Rosebud47

Thanks, Draconus. I wasn´t aware this option exists since 2020. I´ll leave it in ´stereo´ as flying in VR exlusively.

Is that ´Stereo´setting under DCS Settings/Monitor new? And what is it meant for?

@BIGNEWY Yeah, that´s true as could be seen with the SU-17/22. But let´s see how the crowd reacts, when there are no news after a long time. So far I got and will have tons of fun with the Viper and the Hind meanwhile.

Wouldn´t it have been just easier to simply tell the one, who is stepping forward to ED with the intention to create a specific module for DCS, that in case there´s already another one existing, who wants to create the same specific module? There are surely talkings before the license agreement ... Anyways, I like the new announcements policy at it makes some transparency to the public of what´s going on behind the doors. Also like very much, that ED is offering an opportunity for everyone, modders and talented individuals to get in touch with ED and start a studio to get into business, become professional. The other side of the medal might be, that the ones who are pissing their pants now of excitement for an announcement, will claim any project dead after half a year of no progress or expected release dates... won´t be fun if that attitute will go around. Still think, that ED should start working with announcements with reliable schedules, like roadmaps for each with dates for ED projects and 3rd parties modules, to get more professional and out of the image of a playground for developers. Well, I´m sure ED will find the right balance once - no easy task for a very special and huge project like DCS World. What could be said, beside the critics, is, that you always exceed the expectations in quality and innovation, once a module is released!

On the bottom line, the discussion about communicating ( early access- ) release dates is about trust and reliability. On one hand it´s understandable, that ED and 3rd parties avoid communicating too much to the community, when the reactions of the community are mostly immature and childish, so the communication stopped or went out to different platforms with less immature and childish comments on the works the developers are proud of. But doesn´t the community itself grow to mature in these times? And isn´t such reaction towards the bad influence of parts of the community in itself kind of unprofessional or let´s say ´childish´? People losing trust when left obscured - this is where the harsh critics on every news and childish attitutes arise from. Communicating deadlines with news and announcements for sure will create a more professional image for the developers and in reaction to that hopefully a more mature community.

While totally agree the critics of long development times, the change of DCS World by all the recent announcements is very close. Maybe not all announced new module will be released as planned today, but the quantity of announcements in 2022 will change how progress and growth of DCS World will be perceived in future. Until 2021 there were only rarely new announcements and each one made, catched all the interested and expectations, like the F-14B back in time... rinse and repeat with the F-16 Viper ... rinse and repeat with Apache. When the new module announcements will start to drop to releases, the attention and expectations won´t be focused on one release only anymore, but divided up on to many different releases which will drop one after the other and bring more frequent continuity to the growth of DCS. I´d say, someone at ED made a really good job acquiring all the new 3rd Parties and their projects for DCS. The announcements in 2022 are not a lie, just good news pointing to a change in DCS, growth and variety in the near future.

Could be a cool ´what if´- cold war scenario predestined for MiG´s and F-8´s ...

According to the recent animation draft by ED for the CPG of the Apache, it would be a blast having animated troops transported by the MH-6. Oh man, there would be so many possibilities for the Little Bird... such an iconic helicopter ... even a ´Magnum´ variant to fly over the Marianas would fit in Little Bird vs. Gazelle : Little Bird vs. Apache :

Don´t know about that, but hard to imagine the AH-6 uses other systems or secret tech, than the Apache or Kiowa. Also the basic model of the Little Bird would provide some variations of different eras like Vietnam or Gulf war. The mod which is out there, I didn´t like, as it left too much to desire. It´s not so much about hoping and waiting, but for me a must have, when available. https://www.flightglobal.com/boeings-ah-6i-helicopter-gunship-revives-and-improves-a-35-year-old-concept/102884.article

- AH-1 Cobra - AH-6 Little Bird - MiG-25 - Tornado or maybe a WW2 warbird ... more wishing, than guessing

At the time Casmo and Barundus put out the introduction videos of the Kiowa Warrior, it looked really close to release. But then the lead designer had a medical incident and was put off from work on the project for long time. Luckily the lead designer could recover after a long time. Then Polychop decided to add two more variants of the Kiowa of different eras for the release, what is quite unique for a DCS module.

I don´t know, but it doesn´t look like, that it will end any time soon.

That´s a good point on first sight, but the targets we usually attack with jets are mostly in the air, or SAM sites, camps, factories, convoys on roads, etc .... bridges would be a nice additional target in Vietnam. I think people are just concerned or confused at some point about the direction DCS is heading with the maps. It´s pretty clear that many want to fly in a scenario with a realistic background of military conflicts of the past to make the aircraft modules we already have or are announced would fit in. My favorite maps are NTTR and The Channel - both are beautiful and feel just right in tone, lighting, landscape, performance, orientation, but that´s just me. Syria is also great - love the details in it, like on The Channel map! ... that should be the second rule of only 2 rules the forum needs. 1st rule is a key sentences Voltaire once said: "I don´t share your opinion, but I would risk my life for you to express it."

