Nedum

Hi, it would be nice if we all would post our DCS settings. Without that, it will be hard to generate a picture of how "well" the new spotting system works for each of us. Personally, I am a Fan of it. I am playing only in VR and with a resolution of 4312x5102 pixel. As YoYo already said, the transition from the Dot to the model seems a bit off. There is a distance at which the Dot disappears, and the object is invisible. And at some view angles (peripheral view) I can see a Dot, which I can't see if I am looking directly in the direction where the object/dot is. Can't say if that is only a VR thing. nullnull DxDiag.txt

Hi, don't know much about Steam VR and DCS, but I have read something about a "bug" from Steam, if you try to start DCS outside Steam (shortcut), steam can't find the dcs.exe anymore. You have to start it from steam. But I am not sure. Try to search for it, there are several threads about it.

Hi, would you like to give us some more details about your DCS and VR setting and the hardware you are using? That would be helpful. Thank you. Do you play with the OpenXR Toolkit? Try to reset or disable it. Or install it and enable Motion Reprojection. 70 FPS are a way too low to get a good result without MR. But that's all only a guessing from me. We need more information.

I like the new spotting system. For me, it's a step in the right direction. What I've seen is the "spotting dots" disappear at some view angles. That should be fixed. I am playing only in VR. My VR resolution is >= 4312*5102 pixels, no AA and no DLSS effect is enabled.

So I repaired DCS (slow), deleted the fxo and metshader2 folders, no mods, reset the OpenXR Toolkit, disabled the Toolkit. Was testing all possible settings, but the visual in VR are extreme blurry. This looks really bad, like DLSS is working all the time, no matter which setting I am using. 2.8 crystal clear, 2.9 it's like I am playing VR with a Quest Pro. The problem is, the resolution, GPU usage and FPS are the same as with 2.8. I need a hint what I have to do to fix it. DxDiag.txt @BIGNEWY could you shift this thread in the VR Bug forum plz? Thank you.

One said that will happen, and it happens, strange. It's the nature of DLSS, that is how it works. DLSS is no good for big wide areas. An Upscaler is an Upscaler is an Upscaler. DLSS takes many different tiny pixels, needed for the detail and sharpness, and will add big pixel areas which will take a lot of sharpness. DLAA can't do wonders with big pixel areas with fewer edges. Many small different pixel + DLAA = sharp 1 big pixel area + DLAA = no magic can be done = blurry That's the reason DLSS will always be less sharp as without. I am happy we've got TAA and FSR 2.

This must be something new. AFAIK till today, it's not possible to use DLAA and DLSS at the same time. Is there new information about that? DLSS has an "AA" effect, but this effect is not the same as DLAA. You can choose DLAA >>or<< DLSS, not both at the same time. I believe the grayed out in DCS stand for = not working, not possible to choose. Is DLAA cheaper as other AA methods? No! DLAA is all or nothing. It's not like MSAA, where you can choose how much GPU power will be used by choosing 2 times of this effect or more. DLAA is more like SSAA, but it's using special nVidia GPU cores. Does it look better; it depends. I would say yes. I would compare it with SSAA and if I compare the used GPU power of both, DLAA needs less GPU power as SSAA. Will DLAA look better in DCS as MSAA x 4 = yes, I think so, but for the same or more GPU power usage. I would wish we would get TAA. That would be a huge improvement for all GPU brands. For what I've seen in the Video (@4k) the picture was not as sharp as the one of the older Vids. Especially the F-16 cockpit was looking very blurry for me.

Didn't you read what ED wrote about the new RADAR tech? This tech is something way above the 3rd party did. Way above. The new tech will simulate the air dense effect in a way !!no!! current RADAR can. This effect alone will have a huge impact on the scan, track and lock on range. Sometimes we can lock an enemy much further away as the other modules can and sometimes, if you fight in dense air, it can and will be the opposite. That's a big change for how the whole RADAR act and the pilots have to work with. On top, we will get false tracking, Ghost locks, false positions, and many more. I like it. Really. But I bet, that will give ED a big headache, especially for PVP (look down and the new clutter effect). The F16/18 pilots will have to fight the new RADAR "stuff" on top of the enemy. The weather in DCS will have a big influence on the new RADAR, but only for the F16 and F18, and that for years month two weeks.

