Nedum

As I said already, I really want to help you, but as long you are not willed to post all your settings, I am unable. Many people think, DCS has a good lightning system, but that's not true, not even a tiny bit. In DCS it will never be pitch black, because of the shaders and how ED is using them. If your settings are too dark, you will have to fight with strange things and a hazy, strange look. As you can see in my (very bad) quick screenshots from the lenses, my cockpit is really black, but the outside look shows, how bright a full moon can shine. I am playing with a DCS gamma setting of 2.8 in this scenario, but I raised the contrast to 69 (OpenXR Toolkit). The Pimax local dimming is set to extreme. I can tell you, with those settings, DCS looks much more realistic (especially beneath the clouds in the cloud cast), even at all day times. I can tell you most lightning problems for the Night flying in DCS are coming from a much too dark setting. The current lightning engine in DCS is outdated. Perhaps I will take some better pictures to show you how good the Crystal is, and I think your DCS settings are a way too dark.

So, the current behavior in DCS is wrong? I have by 100 % to bug and NCTR a target before it's turning fully red. Even if I turn my radar off, all tracks are fulfilled. Maybe this could be the current radar bug, but I don't know. When my radar sees the hollow triangle, it turns to a full yellow square, and only if I NTCR the bugged contact, the yellow square turns to a fulfilled red triangle. All !!not!! friendly contacts turn instantly into a yellow fulfilled square, as soon my radar see them. Only "friendly" contacts turn into white fulfilled squares from time to time, like RyanR shows. But all that makes in no way any sense. How can my radar without any NTCR or IFF decide what kind of object the contact is? How do I get all the different colors, if there is no way the radar can say it's a Hostile, Unknown, or Suspect Target? And again, In what situation should I see the hollowed out squares (white and yellow)? I never saw hollow squares with the datalink connected. No matter the radar is on or off. The current way in what situation the contacts became a special symbolic, makes in no way any sense to me. Without the Datalink I can see much more details for my tracks. I can see if a target is a tracked target, a system target or a bugged target. With datalink on, I can't see this anymore, and that is total BS in my eyes. How can I see what targets are system or bugged targets? All the good things I get without datalink are gone, but why? And why is the NTCR or IFF not necessary anymore? Is there a manual that explains my questions? The current F16 manual doesn't do it.

@RyanR Yes, that would be nice. I can't remember it clearly, but wasn't there a way to reset/CZ the TGP if the HUD is SOI? Edit: Found this I have to test it. CZ should be available with the FCR MFD.

Maybe I understand something wrong (and that often ). If the contact is a friendly in the same datalink network, or the information comes from an AWACS, the contact should be shown as a green circle, as long as I didn't track the contact (s.d.). Is the following right? All filled symbols are only shown, if I track the same target and the following happens: Red filled triangle: I did an IFF scan (TMS long left), and the scan shows an enemy, and another datalink bro has the same result. White filled square: I track the target, my IFF check shows inv, and the same happens for another datalink sender. Yellow filled square: The result of my scan of the tracked target and the one of the datalink sender is different. Green filled circle (dot): My result of the same track and the result from datalink sender show it's a friendly. What I want to know. In which situations should I see hollowed out yellow squares? What must happen to see this symbolic? As I understand, the difference during an active datalink is, I am not tracking the tracks. I only get the information from the datalink senders. If this is right, why I always see filled out yellow or white squares as long I am a member of a datalink, even I have locked nothing?

Hi and thank you. It's ok, I trust you.

At first, I had the same problem with the eye tracking. Not every single session, but every new PC start. Now I play 4+ weeks without any issue or the need of a calibration. Tested it today and did some "Restart Service" and "Restart Headset", no changes. No need for a calibration. What I do every day, I "Shut Down" the headset every time I am not using it anymore. Maybe that's the trick, and only if you "Shut Down" the headset, the calibration of the eye tracking will be saved? Maybe.

You should ask the PIMAX Support. I've done it several times via chat. Works pretty well, and you get your answer in seconds.

