TAIPAN_

Do many public servers disable this? I haven't had a chance to get back into MP since buying my seat, but would be a shame if have to skip some servers..

The "advantages" were to those that ran monitors on low resolution or had old VR headsets that were not quadviews or high res yet. Not sure if noticed, but I'd heard several players and youtube videos give a number 1 tip on how to get better at MP is to "reduce your resolution" so that you can spot the enemy. Isn't that a little bit insane, to go backwards in technology to fix a problem that should be a user choice? By saying "having options made it worse" what you're essentially saying is "the old option was best for me, and I don't care what option is best for others" @MoleUK offered the solution - if you don't like them, just turn them off. No need to ruin other players enjoyment, especially since the majority are not in MP much.

Try Nvidia control panel: * pre-rendered frames set to 3 * low latency mode: Ultra null

Nice, possibly related to the other thing that was fixed. Yeah I remember another thread where a workaround was to change frequency in voicechat. I'd say a more bulletproof solution would be to play no frequency broadcasts at all if voicechat is not enabled, similar to how single player works. Possibly multiplayer enables voicechat on the client even if the server has it disabled, this is my guess based on the comparison of single player to multiplayer (with voicechat off). Since you can't reproduce it though, probably best we wait and see if it's fixed in the next patch thanks!

Great thanks! Yes I also noticed it in A10A, though I had only done one flight with it

Ahh if there's a password that's just the beta/test server, it might be the only one you see because of a different bug - sometimes the server browser doesn't show servers after restart.. It happened to me today as well. The main public server is here, can click the join with IP: 45.141.24.156:10308 and there is no password on this one. To reproduce: a) Select Blue b) Select airfield Abu Al Duhur c) Select Centre Dynamic Slots d) Select F-15C, there will be static before even turning on the electrics. I just ran a quick test again.

Is that related to the OPs issue? The constant static noise when using F-15C on Syria, even when not having radio comms with AI? Or a separate issue? Mission might be too complex. This one is pretty easy to reproduce without track, jump into Contention server on one of the closest to the frontline dynamic spawns (not Aleppo which is at the back). I tried to reproduce in the mission editor, but it does not happen when running an empty mission on my local PC. It might require multiple players or something to trigger the voicechat to engage and thus start listening to the 116 beacon.

SPS-Contention-Syria-20250214-181825.zipHere's a track from multiplayer Syria. Voice chat is not enabled for this server like many others using SRS, so there is no way to turn off the noise or change channels. Also I have voice chat disabled in my settings. If voice chat is disabled on both client and the server, it seems logical that any radio noise coming through voice chat radios should get disabled in the future fix?

Nice post and data. I took peachmonkey's report at face value, we can't know everybody's hardware setup and there are other factors. It's moulded by my own experience with the Pimax Crystal, while it has similar lenses to the Varjo Aero the resolution used is a lot higher which is then modified by using QuadViews. I'm no expert but I've been told the supersampling at 200% along with any form of DCS Anti-aliasing tends to anti-alias away some or all of the dot. When switching to VR and hearing all the talk about "it's so much easier to spot" gave me a WTF moment when I went to the crystal and it actually became harder. I say this as someone who has no issue spotting in another WW1/WW2 sim where I often spot, bounce and kill others before they see me (we are not allowed to mention competitors names, I'm just highlighting it's not a personal/skill issue) I even got prescription inserts, which did make things look a bit nicer but my vision had nothing to do with the spotting. I'd be curious to know if @peachmonkey is using any kind of eye tracking or high supersampling. At the end of the day - the solution I mentioned is still valid for all the posts behind me - that is give the people a way to reduce the size of their own dot without affecting other peoples dot size. The #1 complaint I see is that someone says their own dot is too big and they want to reduce it to how it was before (for them).

If your signature is still correct, it's because of the headset difference. Rift S being low resolution is one of the headsets known for making visibility easier. Varjo Aero being high res seems to get the dot scaled much smaller if it's anything like the Pimax Crystal. That's compounded even worse if they are using eye tracking / quad views. A simple ability for people to reduce the size for only themselves would solve the issue, that won't negatively affect other users. Yet I see people wanting to go back to the "1080p to be competitive" nonsense ie wanting to enforce everyone goes smaller dot on the server side settings.

