Rosebud47

Just want to bring some attention to the pilot body in VR in general. After flying for years DCS in VR the pilot body has become very important to me. It wasn´t like that in the beginning, when you learn to fly any aircraft and the attention is more on the systems, panels, knobs and gauges, but when you know your aircraft and start enjoying it in VR, a pilot body is hardly missed on many aircraft. I believe it has to do with recognizing your presence in VR. While on flatscreen, you could see and feel the presence of your real body, but in VR you can´t see your real body. The cockpits in VR without a pilot body are not only empty, they actually feel empty, what could get pretty weird after a while. So meanwhile I leave most modules which does not provide a pilot body in VR aside and don´t fly them. I think it´s the most underestimated feature in VR by the developers and only considered as a cosmetic nice to have. In my opinion it is more and essential for the VR experience in particular. The pilot body in VR should become standard feature in development. What is your opinion? Is it essential, nice to have or useless?

The water injection of the P-47 is not bad. Using it in the right moment, it could be an advantage in a dogfight to close the gap to the opponent and brings the Jug in a good fire position.

Made some similar experiences soundwise regarding the Spit. With other aircraft the difference from changing surround to stereo was not such noticable. I assume that a proper digital surround sound setup is not implemented in every module. Recently have read, that ED also got a revision of the sound system on the to-do list, which would be great. The aircraft sounds in DCS are really fantastic and add so much to the experience. If you got a good 7.1 sound system, I would really recommend to connect it to a soundblaster card instead of the Realtek HD Audio onboard chips. As far as I know, there are also external soundcard solutions for Soundblaster cards. Soundblaster cards are not too expensive, but the difference in quality is huge to the onboard Realtek sound. EDIT: By the way, if you got the P-47 then you should take a round with it. The engine sounds of the 45 ltr. double wasp radial is such a blast! I love to fly around and hear that engine sound ( never happened to me with modern jet module ).

Got 4 active studio speakers connected to a soundblaster card and configured as 5.1 surround without center and subwoofer - soundblaster software does a very good job splitting the channels for centerbox and subwoofer to the active studio speaker ! Some time after the big 2.7 update me wondered, that some low frequency sounds were out of place. Well, the sound settings in DCS option menu was set back to default. After setting it to 5.1 surround, everything sounds fine again. Just wanted to add to your discussion not to forget to check the whole soundsystem configuration.

@Fri13 These are interesting considerations and make a bit more obvious, that the KA-50 is very much a prototype, which didn´t go into serial production. Its systems are to a certain amount engineered on theory, while they were innovative at its time ( e.g. pilot ejection seat ), but not engineered on practical experience or use. The A/A switch on the front panel is like a theoretical use, which was practically not fully engineered in the prototype version. Also the A/A mode and A/A mode for aircrafts which approach from front for the Vikhr appear more like a theoretical situation, than a practical tested use. Same for the LWS. The designers might have thought, that because they use laser guidance by themself, laser guided weapons might be the biggest thread for the KA-50, which is not. I guess they have took the components, which have been practically approved, like the koax-rotor system, Vikhr for A/G, the engines and most of the helicopter design to conceive a more practical attack helicopter in its systems (KA-52), which the went into serial production instead of the KA-50.

Some time ago, the community wanted so hardly a RWR system and AA Missiles for BS3. I guess ED implemented it in favour for the community demand and also to add something more to BS3, like they did with the A-10 II. I don´t fly any of the A-10s available, but I think the price for the upgrade from BS2 to BS3 will be the same as for the full fidelity A-10 Warthog to the A-10 II Tank Killer. Me appreciate very much, that the older modules are still maintained and would like to support this with a small upgrade fee, as I enjoy the KA-50 very much and always wanted it to be perfectionized. The Iglas were just a surprised, when they were announced - me didn´t need Iglas for BS3, but could be quite fun to use them. The real KA-52 does have it anyway. But the RWR (MWR) is really needed for the KA-50. The LWS is only of rare use and useless when you´re trying to engage a SAM side. I´m happily paying a small fee for a complete functional cockpit and a complete overhaul of the key bindings with key abstractions for HOTAS support like the Hornet has got, finally a new pilot body in VR ( hopefully ), also for graphical upgrade / lighting, maybe precalculated RayTracing, like it is announced for the Hind. And a complete new external model. Have you seen the pictures of the external model in last newsletter? Phenomenal grade of detail - even systems under the hood of the Kamov are modelled in detail ( for an updated damage model probably ). Have you seen the movie "Return of the Jedi"? It makes the StarWars Trilogy complete and answers all open questions. Well, as it is the first time, ED reaches a 3rd episode of one of their models, I would really wish, BS3 will be like "Return of the Jedi" and does not leave any open question or issue to the module. This whole discussion above is way too overdramatized and the opposite of what has been discussed before by the community. For sure ED didn´t invent Igla rockets or RWR systems in aircrafts or pylons - it all exists in real. They just implement it to BS3, what is in my personal opinion believable.

