Jump to content

Baldrick33

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1789

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Baldrick33

  1. Baldrick33
    Be aware that London & Paris are now included with the old map. Only the hi-res versions are in the new 2.0 version.
  2. Baldrick33
    Normandy 1944 gets updated for free if you own it. The entire new map but low res textures for the new areas. The Normandy 2.0 upgrade gives you the high res textures in the new areas.
  3. Baldrick33
    Yes, it seems to be if you have the original as it is upgrading the existing map rather than a new module.
  4. Baldrick33
    If Big Ben is blurry you don't, if it is high res you do! I don't think it will impact 5800X3D users, just the new chips with the split CCDs
  5. Baldrick33
    Owners of N1 will get upgraded to have London & Paris for free - but at low res. N2 gives you the high res version of the whole map.
  6. Baldrick33
    Yes you do to get the upgrade for the high res version of the extended map The confusion is that it is an upgrade not a new module, so the DCS shop recognises you already have the Normandy map, even though you don't have the upgrade. You are getting teh upgrade at a discount for owning the current map(s)
  7. Baldrick33
    I own both, got the warning but proceeded to purchase anyway. I had nothing to download but had already updated via Skatezilla app and it was 50Gb or so. Tried London and it was high detail. Is it possible you need to download the update in the module manager?
  8. Baldrick33
    Personally I don't think it is dull. Multiplayer provides that ultimate player vs player challenge for sure but simulating operating a complex military aircraft provides loads of scope for enjoyment in single player IMHO.
  9. Baldrick33
    DCS is a bit unusual with its openbeta best for multiplayer stance but I think that is just how the community has evolved rather than by design. Having been involved with race sim leagues having a tried and tested stable version with balance of power a known entity is pretty much essential. Knowing a new version could drop tomorrow which changes the effectiveness of weapons and maybe a few game breaking bugs seems high risk but so be it. That said DCS multiplayer seems a pretty niche enthusiast aspect and not really for the more casual drop in kind of player.
  10. Baldrick33
    Whatever you set it in OpenXR Toolkit overrides what is set it in OpenXR Tools for WMR
  11. Baldrick33
    I copy input folders between openbeta and stable versions, works fine.
  12. Baldrick33
    OpenXR support hasn't been added to Stable as far as I know.
  13. Baldrick33
    Can you post your dcs.log file?
  14. Baldrick33
    In the MS Store there is an option to update apps, you can find the OpenXR Tools app there and click update, that is what I did.
  15. Baldrick33
    I have done some more back to back testing using the Apache as the rotor effects with motion reprojection are quite extreme. There is a significant difference using the SteamVR OpenXR runtime vs the WMR one when using motion reprojection. Anything seem through the rotor blades using the WMR runtime sees much more wobbling and ghosting - a massive difference The WMR OpenXR runtime needs the OpenXR Toolkit fix to run with motion reprojection, it can be disabled using the SteamVR OpenXR runtime. There is more stuttering whilst maintaining 45 fps using the WMR runtime. Whatever is going there is a most definite difference in user experience using motion reprojection between the two runtimes.
  16. Baldrick33
    I don’t disagree, just that in the priory list having VR support for multiple APIs and being as simple as possible for the end user with a multitude of headsets may be some way down the track of MT development and tuning. DCS does support OpenVR with a Stable and Beta version, just not the MT beta version. Although I would like OpenVR as an option to compare and contrast, the big deal of MT for me is to maximise performance on the myriad of PC CPU and GPU combinations we have which is where the focus for the MT beta and its testers (I.e us) should be IMHO. For which OpenXR and some workarounds should be sufficient for testing. Of course as it evolves it will need to do everything the current ST version can. if OpenVR is a must have for enjoyment then you can always opt out of the MT beta and use the other versions until either it is supported or OpenXR improves.
  17. Baldrick33
    My expectations are that OpenXR will catch up on the areas where it is deficient. It makes a lot of sense for developers to only have to support one common standard. My personal view is that OpenXR support should be good enough in the early days of MT implementation, there are more important things for the developers to focus on in terms of tuning performance and aspects of the sim that are not working quite as intended. OpenXR should work across all VR devices, at least with some workarounds, so it gives pretty much every one the opportunity to try it out and assess the performance gains (or not) and where they do benefit from a better experience. MT is still a little way from being the plug and play OpenBeta variant. It is a massive project. Whether OpenVR support will be a necessity when MT is ready to be promoted as the de facto version remains to be seen.
  18. Baldrick33
    Still there for me - in the UI Layer
  19. Baldrick33
    I believe a relevant bug thread already exists. As I understand it the request is to use the Quest2 using the native Oculus API rather than using OpenXR (without a reg hack)
  20. Baldrick33
    In my experience with my hardware after quite a lot of back to back testing there is a distinct difference between using the Mixed Reality OpenXR runtime vs the SteamVR OpenXR runtime. The latter is smoother and has less artefacts. I can also run motion reprojection without the OpenXR toolkit only with the SteamVR OpenXR runtime, otherwise I need the fix in the toolkit to run WMR OpenXR runtime. WMR runtime will drop to 30 or 22fps, SteamVR runtime is limited to 45. They are quite different experiences.
  21. Baldrick33
    It is all unrealistic short of building a canopy to limit physical movement, it is just finding which seems the least immersion breaking, which is a personal thing. All for options just don’t agree with specific ones being mandated at the expense of immersion in VR.
  22. Baldrick33
    I spent some time with the other solution to see if I would find it any less immersion breaking than previously. it is still horrible that you can shove the plane around with your head as the positional tracking suddenly stops at what feels an arbitrary point - there is no forewarning it is going to happen other than memory and if you jump from plane to plane it is easy to forget the point tracking stops. That said it becomes possible to react quickly to the breaking of 1:1 head movement in much the same way as reacting to the onset of clipping, so that both are effective as a very clear indication of limits. For me the clipping is a much less immersion breaking method. It isn’t difficult to be disciplined enough not to stick your head through the window and you don’t get the sensation of breaking VR. It provides an early warning with a few pixels of clipping that a hard limit is simply unable to provide- the tracking stops. If it genuinely is considered a cheat then that is a different debate but to present it as being “better for VR players” is an opinion I would refute. Maybe an option would be a hybrid of the two, a small amount of clipping followed by a hard limit, so players could avoid the immersion breaking broken tracking sensation by having an early warning they are at the limits. Maybe even add a clunk of helmet hitting glass.
  23. Baldrick33
    Were you using OpenXR before?
  24. Baldrick33
    I have a 8600K running all cores (6) at 4.8GHz, using VR with a Reverb G1 I have just upgraded from a 2080ti to a 4080 with a big jump in performance. For most of what I do I am still seeing higher GPU frame times than CPU unless I drop the resolution down. I don’t believe the DCS fps tool when it says CPU bound. switching between multi thread and single version I get a 20-30 fps increase with motion reprojection off with the 4080, only a marginal improvement with the 2080ti as it was so GPU bound. I am not sure if I will gain much upgrading the CPU for most of the (relatively simple) single player missions I play. It might be very different for multiplayer.
  25. Baldrick33
    I think it depends what people use DCS for. For more complex single player missions and multiplayer achieving 90fps even with the most powerful hardware is still difficult maybe impossible without comprising visuals too much (too much is of course personal). Having just upgraded to a 4080 from a 2080ti, with the benefits even a fairly old 8600k @4.9GHz gets with MT, I can comfortably achieve 90fps for the relatively lightweight stuff I play. Prior to that I needed motion reprojection. It does help I have a G1 rather than a G2 as it is optimised at a significantly lower resolution.
×
×
  • Create New...