Baldrick33

I agree you can do a lot more with Joystick Gremlin. It does come with a bit more complexity in my view plus it requires vjoy which has caused me some issues which may be isolated. If the requirement is just for mapping an axis to a mouse I think Joy2Key is the simplest solution IMHO.

Joy2key axis as mouse screens:

I use the mini stick on my TM Warthog throttle as a mouse. I have used both Joystick Gremlin and Joy2Key in the past. If this is all you want to do I would recommend Joy2Key. In my view it is simpler for this task and doesn’t require installing vjoy which is just another thing to run which isn’t needed in this case.

Unless you have the power to run at 90fps it will always stutter at anything below in my experience. Some seem able to deal with it better than me but I have to resort to reprojection. So it very much depends on the mission. With a 4080 and a simple free flight on the Caucuses map I can get 90 but add any complexity or even go down low and it drops, even a few frames and it stutters too much for me. Unfortunately I don’t think the hardware exists to run 90fps consistently.

I once had both a G1 and G2. The G2 was superior graphics wise (but not sweet spot wise) if I cranked up the resolution over 3000x3000 but at the cost of performance inevitably. At lower resolutions ~2500x2500 if anything the G1 looked better. I ended up keeping the G1 and selling the G2 which was never the plan. I remember reading the new lenses were optimised at higher resolutions which explained the significant hike in the default SteamVR resolution for the new model. Pancake lenses should have much lower barrel distortion so the distance between pixels around the centre should be lower not needing oversampling to fill the gaps. Or something like that. It does seem to be borne out in the real world usage judging by this thread.

The G2 lenses require a higher resolution than the panel I believe to allow for barrel distortion compared with the original G1. I would guess the pancake lenses in the QP have minimal barrel distortion so a resolution closer to the panel resolution would give a similar quality image.

By default each version is installed to a separate installation folder and saved games folder. I simply created shortcuts to the DCS.exe with the required parameters (I run VR) to each version. I then used Skatezillas app to add the two builds (stable and openbeta) pointed to their folders so I could easily update each version. Finally I created a little batch file to copy settings including input controls from one version to another.

They aren't greyed out on mine and I have these mapped in JP as you describe. I am running openbeta I have cut DCS stick specific Defaults under Settings in JP I have refreshed the DCS ID DB under Settings in JP

If you don’t have an analogue lever, you can use a modifier to switch your stick from pitch to wheel brakes and modify the axis to only use the bottom half (deadzone or saturation to 50) so the brakes are off when the stick is centred. Then you can taxi the Spitfire or Mosquito using the stick and rudder, once centred on the runway brakes off, get moving, press the modifier and use it as pitch to take off. Reverse the process for landing.

@dsc106 Joy2Key allows you to have a button to re centre the mouse and also to map mouse movement to a hat axis. Happy to share how if you are interested.

@itsthatguyAre you sure you aren't running OpenVR using the ST version? Can you attach the dcs.log file from running the ST version?

DCS has default binds for some common controllers. To get rid of them JoyPro has an option under settings called "Cut DCS Stick specific defaults". I always do this every DCS update. This may be worth trying?

The developer is very active on his discord channel. I would try there.

I think it is just semantics but I was referring to your saying needing to reproduce a problem to report it. As long as it is being investigated then all is good. Sometimes it is inevitable the fix will sit with users' windows config, overclocking profiles, drivers etc. Plus it is inevitable that users will have hardware that isn't available to test on, it is the nature of PCs and flight sim gear. I have a morbid fascination with developers supporting games having worked in corporate IT for many years with significant control over the PC builds, it seems a complete nightmare but the open beta is, in my view, an excellent way of getting the community to help each other and the devs.

With all respect IMHO that isn't how I understand an open beta should work. The key issue is that the ED internal test team nor closed alpha/beta testers have access to the wide array of hardware configurations that exist. So the testing process extends to the wider open beta community. Inevitably issues will be raised that impact users with hardware and configurations that the internal test teams will not have to be able to reproduce. Therefore it is reliant upon identifying some consensus from users with that hardware. E.g. headset X in conjunction with Y CPUs have a performance issue. With that consensus it can be reported as an issue. Resolving the issue is obviously a challenge which may involve working with the open beta users to test potential solutions and provide further information (windows logs, detailed PC specs, overclocking info etc.). It does put some onus upon the end user to be a tester and provide detailed information as required and I appreciate not everyone who signs up to open beta sees themselves as such but that is how I see it being of benefit. Whilst having 20 users chipping in with "same here" or "me too" may not seem valuable feedback, it does provide a picture of a common issue rather than an individual's rogue PC config.

