Baldrick33

Obviously simulations today are streets ahead of what we had in the nineties. I would still look back on that period as a golden era in terms of rate of progression, both in software and hardware. We also saw the demise of some of the key studios post nineties as they got swallowed up by the likes of Hasbro and Vivendi who saw no future in hardcore driving and flight sims which became a somewhat depressing time for fans of the genre, wondering where the next big titles would come from. It took some time for other studios to emerge but they are still thin on the ground. The nineties saw regular blockbuster releases which pushed the driving and flight sims genres forward massively year on year. At the start of the nineties sound cards weren’t the norm, games would have to support the PC squeaker and CGA graphics, by the end we had accelerated graphics cards, the ubiquitous Soundblasters and CPUs many times more powerful. I don’t think we will ever see that rate of progress again, which is partly down to diminishing returns with hardware and also the investment from the big publishers.

Really? I just tried since updating and the same (at least with the mouse) This track is using the mouse wheel with the latest patch installed. f15 alt v2.trk

Here is a track. Using the mouse or assigning a button have the same effect - it skips 2989 f15 alt.trk

It is strange how we are wired so differently, I don’t really notice the visual artefacts of motion reprojection, but am massively sensitive to any drop below refresh rate without. I also really tried to get used to 60hz several times but find it simply horrible, even after extended trials.

It seems to have been the same with sims since multiplayer became more than just the province of a few enthusiasts racking up telephone bills. "We need more players." "Not those players!" My experience with race and flyings sims is the numbers of genuine enthusiasts who want to treat a simulation exactly as they would the real life counterpart are very limited. What we always want is more like minded players, which are in short supply and generally managed through groups organising themselves, who do it very well IMHO.

It is the opposite of the world I lived in of competitive sim racing where bugs that can be exploited for competitive advantage need to be squashed in testing. I guess it exists similarly in combat flight sims but DCS isn't designed with fair competitive multiplayer as a primary goal. The development moves through various stages of unfairness in early access as systems get developed - missiles that have advantages they shouldn't, missiles that suffer disadvantages waiting for the development of radar and so on. To the extent that getting the early fixes is perceived as levelling up to the multiplayer community and worth the risk of a game breaking issue. It is a different mindset. One that with my background in sim racing I find a little hard to grasp but I can rationalise it. Whereas for single player the balance in single player campaigns has been tried and tested in stable, which each open beta needs to be reviewed. Hence campaigns tend to get updated in open beta prior to promotion to stable. Of course stuff can slip through but it kind of makes sense.

Multiplayer is an enthusiast playground. ED just provide the tools. There is way too much content to regularly populate servers with aircraft and maps a player might wish for, notwithstanding a myriad of difficulty options that player might desire. To achieve multiplayer for the masses you need an established base of users with a very limited content to create critical mass before you allow players to host their own servers. You need to make multiplayer more attractive than single player by either offering incentives to grind content or restricting access to it through limiting AI availability and/or capability. With numbers comes the opportunity to effectively matchmake and provide competitive environments for all levels of ability, which in turn grows numbers. This allows for growth of content without diluting the players on the core servers. There can be good business reasons to do so (think certain sim racing and war combat multiplayer titles) but that is a completely different business model where multiplayer numbers are key to success than we have here. Personally I would doubt it is worth the effort and pain. It can't be done half heartedly, there are countless sim racing titles where people bemoan the lack of people, the poor matchmaking and dire standards. The enthusiasts enjoy the freedom to choose and are prepared to put in the effort to organise events. Being at the very top end of the ability they provide a flagship for demonstrating the capability of the sim.

You have several options, you could edit the device names as mentioned and using the Virpil software change the button numbers to match your chosen equivalents on the warthog stick but that seems a bit convoluted. I would invest the time in JoyPro as @speed-of-heatsays, it will give the best flexibility if you have a number of modules especially as you might want to change which button does what as you get used to using the new stick. I am not sure there is a simple solution for changing hardware as there are no standards for button numbering so every device will be different and maintaining a conversion database for every device is too big a task for the devs especially as it is mostly a compromise with the sticks we have compared to the real thing. The best they can do is provide defaults for obvious ones like the A10 with a Warthog stick etc. After that it is user preference.

I have had both stable and openbeta installed for a couple of years, “just in case” openbeta is problematic. If you have the disk space it is easy to do and can copy the controls between versions. I haven’t used stable in all that time, it is just a contingency. Although there is always the risk, I would happily recommend openbeta.

I think you answered the question why a new a new module goes into the open beta release first. It is a new build, new modules often require new updates to the core software. It is possible new content introduces bugs into the build affecting other content and performance. Also if you don’t want to deal with bugs the first version of new content may not be for you, let the open beta community deal with it before it is considered stable enough.

I believe that can be achieved using the Chain container.

Yes, that is what I use and find it smoother.

You can't run OpenVR (which we typically refer to as SteamVR) with the MT version of DCS. only OpenXR which it defaults to. You can force DCS to run OpenVR but it hangs on startup and is not currently supported with the MT version. However, SteamVR is capable of running its version of the OpenXR runtime and this is what I was referring to. It is under Settings, developer, set SteamVR as OpenXR runtime.

Pretty long thread on the Aero here:

With WMR you just need to set the the WMR profile to be the default OpenXR runtime, not sure how it works with Varjo

Just on the off chance, have you definitely not got SteamVR as the default OpenXR runtime in SteamVR settings?

Well put. Having worked in corporate IT for many years the costs of high availability SLA would focus the mind on just how critical down time really was. Presenting these costs to the managers of the complainers who demanded their precious reporting systems needed to be always on 24/7 unsurprisingly got a polite no! My experience of DCS is the uptime matches many business critical systems in corporate environments with much greater consequences for down time.

A quick go on Sinai in VR and the performance seems excellent thus far.

Those are two quite different experiences. The HP is a PCVR device, they had some issues with cables supplied and replaced them with an updated design on request where people experienced issues. The Quest Pro is sold as a standalone devices with a charging cable in the box. If you want to connect it to a PC that is an option that many wouldn’t wish to pay extra for a connecting cable.

Pretty sure you need the mobile app to get it setup. "Setup requires an iPhone or Android mobile phone and the Oculus app (free download)"

I think the issue is that comparing resolution doesn't tell the whole story. What we (as Reverb owners) can't do is simulate how the lenses work. The Quest Pro has the same resolution as the Quest 2. Yet people who have used both say the former is much clearer due to its lenses. The general consensus seems to be the Quest Pro is a visual upgrade, which has quite surprised me given the initial reaction to the device when launched but I guess relatively few had used the device for much time in DCS.

@mbucchia Thanks for the comprehensive reply, that makes it much clearer.

Thanks for all the replies re DFR. I don’t want to derail this excellent thread but what makes the Aero work with DFR & DCS whilst the Meta Quest Pro doesn’t?

Are there any downsides visually, e.g. can you see a more blurry view in your peripheral vision or is it unnoticeable?

Is air link considered a no go? I recently hooked up my Quest 2 to an access point in close proximity with nothing else connected to it and was surprised how well air link worked. I still preferred my G1 visually but wonder how a Quest Pro would compare. Will a cable give better visuals?