketing reasons. Technically, with regard to the resolution of the display and not the rendered images, it is correct when a headset uses one single display only, which is split into two images, but some uses actually two displays, one for each eye. The perceived resolution is always the resolution per one eye, 1440 x 1600 in this example. The magic of 3 dimensional VR ends, when the two images are put together as one in the brain.

... I would say, it´s even crazy compared to a monitor, on what resolutions we´re running the headsets and at what level of supersampling in addition. Not only for one, but for two images simultaneously.

You´re right, me too don´t see the SDE with P5k+. It also makes a difference between OLED, like the Vive Pro and LCDs. The distance between the pixels in LCDs is less observable than with OLED. SDE and display resolution are in direct relation, but there are additional technologies, like kind of SDE filter Samsung´s Odyssey+ has; the Index also got kind of such filter between the display and the lenses. But the distance from the eye to an LCD/OLED projected image is critical to see/not see pixelation. The higher the resolution, the closer you could get to the display without seeing the pixels. With TVs, Monitors or mobile phones, it is not so much of an issue, but with LCD beamer and now with VR headsets it is. Luckily the SDE is not so much of an issue today compared to the first VR headsets Rift and HTC Vive, but the presentation of details in the depth of the image still is depending of how much pixel/subpixel are available to properly render the geometrical shape and texture in detail. Today´s VR games avoid these details in distance or at all to not have this problem, but with DCS we are on the opposite end of line. Beside pure resolution of the hardware, there are also AntiAliasing, and what not, to counteract the impression of pixelated images, but on the bottom line freely cited John Carmack, there would be needed a resolution of 16k in VR headsets to get rid of any pixelation.

@Imacken simple answer is, that the displays in VR are right in front of the eye, what causes to detect the pixelmatrix of the LCD/OLED. I´ve read once of micro displays especially designed for the purpose of use in VR headsets, but next thing then will be to invent a better lens technology to enlarge the microdisplay´s image - but that´s more in research than development. Anyway, back in the 80s no one complaint about having a 15" CRT monitor for flight sims with 800 x 600 resolution, but the image quality of VR today has to stand a comparison with 4k UltraHD LCDs monitors, what in my opinion, is not quite the same thing.

Confirmed, always observed the terrain was not rendered on the left eye outer FOV of the 5k when set 'stereo_mode_use_shared_parser = true'. I took it as kind of experimental option.

I would think DCS in particular would gain a significant benefit of multi-core support or Vulkan, just because the engines has much more to calculate in real-time than a 3rd person shooter or usual PC game. If everything is running through one or two CPU cores, the graphic adapter will always run unchallenged, as the CPU can´t deliver the graphical instructions at the same clock while it is busy with other calculation, like telemetrics, AI or any other ingame real-time system. I´m pretty sure DCS ingame performance will benefit a lot of Vulkan if multi cores are well used for the tasks.

I was disappointed from the complete spec reveal of the new Vive Cosmos yesterday. It is surely better as the Rift S, but not in a single point better than the Index, Odyssey, Vive Pro, P5k+ or Reverb. Most disappointing on the Cosmos, that it still got the same fresnel lenses and same old FOV. I wouldn´t expect the slightly increase in resolution to make a difference. Vive´s marketing and actual ´innovation´on its product always appears like fooling around to me. As an entry model for PC VR the Rift S is still most preferable.

The news that ED is working on to include Vulkan, is the best there could be done to improve the engine´s performance. :thumbup:

As being respectively new to DCS, I spend ~40% of time with expanding the simpit and configuration (... as well for VR ). Another 50% spending with studying the modules ( the variety of modules is fantastic and I mostly switch from one module to another to go on with study of FM, systems and functions ... a great thing is that for example learning to fly the MiG21, which is really challenging, whereas learning the weapons system of the MiG21 is easy - with the AV8B it´s the opposite: learning to fly the Harrier is easy, but it´s weapons system is challenging ). Finally there is ~10% time on MP server, like Burning Sky, Cold War or STP, just for the fun of it and kind of bringing out my favorite planes. :) Love every %, but studying the modules in SP is my core experience and fun.

