Qiou87

DLSS in VR is a different beast than pancake and I assume it will be in DCS as well. In pancake your point of view does not change fast on multiple axes ; even with trackIR you move left/right and up/down in a predictable way, but with a VR headset your head naturally has slight movement on multiple axes at the same time - unless you are a robot. These slight movements probably generate difficulties for the algorithm to "guess" frames and missing details. I would very much love to read an in-depth analysis why DLSS VR generates so much blurriness in that other flight sim especially in the cockpit and is basically unusable. I am curious why ED went for DLSS and not FSR which would have worked on nVidia but also AMD and Intel hardware. Are we going to see RTX effects in 2024?

Will it though? I experienced DLSS in VR in "that other popular civilian flight sim" and I found it very lackluster. Dials became unreadable and overall the picture in my Reverb G2 was very blurry despite using "Quality" preset. The increase in smoothness wasn't all that great either, probably due to CPU bottleneck (even if my 5600X is no slouch). It basically looked like I had lowered the render target of the headset (I know how DLSS works and that is basically what it does, however the machine-learning-assisted upscaling should bring back most of the detail, which did not happen for me). Fully agree about multithreading to remove CPU bottleneck. However for graphics, although I do enjoy DLSS on pancake as I barely notice a difference visually but see benefits to power usage and/or smoothness, DLSS on VR has so far NOT impressed me.

Indeed, seems to have been solved in 2.8.

I made a short track to show the problem, after I noticed it in a large mission. You can see 3 plane types in my track: Mig21, Mig23 and Mig29. All are set to "CAP" mission. - Mig21: when no option is set for "reaction to threats", the plane dives and crashes when entering the SAM detection range. If option "When missile fired" is set for "reaction to threats", the aircraft does not crash (the solo Mig21 has this option enabled) - Mig23: same behavior as Mig21 - Mig29: continues with no reaction when entering SAM detection range (similar to Mig21 when set to "when missile fired") In my opinion the default AI behavior for some AI planes like Mig21 and Mig23 when entering SAM threat range is probably wrong and the IA tries to hide from the SAM by going for the deck. There is also a wrong AI control of the plane, obviously, as it hits the ground before recovering. I tried to show this with 3 different AI aircraft to show the problem is not specific only to the Mig21 AI flight model, as the same happens with Mig23. MiGs_suicidaire.trk

Understood. Seems to be something weird on the Steam shop, as in EUR the Tomcat is at 74€ and the F1 at 78,69€ before rebate (62,95€ after rebate). So the Tomcat doesn't have the same base price on the Steam shop and official DCS shop. I agree, you seem to be getting a very bad deal in your currency. However your original message did not mention Steam, or your local currency, so you can understand my confusion - by default I would assume that we speak about the official store and their official currency. I am also not happy about the currency situation, used to be that I could get quite a decent discount by paying in USD with EUR, today the exchange rate is terrible.

Did you check the shop before posting something false? Both have 79,99$ base price. Tomcat has no discount. F1 has -20% early access discount, bringing it to 63,99$.

Agreed, really impressed so far. I noticed that I hear the faint breathing of the pilot in level flight ; and the more "constrained" heavy breathing when pulling high-Gs. The first one is new to me, I never noticed it in other aircraft in DCS. Really great for immersion I must say.

This. I understand some compare it to the Mirage 2000C but that one is only 1 plane, not 4! Even if CE and EE are quite close to each other, don't tell me a fully modernized M with MFD and a twin-seat BE are "the same". Those are new cockpits, a lot of new systems.. All of that for the same or similar price as recent releases like AH-64 and Mi-24 which offer only a single aircraft type. The quality of the F1 so far has really impressed me, top-notch modelling and a lot of details are included for immersion, you hear your pilot breathing, the structure flexing and creaking when you overstress the jet... I get that everything is expensive right now and not everyone has a ton of money for their hobbies. But this is not on Aerges ; they have done a great job developing this jet, they have obviously spent an enormous amount of hours on it, and in my humble opinion the price is well deserved. For those with tight wallets, maybe wait for a sale in 6 months to a year...

The OP assumes Aerges has access to some aircraft that served for the Spanish Air Force. If the Super Etendard didn't serve in the spanish AF or Navy, they won't have access to the Super E, or SMEs to make it look and feel like the real thing in DCS. I am all for a Super E done properly by someone with proper access to the aircraft, SMEs, and hopefully a carrier to go with it (Foch maybe, or CDG, definitely the ARA Veinticinquo de Mayo for the SA map) - I am just not sure if that would be Aerges. There was a modernisation of the SE (SEM, where M stands for "Modernisé") however by 2016 that aircraft was still heavily outclassed by modern peers. Similar to the 2000C that was just retired from the French AF, those are fine for patrol and air police missions in peacetime, but shouldn't be engaged in any military operation (except if the enemy has no air and anti-air capability). Funny enough, even if I'm a sucker for new modules, I did not find a single credible choice there for me in this survey ; 104 has no appeal to me, IIIE is already "planned" by Razbam, and Phantom by Heatblur. I'm honestly just super excited for the F1 and hope they go all the way to the F1M and make a wonderful module. I think that is far enough into the future.

