Dangerzone

I use ESET. As much for the firewall as for anything else. (I like to keep an eye on what software (and the OS) is doing, and ESET allows me to do this well. Unfortunately ESET is one of the antivirus programs that have flagged false positives with DCS. In saying that, I don't think it matters what antivirus you get - if you get one that has advanced threat detection, there's a risk that you can get false positives. If you get one that only has the basics, well... you can turn off various advanced threat protection features in the advanced as well. If your PC is only for DCS use, and the network you have it on is well protected - you'll probably be fine as Dragon1-1 has mentioned with windows defender. Regardless of what security you have, nothing works as well as having good backups on the stuff you don't want to, and/or can't afford to lose.

So... do we start seeing some Video's from Wags soon?

I dream big. As a simmer (and pilot) - I really appreciate the realistic full fidelity flight models of the aircraft in DCS (over something like WT). As someone who enjoys 'game play' too - I have enjoyed some servers where there is an ongoing 24x7 campaign where CTLD has as much of an affect on progress as what blowing stuff up does. Honestly - this is where DCS has more potential than anything else I've ever come close to. Sim along with game play 'in one'. The potential the CH-47 and C-130 have to bring to DCS is huge. My 'wish list' above are the things that I simply have wished for in the past while coding scripts, creating missions or simply playing DCS. I know I'm dreaming, but I kinda hope that some on the 'inside' at ED have had similar thoughts and have considered some of these points as viable and worthy development opportunities too. I guess you could say I dream big, or I dream 'onwards and upwards'.

indeed. What would be epic is if it included the following functions: Ability to load up weapons for transfer of items that affects warehousing. Ability to drive 'player drivable' vehicles in and out. Ability to load nearby non-player drivable cars in and out using menu. (With animation) Ability to load and unload troops, both by ramp on ground, as well as repelling by air (with animations) The ability to use as a mobile FARP. (Refuel & rearm) - with mission editor options as to whether it deploys as a full farp with unlimited weapon and fuel quantities, or only the warehouse quantity that it first flew with and/or what other logistic units carry there to add. The ability to fly it to a destination, unload a player drivable vehicle, and then switch to and drive that vehicle around using CA, and then later return as pilot to the Chinook at a later time. The ability to fly it to a destination, and then spawn into another aircraft separately with the Chinook remaining at it's current location as a milk cow. (And ability to spawn back into it at a later date and re-take control of Chinook) The ability to act as a dynamic spawn point (FARP) for other players to spawn aircraft in at the location that it sets up as a FARP. (Dynamic / portable spawn location). Some of those I see as likely, others I see as maybe, and others I think I'm fantasizing about, but would still be epic to have.

I don't think that's entirely correct. We have transported AIM-120C's and other munitions before from one airport to another that affects the warehouse logistics. (By arming an aircraft with them, and then 'unloading' them the other end by disarming said aircraft), so the provision for the logistics already exists for using aircraft for transport. It's a matter of whether ED has the foresight of allowing the loading of these same munitions into the CH-47 (as cargo obviously because the CH-47 can't use said munitions) . As a coder I wouldn't imagine this would be too difficult to include during development of the CH-47 - but as a coder I also understand that assumptions from the outside of relative ease don't always reflect the truth when people can't actually see the code in question too. With 2 new major CTLD players on the horizon (CH-47 and C-130), I'm really hoping that ED have put some forward thinking into expanding DCS. Having a vehicle in the Chinook already hints that ED may have already been focusing on this. How far it goes we really won't know until they announce more information, or until after launch, but they seem to be holding their cards close to their chest (for now).

DCS currently has the ability to clear bindings on a per-aircraft per-controller option which is quite helpful and appreciated. However there are two persistent issues with control bindings that could be optimized. The first is when DCS defaults bindings (especially in the axis area). It would be nice when a new controller is added that these aren't automatically bound by default - or to have a option to clear bindings for an individual peripheral across the board (not just on a per-aircraft basis). Secondly, it would be great to do an import and export of all control bindings into a single file. For instance, at present I may have 15 different aircraft, with 5 peripherals. This means I currently need to save 75 different individual files, and then go to the right section to load those 75 files back in when re-importing. Being able to do a global save and import would be extremely helpful. The function would need to cater for the fact that different GUID's may exist between the computer that the file is saved and imported, so if the name/description and GUID could be included in the save file, and then when the file is loaded a dialog that says "Please select the device you want for "VKB Modern Combat Grip {000-111-222....}" when it's not found on the import, that would be extremely helpfull. Thanks for considering.