Dogfighting with a KA-50 against Gazelles, Hueys and Apaches or killing 12 vehicles and 30 insurgents in one sortie is more fantasy, than iglas mounted or mws installed. It´s in anyways a prototype helicopter with a few iterations. As long as the iglas and the MWS is simulated accurately, it´s absolutely imaginable, that ´our´ KA-50 carries it.

the file names in these folders were similar in the way of being long numbers like the ones in the saved games/.../fxo and metasahder2 folders. Didn´t fired up DCS since then and waiting for the patch ( also waiting for the clouds to be fixed in VR ).

To touchdown the Spitfire, breaks input is more important than the rudder input IMO. The landing performance changed completely for me after mapping the breaks on to another switch, which could do small and fast inputs. I´m using the Thrustmaster F/A-18 Grip and had the breaks usually mapped on to the button for nosewheel steering on most modern jets. After mapping the breaks of the Spitfire on to the small wheel on top of the stick, which is springloaded and flips back, the inputs for the breaks could be made much more sensitive and more frequently, that rudder input is only needed to correct the direction a bit after touching down on the runway.

Oh yes, on friday I could fly for 2 hours without any crash. Yesterday DCS crashed always, when loading a new mission, map or aircraft. Somehow I believe it´s always the same error. Hope ED will fix soon.

So far these permanent CTD did not appear anymore on my side, let´s see next time, if more CTD appear. What I wonder about is, that the deleted *.fxo and *.meta2 in the terrain folders were not recreated after several restarts of DCS and even after restart of Windows. The folders keep empty.

Had the same since the recent update patch for 2.7. Lots of CTD in any second mission loading. After deleting the the .fxo and .meta2 files of following main DCS Open beta folder, the CTD are gone and so far didn´t happen anymore: ../DCSWorldOpenBeta/Mods/terrains/Normandy/misc/metacache/dcs/ and ../DCSWorldOpenBeta/Mods/terrains/Normandy/misc/shadercache/ In the "../metacache/dcs/" -folder there were *.meta2 files dated 17.04.2021, which is the date I´ve run after the big 2.7 update for first time. Now, after deleting these *meta2 files, they were not created again and the folder stays empty. In the "../shadercache/" -folder there were *.fxo files dated 17.04.2021, which is the date I´ve run after the big 2.7 update for first time. Now, after deleting these *.fxo files, they were not created again and the folder stays empty. I´ve done this for every map ( caucasus, NTTR, TheChannel, PersianGulf, Normandy ) in the "../DCSWorldOpenBeta/Mods/terrains/" - folder. Not sure if it is coincident or something different related to the problem, but since deleted the .fxo and .meta2 files remaining there from the original 2.7 update, I had no more CTD.

@BIGNEWY Thanks Bignewy! Renaming the DCS folder in Saved Games to backup and letting DCS create a new one, did the job to me. Before, the clouds were way too shiny in VR, like completely bright white, now after done this, the clouds look much better, more frayed and with more dark areas, which gives them volume. As well the clouds in the higher spheres now look great in VR. Surely the clouds in VR will never look that perfect, like on screen or in the videos, but in anyway a fantastic improvement. I´m also glad, that you did not delayed the release of the patch again, because of the known issues in VR. I´m sure these will be fixed sooner or later.

Bought three new modules ( both Focke Wulf and the Channel map... another 10GB download ). Silent appreciation.

