Nedum

Hello everyone. Good News (for me ). Thanks to Calvin and Cindy, the new headset arrived today. That was quick. And what can I say, everything is working as I expected so far. The main problems are all gone. The fans are whisper quiet. The displays don't get visibly darker or brighter when I look from bright to dark areas and vice versa, and I no longer have to move the headset to see sharp with my left eye. Thank you also for your support.

No, you don't need a 5090, that's simply not true, not at all! You'll need a 6090! But joke aside. A 4080 or 5070Ti is a good start to have more fun with a Crystal Super as with a Quest Pro.

Yeah, I think that's the problem, but I can't go with the snap rotation. I tried it a few times. It feels completely wrong. That's probably why it makes me feel sick. Not my world.

@Dawgboy Yes, but still not as good as with Necksafer. I have to move my body more to get a good look behind me. Even with the Crystal Super, you get not the big FOV view you have in RL. But now I can see the first part of the wings and the tips of my loadout of my F16 without XrNecksafer and without moving my whole body. Edit: You ordered the Wide FOV version. You will perhaps see the whole wings with only moving your head at the edges of the lenses, but you still have to twist your upper body to get a good look behind you.

Hello everyone, I would like to share with you an important discovery I made regarding micro stutters. It may already be common knowledge, but I couldn't find anything about it in the forum, which is why I'm starting this thread in the PIMAX section. This may be a problem that only occurs in conjunction with the XrNecksafer and the PIMAX software. My OG Crystal kept to start stuttering when I looked to the side, and then stabilized itself, even though the FPS and frame times were consistently high enough to not get any stutter at all. After switching from the 4090 to the 5090 with its better raw performance and significantly higher FPS, I was surprised to find that the slight stuttering in some situations and maps was still exactly the same as before. Until then, I had assumed that it was due to the poor performance of the 4090, so I didn't look into it further. Now, I was sure that it had nothing to do with the GPU. So I tested what was possible, but always with XrNeckSafer enabled. It never occurred to me that this great tool could cause a problem. It never even crossed my mind that it could be due to this tool. Then I've got my Crystal Super and this Crystal Super had a few major problems, and in order to test everything properly and rule out problems with third-party software, I disabled all tools. I was surprised to find that these mini jerks when looking to the side had completely disappeared. And not only that, suddenly the image was still smooth even when I had FPS dips way below 72 FPS. At first, I thought I had reset the setting, but that wasn't the case. So I enabled each tool (Quadviews Companion, OpenXR Toolkit, Quad-Views-Foveated, and XrNewckSafer) individually, and as soon as I enabled XrNeckSafer, the stuttering started again. It seems as if XrNeckSafer prevents the “smoothing” of frame times, which is normally handled by the manufacturer's software. It may be due to how I configured the XrNecksafer (see image below), which is why others may not notice this effect If anyone is using XrNeckSafer and experiencing mini-stuttering when looking to the side, even though the FPS and frame times should be sufficient for smooth display, I recommend trying it without XrNeckSafer. For me personally, it was an eye-opener.

Whenever I see your very rude manner of communication, I find it extremely difficult to believe that you actually work on an F16 yourself. Apart from that, it would be important to know which Army regulation prohibits refueling an external tank unless it contains less than 4,000 pounds of fuel? Why less the 4,000 pounds of fuel and not 3,500 or 4,500 or empty? There should be reason for it! What is it? What happens if a pilot lands with more than 4,000 pounds of fuel in the center tank, the aircraft is rearmed, and he basically needs a full center tank to complete his mission? It may well be as you describe here, but what are the reasons for this, and what measures are or must be taken to ensure that the center tank can be refilled to capacity when it contains 4,100 pounds of fuel instead of 3,999 pounds? Please share your knowledge with us. An essential part of this hobby is knowing why and how to do things so that they work in the end. When you work on the F16, you will be told the reason. At least that's how it is in the Deutsche Luftwaffe. Everyone is told why certain things have to be done in a particular way. I firmly believe there is no difference in the US armed forces. It would be nice if you could help us to understand what are the reasons for all of this. Thank you!

