Qiou87

Actually, 2 DLC campaigns: Serpent's Head 2 has this option (it is a second campaign basically, and for the longer missions you have a kind of very slow burn rate for the fuel). I know, I finished it like this because at the time I wasn't keen on AAR. Then Raven One has this option as well, but instead it just saves behind the tanker and the next mission starts behind it with full fuel. I wasn't keen on doing that, especially since a couple of missions are actually designed around the fact that you are super low on fuel and need to AAR to save yourself, so instead I tried to AAR. As it turns out, it wasn't as difficult (VR + a nice smooth joystick helped a lot). I can even do it when the bloody tanker decides to turn now. Unlimited fuel is not the same, and based on different things tried by campaign creators, easy AAR is needed. How would you feel as a campaign creator if you were creating a realistic, immersive campaign, but maybe 20-30% of potential buyers didn't buy your campaign just because you need to AAR? There's a lot more to DCS than AAR. Again, I do it just fine, but I understand (especially for those playing on a flat screen with no depth perception of the basket) that it is difficult and not everyone has to want to learn it. No need to be so elitist about DCS, we are flying modules with FBW, autoland feature, ILS, autopilot, guided weapons that find targets on their own, etc. Aeronautical development has been especially focused on making the planes easier to fly for the past 50 years, so I find it quite funny when people say it should be very hard or not be done at all. Even real-life pilots say AAR is one of the hardest things to do, and they have al their senses to perform it. Don't expect everyone to manage it on a flat monitor with a cheap HOTAS (or everyone to buy thousands worth of equipment to play DCS either).

On the one hand, super excited to see more ground units, and especially the airport personnel thing is extremely sexy. However, I also think about what it means to the community if we start to have too many asset packs that are paid and therefore not everyone has them. I strongly believe WWII would be more popular if, instead of what we have now, all you needed to purchase was one aircraft module and maybe one map. From a customer perspective, multiple different packs and modules needed are splitting the community. However, I also respect greatly that work deserves a salary. This is something that I think should be discussed with ED, how you could monetize your work and get paid, without having a paid assets pack. For example I did propose some time ago that "low def" ground assets could be free, but a "high def" version would be a paid upgrade. It means every unit and its capabilities are in the base game for everyone in this case, but they look very basic.This way the units are there for everyone, there is no community splitting, but those who pay for the pack get much nicer models and maybe some other benefits. But in the end we can all play together, loading into a server or trying to play a SP campaign doesn't start with "You need to own this module and that module in order to play this". This relates to the ground troops however. For the airport stuff, maybe a similar approach to a super carrier could be taken, where your addon comes on top for those who pay for it, and those who don't can still use the airport but it is just as empty and "bare" as it is now? Not sure how it would work with the game engine, but again, I want to avoid that we have multiplayer and campaigns that require 5 or 6 different modules: a map, this ground troops asset pack, that airport asset pack, etc. and in the end only 5 people are able to join.

I own both, I play in VR, and although yes, the viper pit in VR is great, the module itself needs to cook a little while longer. I love flying it but I have set it aside for now. It is not as much a problem of capabilities as it is a problem of polish for me right now, so I haven’t checked the latest update to make sure my problems with Mavericks were finally solved. The Syria map is amazing, although if you only play in SP you might not get to see it’s full potential unless you use Liberation that can generate lovely dynamic campaigns on this map. But there aren’t many SP campaigns available for this map just yet since it is new and will be expanded in the future. Baltic dragon, arguably one of the best dlc campaign makers, plans a Syria campaign in the Viper for 2021. I’d still recommend the map now and wait until the summer for the Viper to be more feature complete. Also if you play in VR, try a helicopter (a real one not the Ka50). I found them boring and difficult in pancake, but once I jumped in VR the helos became natural and soooo much fun. Add the Huey to your basket.