@BIGNEWY What you don´t see, are people, who won´t discuss in the forums or post feedback anymore, because you validating people, who try to expose others in the attempt to ignore the controversy of the announcement. Everyone appreciate new developer coming to DCS. Not every product made for DCS, needs to be appreciated by everyone.

For sure a Korea map in DCS would be meant for the Korea conflict... I´m mostly looking forward for the Kola map, as it should give an impression of the icy look of the northern hemisphere in variation to the desert maps and its looks we already got. Far east subtropical countries look very different overall, like heavy rain changes quickly to bright sunshine, lighting and colors. Movies do not reflect the real thing ( "Full Metal Jacket" was shot in England ). I would think, best to be there, to get accurate impressions for a map recreation.

The accuracy of the maps we got is astonishing and do reflect the quality of the aircraft modules, generally speaking. So, if the maps are not based on google maps or bing maps, but hand made, it´s quite understandable, that a map developer would have a local connection to the area recreated for DCS to provide the accuracy. While Vietnam and Korea surely are nice countries to visit, it seems not to be such easy to have this local connection, unless you´re born there, to recreate the look of these parts in the world and an accurate recreation of the airfields, landmarks, etc. In addition a local access to North Korea to investigate the airfields/ military bases won´t be such easy, unless Kim would be a passionated DCS pilot. Speaking of the parts in the world, I would like to know, if ED ( @NineLine ) has got an ideological plan for the goal to recreate the whole world and not just a financial goal? Asking this, is really not meant to provoke other than an answer to it. An ideological sense of a whole world in DCS only would make practical sense, if everyone would have the same practical access to the idea of the whole world.

Hey MAXsenna, just wanted to bring back in mind this interview with Polychop and Casmo from December 2020. From minute 11 they are talking about the flight model. Oh, I see the next hot posts coming up complaining, that it was 1 1/2 year ago and for that might not be true anymore . Also please see this quote from the very first post of this thread by Polychop from 2019: "Learning from the past and including subject matter expert input and testing right from the start, countless hours have been spent at coding a new and true to life flight model to a point where we can honestly say we’re proud of the result. We don’t take that statement lightly as we know the flight model of our previous module did not live up to expectations. That said, the SA-342 Gazelle module will be updated in time with the new technology developed for the Kiowa. The same amount of time has been spent on meticulously coding the implementation of all the systems, devices and weaponry available to the Kiowa’s crew."

It´s also true for me, that the flight model of the Gazelle doesn´t feel right. But I got trust in Polychop, that it got revised, once the Kiowa is released. Regarding the Kiowa it can´t be appreciated enough, that Polychop is going to release the release version - no early access version! I really do hope, that other developer would follow this attitude for module releases, as in my observation, taking an early access module to release state takes longer time than developing a module from scratch to final release state. No speculation at this point, just observing the development history of the Kiowa in comparison to early access release modules. But there should be surely taken into account the complexity of each module and the different variants of a module planned for final release. To be honest, I believe, what Polychop is planning for the release of the Kiowa and its variants is so far the best user friendly and most satisfying release, we will ever see so far for DCS module... but let´s wait for the final release for seeing if believing turns into facts - I´m quite optimistic, after seeing the videos Barundus and others have so far put online about the Kiowa and its flight module. Also would like to mention, that Polychop is not addressing the passengers of the hype trains in first place, what points for me to really focus on development and focus on getting over the obstacles in the development process. I´m sure with the know-how about helicopter flight models Polychop gained due the development of the Kiowa and its variants, it will be easy for them to transfer a completely new flight model to the Gazelle finally, after the release of the Kiowa. Maybe I´m wrong and there are things going on in the background nobody knows, but I believe in what Polychop communicated and showed so far of the development process and I don´t see any reason to change my mind.

People will love it!

He had to take the photo. But why not counting the flight hours in DCS and set a trigger at 50 hours to switch the cockpit textures from factory new to worn out and again at 100 hours to more worn out textures? Wouldn´t be such difficult to program and gives some personal note and connection to the module.