Hello @Calvin.Pimax, thank you for contacting me. I was unable to respond to your private message until today, as I did not have time over the weekend. I have sent you the current ticket number via private message. In my last message to the young lady from the support team, I wrote that I can only accept another replacement if it is actually a headset with a guaranteed new optical unit. This message may be delaying everything! I don't know. I am 99% sure that the last replacement wasn't a new optical unit. The fact that 5 of the 6 previously reported problems are exactly the same again, and that the third point (chromatic aberration, triple vision in 3 different colors) is less pronounced because the brightness of the displays has been reduced, is a pretty big clue for me. However, I did not report the seventh issue because I felt that the other six issues were more than enough. The 7th issue was that the right display occasionally becomes slightly darker or lighter when switching from light to dark and vice versa. In the end, six out of seven problems remained completely unchanged, and one was mitigated. To get "another" one with all those exact issues, that's like winning the jackpot twice in a row with the exact same numbers. I don't think I'm that lucky. And please don't get me wrong, if the repair is done well, I have no problem with it. Unfortunately, the last repair (I think it was one) was more than inadequate, and then there's always this endless process of troubleshooting, documenting, reporting problems, waiting for responses, repackaging, and then waiting again to see if it will be better this time. Like everyone else here, I have to work hard for my money, and I know that mistakes are made or things don't always work like they should. No problem, I can and must live with that. However, I expect a repair to work, especially when the delivery includes a note signed by two people stating that the headset has allegedly passed all tests. I can say with absolute certainty that either what is written on the note is not true, or the tests are not good enough. I notice that I'm getting upset again, so let's stop. If I had the choice, I would prefer to receive a new optical unit and keep the old headset and optical unit. After the arrival of the new optical unit, I would test the new optical unit and send the old one back. That way, I would be sure that I would not end up with "another" unit that had been completely failed to repair. And if PIMAX has problems to deliver the normal 50 PPD optical units, I would even go with a wide FOV 50 PPD unit if this would fasten up the delivery and shorten my waiting. Unfortunately, it currently looks like I won't have a fully functional headset in my hands until the end of September, almost 11 months after I placed my order. That's tough. Nevertheless, thank you for your attention and with best regards

Yea, but it's inside the Headset. I've got the answer from PIMAX. They want to send me another replacement (in 3-5 weeks) and then extend the test period by or to 7 days. It's probably because of the language barrier that I don't quite understand what that means. Quote: To address this, we'd like to arrange another replacement for you. We will extend a 7-day return window, starting from the date the new replacement unit is delivered. This gives you ample time to test the unit thoroughly. To me, it reads more like the trial period will be shortened next time, even though the word “extended” is used. Very “artfully” worded. It's being shortened, but they use the word “extended.” Just my kind of humor. At least I'll get a 3-month warranty extension if I decide to keep the device after that. So far, I haven't been asked to pack up the old headset and send it back. At least, that's how it was last time. Last time, the “new” headset was only sent to me, or rather the replacement process was initiated, after PIMAX had confirmation that the old headset had been received. That alone took more than a week. I'm curious to see how long it will take this time. But I'd also like to take this opportunity to stick up for the support team that's helping me. The guys and girls are doing a great job.