That's strange. I don't have to log in. I can still fill out all fields and request an e-mail confirmation. You have to fill out all fields. Without that, you will not get the buttons highlighted. But since my e-mail is already registered, I've got the information my e-mail is already known. It could be there are no spots left anymore. Try it without login in.

He only said it's not for people thinking for the price of a quest. I think we will see something around $ 1.5k without tax. Will be built in Europe. I've heard the lenses are the same as the ones coming with the Pimax 12K. That might be the reason for the big horizontal FoV (min 120° real FoV).

DLSS = only nVidia GPUs, starting with the 20xx series DLSS 3.5 != DLSS DLSS 3.5 = no FG without 4xxx series GPU DLSS 3.5 = does need Raytracing enabled to make it better as DLSS 2.x DLSS 3.5 = for all RTX GPUs (starting with the 2xxx Series) DLSS 2-3 = no need of Raytracing to benefit from the features DLSS 3 = GPU 4xxx series only and coming with FG FG = is only a good option if you already get high FPS (It's the same with FSR FG) https://www.hwcooling.net/en/nvidia-launches-dlss-3-5-improved-ray-tracing-not-only-for-rtx-4000-ada/ DLSS 3.5 does not imply DLSS 3 According to Nvidia, DLSS 3.5 as we have just described it should work on all GeForce graphics cards with tensor cores, i.e. on GeForce RTX 2000, 3000 and 4000. It doesn’t require the new dedicated special-purpose units from the Ada Lovelace generation GPUs, unlike DLSS 3. Nevertheless, beware that “DLSS 3.5” in this sense doesn’t mean a fully replacement (or superset) of DLSS 3, although the naming convention implies this. The Frame Generation technology (that inserts frames interpolated from the game’s frames that aren’t rendered by the actual game), which until now has been referred to as DLSS 3, will still require the dedicated hardware of GeForce RTX 4000 graphics cards. The announcement of DLSS 3.5 does not mean that you will now get Frame Generation with GeForce RTX 2000 and 3000 generation graphics cards. In that regard, the designation chosen by Nvidia isn’t very fortunate.

If you are interested in the new Somnium-VR1 you can get a spot for your free reservation. No cost. https://somniumspace.com/#reserveYourSpot Read more about this Headset and what you can expect. https://somniumspace.medium.com/somnium-vr1-headset-development-update-️optics-️production-design-materials-fov-4dedf0b80101

The new RADAR technology will bring many disadvantages to the F16/18 alone. The F16/18 RADAR will have a lot more losses with target tracking, that's what I am reading. It might turn out that we can track targets at a greater distance and lock them. But at the same time the tracking, even at close range, will show up with a lot more interruptions and with a loss of already locked targets, in a way we've never seen before. If all Modules had to "fight" with his new RADAR implementation, I would be fine. It can be an issue, if "only" the F16/18 have to "fight" with the new RADAR stuff, it could have a big impact for the multiplayer. Don't get me wrong, I am happy if new good stuff is coming up, but as always, if only some have their hands on them, it can and will get things more complicated. The open Beta is (ED said so) the thing to go for MP. So even I don't want to test the new stuff, I have to. There is no way to not test it, if you play MP. That can make things much more complicated and remove some fun. So I'll take it with a grain of salt. I hope I am wrong, but I don't think so.

I don't see why not? The 72 Hz mode is working well with the other Headsets. Saw a Beta guy with Project Cars 2 and it was looking good. No stutter, no ghosting. But as always, it will be less smooth as with higher refresh rates., but better as with MR enabled, if you can nail the 72 Hz for every situation. And for sure not nearly as bad as with a bouncing refresh rate from 90 to 70 (or less) and back again.