Every time I run an AG Attack with a powered up but not selected TGP, I have to select the TGP after the AG Attack and have to reset the TGP (TMS down) to get the STPs back in the Nav Mode. Without the reset, I get no STPs in the Nav mode after an AG attack was done with a linked but never selected TGP (CCIP Bombing, Quick Action, Caucasus, Free Flight). Master Arm = on AG = on Weapons = on TGP = power on but not selected (never on one of the MFDs) CCIP Attack AG = off Nav Mode = no Nav STPs Fix: AG = on TGP = selected TMS = down (reset) AG = off Nav Mode = STPs are back This is required every time. No track required. Do an AG attack with a powered up TGP and you will see this feature. I know this feature was introduced with one of the TGP updates. It's been in the game for a long time, but it teases me every time I do a CCIP bombing with a power up but never selected TGP. And yes, it happens every single time with every AG weapon as long as a powered up TGP is on board. Now I want to know if this behavior "correct as is" or do I have to open a bug report? No mods. Slow fix, done for the 1000 and 1 time.

Thank you for the info.

It would be nice if you could link me to the Strike Eagle papers for that SIT behavior. But, if we don't know how do to do it right for the F16, we do it all the other way, in a way who is not even near of how it's done for the other modules? I can hardly understand that kind of logic. I would suggest doing it the way it's done for all the other modules and not to tell something about evidence if the way it's currently done has no evidence too.

Sorry, but that isn't an argument at all if the module, which worked well since months, suddenly isn't nearly playable after 1 patch and 2 "Hotfixes". 4 - 6 Weeks to wait because ED "destroyed" the whole Module? That's a bad joke, isn't it? The F16 isn't even usable anymore. The TGP is completely broken. And the best part is, we were told to use it to fix the new INS drift (as I know only the F16 got this behavior right now) with all GPS weapons. But wait, the best part is, the TGP has a kind of INS drift too. Good work? I wouldn't say so. Go to the F16 Bug-Forum and read about all the game breaking bugs. Never ever before, we had so many game breaking bugs, but we have to wait 4-6 weeks for a "Fix"? That must be a kind of humor I am unable to understand.

How long do we have to wait till the F16 is playable again? Couldn't read anything about fixing all the bugs making it impossible to play the F16 WW Campaign (AG-Weapons, TGP, INS Offset, Markpoints, AGM boresighting, HARM Object disappears, and much, much more). It looks like we have to wait till the F4 release? Would be a bummer, but otherwise I can't explain myself why we have to wait so long for some fixes for the F16. Most AG weapons have a bug, and some are not usable right now (AGM 65 D). If this is the new "better" update procedure (only one release candidate for all), please give us the old one back (Stable and Beta). My feeling is the Stable, right now, is much worse than the Beta ever was (F16).

Hi, did I understand you right, you start your alignment with STOR HDG? How long do you stay on NORM before you switch to NAV, if you move the switch from STOR HDG to NORM? I could misread the original papers, but if the alignment was shown as OK, you have to switch to off position before you can start a NORM or any new alignment after that. So, it shouldn't matter how long you need to switch to the NAV position and how long the switch stays in the NORM position if the alignment was completed. It would be a hell of a stupid design to start a new alignment if you stay X seconds, which can only be felt, if you have already done a full alignment. But if there is a time period we have to move the switch out of the NORM position to NAV, to not start a new alignment, it would be nice to know how long this time period is. Couldn't read anything about a time period for this behavior in the Viper Guide. So the question is, how long can we stay in the NORM position before a new alignment starts, if we have already done an alignment to the end (Align done/ok and ready to switch to NAV) and have to move the switch through the NORM position to the NAV position?

Would never buy any HS without Eye Tracking anymore. But if money is a thing, the CL could be a game changer coming from a G2. Even with a reduce resolution to the same as the G2 (3120*3060) you should be pleased from the colors, the brightness, and the lenses. Right now I am waiting for the Crystal Super. The only HS I am interested in (Eye Tracking, 50 PPD and 130° horizontal view, whoop, whoop ).

What's so complicated to make some screens of your Pimax Client and DCS settings? I need seconds to do this. YOU have asked for help. If it's too much for you to make some screens, it's ok, but bro, that's no fun. I don't get it?

I think we will not get any Hotfix or at least a fix very soon. All the issues where you have to acquire something seem heavily bound with the new INS stuff. The ground stabilization is totally off. Nothing stays at its desired place, all data seem to move. I believe, we have to wait a long time for a fix. If ED knew what's wrong, we have got some info like "internally fixed" or something like that, but this thread is still marked as "correct as is".

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.