Nedum

Hello, I assume that what is shown in Chuck's guide is what we can currently expect in DCS for the F16 (possibly even a little more). The FCR section shows the symbology for the different states of an object detected by our own or another RADAR in our data link group. I am not able to turn the symbolic of a tracked target into the symbolic of a system target in such a case (shared Data (yellow squares)), at least I have never seen a yellow hollowed-out square for months (could be years ;)). Even if I bug a target (a circle around the target) the yellow square will stay fulfilled. I only see the symbol of a system target if I am not receiving data from other group members/AWACS (Datalink is disabled). It seems to be important that the pilot knows which targets are system targets, otherwise the symbol would not be there even in the mode without data link (only white squares). I therefore strongly assume that recognizing which targets are system targets will also be possible with active data exchange with other members. In the track-file you can see there is a big difference in symbolic and how good you can track the selected targets. Without the Datalink, I can easily see the differences in the symbolic (search -> track -> system -> bugged). With the Datalink enabled I am unable to see which target is in what current state. I am unable to see if the yellow symbol is a search, a track or a system target. Impossible to see that. A lot better and more pleasurable situation occurs as soon I am switching the data transfer to off. Now I am able to see in what state one of each target is. The symbolic (white) works like in Chucks guide. The questions that now arise me are as follows: 1. is Chuck's guide wrong? If so, is there an explanation as to why the symbology and the way I can lock targets is completely different with and without a datalink connection and why it is much more difficult to lock targets with a datalink connection than without an active datalink connection? 2. if Chuck's Guide is correct, when will the error in the symbolic display be corrected and the problem with the more difficult target locking in the datalink mode be resolved? No Mods enabled, all Data cleared, slow repair was done. Edit: To mention a few more details. In active datalink mode, it is often not possible to turn all targets that are in FCR (in TWS mode) into system targets with a short TMS right. Typically, only the first detected target is immediately made into a bugged target (the part making a system target will be cut out, because there is no symbology for system targets anymore if you are in the Datalink mode). A new TMS to the right regularly has no effect. It will not switch through all system targets (because in the Datalink mode the FCR is mostly unable to make system targets?). TMS down only changes the symbolism once, and only if a target was previously bugged. Since you cannot see from the symbols what status the targets are currently in, you often TMS down until you leave the TWS mode. Two completely different symbolics for the same subject, and only because you get more/better data. But exactly when you get more and "better" data, you have a harder time selecting targets because the symbology is severely limited. And the target acquisition is significantly more difficult/restricted. I can't imagine with the best will in the world that this is what the designer intended. track_f16.trk

Hi, could it be, you are sync your flight hardware (HOTAS) with the game and your switches are set to false positions after you hit start? Try to check your DCS settings and make sure that Synchronize Cockpit Controls with HOTAS Controls at Mission Start is disabled. Try it again and report back. null

Warum fühlen Sie sich genötigt, dies hier zu posten? Selbsterkenntnis? Keine Bange, so wichtig sind Sie dann doch nicht. Aber immer wieder schön zu sehen, wer alles den Kopf hochreckt, sobald ein Thema angesprochen wird, das diese Personen angeblich nicht im Geringsten tangiert. Im Volksmund heißt das dann wohl: "Getroffene Hunde bellen!"

In the name of all known gods, please give us some screens of your DCS and PIMAX settings. It's no fun to try to help you if you hide all the important things for us.

Seriously? What do you think would happen if we all just kept quiet or stopped participating in the early access program altogether? Do you even remotely believe ED could continue to fund itself? But apart from that. You should realize yourself that, if anything, you've made the worst argument ever. Even if it is the early access program, it should be possible to make justified criticism. Trying to shut us, the customers, up or even portraying us as stupid children is more than cheeky. We know very well what early access entails, and yet it must be possible to point out that something is going exceptionally wrong without you making us out to be possible idiots. What's wrong with you?

Hello Bignewy, thank you for your very detailed reply. I am well aware that you all (the ED team) are working hard to make sure everything runs as smoothly as possible. Unfortunately, lately I have the feeling that some things are going wrong with the planning. For me, the F16 module has never been in such a bad state without major features being added. And in my opinion, there have never been so many different problems at the same time. I can't remember for a long time that the F16 was ever in such a bad state. It's frustrating when what's added or improved isn't even noticeable as an improvement, but makes the F16 much more unplayable. Waypoints drift as soon as I set markpoints and turn them into STPTs. Boresighting no longer works at all. HARMs suddenly fly around wildly. GBUs no longer find their target. Confusing altitude information for cluster munitions. TGP need and "rearm" to work after a rearm, and many more. And what's worse, I don't even know whether this is a bug or whether I'm simply operating the system incorrectly now (because I learned it wrong, since it wasn't implemented correctly before). I just don't know anymore, is it me or is it the game. Please, if at all possible, stop putting in half-finished things into the game that break more than it adds in functionality. That's all I wish.

