voodooman

for some reason i cant cap the oculus rift fps to 45 by any means in DCS. tried to make autoexec.cfg as instructed in graphics lua, no luck. tried editing graphics.lua itself, no luck tried forcing fps via oculus debug tool, no luck anyone with a solution to this, please let me know.

+1 the whole existence of the setting "use these settings for all missions" is questionable the least ( if in the first place i'm right about THAT setting causing this?). If you dont change the settings between making missions, it stays the same anyways. And if you DO change the settings for another mission, why on earth would you want to have a setting that you have to disable first to do so? ESPECIALLY when having that setting ON you F up everybody's custom made views???? Anyway, whatever the cause forcing the mission makers view settings to a mission is, it has zero practical value imo.

So there it is, want airquake? there you have it. or is what people are asking here for; even more airquake-like server which has airstarts, and the ideology of guaranteed air battle in first 5 minutes of flight on the server? i remember these from old IL2, and they were allways packed, but with lots of traffic of people leaving and connecting aswell, so people didn't stay that long in those servers. just went in for a quick fun. I think there is a reason why the servers are what they are now, WWII in dcs is not a new thing, pony vs 190 has been around for long time and all possible server configurations were tested in the beginning if all this. That said, I wouldn't mind having one of those superquickie servers in DCS aswell, but i believe we dont have enough dcs WWII pilots to have that sorta thing now. there were 500-800 people allways on IL2 section of HyperLobby (GOD how much i miss that thing!) that might just go in for a few fights and then hang out in the lobby or maybe participate in coops if there were any good ones (and there WERE). But no one is stopping anyone from putting up a server like that. i'd hop in to see what it's like.

i think the BURNING SKIES server is absolutely awesome right now. someone mentioned it not being VR friendly, i disagree completely. the "dot" in VR couldn't be more noticeable. maybe i dont see them as early as i would with monitor, but i dont mind really, and im sure in the future there will be a solution to this. maybe different labes for VR? The few times i have been on the server in VR has been wonderful. The distance between airfields is GOOD and i dont mind flying a bit more to the target area. And if i notice im alone and see 3 dots coming from enemy side, i turn around and drag them closer to our field and as soon as i see friendlies i turn to them, then engage the enemy when i see that the friendlies are close enough to say im not alone anymore. works really well in my opinion. sometimes of course there are no friendlies to turn to, but hey, everything cant be awesome and perfect ALL the time. All this whining will do is diminish the motivation of the people making the missions and hosting the servers. whine less, fly more, forget the stats and have fun. it's not that serious, really. everybody wants something different, and i tell you, if there would be options to please everyone, then the people would be so scattered that it would be really hard to find someone to play with. that is what has happened to racing sims. all the tracks and mods, (and rules and aids) has done just that. there are propably 100 times more sim racers than there are sim pilots, yet it's harder to find people to race with than it is to find people to fly with online. BECAUSE there is option for everyone in racing. sometimes i think that all you whiners dont realise how good things are for us pilots. do not **** this up, i beg of you.

normandy not visible in mp lobby. only nevada caucasus and persian gulf DCS 2.5.2.17559 EDIT: I was too hasty after the update. normandy is there all right, just wasn't right after the update for obvious reason (server not updated). admins can delete this thread.

i run DCS and rift with windows 7 x64 sp1 (asrock Z77E4 / i5 3570K @ 4.2/ 16 GB DDR3 1600MHz) i have no problems, but oculus home keeps reminding me "oculus rift works best with windows 10. if you cannot upgrade to W10 run oculus home in classic mode in settings" however there is no classic oculus home option in settings. so im not sure what that means. i have tried both beta and normal and they both work ok, and the dashboard of the beta works too btw. only 2 things i have noticed. restarting oculus home via oculus settings doesnt restart the app, it hangs. same with changing to beta or back, it hangs, and never starts up again after updating. this might be a win 7 issue? just a few heads up if you are going to buy the rift: -make sure you have the nessesary cables to connect both the monitor and rift to your main gpu (not the motherboard gpu). the rift use HDMI -Older motherboards like the Z77 dont have compatible usb 3.0 for the rift. u need PCI-E usb 3.0 card with the older motherboards. (i got mine working tough with 1 sensor connected to the case usb 3.0 and 1 sensor and the rift directly to motherboard, but i was a bit of a hassle with usb power settings) -nvidia control panel dont have options for the rift and it's not visible in the multiple monitors section of the control panel. this is ok. rift uses the card directly without the controlpanel. welcome to the vr pilots lounge! :smilewink:

the rift and the monitor have to be connected to the same gpu. had this issue aswell as a new rift owner. sorted it out by buying a displayport->HDMI cable as there is only 1 HDMI port in my gpu. now when you think about it, that's kinda stupid requirement. especially when few VR titles run well with having the monitor in the motherboard gpu, while other titles needed both in same gpu. that said, i think robo recall run better with monitor in MB gpu. why on earth some apps require using the limited graphics power to be divided with 2 displays when 1 could use resources from both gpu's?