Just happy to help. Please, let me know if you find what was the problem. Today I had the same issue when launching DCS, only to realize that the last OTT update disabled auto-launch. Once launched manually SS was working again. You can also try the rollback of nVidia drivers to see if that is the culprit. Not sure about Oculus firmware though...

Alright, well there's an easy way to make sure it is in fact DCS: roll back to the previous DCS version. Here's a topic explaining how to do it. The previous stable was 2.5.6.55960. If you roll back to it and adjusting PD works again, you know it is a DCS problem. Unfortunately it is the holiday break for the team but you will know what the culprit is at least.

I've played a couple days ago, all updates done (OTT had an update recently, same for Oculus firmware, latest stable of DCS) and my supersampling x1.4 still works in DCS. I use PD 1.0 in DCS, only use OTT to apply 1,4x of supersampling. No changes for me, same readability, same performance ingame. I play on Rift S, RTX 2070 SUPER. It seems to be an issue on your end blackworm, not a generalized "anti-Rift" push by ED or Oculus/FB. I like how people seem to just come to a post where someone has a problem and instead of offering help, they bring judgement about this or that. Whatever happened to not jumping to conclusions? @blackworm: did you try to create a custom profile for DCS in OTT, setting Supersampling this way? Did you try uninstalling and reinstalling Oculus software? Here are my OTT settings.

I am just reading the second Raven book in Venezuela and it makes me wish for a map there for you to make a second Raven campaign, there’s just so much action in that second book that I’d like to fly for myself! But hey, maybe you can adapt it in the Marianas once that new map is out. In any case, awesome job on the Raven One campaign, I agree with everything the OP says. You give players the feeling of being a carrier wing pilot.

Agreed, that map is wonderful. Hopefully the new cpu will fix the stutters in Channel over cities, if it doesn’t I won’t buy it. Even Syria is smooth on my rig, but somehow the Channel isn’t... a damn shame. This free trial period is a double edged sword, as I found a couple of aircrafts I was curious about but won’t buy as I don’t see myself flying them long term, after trying them. They are great, just not for me. So I have saved money thanks to this trial...

It seems we agree then: balance is key, the single-threaded performance matters a lot in DCS, and also the highest tier cards are not really worth the extra money especially at the prices we are seeing now. I am just curious if someone will manage to get us a comparison of 5600X/5800X/5950X in DCS. My assumption would be that the only performance difference will be that of the maximum core clock (making sure all else, especially the memory, is equal), so very minimal, because as we all agree the game engine is not balancing load on multiple cores efficiently. And that difference could even be somewhat aliviated with some overclock of the 5600X, maybe. At least, that's my take on it, and why I think the 5600X is a "smart" buy if you are watching your budget and want to save some money for a higher-end GPU.

I actually measured that for myself, not just taking someone else’s suppositions. I recommend everyone to do it before investing further into unnecessary components, as it is not very difficult to do. I measured cpu and GPU frametimes in VR, in single and multiplayer, both alone and in complex missions or on 32 player servers. I have found that even if I have a pretty average 2600X, it is only bottlenecking 50% of the time in the heavy MP scenarios, and actually almost never in other situations. The GPU was doing most of the work because of the high resolution required for the headset. We are here talking about a good value CPU for VR, not how much you can possibly spend. So talking about 1500€/$ GPUs is not really the focus, those propose absolutely horrible value. Of course if you have the fastest GPU on earth you can find yourself in situations where the cpu becomes the focus, but I resent the fact that every discussion about DCS and VR should only focus on brand new 4000€/$ computers. There are people who play and enjoy VR whilst spending their more limited budget efficiently and they do just fine. I speak from experience. Once you get your cpu below your target frametime (11 or 22ms), it does not matter how much faster the cpu gets. And if you only have a certain amount to invest into your PC, including for DCS in VR, spending more into the GPU will yield higher gains than into the CPU.

I’m sorry but this is wrong. As long as your GPU is the bottleneck for frame time it doesn’t matter how fast the cpu is. VR with very high def screens requires mostly fast GPUs...