I think, there is one thing you've missed. The native resolution is like you said, but the G2 is running with 3,184 by 3,096 pixel per eye by default software setting. This is necessary to get the sharpness within the sweet spot and to fix the barrel distortion. With that in mind, the CL should be less demanding for the same system as the G2. With my current system and the G2, the Crystal was less demanding with the same settings. Until the 72 Hz mode was enabled in the PIMAX settings, I had to run the Crystal with 90 Hz, and the G2 was running with 45 FPS with MR enabled. I believe that the CL will be a good upgrade if you are coming from a G2, and you will get better FPS as with the G2 and the same DCS settings. But I think many people underestimate how good eye tracking is and what big difference it is quality and performance wise. Thanks to eye tracking and the 72 Hz mode, I could raise my DCS settings a lot. Eye Tracking and the Crystal Light would be stunning and a no-brainer to buy it. But so I have to wait for the other Crystal with the higher resolution and hopefully eye tracking. Without, I wouldn't buy it. Ok, you ever had a VR-system with eye tracking? That you don't like it, it's ok, if you ever had an HS with eye tracking, but it was ab bad experience for you. But if you say you don't need it, and I am looking at the specs you posted from your current system, I think you don't even know of what you are talking about. You don't need more FPS? You don't need more picture quality? That's sounds like you never ever had the possibility to test a good working VR eye tracking system. If so, I believe, you would never have said you don't need it. It's hard to believe one know how good DFR is and says he doesn't need/want it.

I thought the beta patch period is over, and we will get more stable versions? With each new patch we get a new "behavior" of one of the F16 systems, but no instructions on how to use them properly. We are supposed to submit a "bug report" without knowing if it is a bug or a new "feature". How are we supposed to do that if we have to guess whether the current behavior of the F16 is the right one? I don't know right now, is this the right way I'm learning to get the F16 to work, or is this the next new of "1000" workarounds. The last few weeks I have the feeling that with every patch a lot of things become new, and hardly anything works like before. With each patch we have to wait longer for the next fix, and with the fix we get a new "feature" that doesn't always work right, and we have to wait again until the next patch "fixes" it (or adds a new problem/new behavior). I feel like the F16 has a lot of new issues right now (INS, scope, laser code, weapon systems, datalink, etc), and with each patch there are coming more. Actually, I just want to have fun, but ED, you make it really difficult for me to have any fun at all. Fun is currently being replaced by frustration and that really sucks. It's ok if the F16 systems finally work as they should, but do they? I don't know. How so without any actual manual? When will we get the newly revised F16 manual? This manual is the basis for learning things and knowing what is right or wrong. Since the last 4 updates, I have the feeling that changes and how they affect the game are decided by a dice roll (I hope I am wrong). I no longer recognize any system behind all the changes. I'm also beginning to lack the imagination to think that there is still a plan for why things happen the way they do. So what's going on, ED? What is the right doing, to have fun with the F16 again? How long do I have to wait, the F16 is in a good state again? And please, don't ask me what's wrong with the F16 right now. If you want to tell me, there is no big problem with the F16 right now, I will give up in believing in you. Yes, I am frustrated, really frustrated.

Um was sollte es gleich noch einmal in diesem Thread gehen? Ah, ja, die neuen Modelle der PIMAX Crystal. Vorschlag: wenn ihr euch philosophisch über die Situation der VR unterhalten wollt, macht doch einfach einen neuen Thread dafür auf. Gute Idee? @Thema Bei der 2. Version der PIMAX mit den OLED-Dispalys mache ich mit Sorgen wegen des Einbrennens. Wichtig wäre mir auf jeden Fall das Eye Tracking vorhanden sein muss. Am besten gleich mit den Linsen für das größere Sichtfeld.

The issue has something to do with if the F16 is moving. The not so good ground bore sight is not affected. I think there is a bigger problem with the moving F16 and all the stuff of setting "points" in the distance. I've tested this with the mark points. As soon I set a mark point and make it to a STPT, all nav points are a little bit offset. They are several 100 feet off of the old places. This issue occurred before the last 2 patches, and now the bore sighting got the same issue too.

Looks like you have changed the quality setting (raised the resolution, SSAA, MSAA, DLAA, etc.). As always, try to show some pics of your setting (DCS and VR). Do you play DCS standalone?

Thanks guys, I have to test it again. Right now a sniffing tool is running in the background. It could be the troublemaker (I hope so). Will test it later and report back.

Hi, thank you for the report. I saw the same as you did. There is a stutter with the F preset, even the FPS are nailed at 72. With the E preset for DLAA it's gone. I see that in the Quick Action Mission F16 Syria, Cold and Dark. If I am looking over my right shoulder, there is stutter, but the FPS are stable at 72. Only with the F preset. Edit: Did a quick test with the E preset and got the same issue in Syria Cold and Dark. That's seems to be another problem. But I have that time to time stutter during the flight with the F preset and non with E preset. The F preset looks definitely better. Looks more sharp and less ghosting, but I get that temporarily stutter.