A friend of mine got shutdowns due to protection issue with his 3080 10GB on a good (Seasonic Focus GX) 650W PSU. Although it must be said that these chips undervolt like crazy, I have mine at 850mV for total max power around 230W (instead of 350W), runs much cooler/quieter than normal and barely 5% performance gap compared to normal. I'm happy to take the tradeoff, especially since I could keep my 650W Focus GX. Seems nVidia increased TDP and accepted huge power spikes (over 400W for a 3080 and more) for a small performance gain, instead of going for the amazing performance/watt ratio that these chips are actually capable of if you simply spend 3min with MSI Afterburner. As to 10 vs. 12GB, I'd still take the higher VRAM and performance for the 100€ price gap you have. The card will have a longer life and less risk of VRAM bottleneck. In VR I used to see issues with 10GB in DCS, but that was solved by moving from SteamVR to OpenXR. Still, an extra 2GB of VRAM could be useful to keep the card longer and not be limited.

Your CPU is probably a huge bottleneck in these scenarios. Oculus has a tool to analyze FPS and especially frame times to let you know, in these instances, which component (CPU or GPU) is the culprit. You have an old CPU ; considering DCS used mostly one core, if you have people shooting cluster bombs or multiple units spawning, engaging each other etc. this can become too much for your CPU and you get this "drop". I used to get similar drops on my Ryzen 2600X ; happy to say that switching to a modern CPU (Ryzen 5600X) completely made these drops disappear even in heavy missions. Modern CPUs have cores that perform more operations per cycle (IPC) and even at the same frequency, they are simply much faster on a single core. EDIT: also what Edmuss said about OpenXR, if you are able to run this for your Quest 2 there is a chance for higher FPS.

I get that VR is the only way to go for you, I truly do because I feel the same way. However I have the possibility (financially) to invest into it and justify this decision I have taken to never go back to flying on pancake - mostly because when I try it, when creating a mission just to test a trigger for example, I find it boring as hell. There are a couple of things I want to point out. I started in VR in DCS with a 1070Ti and a Rift S a couple of years back. Both are similar to your current setup and allowed me to play around 30fps with relatively low settings, however I believe the Quest 2 has more issues in DCS due to the fact that it is primarily a wireless headset. With a computer that has limited power, I would think having a headset with a little overhead as possible (maybe using OpenXR, instead of something from Oculus or SteamVR) would help tremendously. To run decently in VR, you need a LOT more power than on a screen, because you are calculating 2 view points (left/right eyes) and in a higher definition than most screens as well. On top of this, the headset position is constantly shifting on 6 axis (because your head moves a little bit all the time). This is greatly different from a fixed view, only panning on 1-2 axis at a time using controls or trackIR. It is easy to lay all the blame on the devs, but in my opinion this is flawed. Most games I have played that looked good in VR had very limited scenery and field of view (you can only go in certain areas and cannot see beyond 50-100m). In DCS, you can go anywhere, have many AI and human players around you engaging each other, and doing so at sometimes great distances. All of this requires a lot of power, no matter how you put it. There are non-combat flight sims out there that don't manage to be a lot smoother or look a lot nicer than DCS in VR, even with much larger budgets. I say this with a lot of flight hours in VR in a popular flight sim from a famous editor of operating systems. Flight sims in general are some of the most demanding computer games. VR is probably the most demanding for graphics cards. Combine both, and now you are asking the devs to make it run on a 6-year old PC. Seems a bit ambitious.

It does, as well as the module, and even the altitude. Flying low-level in Syria in the Apache won't give you the same performance as up high in a F-15C due to sensors, MFDs, cockpit and outside level of detail... I have a 3080 (undervolted) with G2 (5600X, 32GB of RAM). I get between 45 and 60, using high settings generally (but no MSAA). These are Syria measurements in modern modules (Mi-24, AH-64, F-16) which I fly the most. I use OpenXR, it was a notable improvement for me (basically allowed to go from 45 to 60 in many cases and see a clear smoothness improvement, especially noticeable when moving my head around).

Just to be clear: such a large decision is not taken as reaction to news, like the atrocious discoveries around Kyiv. It is a result of weeks of internal discussions and in the end, a strategic decision. I also wonder how long ED will be able to continue to operate its main studios in Russia and Belarus. I am worried about the future of this sim that I cherish so much.

