unlikely_spider

I haven't seen the Pimax reviews but just wanted to say that I do find his open-mouthed thumbnails pretty cringey. I refuse to click on those just out of principle, hah

Huh. High price, but specs look nice. I've no experience with Pimax though. I'll keep my eye on this one.

Ok, thanks both of you. I ended up telling the launcher not to launch by default and just going back to the old start menu to launch DCS. After disabling VR in the DCS options then re-enabling it DCS launched in the Quest once again.

Haven't launched DCS in a while, and now there's a new launcher and DCS will not open in VR. I hit "Launch DCS" in the launcher, the launcher goes away for a few seconds, then comes back again with the "Launch DCS" button available again. Anyone else experience the same?

Are the two campaigns the same missions, but with different planes, or are they two completely different campaigns?

Not sure if your frames will tolerate this comfortably, but what I do: Increase resolution in the Oculus app all the way to the right Increase PD in DCS to 1.2 or 1.3 Don't use DLSS Instruments are good for me with those settings only. I'm using a 4080 though.

Every software development product is unreleasable when it's started, and during virtually every phase when under development while myriad dependencies are not yet resolved.

The context was the point, explained below. And the Razbam debacle is unrelated to this patch (to the best of my knowledge). The Razbam situation is obviously unfortunate and there are already dozens of pages of discussion on that issue. Complaints about patch delays lead me to two conclusions. You have a very good life and no longer have to worry about the actual things that have plagued humankind for 98% of its existence. And secondly this has caused perspective to go out the window if an update to a video game has a measurable effect on your mood.

The thing is, they have their ice cream! It's just the sprinkles and extra flavors that are coming later than expected.

Clearly not a real-life pilot with this type of attitude - maybe I've just learned to tolerate delay and disappointment during flight training to the degree that similar unanticipated changes in a video game's timetable does not even compare relatively, but attitudes like this (impatience, emotional outbursts) are what get pilots killed in real life. I'll keep this in perspective though. If nothing else, on your deathbed, you can at least tell your children that your accomplishments include berating a video game developer because a patch was delayed a bit.

Like I said to the other guy, I think you know the difference between this situation and the normal early access experience.

The difference between other issues and this is the fact that this is a module that is in worse than in stasis. This is exactly what many predicted as soon as the Razbam issue came to light - a module that is not only being ignored each update, but one that will actually get worse with each update. And the predictions are proving correct at this moment. I think you know the difference between the typical early access experience and this situation.

The radar. Why does there have to be two? This is a fundamental component that is advertised that is not working.

This is not an early access issue.

At the very least, something on the store page for a broken module that as of this point doesn't have specific operational features that are advertised.

I was never able to get acceptable sharpness with the instruments and cockpit text with DLSS so I run with that off. Try reducing visual range as well.

It doesn't matter if it could exist or not - many applications are extensible, and existence of that extensibility does not imply ownership of anything developed using those tools. If a party develops an add-on using an application's API, the add-on doesn't automatically become the property of the original application's company. The issue in question here is the contractual agreement between Razbam and ED, and none of us here outside of those two parties likely knows anything about that agreement.

Well then -this adds two items to my 2025 to-do list. Re-learn the Harrier, and purchase the SA map.

Can you do the formation flying portions though? That's a big part of a couple of the missions, and that's basically the same as AAR. (Maybe harder, since the tanker flies more predictably than the lead)

The latter I guess - things like radar altimeter, circuit breakers before holding short, then things like switching the HUD to Cruise mode after takeoff, etc I have to hit Spacebar even though they're already set. I guess I misunderstand the interactive checklists. Though I just finished Mission 01 with an Above Average I kept over-stressing the airframe in my earlier attempts so I need to be more cognizant of staying below 6.5 Gs it seems

It says version 20240501 I'm just trying to do mission 01 until I get an acceptable grade But it still has me hit Spacebar after the checklist items.

Was this implemented? I just started this campaign again and still had to hit Spacebar after each item. Or am I misunderstanding?

Thank you, members of HB, for the detailed explanation and for your presence on these boards. I have to admit that last night I flew around a bit, ignoring the visuals of what the stick was doing, and it 'felt' better than the earlier flight when I was positively confused about the flight stick movements. ('Felt' is in quotes because I've only got experience in single engine props IRL and my only jet experience is limited to computer sims) I trust that you were meticulous in your testing and positive notes from SMEs trump my own due to my aforementioned limited experience. Perhaps it would have been best to have these forces acting 'behind the scenes' as it were, and not visually represented in the stick movement, especially when it's counter to what were actively doing with our hardware. That way we can be affected by all appropriate forces and can enjoy the flight model all the same, but without the confusing aspect of the stick seemingly having a mind of its own. Unfortunately I believe you will continue to receive messages from confused users throughout the life of this module otherwise. In the beginning this veteran flight simmer was pulling my hair out believing that I had double-bound an axis or had something else incorrectly configured.

Yep. And as a non-FFB stick user that was what was immediately confusing to me. I spent quite a bit of time checking all the appropriate options and making sure that I wasn't going crazy and unknowingly had some other peripheral that was providing input.

Is this the cause of my issue illustrated here: The stick is expected to be fully deflected forward while sitting on the ramp? Also is it expected to "wobble" fore and aft after a minor deflection of the stick? This is very strange behavior to me. It feels like I'm fighting someone who doesn't understand positive exchange of controls.