Hi Nineline, a problem with rule 1.15 is, that it appears like censorship for individual reason not common reason to the people and diminish their right of free speech, what is very apart from the intention of the rule itself. In fact it is censorship and gives negatives impressions. Me got no problem with the rule as I got no intention or reason to talk about comparable products - just want to share some thoughts on the discussion in this thread. I´ll too avoid mentioning other flight sims, if you want me to do so. :) Some time ago, I´ve read about a guy, who was punished, because of this rule, as I understand, just because he mentioned in his posting another flight sim. And his punishment is to understand as an example on him for everybody to take this rule seriously - very bad behaviour! Why not changing the rule into "No threads about other flight sims allowed", which could soften the rule a bit and make it more in accordance to the peoples right of being treated with positive intentions in their posting. By far DCS World should be afraid to face any comparison - there are thousand reasons, where DCS wins over others, but in the discussion surely will only be mentioned the one reason, in which it looses a comparison - that´s kind of nature in the discussions here. As moderator you always got the opportunity to intervene any discussion, which goes a bit over the top with its comparisons, but no one should be punished, because he named another flight sim in a discussion. Finally I do understand, why this rule was invented and that some people exceeded respect for the work and intention of the ED teams, which may have really bothered, but for these, there should not be punished all.

I just use it for approx 2 hours, so just could give a first impression, which is very good so far. I don´t have the CM2 springs set too tight, but it feels very good. Also I got a 50mm extension from Virpil which is rock solid on the CM2 base, but the connection between the F/A 18 grip and extension is not as solid as I would expect it to be... means when I turn the grip on its z-axis it still could move a bit, despite the thread of the TM grip could not be tighten more on the extension... hmmm, maybe it needs to be unscrewed and screwed again to avoid any movement on the z-axis. Maybe the thread of the 50mm extension is a tiny bit too short for the screw of the Thrustmaster grip? The CM2 base is really good for heavy grips and/or extensions. The centering of the grip + extension is smooth and precisely to the point, even the springs are not set too tight.

Today received my TM F/A 18 grip, mounted on CM2 base ... such a great combination! Already love the grip. After setting up the Virpil configuration tool ( base and grip ), saved profile etc. the buttons worked regular but the axis were off and could not properly calibrated. Also in Windows the calibration was broken. A firmware update in the Virpil tool fixed it, now it´s fine.

That´s interesting to set SSAA instead of PD - I would have thought, the effect should be pretty much the same, whereas SSAA should also effects the image for the monitor and PD only effects the image for the VR goggles, but who knows, where the algorythms differentiate.

Last weekend I´ve update SteamVR with the last updates and the resolution went back to its default even with the modified profile.json - that wasn´t the case before, so ariyaner might be right, that it didn´t work for him recently. Pitool is really far from being optimized for the capabilities of the HMD. I like the 5k+ very much, but the missing optimization in its software ris a misery. In SteamVR the resolution is in regular a bit off to compensate a range of different IPD settings, but for the P5k+ it is far more off than needed for that. Anyway, the P5k+ is still great, but could perform much better than with Pitool today. There is no setting, which returns to its native resolution. Edit: Just turned on my Simpit and the editing of the profile.json still works - got 2560 x 1440 again with Pitool set to 1.0 ... seems I´ve forgot to reboot the system on saturday :)

Surely flew at night, but not really experienced ...

Wait two weeks, just to take it in to consideration, when the Vive Cosmos could be preordered midth of September. Latest rumors set the price for the cosmos at 699,- . It got too inside out tracking like the Rift S and includes controller. You don´t need to purchase any DCS module again for any VR headset. SteamVR works regular with the non-steam version of DCS.