Yes, you are right. I was flying a little bit and have to say, I will stay with DLAA. It's now better, than with the noisy MSAA. Tried your sharpness setting and it works pretty well. Thanks. Edit: As long as 3.8 will be better, I can't wait.

Yes, it's a lot better. I am using preset F. In the far distance and at some angles, you can see still the ghosting. But during a dogfight, it's nearly gone. What's left, is the blurriness. I still like the sharpness better. I have to test it a little more, but I think I will stay with MSAA. Edit: my first test is always a fly by (F3). All the other DLSS/DLAA versions did show the whole time ghosting. This is the first DLSS/DLAA version with mostly ghosting in the far distance, and even then much less as before. That's in VR. On my monitor, there is nearly no ghosting visible. But the blurriness is still the same. Doesn't matter how much I am raising the sharpness slider.

Nice, that you found a solution which is working for you. Have fun.

If you want to stay with TGP as SOI, switch to Mark Point and stay there until you have released all MAVs. No annoying SOI switch anymore. Point Track your Target, hand it to the MAV and rifle. Works like a charm for me. Yes, it's not the way one should use, but with that I am able to rapid fire MAVs like before the patch.

Such problems usually occur when old settings from other VR-HS from another brand are still active. You should therefore first reset all old settings in SteamVR and WMR. It is best to delete the settings or drivers. Then reinstall the Pimax software. And then set up all the other things again that you absolutely need for the Crystal. What is always helpful with such issues is if you provide screens of your settings. My current settings in pictures: l

Oh, oh. Just be careful about voicing your assumptions out loud. If they don't suit others, some on the forum may accuse you of defamation. I've had to learn the hard way that some on this forum don't value freedom of speech as much as others.

I have the same problem, but only if it's a STPT made from a mark point. Right now I have a hard time to make different STPT with mark points and stay at the newest ones. The system mostly switches back to the first one I've made, after I double return to get out of the mark point menu. Since the latest MAV update, there are many issues I've never seen before. But perhaps that's the ugly RL behavior? I don't know, but hell yeah, all the Viper Pilots are some kind of magicians in my eyes if it comes to the MAVs. How do they manage all this ugly behavior?

If you want to reduce the DLSS and DLAA Ghosting try to use this: https://www.nexusmods.com/site/mods/550?tab=files&file_id=2359 Preset C is a good one. You do not need to touch the rest of the setting sections. Edit: With Add DLL Overdrive you can choose the dlss.dll you want to edit. null

Und Sie scheinen nicht in der Lage zu sein, einen Fehler einzugestehen und sich dann dafür zu entschuldigen, wie es sich gehören sollte. @Thema F4 Ich freue mich trotzdem auf das Modul, und das, obwohl ich das Verhalten von HB bezüglich der Kommunikation weiterhin nicht billige.

Und was genau ändert das nun an der Tatsache, dass ich eine rein spekulative Äußerung getätigt habe? Genau, rein gar nichts. HB kann natürlich behaupten, dass es so ist. Einen Beleg dafür, dass es faktisch auch so war, werden wir nie erhalten. Und mal unter uns Pastorentöchtern, wer bis zu letzten Sekunde glaubt, er könne etwas schaffen, um dann festzustellen, dass er noch Wochen oder gar Monate benötigt, sollte sich dringend Gedanken um seine Planung machen. Wenn wir in unserer Firma am Tag davor glauben, dass wir es rechtzeitig schaffen und wir müssen dann doch verschieben, dann geht es halt am nächsten oder übernächsten Tag, es sei denn, es hat irgendeine Katastrophe stattgefunden, die wir nicht beeinflussen konnten. Davon, dass Server abgeraucht sind und Daten vernichtet wurden, habe ich allerdings nichts gelesen. Und noch einmal, was ändert es daran, dass ich ein rein spekulative Aussage getroffen habe?

Seit wann können sich mehrere Individuen nicht beim selben Thema irren? Es gab mal eine Zeit, da dachten fast alle Europäer, unser Planet sei der Mittelpunkt des bekannten Universums. Und einige Daten sogar, ihnen können bei Regen und Donner der Himmel auf den Kopf fallen. Es gibt keinen Anspruch auf "Recht haben durch den Glauben der Mehrheit." Sie können ruhig weiter versuchen, einen auf "die Unschuld vom Lande" zu machen. Das, was Sie getan haben, ist üble Nachrede, da sie meine rein spekulative Aussage als Tatsachenbehauptung publiziert haben. Ob die Mehrheit Ihrer Meinung ist, interessiert mich dabei herzlich wenig.