@Dawgboy Thank you That would be the best way for me. I've got a message from the support team, they will contact me tomorrow, with a clear update and proposed plan. And that's how the Fan of the Super Sounds: The first file is from the old one, the second file is from the "new" one. Sound Super first HS.m4a Pimax Headset Bee Sound new HS.m4a

Hello @Peedee and @Panzerlang, thank you both for the response. On one side, I am happy you both have "super" Supers ( ) and it gives me a little bit of a hope, on the other side I am really frustrated that "2" Headsets I've got are so bad. And thank you for taking the time to provide information about the offset settings. I may test this over the weekend, but at the moment I am frustrated when I put on the headset and see the excellent image quality, knowing that I will have to return the headset because my previous headset already had all these issues, which I reported extensively (photos, sound files), and then I get a headset back with almost all the same flaws, and on top of that there's a note signed by two people saying that the headset passed all the tests. Are they blind and deaf? I don't know how the testing is done, but delivering something like this to the customer with almost all the faults still present shows either a great sense of humor or simply incompetence. The worst thing is that, no matter how frustrated I am, I will have to wait months and will probably receive the same device again. @Calvin.Pimax Should I give this device back to be sure not to get this device again and order another one?

Hello everyone. I had problems with my first Crystal Super and received a replacement device. The problem is that the replacement device has almost the same problems as the previous device, which is why I almost hope that it is not a replacement device, because otherwise I am incredibly “lucky” with the devices or PIMAX has a huge problem with the quality of the devices. I would like to ask here whether I am just unlucky or whether you are also familiar with these problems. I have the following problems with both devices: 1. Chromatic aberration in the sweet spot. With the first device, it was so severe that all the illuminated buttons in the F16 cockpit turned white and I saw all the numbers three times in different colors. With the second device, I “only” see this in the pause/start image on the buttons. There is no sign of it in the F16 cockpit. 2. The left fan (when I put on the headset) sounds like a bee, so even with noise-canceling headphones, I can hear this buzzing noise when it's quiet in the game. Playing with the DMAS headphones is not possible this way, at least if you value the background noise in the game. 3. The right display gets brighter or darker depending on whether I'm looking at a light or dark area. This doesn't happen all the time, but it does happen occasionally and manifests itself as a very slow flickering. 4. To achieve the sweet spot in the left display, I have to push the headset up about 3-5 mm on the left side and move it slightly to the left so that my eye moves further down and to the right to see everything clearly with my left eye. This wasn't quite as extreme with the first Crystal Super. When aligning the HMD with the HUD, I see two lines on the large cross. On the right eye, the line runs vertically from top to bottom. On my left eye, I have a second line, as if I were squinting. This line drifts down to the left. I didn't have this with the first headset. Due to all these almost identical errors with both headsets, I almost suspect that an attempt was made to repair the old headset and that the headset was given a new SN so that the 14-day trial period could be controlled by the system again. However, if it is indeed a new headset and so many problems are identical on both headsets, I wanted to ask you if you are experiencing similar issues? I am an owner of the OG Crystal and have not a single issue with it. Greetings

Da ich mein Quest 3 verkauft habe, bin ich mir nicht zu 100 % sicher, aber es wird auf der linken Seite angezeigt, dass du eine Latenz von 45 ms hast, richtig? Und die Latenz ist wie festgenagelt. Keinerlei Varianz. Wenn dem so ist, wirst natürlich immer ein Stottern haben. Warum ist die BIT-Rate bei dir os niedrig? 200 Mbps scheint mir viel zu niedrig zu sein. Ultra Einstellungen und nur 200 Mbps und dann niedrige Latenzen? Ich glaube nicht, dass das so etwas wird. Da müssten 500 Mbps her. Wie ich schon schrieb, ist es lange her, dass ich die Quest mal aufhatte, aber ich bin mir sicher, dass 200 Mbps viel zu niedrig für ULTRA-Settings ist, wenn es um Latenzen geht. Mal einen anderen Codec ausprobiert? 10 Bit ist ein gewaltiger Sprung gegenüber den 8 Bit der anderen Codecs.

