Nedum

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

Never had any problems with the weight of the Pimax Crystal. Even so the idea is good, you should !!never!! ad the strap to the data cable, even so you have bound the flex strap too.

And what exactly does that have to do with VR now? DLSS, no matter which version, will not have a positive influence on the image quality in VR. You can already test that very well in the "other" flight simulator. The smearing through DLSS is just disgustingly bad. Who wants to do that to themselves voluntarily?

https://www.space.com/30417-parallax.html "Today, with advanced technologies such as adaptive optics and interferometry, we can reach accuracies of a few dozen micro-arcsecond on large ground-based telescopes," Jos de Bruijne, an astronomer at the European Space Agency (ESA) said in a statement. " If you can't negate the parallax effect by math, how can a 6 Miles alignment work the same at 2 Miles but a 2 Miles alignment can't work at 6 Miles? I really would like to hear that explanation. And please explain why an alignment at 2 Miles, done between two not moving objects, is much worse as an alignment from an object moving with 300 knots and more and shifting its position the whole time? How will the shift be compensated? Perhaps by mathematics? If I had too, I would bet it could be done by mathematics. But perhaps it is only "magic"? An alignment at 6 Miles, with a 300+ knots shift, is more precise as a steady alignment at 2+ Miles because of what exactly?

Is the Mav align system really that "dump"? If I can TGP a Target, I have the distance. And if I know the distance to the Mav from the center of my plane. So how is it possible to not align the Mavs with the TGP by doing simple math? The alignment on the ground is only there to figure out the last few inches of a mismatch. If this is done at nearly 2 Miles, what effect should be less by an alignment at 6 Miles? I really want to learn, what kind of "math" or "physics" would make such a difference. The parallax effect is easy to figure out by simple math. If I understand all those explanations, an alignment beneath 6 Miles is a time waste. So why the hell should any pilot do a ground alignment at less than 6 Miles, if he knows the Mavs won't work as they should? Why is there a 2+ Miles limit set, if all beneath 6 Miles is worthless? And why is angle calculation in modern jets such a pain in the "butt"? Are mathematics new? I doubt it. And yes, you can !!easy!! negate the parallax effect with simple math. That's the reason you do an alignment. And yes, there should be a min distance for a good alignment, but what we've got in DCS is a thing I can't believe. That would mean, there is only a pure mechanical alignment. And that is the point where I have to say "omfg", if this is true, and I doubt it.

DCS is something special if we talk about VR. The engine isn't made for VR and much of the new stuff ruins the performance, even so you have nearly no visual benefit in VR. VR in DCS is the way to learn how to life with less with nearly every patch. And in most cases you can't see in VR why there is such a big performance hit. I thought at first the MT build will give us VR guys much more headroom, because the CPU will do all that kind of work for AI, but that hasn't happened. If I am looking at different DCS Builds, the best for DCS was and is 2.56xxxx. How can that be if this was an ST build? I wish ED would give DCS much more "VR-Love". I believe there is a huge headroom for a big performance gain. I do really feel for all the guys who are unable to have fun with DCS in VR. I myself can't play any Sim anymore with only a flat screen. The feeling to be placed directly in a car or plane is outstanding. Only real life could be better. There is no way back for me.

I really can't say the stutter was there before I was able to use eye tracking. It's a kind of feeling that there is now more stutter, even with more FPS. It's hard to tell because all the tools I can use are unable to show this kind of issue. The little drops (1 FPS) I can see too, but it also occurs with "stable" 90 FPS. I have to test different settings to measure it out. I reboot my system every day at least one time, so that's not the problem. If I find a solution, I will leave a note.

Thank you. As you wrote, it was the turbo mode. DFR works pretty good. It's hard to see where i'ts not sharp. Easiest way, is to start the Cold and Dark Mission in Syria. One can see the fences shimmer outside the focus view. 30 to 40 % higher FPS if I am using MSAA, without MSAA the gain isn't that high. Stuttering at low level flight even with steady 90 FPS and 10 ms frame time. Not always, but it's there. I have to test some more settings. I am still blown away from the clarity of my Crystal. Even at 80% resolution, it's so "crystal clear". I don't need MSAA anymore. Less shimmer as with 4 x MSAA and my old G2. What a fine piece of tech. What I am missing is MR or a 5090.

Do you use smoothing? I got strange artifacts with it. Perhaps that's your problem too? And without knowing your DCS settings, it's hard to tell the FPS you get are wrong or right.