If the people who regularly play multiplayer choose openbeta the last thing I would do as ED is mess around trying to enforce stable on players the days they want to play. If ED want to attract the more casual players to play multiplayer then it would really need a matchmaking service and some big numbers to make that work. It is a big task and I am not sure it would bring in enough new customers to be worthwhile.

I have been playing racing and flight sims for over 30 years. Moving on from buying boxed sets in game shops that seldom would ever be patched we have varying release and update cycles, continuous development, open and closed betas. I have been in small alpha test teams, big closed betas, open betas and of course most the time just a paying customer - just like those old days of reading PC gaming mags and browsing the games store - the big difference being we get to know a lot more of what is going. My experience is that developers find what works for them and the various approaches all have their pros and cons. I have no real issue with the DCS release method even though it is different to other games I have invested time into. Using VR I have the contingency of stable or rolling back openbeta should there be a performance breaking update that renders all aircraft unplayable but thus far this hasn’t happened for me.

I just use a simple batch file to copy the files. I double click on an icon on my desktop and the settings are in sync. In reality I have never had to resort to the stable version and always use openbeta but the stable is there just in case.

Your existing map will be updated for the expanded area, get all the new airfields etc. Just that the textures in the expanded area will be low res, as in look really blurry if you fly at a low level. Purchasing the upgrade unlocks the high res textures for the expanded areas. Whether that is worth 9.99 only you can decide. IMHO it is more than worth it.

Hopefully by the time Normandy 2 gets to stable they will have sorted out the purchasing bugs! These forums are brilliant for getting help if you have any issues. if you have enough disk space you can have both stable and openbeta installed.

You didn’t buy Normandy 2.0 ages ago, it was released into early access for purchase yesterday. If you don’t want to join early access you need to wait for it it be in full release. The issue is that some content will be ready for full release before the openbeta is ready to become stable. The option would be multiple branches but that adds complexity. In the nicest possible way adding complexity to the release process is the last thing we want to see, we have enough issues with releases and license management now as this release testifies. So the only option is to wait or join openbeta. Some time ago I installed stable in addition to openbeta as a fall back in case openbeta became unplayable, I haven’t used it thus far. I have had to mess around with editing command lines, manually change VR runtimes and install third party tools to make DCS work with VR motion reprojection. All these things would have been required with the stable version if any of the openbeta builds had been promoted.

Steam users do have access to the beta, it is a simpler process than standalone. My view is that multiplayer is a small niche, the numbers are tiny. This isn’t like War Thunder where you can just dive in to a fight. What DCS multiplayer has is a small number of enthusiasts who dedicate significant time and effort into their hobby and opting into openbeta is a minor task in the scheme of things. That said it can be off putting for more casual players. Having some entry level stable version servers 24/7 for novices to get some experience might be good though quite how you stop the aces using them for cannon fodder I am not so sure?

Unless ED want to throw a ton of resource at managing multiplayer servers like a flight combat equivalent of iRacing then I think they are best off leaving it to the community.

The current (latest) version will always be the OpenBeta. The only exceptions being the small period between an OpenBeta version being readied after the last OpenBeta was promoted to Stable when the versions are the same. Although as stated above it is a bit unusual for the beta version to be used almost exclusively for multiplayer, this appears to be what the community have decided. There is nothing to stop members creating and joining servers using the stable branch, just typically members don't. To this end ED clearly state the OpenBeta is the better option for multiplayer on their website.. Stable should be exactly that and where we have major updates to the software as opposed to content, the time for the OpenBeta to mature sufficiently to be promoted to Stable will be longer. No amount of pointing out the time since the last one or prompting for an update should change that due process. Opting in to the OpenBeta is for most relatively painless but if it is of concern then hurrying up the process of moving OpenBeta to Stable should be of equal concern.

Just under 50Gb as I recall