AlpineGTA

null

Update report. When I first posted this thread it was for the original G2 on the original cable. After going through 3 cables and two headsets I eventually gave up, got a refund off HP and went back to using my Quest 2. Then last year, when the G2 was on sale I decided to try my luck again and bought another G2 with the v2 cable. Everything was fine at first, until one day, whilst adjusting the fit, the headset went black again. I thought I'd overstressed the cable by bending it too much, just near where it plugs in, where the headset and the side straps pivot. No matter what I tried I couldn't get it to work and after seeing how difficult it was to get replacement cables I just couldn't be bothered with the hassle of it all again, put it aside and went back to using my Quest 2 again. The a few months ago, whilst I was tweaking my VR settings, for some reason I just decided to plug my G2 back in again and try it. And amazingly it was working! Same headset, same cable, exactly the same PC, so I really can't say how it was just working again but I've been using it and it's been fine ever since. So, I'm sorry, that's not really helpful to anyone experiencing a black screen. I don't know what caused mine to work again but I do think that in most cases, if you're experiencing a black screen with your G2 it's probably a faulty cable. I think it's a poor design the way the cable can bend so much right behind where it plugs into the headset. I try not to pivot mine too much and bend the cable when I take it on and off. I also have the cable routed around the back of the headset and then down the right hand side, so that it protrudes from the front. This lessons the weight and pull on the connection, compared to having it tugging at the back.

My mounts arrived this morning. Shipping was very fast, overnight. I haven't had a chance to try them out yet but I couldn't resist assembling them during my lunchtime to see how they looked, It took me about 30mins. They were packaged very well inside purpose cut foam and seem of a very good quality. All the screws you need are provided, including some spares and an allen key. The only thing you might need is a Phillips head screwdriver if you use the provided screws for mounting your joystick. All the other screws use the provided allen key. I bought it for a WinWing Orion 2 HOTAS. I went from some custom made mounts on an IKEA POANG chair to these. I've also just switched from using a T16000 Thrustmaster throttle and a VKB Gladiator stick to the WinWing HOTAS, so it's going to take some getting used to, but so far I like having the throttle and stick at a more natural, comfortable height and the stick centre mounted. I found the WinWing gear was higher, compared to my T16000 and VKB on the chair mount (the T16000M throttle in particular was much lower) and therefore less comfortable, that's why I decided to switch to desk mounts. I did used to enjoy the laid-back seating and side stick mount of my POANG chair so it will take some adjusting to the upright desk seating. As I say, I haven't tried it in anger yet, so I'll see how that goes, but it does feel very solid on the desk. The only movement I could see when I waggled the stick was in the desk itself. The mounts are sturdier than the desk. The advantage of my custom side chair mount was it was solid and didn't move at all. I think I'll remove the arms from the chair too to give easier access to the throttle. I haven't fine tuned the positions yet, I've just 'thrown' them on to see how it looks. It might be better if the chair has a swivel lock too, so I don't accidently spin round and knock them off! Overall I'd say initial impressions are of good quality, solid desk mounts. The jury's still out on whether I prefer this type of seating position but that's another story.. Here are a couple of before and after pics: null

If you already have a HOTAS setup anyway, I would just continue to use that. You will soon learn where all your buttons and switches are using muscle memory and feel. I think you will find it much more immersive for VR.

That's really interesting to know. I'm running a similar setup to you - i5-11600K, AMD 6900XT and a Reverb G2. It's good to know a GPU upgrade would probably bring big performance gains and my CPU should be fine. I don't like those 4090 prices at the moment though!

I've placed an order for these Meza ones: Meza mounts They cost more than the others but they're still a big saving over Monstertech and look just as solid. I went for these because the HOTAS mounting plates are bolted to short pieces of aluminium extrusion, rather than being one solid L-shaped metal piece that bolts directly to the vertical piece. This makes them more flexible; I can more easily fabricate a new mounting plate if I ever change my HOTAS. I'll report back how good they are once I have them set up.

I was doing a bit of research into this myself. I haven't bought any so I can't vouch for how good any of them are but, judging by the reviews, there seems to be a few good alternatives on Amazon, compared to the usual, more expensive, Monstertech mounts. MEZA mounts MEZA mounts (different style) YAARHEJ mounts

null

Surely the colours you're seeing has a lot to do with your particular monitor or VR headset (whichever you're using) and your settings. Personally, I find the colours are fine, at times in VR it uncannily feels just like I'm flying over the real thing. I think the ground textures of the fields are particularly good, probably the best I've seen on any DCS map.