Removing the props completely would be a no-go for me. ED anyways would advice to remove any mods ( OpenXR ) to solve the issue. I also wouldn´t rely on ED upgrading the engine with MC and VKN ayntime soon -despite MC and VKN is something everyone would benefit from and is demanded and asked for so long and so many times, they prefer to develop stuff like the Mariana Map, no one demands or is interested in using. Well, I don´t get it, but let´s see what the next big thing is, instead of improving the game engine.

coming back to the prop/rotor issue, it obviously only appears on my side by running OpenXR AND reprojection. With reprojection deactivated by OpenXR the issue is gone. It´s mostly visible with Apache and Hind, where the rotor interferes with the canopy and make parts of canopy flickering massively. In most warbrids the issue is not so much / not noticable to me, like the Spitfire or the P-47, but with the A-8 Anton, the horizon line flickers a lot, while watching through the propeller. here also: without reprojection the issue is gone. The issue is also noticable on the edges of wings. Without reprojection all this flickering is gone - unfortunately, DCS is not enjoyable to me without reprojection. A year ago, a smart guy (Mnenomic) made some mods ( "VR friendly prop" - mods ) for the warbirds by creating more transparent textures for the props, but unfortunately due to some newer release of DCS the mods don´t work anymore. To me it appears that the issue is only related to the OpenXR mod and how it handles reprojection in DCS. As I won´t go back to SteamVR ( openVR ), the only thing left to do is waiting for a new iteration of the OpenXR mod and see if it could fix the issue.

Not sure if that is the case, Baldrick. But I´m also not quite sure, if what I think is right. What could be told for sure is, that OpenXR does not have a ´motion smoothing´ option neither in the OpenXR developer tool nor through the Toolkit, just OpenXR API´s reprojection method ( whatever they name it ) to improve performance in VR. But if we would want to go to the bottom line, it could be approved by checking out the settings in SteamVR and observing the results. It´s easy to switch with the OpenCompositor Tool between SteamVR and OpenXR back and forth. I also don´t think, that SteamVR ´controls´ WMR reprojection in the way you described above. It´s more that the reprojection method depends on the API the application is using. If you´re running OpenXR, it´s OpenXR reprojection, if you´re running OpenVR it´s SteamVR reprojection. ´Windows Mixed Reality for SteamVR´ just makes a WMR ( OpenXR ) headset compatible to run under SteamVR ( OpenVR ) and its interface, options and algorythms. If find some time and mood during the week, we could check SteamVRs options for Motion Smoothing and Reprojection and compare the findings to finally get some clarity about Motion Smoothing. Recently I got deinstalled ´SteamVR for Windows Mixed Reality´, but could reinstall it again for some testing with the G2. That confused me as well, as reprojection does the frame halving, independently of which GPU is used. Let alone the mixed up names for the techniques are confusing in the conversation. Edit: Skatezilla´s theory about Motion Smoothing being a filter to smooth out movements ( head/body movements ) in VR makes sense and distinguishes clearly Motion Smoothing from Reprojection.

It´s really a tricky question about motion smoothing, as there is nearly nothing to be found, what could explain precisely or backup observations. The explanation found on steam is not quite technical and more commercial or common "easy" explanation, but that´s OK, as it is true, what Baldrick is saying, that none of the VR user really need to understand. Going with OpenXR by the mod, there is no ´Motion smoothing´ option to be found, like with SteamVR, beside the ( motion- or asynchroneous- ) reprojection. I understood motion smoothing in SteamVR as an option to smooth the head movements, respectively body movement in VR. If the option is active and you´re sitting in the cockpit, just watch the panels in the cockpit, while moving your head from left to right. You will see that the panels are out of focus and a little blurry, during the movement of the head and get back in focus and sharp, when the headmovement stops. But it is a smooth movement without stutter. If you´re doing the same movement in the cockpit, without motion smoothing activated in SteamVR, the panels in the cockpit stay sharp and in focus through out the movement, but it could appear some micro-stutter during the movement - it´s not such smooth. Reprojection-techniques care for the overall frame rates in the game, in my understanding - no matter if you move head or body in VR or sitting /standing still while flying with 500 Knots over downtown Beirut. That´s at least my observation and something I´ve read about years ago, which made sense to me.

It is for sure an annoying issue in VR, but appears only by using OpenXR mod. With OpenVR the prop effect works as intended. While I like the new prop effects, which are implented some time ago, the only thing to do is asking ED to have a look into this special new prop effect and try to make it OpenXR friendly, as it seems to be an issue on the difference on how OpenXR motion reprojection works to how OpenVR motion reprojection works in relation to this new prop effect. Maybe with an improved version of the OpenXR mod the issue could be solved, but for sure the issue should be fixed if DCS would finally get a native OpenXR support, which I think is overdue. While appreciate the progress on the F-16, Hornet and in other areas of DCS, we haven´t had for long time any improvement for VR and general performance. Taking literally years to implement multi-threading or Vulkan is not realistic. If at least someone at ED could have a look into the new prop effect and OpenXR compatibility, would be very appreciated.