Flaren: Die DCS F-16 ist auch ohne zu Flaren butterweich zu landen, für mich sogar besser als mit zu Flaren. Das ist gar kein Problem. Die Länge der Landebahn ist dann, in Abhängigkeit zum Gewicht, der begrenzende Faktor in dieser Gleichung. In dem letzten hier gezeigten Video war kein richtiges Abfangen zu sehen. Eine Erhöhung des Anstellwinkels um 2° kurz vor der Landung ist kein "Flaren". Man konnte es auch gut an den Geschwindigkeiten sehen, die blieben nahezu unverändert (Sinkrate u. Schub). Beim Flaren wird sowohl der Vorwärtsdrang als auch die Sinkrate massiv reduziert. Das konnte ich bei keiner der Landungen sehen. Zum NWS: Mit aktivierten NWS, bei gut eingestelltem EXPO für die Ruderausschläge, kann ich sogar besser die Spur halten, sobald das Bugrad den Boden berührt, als es erst danach zu aktivieren, weil ich dann nämlich erst einmal das Ruder neutral bekommen muss. Das Bugrad ist scheint nicht in "Spur" mit dem Heckruder zu sein, da der Winkel, je nach (EXPO) Einstellung, unterschiedlich zu sein scheint und das sorgt dann für "funny moments" bei der Landung, sobald das Bugrad den Boden berührt und NWS aktivert wird. Aus meiner Sicht ist es die doch sehr bescheidene "Boden-Reifen-Kontakt-Physik", welche nicht nur der F-16 ein sehr unglaubwürdiges Steuerungsverhalten auf dem Boden beschert. Ich kann mit den Warbirds mehrere hundert Meter seitwärts schlittern, oder mich mit getretener Bremse bei wenig Schub stundenlang im Kreis drehen, was so in der Realität nie abbildbar wäre. Diese Slides kann ich selbst mit der F-16 ohne Probleme erzwingen. Als ob ich auf einem Seifenlaugenteppich lande. Von Grip, wie er im RL vorkommt, nicht ein Ansatz von einer Spur. Und nein, keines der Muster kippt bei diesem Slides um. Aber es ist eben etwas, womit man leben muss. Schön ist es trotzdem nicht.

DLSS is an Upscaler. DLSS is AI driven. It will do things the engine would never do. At first, DLSS will always add smearing. If you can use DLAA, the smearing will be less visible on a normal 2D screen. You can see more ghosting and shimmer, but that's not a must. The problem with VR is, all the issue will be seen like under a magnifying glass. You will see the issues better. In "the other sim" you can clearly see how bad VR looks with DLSS enabled. You can't even read the displays like before. DLSS may be something for a monitor user, but not for a VR gamer, not at all. The issues DLSS is generating are AI based and not engine driven. Yes, you will get slightly different expressions, but the difficulties you will get, if you get them, are the very same. There is no DLSS-game out there without all the known DLSS issues. How hard they will have an impact, that might be a question. But there is no question you will get them. If you really believe this time, all will become different (better), I would bet my money on the opposite.

Where are your data from? But anyway. How many of those people with a "green card" (no pun intended) have a series 2xxx or greater one GPU? Only those people will get the benefit of DLxx. To say DLSS is generally much better than FSR/2, is a lie not correct. It depends, and it's for sure very subjective. If you don't like smearing, but a more sharpened picture, DLSS should not be your first pick. If you like more FPS and you have no problems with loosing sharpness and clarity in the distance, DLSS is the way you should go. You are a VR gamer, DLSS is an absolute No-Go for you. You should use FSR instead. Every upscaler has its playing field, with good and bad things. If you really believe DLSS is The Holy Grail, you are wrong. DLxx can give you more FPS, but like every gift, you have to pay for it, the one way or the other. FSR 2 would have been for all gamers, no special brand or series needed. Every one of >>us<< could use it. And if I am thinking about how long it last every time ED is talking about something "new" is coming after something else was delivered, I would bet we will get FSR 2 or 3, if, at the end of 2024. And that would be a really fast "two weeks" delivery. And it won't fix anything that is coming (bad or good (better/worst spotting)) with DLXX.