Yeah, you´re right! I have googled some pictures of the real KA-50 cockpit and the front panel with the HSI, VVI and other gauges are actually that massive and prominent in the cockpit. The thing is, that I flew many different aircrafts these days in different weather condition after the new 2.7 patch. As well the modules I haven´t flown for a while, like the Kamov. So it comes to the impression, that somehting is off in VR with KA-50, what really bothered me, as it is one of my favourites modules. Now, as you could have falsify that impression, I could continue enjoying the KA-50. Thanks for your replies.

Thanks for your tipps, but it´s not the adjustment by IPD scaling or the right position of the head in VR. The new cockpit update surely was a huge and much needed improvement of the visuals - just remember that huge stick before -, but somehow it still does not feel right in VR. Don´t you have the impression that the front panel is way to big in width and length while the sidepanels feel right? And the gauges and indicators on the front panel are too big and blocky. Hmm, maybe you´re right and it is just the scaling in VR being off and needs to be adjusted by the IPD setting. Didn´t fiddled around with the IPD setting for long time and left it unchecked, as I was flying mostly newer modules, for which it was fine. Sitting in the KA-50 always reminds me of a geometrical structure made for 2D screens to provide a good overview on the front panel on the monitor screen... it´s a bit like in the F-5. Despite that the F-16 or Hornet, Spitfire, P-47, Tomcat and other look perfectly right in VR. I´m not sure if with the cockpit update in the KA-50, the entire cockpit was rebuild or only the surfaces of the panels. It´s not ranting, love the modules anyway, but somehow it feels always off in scale or dimension or geometry sitting in the KA-50 in VR. A bit like things in the cockpit which a more far away from your point of view appear bigger than things that are closer to your point of view. It´s difficult to describe, but an impression always comes to my mind in the KA-50.

The Cockpit Dimension in VR always feel off to me in the Kamov, like a too blocky focus on to the front panel. I don´t know, if it is only a subjective impression or if impressions of other KA-50 pilots differ totally. As well never saw a KA-50 cockpit in real life. So it´s just an impression that something is off in the dimensions of the VR cockpit. If so, I´d wish it to be revised for BS3, like the newer modules, which were built up from scratch with VR in mind. Oh, and, eh, I wish a pilot body in VR with a black motorcycle leather jacket. Edit: Okay, scratch the leatherjacket, but the VR cockpit dimensions is really something to have a look into.

I´ve read yesterday somewhere in the forums, that Bignewy replied to that question, that they don´t know yet, if the tech is scalable to helo rotor size and how it may look like there.

New propeller tech looks mindboggling. Like you could feel the power of the engine. What a great addition!

@iFoxRomeo very nice videos of this bird. While the Me262 is definitely an icon in the flight sim world, I would personally still prefer a prop driven warbird to be produced next after the Mossie. In anyway I trust in ED to start a new project for an interesting warbird, which fits well into the simulation. The Mossie for sure will be an instant buy for me, as I would expect it to provide a different experience in BFM and combat, while still being competitive against the BF109 and the FW-190. Surely not as same competitive like the Mustang, but different in its own ways. Maybe some day, we´ll see the ME262 in DCS, but the WW2 scenarios are very much in the beginning and decisions, which modules to add at this very early stage, need to be found carefully, to keep it interesting and enjoyable for everybody and everybodies preferences, like study sim or multiplayer. It can´t be appreciated enough, that ED and Nineline is as well interested in the opinions of the user base to find their next project. Well, in case of the ME262 the interest in the user base opinion comes out of the circumstances of the kickstarter promotion, but they do care, what should not be treated as natural in the decision finding process. My personal favourites for next warbird would be the P-38 or the JU-88. The JU-88 or maybe a Heinkel or a multirole and multiseated Messerschmidt Fighter/Bomber would be very interesting as a counterpart of the Axis for the Mossie, which fits that role for the Allies. Still think, the Hellcat will be an excellent module, because of the knowledge ED already owns, but the biggest concern is, that a Pacific Scenarion won´t come to live on the servers, as long as there is no full fidelity Japanese Fighter to compete with. Magnitude surely would need another 5 years to give birth to a A6M Zero, as they plan to develop the crusader after the corsair, as far as I know. Developing the Hellcat without a Japanese counterpart in parallel might result in oblivion for the idea of a pacific WW2 scenario and a WW2 variation of the upcoming Marianas map. Hope they find a the right decision for their next project and am happily looking forward for the Mossie now.