I am sure the first answer will be "please post a track of the problem". I can confirm it affects helos as well, last time in MP, we hit a CH-47 parked on the ground (it was an active AI that landed, not a static) with multiple hellfire/canon/rockets. The hits were registering but it never was destroyed.

Could be at least a year if F/A-18 and F-16 are anything to go by. Probably depends how "fleshed-out" the module is upon release, many campaign creators don't like to invest time into campaigns when the module is changing every 2 months. Coop and SP campaigns don't mix in the current state of DCS because you "have to" have a "Player" slot. Coop right now means "Client" slots and a server to host the mission. I also hope this changes in the future!

From his podcast website, which is referenced on his YT channel: It is not forbidden to fly 2 different types of machines especially if you have a long career. We should just be grateful that such experienced guys are available to make sure we get an accurate simulator of the AH-64 in the end.

What about waiting for the official series of videos pre-release that Aerges has promised and is already working on? Then, if your questions are not answered, you can ask again. Or wait for a review. I understand being careful with your finances, obviously, but in that case wait for other people to try it and review it? You can always use those € or $ or whatever for something else, if it turns out you are not convinced by the F1 upon release. I am always curious about people sending a list of questions when devs already said "we will provide videos and infos prior to release"...

I finished the campaign finally, and can only join the chorus here: it sets a high bar for all other story driven campaigns in the game. Well done @Reflected, and thank you. I know it takes hundreds of hours to make a campaign so polished, and we pay a relatively small price compared to the amount of work. You made me fall in love with the Huey all over again. I was reading "This is Minuteman 2-3... Go!" in parallel and felt you really captured what I was reading, in the game. Well done!

They are indeed built for different missions. I still fly the Huey even if I love the Mi-24, they just don't have the same role. Just looking at the Apache videos from Wags you can see it is a stand-off, system-heavy helicopter. I don't see why a light recon helo would have no purpose in this regard, and tree-top flying using terrain masking is just a lot of fun in VR. I hope the PC team is doing well and sees this project through ; I look forward to the OH-58 one day in DCS!

That's interesting I guess, although I am curious how fun it can be to play a hardcore sim on a tiny screen with tiny thumb controllers. That could just be me, but this size of device seems more suited to more arcade games, that you can pick-up and play for shorter sessions.

I understand it can be frustrating for a CM to answer the same question over and over. But on the other hand, if many people ask about wands, maybe that is a great indicator that the demand for them is very high? To be fair, we hear about the SC development every once in a while in the newsletter, but never a word was written about night wands in newsletters and the progress of this feature (I stand to be corrected, but I read all of them each week). It feels like a great disconnect between your project managers' priorities and the customers' when all we read about are scarcely-requested features like briefing rooms (only useful for MP squadrons), but the most requested features like night wands get a vague "when we get around to it" reply.

Hi and thank you for the transparent communication. As a guy eagerly awaiting the A6 (flying off the boat, staying low to drop bombs and hunt SAMs, what's not to love?), may I ask for the reason why this module has been delayed apparently? I use the word delayed because it was announced early last year, first as AI then as flyable module.The EF was added after your partnership with TG. And F4 was announced in January 2022. But somehow, F4 is closer to release than the others? I am mostly curious, I have no issues to wait, I know it takes a lot of work. The A6 is a complex machine with side-by-side multirole with a specific AI to play the role of BN, when the F4 has a lot of similarities with the F14 that could make it a bit easier for your team to develop I guess (RIO in the back -> Jester is already there). I am also not oblivious to the fact the F4 is the safer bet financially for you. But if you have any insights into the reason why the A6 will be the slowest of all these 3 programs to come out, I would really welcome it.

The campaign doesn't make it better or worse than the map itself ; if you can do a solo flight over Guam in good conditions you will be able to do enjoy the campaign from a performance standpoint. For me the buildings / cities are killing my fps in VR (down to only 30fps over the large city), but most of the action in the campaign is happening further south, near forested areas and villages, and I had no issues with FPS drops when it counted (needing to land in a hurry, providing close air support, etc.).

I was not really thinking in those terms ; for me a bundle has to make some kind of sense, tell a story. South Atlantic is probably the first modern map that is not about the USA, so you are right, it doesn't have the same pull with some of the DCS audience. I am neither british nor argentinian, but I love new maps for the opportunities they offer in multiplayer in big, dynamic maps with base captures (think 4YA servers) or dynamic campaigns like Liberation. So a new map with plenty of ocean for carrier ops, mountains and lots of lakes that can be fun to fly in anything we currently have, that is interesting to me. It is fine if you want to wait, I am sure there will come a point where some content (module, DLC campaign, dynamic campaign by ED...) will motivate you to buy the map. It is also probably going to be on sales after 6-9 months if full price is not for you... But a bundle just for the sake of it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.