Well guys, here are my frst impressions after flyin dcs in VR. After few hick ups, like asrock z77 usb 3.0 not being supported, and having to have both, monitor and rift connected to same gpu (was using motherboard intel hd 4000 at first for monitor, and had to buy a dp->hdmi cable to have them both on my 1070) i finally got it running DCS. and wow! the sense of sitting inside the plane and seeing how big the plane (P-51) actually is, and when flying close to another plane, THAT is something you can not ever have with a monitor. and flying the thing, like when flipping it upsidedown and starting to pull that split S, oh man, incredible!!! Now looking behind you... yeah not as with track ir for sure, my neck is sore for trying to pull full 180 with my head, lol. and now im constantly trying to get support of the canopy frame to rotate my body to check 6 hehe. also i need a stick between my legs now. having it on the right just dont feel right anymore. but yeah, happy days as a new rift owner for sure:smilewink: thanks guys for all your comments that made me make up my mind to get it. secondly im really surprised how well my 6 year old computer (i5 3570K @ 4.2 / 1600MHz DDR3) with later gpu tough (1070) can run the DCS in the rift. i found good settings that please my eye enough and stay 45fps stable and i cannot be more pleased about spending the money. on that topic. do you think there is any point to get a new cpu and ram for mainly playing DCS and rFactor 2 only? i have had my eye on 8600K and 3200MHz DDR4, but im not sure if that benefits me that much that spending roughly 700€ is justifiable. i mean i cant get to 90 fps with the 1070 anyways right? i'd like to hear your toughts on that if you dont mind?

Thanks everybody for the aswers! ordered the ritf today, cant wait to fly in vr! good to know checking six is possible. i had the impression that you were limited to some 140ish (per side) or something view angle. and i dont mind sittin up to move my body to look back, it just means i will get in better shape doin situps while fully immersed in dcs!:D

sooo.. can you check 6 in vr nowdays in dcs? like to able to see directly behind you? also is rift still better than vive in dcs? and if yes, by how much? performance wise, is asw still an clear advantage? thanks in advance for all your replies. V

ReShade and 1 plugin; Sepia is all you need to get the color scheme you like. that 1 plugin doesnt affect framerate or frametime at all. i selected light tan (khaki) colour and set it to slightly lighten the image and givin it a bit of red/orange tint that i tought was missing (too blue, too green by default). these are the values i used: (these are in the [profilename]profile.ini that you'll find in DCS world\bin after creating the profile in the ReShade UI (ingame)) Effects=Sepia.fx Techniques=Tint TechniqueSorting=Tint [sepia.fx] Tint=1.000000,0.77,0.59 Strength=0.160000 the image really came ALIVE after this little tweak ;)

Europa, first off, why are you expecting perfection from this, or any sim? It's not magic. simulation (game) engines have gone far from the early 2000 era, and nowdays you get closer than ever before. But no simulation engine is that perfect, that you could just give real life values to it and expect it to magically produce real like behaviour in all situations. Coding that stuff is complex as hell and when you have finally achieved something that resembles the real thing, say 97% of situations you can congratulate yourself as a coder or developer in that case. You say that you just wanted to bring up this finding of yours to open discussion about it. Lets think about it a little. So you did bring it up. what do you expect to happen next? When a user (you in this case, if we would assume you are right) finds stuff that falls in to that 3% category that they didn't get right, what do you expect to happen really? That all ongoing work must be stopped to put all effort to correct that minor thing? or that the devs will immediately come forward to say that they are sorry that they got that 3% wrong? or even just an acknowledgement from the devs, " thanks for your report, we look into this"? if they said something like that, then everyone would be asking freaquently, "when is this going to get looked at"? they made that mistake few times in the past. not gonna happen anymore. sorry. If it was to just bring it up for discussion, what you expect that discussion to lead up to? that every one here agree and start chanting "we want it fixed! we want it fixed!" Did you allways get everything you wanted as a child? if not, why would you expect to have it here, now?