Core count doesn’t actually matter. Previous gen consoles had eight cores as well, but slow and low clocked ones. Actual performance counts for the future of your cpu, meaning it’s all-core performance. People have been misleadingly thinking this way for a while although it has been debunked time and again. Or else someone with a six core Phenom II would still have a competitive gaming CPU today.

That new engine won't come for years, probably. Based on different interviews, it seems like a daunting task, and one that is far from finished. I wouldn't buy hardware now based on what I think DCS will work best on in 4-5 years, because much newer/faster hardware will exist then. That's not to say that I wouldn't buy the 5900X if I had the cash. But if you are watching your expenses, going for 5600X and putting the difference in the GPU will yield far better results in VR. The difference between 5600X and 5900X in DCS should be minimal at best.

Depends how much you end up paying for the 5600X. It is only a six core CPU, it should cost around 300€/320$. Due to stock problems it sells for more than that right now. Still, it has one of the best single core performance on the market, and DCS loves that. DCS does not care if you have 8, 10 or 12 cores. It is not to say that it won't use more than one core, but the CPU frametime is limited by single core performance nonetheless because it does not balance the workload on multiple cores efficiently. The 5600X provides similar CPU frametimes in DCS to the best CPUs out there, Intel Core i7/i9 10700/10850/10900K, but does it while using 75W max compared to over 150 or even 250W for the Intel chips. If you find it at a decent price I think it is an incredible gaming CPU and it will do very well in VR. I saw some comparisons with the 3700X in VR in sim racing and the 5600X was much faster, providing more stable fps. Now of course, VR is also very hungry on the GPU. There is no point going for the fastest CPU out there if you are stuck with a slow GPU. My own findings when measuring performance in DCS in VR (Oculus Rift S): my RTX 2070 Super is limiting performance, not the CPU, when I play single player missions. However, when I play online with 20+ players, the CPU becomes the bottleneck about 50% of the time, and sometimes I will get some "spike" in frametime, resulting in a slow-down or "lag", due to my CPU (Ryzen 2600X). The GPU workload in multiplayer is the same, I get the same GPU frametimes, only CPU frametime doubles roughly. Because of that I decided to upgrade to the 5600X, before I can also upgrade my GPU in 2021 (stocks are crazy right now, prices as well, so I am hanging on to my card for now). Above the 5600X, it seems you only get a few MHz more for DCS, since basically the extra cores of the 5800X, 5900X and 5950X won't be utilized by DCS. To me 100 or 200MHz was not worth 150€ or more, so in this regard, the 5600X was better value. Also considering I could play around with PBO2 and get those MHz back with a more agressive boost curve, if I win the silicon lottery...

Your mileage may vary, but I found it actually very easy to learn. Granted, I learned it with friends, in MP, after only one hour of training to take-off/land a couple of times and drop some bombs. But yeah, I was impressed by the fast pace at which I was able to pick it up, fly it and hit some stuff. Of course, this is a far cry from mastering it. Especially for the unguided weapons, it will take some practice to become actually good. But just a few hours in, I was already capable to make a low approach on a Hawk SAM site, pop-up and drop a load of high-drag bombs, scoring valuable hits then egressing. The satisfaction for me was immense, because in the end there was no computer tricks: just me, flying the jet super low to avoid detection, releasing at the right time on target. The mission computer stuff is a bit complicated, to change waypoints in flight, select one as your mission, it takes a few times to get the hang of it. But overall I was pleasantly surprised: despite the swedish cockpit, it is not a complicated jet to fly. I guess the fact it is not multirole helps a lot as well. I just wanted to answer this question, I am not saying "go for Viggen" or "go for Mirage". I own both and I believe you should too. I enjoyed the Mirage campaigns a lot. I cannot speak for the Viggen campaigns, haven't played any. I can just speak for my current state of mind, flying 16/18 most of the time: the only jet I like to pick up because it is different and fun from either of those is the Viggen. And I do want to point out that I am French, so I should be biased towards the Mirage. It is a fine module, you cannot go wrong with it. But damn, that low-flying fast-moving Viggen...