FAT cow will indeed be epic - however just keep in mind that This thing is Early Access, so may be limited in what it has available, and Eeven after modules have been promoted out of early release, they still may not have all their features (aka - the FA18 that's now out of EA and doesn't have it's DTC yet). ED seem to be holding the cards close to their chest as to what the CH-47 will be capable of during release. I really hope I'm wrong and this can be used to create dynamic FARPS on release.

You don't have to own the same modules as each other to play online and see each other, however you can only use the modules that you have purchased. ie: If you put the supercarrier on, and you own it but your friend doesn't - he will be able to see the supercarrier, but will not be able to trap/land on it. (The arresting wires just won't work if he tries). However he can definitely see you, and fly with you. The only time you need to own the same modules in order to fly multiplayer is that you need to own the same maps/terrains. In regards to the supercarrier, I thought ED was working towards everyone being able to act, but those without the supercarrier module would only see a normal carrier, without the crew, and could interact, but wouldn't get the supercarrier's functions - just the old Stennis's functions - but I don't think we are there yet.

I don't know if this is of any help - but I've noticed if I run dcs "as administrator" - XR Necksafer works OK for me - but if I don't, it runs upsidedown and inverted. (in MT mode).

Would other controllers (such as the HP reverb's controllers) work, and be interchangeable, or do you need the controllers to match the headset?

I don't think there's much ED can do about this. I've run into similar problems with my own apps that are flagged falsely. We as a community have more control over this by us submitting these files to ED as flagged falsely.

OK - tried running "not as administrator" this weekend and didn't get far. VR image is flipped upside down. (Mirror on monitor appears to be the right way up). From what I can tell, this may be related to VR Necksafer, so this maybe the reason I ended up finding I needed to run as admin mode in order for things to work properly.

Are you running DCS using 'run as administrator' mode? I have a problem where I notice if I run as administrator, it works fine for me, but if I don't run as administrator I have this weird upside down issue.

Don't have an answer for you regarding the reasons, but if you want a quick check try the following: Navigate to your saved games folder. In there find the DCS or DCS.OPENBETA folder. Rename this to DCS.OLD. Then navigate to your DCS install's BIN directory and type in "dcs_update repair", and go through the repair process. Then boot up DCS. All your settings will be lost (don't worry - you have them saved in DCS.OLD). This is only a test to see IF this fixes the issue or not. If DCS runs fine, then you can close out, navigate to your saved games folder. You will have a new DCS or DCS.OPEN BETA folder. Delete it and then rename your DCS.OLD back to DCS or DCS.OPENBETA (whatever it was before). Re-run DCS. If it crashes again - you know the problem is with your settings or a mod. Fear not: If that happens, close DCS again, and rename DCS to DCS.OLD again. Then copy across only the things you really need (such as your config\input directory so you don't need to rebind all your things). Restart DCS and make sure it doesn't crash. Then one by one (if you want) re-install your mods until you find the culprit, or.. it otherwise just works fine without crashing. FWIW - I would recommend using OVGME or another mod manager to manage mods, as it's far easier just to uninstall the mods using this to do a repair, and then place them back after the repair. TL;DR - With DCS closed, rename the DCS folder in your saved games directory to DCS.OLD and try running DCS. If it fixes the problem, you know it's a setting you had. You can recover your settings by renaming DCS.OLD back to DCS again if you want, or managing individually (per above).

Yes - it could be flown with an X-Box controller (and some have) - however YMMV is a key factor in this. What they are satisfied with, or the time, skill, etc that they put into it may differ from you. It's a bit like air to air refueling. Some now say it's "easy" and enjoy it, while others say they can do it but it's still hard work, and they don't enjoy it, while others never master it no matter how much time they put into it. Personal ability, mindsets, and preferences is a key factor. The best solution IMO would be to take out the 2 week trial, and give it a go for yourself. That will take all the guesswork out. ED have very generously and wisely granted us the ability to try modules for 2 weeks to see whether we're happy with it - I'd suggest you take advantage of that opportunity. It'll give you the best idea compared to us randoms saying 'yes' or 'no'.