if a plane makes you feel that "this is not how it should be! :(" you have way too much emotional investment in this hobby. you are dissappointed because YOUR personal favorite doesn't fly like you would like it to fly. if however that module on the opposing side is enjoyably easy for YOU to kill, would it matter if it's not that realistic? would it matter to you if people favoring THAT plane cry about it here? it's the emotional investment that you have developed to certain aircraft, wheter it comes from other sims, movies, books or whatever, that makes you disappointed that your favorite doesnt fly like it "should". this, in my opinion, is clearly noticeable in EVERY FREAKIN realism debate. when drop that emotional detachment, you'll notice that THIS sim is incredible collection of really well detailed aircraft, that will give you hours after hours of fun and excitement.

set prop to 11:20-11:30 2-2.5 notches flaps full right (if i remember the direction right) rudder and see the plane fly 170kph in big sidesplip. do this close to ground and you'll see that it doesn't fall at all. just flies tight circle at <170kph with the tail sliding like in a rally car. edit. i dont involve my self into discussions how it should be. IT IS, and i just fly LIKE IT edit 2 i usually fool around with the plane before landig so it's very light. so take little fuel to try it

that 200mph is too slow for 52" if you climb that slow, i would keep the manifold at 44-45" i climb shallow climb that i start from 300mph 52" when i drop to 260mph i drop to 48" and when i drop to 230 i stop the climb and drop momentarily to 44" to cool and gain speed again at level flight. when i get past 250 i increase to 48" and when about 270-280 back to 52" to get back to 300mph. allways max rpm.

i see what you mean. i dont know exactly how the manifold pressure regulator works in real life, and even less how it's modelled in the game, but setting the rpm lower, the manifold pressure increases form coarser prop pitch. it increases from giving it more throttle ofcourse, but it feels like the engine is more sensitive to damage from pressure changes from the prop pitch side of things, than changes from the throttle. thats why i stopped fiddling with the rpm lever all together.. also one thing to remember, having the rpm lower, the engine reacts slower. this could cause the pilot to overstress the engine by mistake, making faster throttle movements than what is good for the engine. so it's good to remember to allways move the throttle slowly. still, the only reason i lower the rpm from max (in a fight), is when im about to stall, or even stall a bit, to prevent too fast rpm changes and overrevving the engine, mainly to get better control of the plane when in stall speeds. but even then, just a little bit down from max setting. the lever in the cockpit moves very little, like an inch max.

why dont try to take 40 % fuel and keep rpm to max at ALL times? and see if the stoppages go away? i really feel that the engine gets too stressed with lower rpm, and that gets multiplied by weight of the plane. if there's a bug, in my opinion it's too easily "stress-able" engine. not a random failure that comes out of nowhere, caused by something else in the system. i took that point of view, and started to minimize the stress by the means i've allready told you, AND the stoppages dissappeared. go figure..

i really dont know if server lagspikes could cause them engine stoppages, but i know i get them as well, the spikes i mean. i just know that when the plane is heavy, (+40% fuel) i start to get them stoppages too. it feels like the engine cant pull all that weight without blowing up in some time of the flight. could be that's because i'm used to a light plane, and am trying to get that heavier plane to accelerate like a light one, and because of that lose the engine. but i stopped wondering about that a long time ago, and take a light plane and keep the settings i mentioned, as i know, like that i get to have a plane which engine gets me home. but in the multiplayer arena we have now, that 40% is the same as 109's 100% and they run out of fuel about in the same time, so i really dont see why to take more fuel than that in mp.

btw. the reason that 52" 3000rpm is so good in my opinion, is that in level flight temps stay green (rads auto) AND you go 300mph. so 52" for 300mph and 67" for 350mph also allmost no control input or trim is required in that flight condition. in my opinion after thousands of hours in the stang, it is the sweetspot for the plane.

I flew 2 sorties at Burning skies tonight and no problemo. did my routine 52" 3000rpm most of the time, AND a slow and low fight with 109 (pilot nick: Hub) that took forever! i even lowered rpm in some occasion as i was so slow that had to do so to have any control of the plane with full flaps and near stall speed. i realized that occasionally my rpm was 2800 and manifold pressure 65"!!! very small amount of time surely, BUT if there were any over sensitivity to blow the engine, it would have blown in that fight. That was only 2 sorties, and if that bug is not consistent and only appears sometimes, then it might be there but i wasn't able to replicate it.

thanks!

i haven't flown the P-51 after the latest update. i been flying the 109 for the longest of time and i have no engine issues with that. but that said, about the stang engine management. i never keep the rpm lower than max 3000 in the mustang. i have gazillion hours on the stang and i have learned during those hours that if you want to keep your engine running, keep it at full rpm ALLWAYS. i just have a feeling about the engine that lower rpm stresses the engine even with moderate manifold pressures. have to say that i take off with a light plane 200kg of fuel max. heavier plane than that i never go above 61" if even that. even when i lower my manifold to 30 i keep full rpm unless im about to land, then i some times lower the rpm to "feather" the prop a little. when i take off, i move the manifold slowly to 48" and KEEP it at 48" until everything is green, then move the manifold to 52 inches. 52 is good for shallow climb as it is for level flight. when i attack i go full boost to 67. i cut the wire allready on the ground before i start the engine so i can move to 67" slowly without the sudden "jerk" you get if you cut the wire while full throttle. and allways rpm at max. havent blown an engine in ages with this method. Gonna test the stang toninght and report after.