You are comparing VR to having a full simpit, which is what maybe 0,5% of DCS players can compare it too. Some just have a T.16000M hotas, or not even that. Besides, a simpit works if you fly one plane. VR is amazing because it can let you sit "inside the cockpit" of any plane or helicopter at will. Helicopters in VR are typically amazing to fly. If you make a Hornet pit at home, assuming you have the space, you are dedicating yourself to that aircraft and flying anything else in your pit will probably be a little weird. The mouse thing you get used to. Most things are on the HOTAS anyway, it is only really useful during startup. Hand controllers are supported but a pain to combine with a HOTAS. There is room for improvement in that area, for sure, but no dealbreaker as far as I am concerned. Regarding performance and what CommandT says, although I wouldn't speak about the G2 in particular since mine hasn't arrived yet, I'd say my decent system allows for a smooth experience even in multiplayer (Rift S, 140% supersampling, Ryzen 5 2600X, 32GB, RTX2070 Super). I took some time to find the right parameters and settings but in the end I get a very enjoyable experience. Does it look better on my 1440p 32" monitor? Sure. Would I trade higher details in exchange for the sensation of flying my own jet? Nope. Once I tried VR for DCS, there was no turning back, and no amount of eye-candy can compensate for that. I do wish for better optimization and faster hardware, but in the meantime I am having the time of my life all the same. I do respect that other people might have diverging opinions on this, we don't share the same priorities necessarily.

The swedish pit is only really an issue when you are learning the jet. Once you know what you want to do and your way around the cockpit, you don’t read the text. You know where everything is anyway. Let’s not kid ourselves, most of us don’t fly historically correct missions, many assets are wrong, etc. I have no issue flying the Viggen in Syria for example, out of Incirlik for example. And the beautiful terrain makes it a lovely match, lots of mountains and valleys to play with below 500ft AGL. But yeah, if Red Flag and all that is your thing, probably go with the Mirage. It is a good plane, but I just think you will get bored with it once you finish the available campaigns. The Viggen is more fun to fly imho, and it’s mission profile just more engaging in the current DCS universe. Considering you already own the Swiss army plane (Hornet) that does everything, I believe the secondary planes should be really specific and maybe a bit quirky to keep your interest in the long run. To me that is the Viggen, but I totally respect if you feel differently and go for the Mirage.

Two different philosophies, I'd make sure what you like doing before committing. Of course, try them both. I have ~25h in the Mirage, and only 5h in the Viggen, although I haven't touched the former for over six months because everything it does, a Viper does it better. - The Mirage is an interceptor, likes to fly high and fast. It can be a bit disconnected due to the FBW, but still great fun. Mostly air-to-air though, the air-to-ground is very limited. - the Viggen is a low-and-fast penetration strike fighter, hug the terrain, pop up to drop all your ordinance in one pass, and fly back to base. It is a more engaging flight, very rewarding when you manage to hit your target. It can also work on the coast to hit ships. As a complement to the Hornet that is my primary jet, the Viggen makes the most sense and I love to take it out regularly. I highly recommend this module: easy to get a start in, difficult to master. Regarding SP content, I haven't checked the Viggen campaign so cannot speak about it. There are some training missions though. The Mirage has a lot of missions but also 2 included campaigns, one in Caucasus (sort of an advanced tutorial with a scenario) and a short one in PG. Both excellent, Baltic Dragon is clearly super talented. His DLC campaign (Red flag) requires NTTR but is also of excellent quality. So the Mirage seems to be the better one for SP content.