Disappears from the config binds menu? That's really strange. Are you using it with Quaggles input command injector? Got a screenshot before and after? I was just flying in Flashpoint levant, and using the Heading bind. Wasn't looking in the config menu but it's been working across a few flights. Also by the way, Heatblur dev said he will add the HSI hdg, crs, and the sight elevation into the next patch

No worries I like to see many commands, because I got the home cockpit thing happening here with UFC, MFDs, button boxes etc. Very thankful to Heatblur on this release, they have added so many useful binds already. Much easier to work with than other releases like the Harrier or the Mirage F1.

I think there's misunderstanding. I thought you were creating/building some initial community keybinds lua files for the F-4E since you mentioned the InputCommands folder, these lua files just define what you can bind with ANY device. Your specific devices are in a different folder and get bound after that separately. The purpose of the Quaggles input command injector and Munkwolf community keybinds is to add binds that didn't exist before. What users do with their hardware against these is really trivial in comparison and not something that we need to share really. I managed to get some time today and created an initial template, with a few binds added: HSI Heading slow and very slow options HSI Course slow and very slow options Reticle Depression slow and very slow WSO aspect switch added to the front seat https://github.com/Munkwolf/dcs-community-keybinds/discussions/75

Thanks! Do you have an initial input file with any of the binds you've created you can share? I won't get time to setting mine up until the weekend, but would be great if can start with something. cheers

For those that it's not working, what is your DCS 2D resolution set at for the window? Is it set to Fullscreen or Windowed?

VHF Transmit long can transmit the SPI over datalink. Also a few shortcuts when using the HARM WPN page, or the HAD page (see 2nd screenshot) null null

Agree, in fact the game should never even need to give a handicap to people with better hardware. By definition their image should be clearer and easier to see the detail of the small aircraft. When it comes to dots though, that's not about detail and is really about sizing/contrast. An ideal situation would have the contacts appear reasonably the same size to the human eye between high res and low res, but unavoidably the high res image would be have more detail. I.e. if it's a scaled model then the high res image would be able to make it out as a jet whereas the low res might not be able to tell the difference between a jet and a P51. Exactly, in my case a perfect example - DCS simply sees the massive resolution of 200% supersampling in the small portion of the screen that eye tracking is looking at and assumes that to be resolution when in fact it's more than double the resolution of the actual pixels in the lense. I can test this by looking away from the target and noticing when it goes outside the supersampling portion the dot becomes 4x bigger (I can't actually see it other than peripheral then because I'm not looking at it, but recording in OBS I can notice it there afterwards). Agree, even though my dot is smaller than others I feel it is at a good workable/realistic level and really don't want to see this broken after waiting for this solution to get to this stage after so long. That's why any reduction should be optional, because I don't have confidence that all hardware can be catered for unless ED increase their testing process.

Hey this is not war thunder here, spotting shouldn't be gimped to handicap people that have more expensive hardware in the name of "PvP Fairness". That's exactly the situation we were unintentionally in with people reducing resolution to 1080p just so that they could play PvP because the dot system stupidly used to favour lower resolutions. Next minute be asking to reduce FPS for those that get over 100fps because it's not fair to those that have poorer PCs, or to reduce gun performance for those with accurate VKB sticks because it's not fair to those with an Xbox controller. Currently you're kind of getting what you want, because high resolution VR headsets that use the latest eye tracking technology really have a much smaller dot and sometimes very hard to even notice. It's either supersampling, quadviews/dfr or some other setting that does it combined with having 4000x5000 resolution per eye (and running 200% supersampling on that). Since we see lower res headsets complain the dot is too big, yeah it may need to be shifted in favour of high resolutions. Maybe by making it smaller only for those on lower resolution, or as I'd suggested giving them a slider to make it optional because one thing is for certain: people are sure to have some combination of settings that makes the change not work as expected. Agree on all points, and at some stage they improved that transition between the dot and the scaling (it used to be quite jarring when the dot disappeared the model was too small to see so there was a medium range blindspot)