Just to let you know, this isn't the case. Mine is in my c:\users\<myname>\saved games folder, even when running in Admin mode. Thank you for the information regarding VoiceAttack / VAICOM. I tend to try avoiding installing games and game related installs in program files anyway, so it sounds like I'm already doing best practice. I haven't had the chance to test with 'run as administrator' turned off, but hopefully will get a chance this weekend. Security was my #1 consideration TBH - as not only DCS is running in admin, but I need discord (for PTT) to be admin when DCS is focused, and that's not ideal at all. The trend here certainly seems to be "Run as administrator" is not required - so that's definitely promising. Thanks for taking the time to reply.

Locked files in the saved games directory. I guess that happens if DCS is run 'in Admin' mode, but things liek voiceattack/vaicom aren't. For me - I had Skatezilla's launcher running 'as administrator' - so everything else followed suit. It sounds like it's no longer needed (or desired) anymore, so I might look at removing the 'run as administrator' from Skatezilla's launcher and see how things go - considering no one has replied here with a definitive answer as to why it is needed now.

Whoa! Shut the front door! Is this fair dinkum? I didn't realise that. This does indeed add a spanner into my logic. And to answer your question - I've never had a VR with eye tracking / DFR. I still wonder how much of an upgrade going from Reverb->Crystal Light will be, compared to Reverb-> Crystal (with DFR) and whether the upgrade is worth the $699, or whether I put that 'towards' a full Crystal. It's harder because, as you mentioned the Crystal has the battery, and the extra weight. It's kinda like they're missing the 'sweet spot' of the market. Given that they've also announced the upcoming Crystal Super later this year, it's unlikely that they're going to have another option, so unless a competitor comes out and fills that sweet spot, I have decisions to consider. Thanks again for enlightening me on the Reverb's pixel count.

Do you run DCS as administrator, or not? Just wondering what the advantages/disadvantages are, and what's the better/correct option, and why? I switched to "As Administrator" some time ago. I honestly forget why now. I do run Voice Attack, VAICOM, Tacview, SRS, and ScratchPad in WMR VR with OpenXR - and I think it was originally to solve an issue with one of those, but I honestly can't remember and don't know if it's a requirement anymore.

Some good thoughts there Peedee. There's no doubt that the CL is a great headset for it's price point, and as a direct replacement for the HP - however I think there's more factors to consider. To answer your question, I run my hardware at 1:1 resolution. Here's my understanding of the situation - please anyone point out if I'm wrong with this, as I'm not convinced my own logic is sound at this point in time and appreciate correction. HP Reverb is 2160x2160 per eye. That's 9,331,200 pixels for both eyes and at 90fps makes 839,808,000 pixels rendered per second. The Crystal Light is 2880x2880 per eye. That's 16,588,800 pixels for both eyes. At 72fps that makes 1,194,393,600 pixels rendered per second - an extra 40% of rendering compared to the HP Reverb - and that at the reduced refresh rate/fps (of 72 vs 90) 40% extra is a lot, which is why I've always been of the impression that having headsets of this resolution makes DFR mandatory, not optional. Not having DFR at those resolutions seems like too much compromise: Having to reduce frames / refresh rate Having to reduce graphic settings Having to use fixed foveated rendering, and only having full clarity in the center. Having to reduce resolution I agree with your statement that lowering the resolution will still give a better picture than the G2. but I'm thinking of not just the G2 comparison. I think 2 questions should be considered together: How much of a better picture would I be getting compared to the G2 with the same GPU workload, and How much worse of a picture would I be getting compared to having the same GPU workload load, but with DFR. For instance, the CL might be 25% better than the G2 which sounds nice - until one considers that having DFR might be 200% better than the G2. The other consideration at play is what's more economical long term. How will sticking with a 4090 and getting the Pimax Crystal with DFR compare both image wise, and cost wise to going with the Crystal Light, and upgrading to the 5090 or whatever hardware is needed to run an equivalent experience. (Or will it even). From my perspective, I bought a 4090 to solve all my performance problems (ignorant me ), and one lesson I've learned is that we're not going to fix issues just by 'throwing more grunt' at it. I need to start thinking smarter as well - which is where I think DFR is a significant contributor. But I guess none of that will be known really until after the headset is in the wild and we have a number of reviews. The plus side of course is the price. The light is a very affordable headset and will no doubt reach a lot of the general market, but then I question "will it really?". It will be interesting to see how having a more affordable headset works when a premium GPU is still required to run it. I just personally wish they had a model that was 50% or so more expensive with DFR - that would have been an instant-buy for me, but as it is now - it's going to be a wait and see I think. The only other thing that would make me buy this now instead of waiting is if Pimax actually announced that a DFR upgrade would be coming to it in the future. As for fixed foveated rendering - I'm guessing that's what we have now anyway - with OpenXR tools, so I don't get how 2.0 can fix things better - since it's still a fixed render and there's cost when not looking straight ahead. I'll be very interested to see what reviews make of this - whether there is something better to it, or it's just marketing hype.