That's the problem with all the people not knowing exactly what DLXX is doing, how it works. Yes, you can play like you did before, but (and that's a huge "but"), DLSS is and will add or delete pixels in a way the AI "thinks" that is the right way, even so the game engine wants to do the opposite. A major difficulty with DLSS is, it's adding or deleting "false or true" pixels. There are thousands of pictures with comparisons out there showing that issue. Power cables, you can't really see in the distance without DLSS, become big dark lines with DLSS. And that can and will become a big Problem with the spotting. If you start "the other sim" with DLSS you can see what we will get in DCS. With DLSS, spotting will be much easier or more difficult. It's a question of how the AI will decide, not ED. With DLSS there is a ON or a OFF, nothing in between and ED can do nothing to nitpick things they think those must act the other way around. If this starts in MP, and guys without DLSS will get a disadvantage because of DLSS/DLAA, that will give ED a big roar from the com. And you need at least an RTX 2XXX GPU to use DLSS up to 2.x. If you want to use DLSS 3.x you require a 4xxx series GPU. So all the math people have done here ("only" a few would be left behind), is not correct, if we talk about who would have the "fun" with DLXX. The DCS-Com isn't big enough to lose people because of a technic which is only for some of >>us<<. Please, try to understand things you talk about. Some of you don't understand the issues coming up with DLXX.

That's "special". Never saw something like that before. "Tried all the usual fixes" is a little bit strange. How do I know that my "usual" fixes are not the "usual" fixes you have already tried? So we have to measure out, what you have already tried or not? Good try bro, really good try. Ok, I'll bite. Delete all the VR stuff you used before and reinstall only the one you want to use now. Looks like a driver problem (Steam-VR, OpenXR). And by the God you praise, you have to add much more information if you want to get help that is straight forward. What kind of VR-HS you are using? What "special" software? And many, many more. Lost 5 minutes of my life.

DLAA is adding pixels too to the edges, so you will get less shimmer and a sharper picture, but it has to add pixels to work like it should. It will sharpen the picture, but the "AMD-GPU-People" will not get that stuff. The problem with the whole DL-Stuff is, ED can't control what part of the picture will be affected and how. DLXX means all or nothing, and the Producer of the game can't affect the outcome of DLXX a tiny little bit. DLAA will modify the entire game like DLSS, the worse or better, but "half" of the community will see no effect, especially the better. How is that good? To start with, with a solution for a niche will never be a good one. And I say that as an nVidia GPU owner.

I don't think a start to cut a community into half is a good start, not at all. FSR 2 would have been a good start. What is half full, if you slap the other half of the community in the face, giving the other half something good the others can never use? A !!good!! start would have been to start with something !!all!! can use right from the beginning. DLSS isn't a "good" start, not a tiny little bit! "Hey, you, the !!whole!! DCS community should be happy, we start with something, "many" of you can't even use, so the other half will have a big advantage. Praise "me" for cutting you out of having this good stuff." Yeah... half full, my fantasies aren't big enough to see a half-full glass, if the other half will stay outside the playing field for years two weeks. I want to play >>with<< them, not right from the start >>without<< them. The "losers" are divided from the "good" stuff, that's the truth. To start with, dividing the other half will never be a good start, how so?

Hm? DLSS is Nvidia only. That's a fact. Another fact is, many users are with AMD GPUs. And for those users the benefit will be exact zero. FSR 2 would have been the better decision. That would have been a good upscaler for all people, not only the Elite ones. ED have to look, not giving people a reason to left DCS. It might be a small, not so big step, but it will let "many" people left behind. I can understand, that the nVidia GPU owners are happy with that, but it can and it will cut the community. And (that's my fear), it will give much more headache if we talk about false or different tickets about the same issue. Without DLSS it's ok, or (and that would be the worst) with DLSS the problem didn't show up. I really can't understand why ED did that step. It's crazy, it's nuts. Why cutting the community and the issue sector in "half"? Why not using an upscaler that would work with both manufactures? I can tell you here and now, that DLSS will give ED a lot of headache. Spotting, new artifacts, new ghosting, and so on. What in the "other sim" might be working, because the people there don't care, will give DCS another "quality" of issue reports. "I can't read my displays anymore", "My friend can spot me 10 Miles earlier, because DLSS makes spotting so much easier, it adds pixels to the pixel by itself." And many, many more. Yes, and I will stay there and say: "Don't cry little girl, I have said so. You didn't wanna hear." If ED isn't very careful, DLSS can be the beginning of the end of the DCS-Multiplayer. I don't like this decision.