Actually I have more trust in my findings than in your doings. ;)

have you tried to set a write protection to the profile.json after editing. Otherwise the edited values return to default. Also a reboot of your system could be advisable to effect SteamVR after editing the profile.json. Oh yeah, the stereo.lua is a nice one. I guess it was implemented by the developer, when they added VR support to DCS, but it is not really needed for openVR to interact with the HMD´s API. Anyway, you could easily overwrite some openVR settings with the stereo.lua for DCS, what is a nice thing. I´ve tried a lot with the stereo.lua, some things work, like changing the aspect ratio, other don´t seem to work, like resolution settings. I don´t spend more time with it unless some real stuff, like openXR is implemented or Pitool has become open source.

@ariyaner just read one side back in this thread, where it is described, how to edit the profile.json to get the native resolution or a multiple of it rendered. Pimax default compositor values are messed up. @darkman222 the percent slider in SteamVR works differently as long as manual override is not checked under Video settings. Once checked it does the same as the render quality setting in Pitool. It does not make any difference if you set your render target by SteamVr or Pitool or in combination - what counts is the final render resolution, which could be observed through SteamVR. Pitool does not return the render resolution through Pitool. The supersampling setting through DCS PD value will not be shown or taken into account for the render resolution set with Pitool/SteamVR. PD through DCS is separated, but you could calculate your render resolution by using the value set with DCS PD as a factor to multiply the render resolution shown through SteamVR.

You´re not only talking to one or two people - many are following this thread and silently appreciate your patience and openess in representation of ED. Good thread here :thumbup: BTW: does this rule not to mention any other Flightsim also counts for the grown ups? :)

Blaming someone for something out of context never is a good advice. As far as from my point of view the development has gone off the roadmap. The problem is the roadmap, as it is much more than the developer teams could handle within reasonable time. Somehow it is apparent, that the developers are overwhelmed by their own roadmap and things which need to be fixed, won´t get fixed and points on the roadmaps are not reached in schedule or not reached at all. It´s simply too much. From the point of view of a developer, this surely leads into frustration, not to concentrate or coordinate the progress to one or two projects, but being very fragmentated in the development of many, many different things, which need to be addressed and which should be addressed by the roadmap. Now what is being addressed is what directly results in turnover ( new models or maps ), but the quality of past models and issues which arise beside the development for new stuff, gets questionable. At this point it really should be said, that DCS World is a great project, constantly under development and unique in its concept including 3rd party developers and a loyal community. DCS is free and easy to enter: you get the caucasus map and a high-fidelity model and a FC model for free. Additional maps and high-fi models are chargeable. The community surely shares the enthusiasm for this project with the developers and ED management. Me personally enjoy DCS very much in whatever state of development it is and with all not yet addressed issues. This discussion does not seem complete without adding to mention this kind of community culture, which is also very much questionable. For the communities a huge part of entertainment is being hyped by announcements, trailers and roadmaps. Not only the endproduct is the entertainment, but the excitement of hypes is a valuable part of the entertainment. For some as well complaining anything or anyone in the forums is part of their entertainment. The situation created is not intended, when ED management overenthusiastically released their roadmaps, but has led to the situation, that the complaining culture of the community got manifested. And it got worse for the developers as they are surely overwhelmed with their to-do lists from one side and constant complaining from the other side and pressure from both sides to fullfill the roadmap and everything which is "promised" there. ( Me too think that people in the internet increases, which think, the internet is driven by Santa Clause to whom they could formulate promises...) As current state is that there is so much to do, individual things surely just drop from the schedule or are fragmentated. Even worse is, that 3rd Party developers already adopted this development concept and each one announces one or two brand new models, instead of fixing/ finalizing or upgrading to state-of-the-art models and/or assure fully functionality within progressed DCS World software environment. Again, I´m happy with everything and always enjoy every minute with every plane - but no one is blind for the issues and the discussion points. So in short I would like to add, that the community is constantly demanding new models, dynamic campaign, new maps, etc. and at the same time constantly complaining existing models and maps. The community constantly want to be entertained by announcements and huge roadmaps. The developers follow these demands and prioritize in their own interest to make the cooperating companies grow through chargeable early access modules, what makes DCS World grow, for what everyone is looking for. The situation surely changes with time and hopefully there could be found a better balance between quality and new projects, but currently it is as it is.