I've got my new Pimax Crystal, and I am still trying to figure out, how DFR is working. I see it works, but I have a problem with the OpenXR Toolkit. It shows me with DFR my system is now CPU bound, and the GPU has zero impact. Is that a known issue with the toolkit? I've done all the good and well known stuff such as slow repair, delete the shader files, deinstall and reinstall the tools. The Crystal is a performance hungry beast. On the other hand, the picture quality is outstanding, and it's another league in comparison with my old G2. Even the sweet spot clarity of the G2 is a way behind. A question: Do I need to enable both sections in the PimaxXR tool (see picture below), eye tracking and DFR? My understanding says yes, and it seems the only way I can see DFR working. I am right?

Hi, I meant Motion Reprojection. It was too early in the morning. Thank you for the screens. With those settings, I would be happily surprised if you wouldn't run into VR-problems, especially without MR. I show you my settings. Motion Reprojection is disabled in the OpenXR Tools, but I am using the OpenXR Toolkit and set MR there (on and 45 FPS), but you can set it in the OpenXR Tools, if you want. I use it too for the sharpening (FSR = 100%). Your settings are a way too high. Water is an FPS and frame time killer. The same for 4 times MSAA, especially in VR. If one want to use shadows, only one shadow setting should be higher than "flat". If both settings are higher than flat, it will give you a big FPS hit. Clouds set to Ultra is a No-No for VR too. Your F18 Screen issue is strange. Never happened to me. Do you use any kind of Mod? What you never should do: Do not use the same feature settings in different tools at the same time. What you should always do if you run into issues: 1. disable !!all Mods!! 2. do a slow repair 3. delete the fxo and metashaders2 folder nullnull null

Hi, couldn't find your DCS system settings. Those settings are the most important ones. If you are not able to reach 90 FPS every ms, or your time frames are always beneath 10 ms, you will always see stutter if you move your VR-Head. You have to use Multi Reporjection (MR). You can enable it within the OpenXR Tools. Bewegungsreproduktion auf 1/2 setzen. Das wird schon Sascha. Schöne Grüße

I find your question is a bit weird. Because a RL P51 Pilot has flown a DCS P51 and the RL Pilot said the DCS P51 behavior was ok, the other, total different DCS plane (BF109/K), which this P51 RL Pilot never flew in RL, will tell us, the "not by him flown plane" behaves like it should, even so, the RL flight data was totally different from a restored plane, which was flown also by a RL Pilot, and this flight was showing, the behavior of the restored plane was different to the DCS one? Do I understand that right? You want to tell us the pure assumption how a BF109/K has to be trimmed, is better than RL flight Data? So against logic (why in the name of god should any engineer build a plane you can never trim out?) and RL flight data, it must be the thing that's the farthest away of any logic? Why? Why do we have horizontal trim plates and can't use them? Nothing you or the E.D. can tell clears the question, why was the most !not! logical assumption used of how they build the trim system of the BF109/K? I really don't get it. If ED has not enough Data to say it's right or wrong, it should for sure the most logical assumption, not that one which is light years away from !any! logic. But ED did it by 100 % in a way no engineer would ever build a trim system. That's so disappointing.

Could be me who has written this. By 100 % the same experience.

@Finnster Thank you for your report. It was a good read.

Wo habe ich das geschrieben? Wie soll ich auf eine Frage antworten, wenn deine Frage sich auf etwas bezieht, was stark verallgemeinernd ist und somit nicht auf das zutrifft, was ich wirklich gesagt oder geschrieben habe? Ich gebe mal einen Hinweis: "unteren Drehzahlfenster". Und du stellst es so hin, als ob ich geschrieben hätte, dass die Beschleunigung allgemein schlecht sei. Was ich aber gar nicht getan habe. Das mag jetzt spitzfindig sein, aber wenn man über solche Sachen diskutieren möchte, oder andere versucht als "was auch immer hinzustellen", ist "Detailverliebtheit" einfach wichtig. Ich gebe allerdings zu, dass ich das ins Verhältnis zu einer zu geringen Geschwindigkeit hätte setzen sollen, anstatt nur von der "Drehzahl" zu sprechen. Hier scheinen andere Muster deutlich besser dazustehen, obwohl deren T/W Rate schlechter ist. Dieses "komische" Verhalten haben RL F16 Piloten angesprochen und ich habe das hier wiedergegeben. Die DCS F16 (im Gegensatz zu einer echten F16) verliert im Kurvenkampf zu schnell an Energie und kommt zu langsam untenherum (unter 300 Knoten) aus den Puschen. Und um deine Frage nun zu beantworten: Nein, ich habe mich nicht vertippt.