zu 1. Die Landung einer F-16 ist im Grunde sehr simpel, wenn man den richtigen Stick hat. Seit ich mit der Basis FSSB R3 die F-16 fliege, geht es um Lichtjahre besser als zuvor. Mit dem analogen Stick habe ich besonders im Luftkampf ständig überzogen. Beim Landen machte das allerdings kaum einen Unterschied. Hier zähl flach reinkommen, passend den Flare setzen, Schub raus, und schön mit den Bremsen arbeiten. Nase auf 12-13 Grad hochhalten, bis diese von alleine auf Burgrad fällt. So halte ich die F-16 selbst ohne Bugradsteuerung bis zum Stillstand in der Spur. Wild wird die Landung nur, wenn man die Bugradsteuerung aktiviert und immer noch ins Ruder tritt. Das sollte aber klar sein, dass man vor der Aktivierung das Ruder auf "neutral" hat. Ich bezweifle allerdings, dass das so in der Realität auch passieren würde. Die F-16 verhält sich schon sehr extrem auf dem Boden. Selbst bei absolut 0 Wind, und deaktivierter Bugradsteuerung, will die F-16 bei mir immer links von der Startbahn. Sie hält nie die Spur. Noch schlimmer wird es, wenn man dann die Bugradsteuerung aktiviert (Landung) oder deaktiviert (Start). Interessant finde ich immer wieder, dass gerade beim Start, wenn man die Bugradsteuerung deaktiviert, das Flugzeug sehr extrem nach links wegzieht (kein Seitenwind) obwohl man weiterhin im Ruder steht. Das Heckruder war oder ist immer noch ein Anlass für Diskussionen, weil der Ruderausschlag wohl nicht den Ausschlägen den offiziellen Dokumenten entsprechen soll. Es soll eine Vertauschung der Ruderausschläge geben, je nachdem, ob man landet oder startet und im Flug sollen nicht genügen Grad erreichbar sein. Ob das so ist, kann ich nicht sagen, würde aber so einiges am Verhalten der DCS F-16 erklären. Das Thema wurde aber schon bis zum "Gehtnichtmehr" in englischsprachigen Forum behandelt. Vermutlich spielt die Bodenphysik hier auch eine gewaltige Rolle. Die ist in DCS alles andere als gut. zu 2. Die Trimmschritte in DCS sind einfach viel zu grob. Ich habe es in keinem Muster je hinbekommen, bei asynchronen Außenlasten, eine Maschine vernünftig auszutrimmen. Es wurden schon verschiedene Vorschläge dazu gemacht. Um den Faktor 10 feiner, aber wenn man länger den Trimmknopf hält, dann wird der Faktor kontinuierlich erhöht. Granularer wäre aber auf jeden Fall besser.

If you are looking for more frames, because you want to raise up your picture quality, DLSS is the very wrong answer. DLSS will >>>always<<< add smear to the whole picture. And DLSS will add artifacts and ghosting. Some more visible, some less. Using DLSS in VR, it's like a firefight with gas. You think you will get more FPS to raise the picture quality? NO, you will get more FPS because the picture quality will be downgraded and if you want to get the good old picture quality back, you have to raise the game settings in a way the FPS will be less as before without using DLSS. DLSS is a big No-No for VR games. Look how "good" DLSS works with MSFS. If I set the picture quality lower inside the game, the FPS are the same as with DLSS, and at the same time the picture quality is 100 times better as with DLSS. I can't wait for all the threads about "How bad DCS looks like, even so the FPS are perfect." And the whole support team have to ask: "Do you use DLSS?" Answer: "Oh, yes I do. But I've never thought DLSS looks so bad. I can't even read my displays." Really, can't wait for this. Funny days incoming.

Thank you so much for that feature. 1. No matter how you start DCS (with the in game option or the shortcut with the VR start parameters), DCS will not be looking if a VR session is already running. If you haven't started the Pimax VR session, you have to quit the DCS session again. 2. There are 2 (3 with foveated rendering) separate tools you should install in order. 1. The OpenXR toolkit 2. Pimax OpenXR 3. https://github.com/mbucchia/Quad-Views-Foveated/wiki The OpenXR toolkit gives you the opportunity to do config some of your ingame settings (sharpening, upscaling, etc.) to get a better PQ and a better performance. Quad-Views-Foveated gives your DFR (an eye tracking feature, to get more performance too). If you follow the link, mbucchia will show you in which order you have to install which tool and why. If you can read, and you do read, it's a no-brainer. hf