I've noticed the building textures pop in late too on the Normandy map, like you say, later than they do on the Channel map. It's very noticeable and very distracting. Maybe that's how they optimise it for better VR performance? I was experimenting with different DCS VR settings to try and improve it. I think setting ground textures to high improves it slightly than when they're set to low, but that comes at a performance cost.

In Britain during WW2, I believe they were using double summer time, so the evenings were lighter, to help with war production etc. Which means that the mornings were darker, which leads me to believe even further that the Channel map is the more accurate and the Normandy one is way too bright for that time of day.

Sunrise in southern England was 5.:58 on 6th June 1944, so that leads me to think the Channel map is the more accurate.

Fair points, but why do the two wartime maps, set at the same time on the same date (6/6/1944) not match each other? Maybe one is incorrectly using modern time instead of wartime hours?

I made a quick free flight mission in the Huey, setting the time and date to 6:30am on 6th June 1944, at this time of day the sun should have just risen and still be quite low, but instead, the sun is quite high in the sky and it's broad daylight. This doesn't seem correct for 6:30 in the morning. Comparing it to the same time and date, starting from the same spot on the Channel map and the sun is still quite low and it's much darker, which I think is correct, the sun did rise at around 6:00am on the 6th June. Even setting the time much earlier, at 5:50am on the Normandy map still seems much brighter than 6:30 on the Channel map. Can anyone replicate this and confirm the same results? Or am I missing something and made a mistake in the mission editor, like a daylight saving time or something? I've attached a couple of short tracks. @BIGNEWY Can I move this to the bugs section please. Perhaps it needs looking at? Thank you. UH-1 Channel.trk UH-1 Normandy.trk

null

nullnull

According to this post, the default rendering resolutions have changed since the last update. This could account for it if anyone is experiencing a performance drop. I don't know if it's all versions of the software or just this beta version, or just for the Quest Pro, but it might be worth checking.

All good solid answers. It seems the GPU would be the better option to upgrade first. I've been happy with my 6900XT, I've always thought the AMD GPUs better value, but I've read a lot of reports that the 7900XTX GPUs aren't performing very well in VR relative to the 4080, so that's why I'm considering the switch to Nvidia. I'm still loath to spend $1200 on a GPU though. I shall have to go and ponder it. Thanks for all the replies.

I fly exclusively in VR, currently using a Reverb G2 at 60 Hz with an i5-11600K and AMD 6900XT. I'm running DCS Open Beta MT, set so that I can achieve a steady 60fps without using motion reprojection. I would like to upgrade my PC so that I can maintain 60fps but be able to turn up some DCS settings, or perhaps, maintain my current settings but run at 90fps. So my question is: Keep my 6900XT and change my CPU to a Ryzen 7 5800X3D, or keep the i5-11600K and switch the 6900XT for an RTX 4080? Which would give the biggest performance gain? The 5800X3D or the RTX 4080? The 5800X3D would obviously be the least expensive option, even taking into account that a new motherboard would be required. I'm leaning towards the CPU option because I'm thinking that would be the most cost effective and I'm loath to spend that much on a GPU, but I'm curious what kind of gains, if any it would give. Thanks in advance for any opinion.

Some screenshots from a recent session on Enigma's Cold War server: null

I'm a bit confused about the performance of the 7800X3D. All the review sites seem to agree that it's the best CPU for gaming, but that it performs relatively poorly in multi-thread productivity benchmarks. So given that DCS now supports MT does that not mean that it's single threaded advantage is cancelled out and CPUs such as the i7-13700K or even the i5-13600K might perform better? I'm talking specifically in MT DCS. It's a pity that none of the review sites includes DCS in their gaming benchmarks. It's too niche I suppose.

null

If you watch the GrimReapers preview video, the other guy flying with CAP, Simba I think it is, says he's flying in VR and getting good frames. Also, CAP says he's not using MT and his frames never drop below 60fps (non VR), even over dense cities, so it looks promising.

Because 14 cores vs 8 cores? Or does that not matter? I'm curious now that we have MT whether the number of cores on a chip has an impact on performance, or not? It would be interesting to see a comparison in DCS of two systems running these different CPUs but otherwise the same RAM, GPUs etc.

I haven't checked the OpenXR toolkit overlay. I should do. But you look like you're running a stronger CPU than me, so maybe you are GPU limited? That's why I'm thinking a CPU upgrade might shift the balance to GPU limited, so at least then I know I'm squeezing the most out of my card. The never ending seesaw...