Same here, sorry for the disappointed guys. I lamented the lack of a blufor attack helo ever since I started using Liberation (and it should be the same in EDs dynamic campaign). It is just so much fun to jump from plane to helo and back depending on the mission in a global campaign, start with sead and cap in an F-16, make a couple of strike missions in a Hornet or a Viggen, then support the troops on the ground with your Apache for a while as they advance on enemy airfields before jumping back to the Viper as the frontline progresses deeper into enemy territory. I cannot wait, and it will be a natural complement to the OH58 from Polychop. I just hope the AI for the copilot will be easy to use, we will see in the Hind. But helos make the whole detailed terrain from Syria and new assets come to life. And they are awesome to fly in VR.

Check the game commands in DCS, you can have a key bound to reset head position in VR. Super helpful when you start the game, find your natural body position then press this key. IPD is the distance between the center of your eyes. An optician or ophthalmologist can measure it for you. It is set with a slider on the headset, not in software, that’s why the soft only shows the value but cannot change it.

Considering GPUs, I have a smooth experience using Rift S with a RTX2070 SUPER (1.4x supersampling). I guess for the high-end headsets (Index, Reverb G2) you need to step up to the high-end new GPUs as well (RX6800XT, RTX 3080). Same as you OP, I had doubts when switching to VR about using the mouse. The trick is to find the comfortable position for you to grab the mouse next to your stick, it is very easy to interact with the cockpit this way. There are more immersive ways once you are sure to stick with VR flying, but to start there is nothing wrong with the mouse. I use the keyboard for some startup procedure steps only, things I only need once per flight, the rest is on the HOTAS.

I don't understand why you refer to SteamVR ; for me this headset runs with WMR. Do you need to use SteamVR as well in order for DCS to run in VR in the G2? Or are you using the Steam edition of DCS, not the standalone? Sorry if these questions seem stupid, I am coming from a Rift S, waiting for my G2 to ship. The Rift S was stupidly easy to setup in DCS, plug it in, turn on VR ingame, and enjoy. I just use OTT to set supersampling and that's it.

Did you try the search function in the top right? This has been requested and discussed at length already. Two main points: 1. it is not compatible with the render engine of DCS. Don't ask me about details, I just got this as a "conclusion" to discussions about it from much smarter people. 2. it is vendor specific, flight sim is a small enough niche as it is without spending tons of hours of dev time on something which only a portion of the user base can enjoy.

Sure, but you can stil join the mission and the SC is functional, the only limitations if you don’t own it are landing and spawning on it yourself. Compare that to the WWII asset pack, if you don’t own it, you cannot join the mission. That is a huge difference.

It is not a matter of paying for DCS. It is a matter of barrier to entry. If you pretend that your game is free-to-play, then anyone can join with others and play with them. Today, someone can still do that in a Su-25T, in a multiplayer mission with people who have 1000$ worth of modules, as long as they fly in Caucasus. But if you make this asset pack a module, then the new player has to buy it, or else no multiplayer mission uses those assets for fear that some players will not be able to join. Herein lies the problem. I play with a group, I also play in SP. Personally, I would pay for the pack, no issue. But I see new guys join our group every 2-3 months, and they start with one FC3 plane, or maybe the whole FC3 pack, which cost very little on sale, then if they enjoy the game and playing with us, they move up to FF modules. They are also pushed by us to buy maps, but at least they can do it gradually and not spend 150$ in the first month. Also consider that, despite the impression you might be getting in this forum, not everybody is gaming with an i9-10900K, 32GB of RAM and RTX3090. Some have more modest, 2-3 year old gaming PCs, and similarly modest budgets for their games. Same for the flight stick, not everyone has the greatest VKB or Virpil stuff, some enjoy a good T16000M or T.Flight... That's why I proposed that the assets themselves be free in a low-poly, so everyone has the same assets and everyone can play with each other. And for those who value great graphics, you pay the AI pack, which just replaces the old, outdated 3D models by new shiny ones with many polygons. But the asset is the same and there is no need to buy the pack to play the game, the pack is just there as additional value (=it looks much nicer). And it provides a revenue stream for AI assets still, so the ED team can spend some man-hours on them.