At first, thank you @Dangerzone for this thread! Many good points one can start with to discuss. To cut a long story short, there are seven points that have personally helped me reduce stuttering: 1. Enable hardware acceleration in W11 and in the BIOS REBAR. 2. Disable all unnecessary programs running in the background. 3. Have at least 64 GB of system RAM installed. 4. Install DCS and the disk cache on the fastest SSD drive. 5. Set the latency to Ultra and vertical synchronization to off in nVidia CPL. 6. Use a CPU with the lowest possible latency (definitely not INTEL). 7. The most important point is to adjust DCS to the minimum FPS the graphics card can deliver so it always achieved and ensures smooth gameplay. Regarding the RAM optimization shown in the video presented in the thread: I believe that it may be helpful for people who have less than 64 GB of RAM and only slow hard drives. What you see in the video is not a bug in DCS World or Win11, it's the opposite. You can see how Win11 makes optimal use of RAM, because RAM is always faster than a hard drive. Why wouldn't you want to use your RAM as much and high as you can? My own tests show that Win11 does everything right, and when files are no longer needed and others need to move up, the area that is no longer needed is immediately cleared. As I write this, I am on the Germany map. I pushed up to 55 GB RAM (the highest reading I could get) by pressing F11 and after that I stayed at one place. And now only 32 GB are occupied. This is how it should be. You don't have to use any extra tools, if your settings are optimized for your Hardware ( VR differs here a bit ;))! Many “problems” are simply based on believing what is specified as the minimum requirements for DCS World is enough to play the game with all the great graphics. This makes DCS World playable, but far from optimal. For me, the biggest FPS hogs are, in order of importance, the following, if FPS fluctuates: 1. Terrain shadows = Flat (biggest impact) 2. Clutter = 0 (big impact) 2. Trees = 0.5 (big impact) 3. Water = Low (medium impact) This is what I was able to test for myself. First optimize the hardware, then optimize DCS World for the hardware! There are no magic settings that can turn poor/unoptimized hardware and software into a miracle cure!

I think you're very much mistaken And it wasn't just transferred once, but at least twice. The first time onto the jet's magnetic tape and at least a second time when uploading. Even with the first transfer to the F-16's on-board data tape, subtleties are lost. This effect is squared during the second upload. And this is also clearly visible if you look at the only high-resolution image of an original recording (last row, right image). The sharpness of the overlay almost comes close to that of the sniper pod from DCS, but the details to be recognized are many times higher than in DCS. Just look at how razor-sharp the shadows are. What the video shows us has nothing to do with what the !!analog!! camera system of the original can really do. You can extrapolate all this by comparing the sharp original image with the overlay of the video. If I calculate the ratio in my head, the original should be at least 3 times sharper than what we can see in DCS. Knowing the size and resolution of the MFD of the F16 and you know the PPD of the MFDs. PPD is the magic term. I'm willing to bet that what we can currently see in DCS is nowhere near the PPD of the MFD of the F16. And the analog cameras of the original Sniper have a much higher resolution as the F16 MFDs. https://qasimk.io/screen-ppd/ As I said before, it looks like one have missed some parts badly in his calculations. I hardly doubt, by math, the DCS Sniper Pod show us what the original can do, if I am looking at the original razor sharp image picture.

I think you are showing exactly the opposite with your comparison pictures. 1. the video of the original you are referring to is very heavily compressed. You can see this very clearly if you look at the overlay. It definitely doesn't show the sharpness of a 720p video, and I'd wager not even 320p 2. In the last row, you've put the original on the right-hand side. Here the overlay is almost as sharp as in DCS and you can clearly see how bad the picture of DCS Sniper Pod is in comparison. The aliasing alone should scare anyone. 3. if you look closely at both PIP images, you will notice that everything in the PIP of the original is the same size as everything around it. The image of the DCS Sniper Pod changes the size massively. The buildings there are smaller, but the fine structures are almost twice as thick. It looks to me as if the heavy compression from the original video was not taken into account when developing the DCS Sniper Pod. And something else doesn't seem to have been considered. The cameras in the original Sniper Pod are !!! not!!! digital. They are analog. With the same "resolution", an analog camera will always be able to display a much more detailed image. I hope the sharpness of the image and the details are adapted to this fact. If not, one have really missed the mark.