In the current DCS version you can also get CZ on the HSD: null

I agree, I don't use it personally. I don't even have a choice because I play cold war I wouldn't be able to see any enemy aircraft if I used it, but it's not needed for me because Quadviews gives enough performance (and a 4090 :)). I only mentioned it to highlight what happened when the pixels halved. Don't add too much importance to the DLSS comment, all it meant was that I already tested reducing the size of the dot and found that when the pixels were about halved it was mostly invisible (for crystal users on high settings). I think for a lot of people the current implementation is working well, there have been some tweaks by the devs since the first implementation I have noticed some improvements. A user option to allow people like yourself to tailor it to suit you (reduction) would be acceptable as it would prevent damaging the good system that is currently in place. But I don't think it's fair to impose a reduction in size across the board, stating multiplayer fairness when in fact it's the opposite. The last thing we want is to go back to the old days where people used to reduce their resolution to 1080p to get an advantage in PvP and have an expensive graphics card sitting there wasted. Agreed on this, all the while we rely on a dot is more time we end up arguing about how to size and transition it. Scaling of the actual aircraft appears to be happening in the another sim (a WW2 sim) since they did the spotting fix (maybe 2 years ago). I see faint blurry small aircraft that gradually become clearer. All at high resolutions too, so there must be a way to make it work. And it's not the oversized smart scaling that you see in that other F16 sim. Maybe DCS has a difficult engine to work with, I'm sure there are complexities we haven't imagined. But it would be nice if it was model scaling, though those at low resolutions would still find the scaling doesn't fit in 1-2 pixels so they would end up with something like a dot. Long term those resolutions would phase out.

Agreed, it IS a problem it takes the raw resolution. When using DFR, eye tracking quadviews, the resolution is massively scaled up in the focus area ie 200%. So we have a view that's got a dot made for 100% resolution but we are actually at 200% which is 4x the pixels.

Without the slider, it would be yourself and older headsets that would be cheating. People WILL literally see something different (thinking about multiplayer as you said). ie currently the dots are very small and hard to notice for me, but for you they are very large. Imagine we reduce the dot size (without a slider setting) to a size that makes you and lower res headsets happy, then it will be invisible for me and not future proof as everyone will eventually be on newer high resolution headsets. We WILL see something different (ie some people will see nothing). In any case I didn't suggest a slider to increase the size of the dot, only to decrease. Just for people who do not like the experience like yourself, you would reduce it to be the same size as everyone else. For everyone else who finds it ok can leave it correct as is. To me the current dot system is perfect, and changing that for lower resolution headsets would ruin that. 1/4 would be literally invisible (except for low res), ie you would have advantage in multiplayer which you mentioned one of your concerns. Turning on DLSS/DLAA reduces the dot to near half, and I cannot see it at all after that. Without DLSS/DLAA it's already minimum for my headset & DFR/Quadviews. To me it is perfect already, and the current system is already a compromise. Eventually the older headsets will phase out and everyone will be on newer headsets with high res in the long run. A user setting could be a solution for people who find it too big as a personal choice. There's no way it's a "cheat" since it would only reduce the size.

It doesn't look too bad to me for the non zoomed view (first picture), and I wouldn't even know there was another plane there unless you zoomed/circled it. But I don't doubt you because headsets always display things differently to a 2D monitor, and can be very specific to the individual lenses, DCS settings, resolution, antialiasing etc. For that reason I still think it's a good idea for there to be a slider in the settings where you can (optionally) reduce the size, or the range of the dot. Being optional means it won't affect those who don't see large dots currently (eg pimax crystal with quadviews and 5000x4000 per eye with 200% AA)

Dots are very small and hard to see on Pimax Crystal, though I have very high resolution and quadviews. I have heard if you use DLAA or DLSS it makes the dots smaller, could be worth a try. For myself if they were any smaller they would be invisible, I guess everyone has a different setup/settings.

The slowdown over cities in Quad views is resolved for me by disabling terrain shadows. Well worth it to have that smooth locked 90fps at 200% SS and other settings turned up. I suspect all the shadows from so many buildings push the CPU too far combined with the CPU demands of Quad views. The slowdown over cities in Quad views is resolved for me by disabling terrain shadows. Well worth it to have that smooth locked 90fps at 200% SS and other settings turned up. I suspect all the shadows from so many buildings push the CPU too far combined with the CPU demands of Quad views.