It doesn't bother those others because (and correct me if I'm wrong) - the resolution is less all-round to start with. My concern would be that native resolution with no foveated rendering is going to be a GPU hog, so yeah - I may have to pay premium price for a premium headset. Apart from that - I love the idea of a much improved Reverb G2 - plus with Windows giving the middle finger to all it's WMR users, the timing of it's release is excellent. This is where I struggle to buy the Crystal TBH. The fact that it's not designed for PCVR only - and has the battery, and other things that I simply don't want. Paying premium price for a VR headset but then not getting something dedicated to PCVR I struggled with. It might be best for me to wait for the Crystal Super instead. That DFR is probably going to save more $$$'s on having to get a GPU to render for everything - and since I already have a 4090 - it may save me having to upgrade to the 5090 when it's released which could be a cash saver. Thanks for the info on what local dimming is too! Exactly - and even then, you probably will need to reduce it anyway - given the extra pixels in that headset over the Reverb. I use the Reverb with the 4090 - and that's one of the key reasons I don't want a headset with extra resolution without DFR. With DLSS, I've finally got to a place where I can tweak the settings to a level to maintain 90fps. I don't want to spend lots of money and 'go backwards' struggling with FPS's again. TL;DR: Don't get me wrong - this is very good news for a budget VR headset or HP Reverb Replacement. Just personally - I would have been very keen to pay extra to have DFR due to the overhead the resolution will put even on my 4090.

Given no one's officially replied, my guess is that maybe all it is, is that the main release last week, and the first hotfix before this one shared the same network protocol version - which allowed cross-version play on multiplayer servers which may have caused issues, so they've incremented the version number on this one. (Complete guess, but I doubt in a hotfix it's significant improvements, nor will you need firewall rules changed).

Gutted that there's no eyetracking in it. That's a dealbreaker for me! What is 'local dimming'?

I get your disappointment. The most detailed map yet made soon to be released, and no carrier ops. (I too am a carrier lover). I guess the options that are available to us are either: Use other maps for carrier ops, and just enjoy Afghanistan for something different. Be unrealistic and use the lake for carrier ops if we still want carrier operations. Wait until DCS "World" is released as a full globe and then do carrier based ops from Persia. Put our focus on Kola, Australia, or other maps being released that cater for carrier ops. In the end, DCS's limitations combined with the geographic attributes of Afghanistan doesn't make it an option for this map at this time, and I don't think that's going to change anytime soon™, so we either accept this and work with what we have - or get upset about things we can't change. The serenity prayer comes to mind with this one - especially the serenity to accept the things we can't change and the wisdom to know when that's the case.

ED haven't released the DCE because it's not ready yet. ED's financial state doesn't make a function or module more releasable, and I'm sure they're currently working at it. From my perspective, the benefit of the DCE being introduced isn't just the income they get from current customers who may upgrade to it - it's the potential attraction to a lot of other yet-to-be customers that may be attracted to DCS once it's released. But again, you can't release a product until it's actually ready for release so financial benefit or not - it will be released when they have it at a releasable stage. There is something very attractive about 'advancing' through a dynamic scenario than just playing individual skirmish missions. IDK - but I suspect they may be both finding it far more difficult to develop than they first anticipated, and also the possible rapid enhancement of certain technology such as AI and the potential it could bring for dynamic campaigns may also be pushing some things back as they may be considering implementing this ever-changing technology as well. Given that another flight sim that's currently 'back in development' that already has a DCE that people admire from years ago is being worked on again - ED have competition, so I figure they're not just working on 'another DCE' to give similar features, but they're probably exploring a far more advanced DCE to stand out. Another factor I suspect they could also be hitting are the same issues that us large mission designers / server admins face as well, which is performance issues with lots of units. If this is an issue for their DCE, then this would need to be addressed first before their DCE comes out. If these guesses are true, DCS may need Vulkan to be out, and multi-threading to be complete for AI, physics and server coding, before DCE can be finalized. As much as I hate to say it - I'm not expecting the DCE for another 4-5 years, and am planning my expectations accordingly. I do hope I'm wrong though, but in some ways when I consider what may need to be done first, I also do hope I'm right (and it's not later than 5 years).