@Mogster any other kind of rarely used aircraft like a Spit MK XIV or Tempest V wasn´t into discussion. Also I guess, most readers would have got my point, that there wasn´t a significant presence of the ME262 in WW2. There are theories around, that Hitler might have won the war, if he didn´t decided to financially support Dönitz and the submarine warfare instead of Göring´s Luftwaffe, which developed much faster improvements on their warmachine to succeed over the enemy. Anyways, wrong decision by luck for us. Also, I don´t feel the need to glorify technical improvements out of the historical perspective, but fully understand using the fascination, which comes with such technical outstanding achievements to be transported into flight simulations. This fascination for an aircraft like the ME262 surely brings value to Videogames like WarThunder or Battlefield or IL2 ( sorry, I don´t know more ... ), but DCS brings a fascination to me, which is of a kind, all the other Games/Flight Sims could not have provided to me so far. To me it is far more interesting and fascinating to see and experience how accurate simulated warbirds of each party, independendly from each other developed, could have compete with each other in real life. So far none of any flightsim beside DCS did made this experience believable to me - in other it always felt balanced to entertain in multiplayer. I guess the difference makes a very deep research in every aspect of a single aircraft and on top a person who could prove the flight characteristics and every detail in the simulation to be true or at least acceptable in terms of accuracy. Now I think, it is hard to collect enough data of the ME262 or probably impossible ( with regard to find a living person, who has actually flown a ME262 ) to reach the accuracy like we got with the present models in DCS. Or let´s put it the other way: why should we prefer a module, which needs to be ´balanced´by the lack of real knowledge, when we could have a module, the CEO of ED has flown by his own hands. Really, I guess, when ED is going to make the Hellcat, it will be for sure one of the most accurate one in the hangar. And that accuracy provides the real fun, at least to me, by fighting in the simulation against a different technical approach from a different part of the world with different characteristics in which one could believe to reflect the real fights in world war 2. I don´t know, if ED could provide this accuracy for a ME262, but I know they do it for other aircrafts in the sim and am sure they could do it much faster ( counting in years ) for any other aircraft than an aircraft of which only around 1000 existed 77 years ago and of which most, if not all, were destroyed during the war. Don´t want to diminishing someone to be a fan of this aircraft, surely would be nice to have a ME262 in the hangar, just saying, spending time in the development into a more valuable model of a WW2 aircraft with regard to its accurate simulation, might be more rewarding and more fun in the end, than some balanced stuff.

I would like to see the Me262 playing the same role within DCS as in the historical context of Wold War 2: None!

Well, the 262 might be regarded outstanding as the grandfather of jet engine planes, but me would absolutely prefer the Hellcat or any other WW2 fighter/bomber to be added to DCS. PersonaIly I´m not so much interested in PVP balance or PVP Wunderwaffe like gameplay, but more in historical and simulationwise accuracy of experiences with the real thing. Regarding DCS Multiplayer scenario, i would consider to have fairly enough single seated fighters of the Luftwaffe to reach kind of historical scenario imagination in the simulation. Beside of this, I would love to see a fully simulated and multi seated Heinkel HE 111 or a multi seated ´Flying Fortress´ to push DCS WW2 to the next level. A F6F Hellcat for sure is stratetically the right choice to develop next for establishing a Pacific WW2 scenario aside of Magnitude´s F4U Corsair and later on Zero-Fighter ( and hopefully a new map of this region someday ). Reaching the quality of DCS modules takes a lot of time in development, so it would be more appreciable to invest time into modules with much more synergy effects for the whole WW2 simulation scenario than the ME262 might deliver. By the way, the P-51 really needs a revision to be on par in quality with the P-47 and for sure the upcoming WW2 modules. The Mustang does deserve a littel push in quality to not fall apart and left behind of the newer modules.

Ich lege die Position und das Format jetzt on-the-fly fest. Wie ein Windows Fenster mit der Maus. Vor der Neuerung von ED ging es über das Anlegen, Speichern und Auswählen von Profilen im Kneeboardbuilder.