WOW these skins look AMAZING! dont know how you got that aluminum shine like that but that should be default look for naked paint jobs. you just made me install the sabre to my game again. could you please link me up to the skins via pm when youre done with them. gotta visit the server too once i get my controls for the sabre confed again.

sorry that it took awhile to reply. i just flew the 109 for the longest of time and... I dont have that problem. my head moves perfectly in cockpit. doesnt get stuck or anything. possibly due my modified server.lua and snapview.lua? also i make my track ir profile so that pitch up/down is not symmetrical. because: you have to move your head less to look at your toes (your eyes move too!) than looking at the ceiling. so my track ir curve is not symmetrical but more aggressive toward ground/floor. this gives me more range to look up and the head tracking up/down (y axis) position doesnt get f'd up that easily (the dwarf phenomen). also, to match your pilots sitting position to your sitting position is a good idea if you want to try out something, set these in this order -back angle (are you leaning forwards or backwards) not really a setting for this but CameraAngleRestriction {false,90.000000,0.500000} in server.lua does the job. if you are leaning backwards like me, try lowering that 90 and increasing that 0.5 a little, and vise versa if you lean forwards. very small adjustments worked well for my relaxed, back leaning flying position. my settings are {false,88.62,0.502} respectively -view angle (are you looking down or up to your monitor(center) this is vAngle in snapviews.lua my eyes are only slightly above my monitors centerline so only small angle down is good for me. my vAngle is -0.42 -head position (height) in cockpit. this is y_trans in snapview.lua set this so that your sights are well visible in hud. do this AFTER setting vAngle. my y_trans in snapview.lua is 0.006580 it matches good with my vAngle so that the sight are level with my eyes (only moving sideways gets to good sight picture) -head position in in longitudal axis (front/back) this is x_trans in snapview.lua set so that lift vector is just barely visible in front of armour plate when looking straight up mine is set to x_trans = 0.066700 I also use slightly modified head size for the final touch. defaults have much longer neck than mine, might be one factor in your problems? it's the line; EyePoint in server.lua, defaults are 0.05,0.1 and mine are 0.04991,0.042 I have restricted the head movement in the (tight) cockpit a little too, and especially the shoulder size as i dont think the default values are believable in such narrow space. the head movement up/down (shinking/expanding neck) values are not realistic downwards, but it's a way around to leave my track ir profile untouched as it works well with other planes. if you want to try my settings, here they are: server.lua: ViewSettings["Bf-109K-4"] = { Cockpit = { [1] = {-- player slot 1 CameraViewAngleLimits = {32.000000,96.000000}, CockpitLocalPoint = {-1.03, 0.72, 0.0}, CameraAngleRestriction = {false,88.620000,0.502000}, CameraAngleLimits = {180,-90.000000,90.000000}, EyePoint = {0.04991,0.042000 ,0.000000}, ShoulderSize = 0.06, Allow360rotation = false, limits_6DOF = {x = {-0.04, 0.44}, y = {-0.34, 0.12}, z = {-0.16, 0.16}, roll = 90.000000}, snapview.lua: [13] = {--default view viewAngle = 68.57143,--FOV hAngle = 0.000000, vAngle = -0.420000, x_trans = 0.066700, y_trans = 0.006580, z_trans = 0.000000, -- alternative way to center your head in cockpit (cruise in options) to keep correlation to limits_6DOF in server.lua intact (as cruise in options doesnt) rollAngle = 0.000000, final note: these setting i use took me ages to get them right for me. there is very little chance that these will work for you as your track ir settings and sitting position are not the same. but they might give you an idea how to get yours working. if you try these, set the fov restriction to your liking. i have it way off from default because i cant stand image distortion from high fov's and i dont have an axis set to fov so i use buttons set for max zoom in(32 deg), max zoom out(96 deg), normal zoom(68.57143 deg), and jump between these 3 (like in old il2 ;)) i hope you get your heads working well. good luck fiddling with the settings!

could you be more specific what head movement? the g-forces head movement?