VC

Is this still an issue for other people and when did this start happening? I noticed it recently (haven't used the AKGs for a while), and tested in SP, I can see the edge of where the ground renders move closer as my plane flies away past 40nm. But I remember when JF-17 was released I did the default AKG missions and could hit the target fine at very long range. And a squad mate remembers some months ago we did a mission and he hit the target with the AKG while 100+ nm away. Is it a DCS core engine thing that needs fixing or is it something Deka can do a workaround for?

I don't own the A-10C stick but I fly all planes with my TM F/A-18C grip. For the Mirage, I tried to map a realistic HOTAS based on the diagrams (as close as I can get) and I end up not using the Castle switch at all. So probably doesn't matter much but the A-10 stick will have another semi-reduntant HAT which could be annoying. I really like the ergonomics of the F-18 grip though, very versatile. I think the position and shape of the Weapon Select Switch on the Hornet grip leds itself very nicely to being the Mirage Weapon Command switch and Radar Mode select with thumb squeeze (switch right).

OK, it's not a massive issue I didn't want to make it sound like that. The recenter makes sure you're looking through the HUD at the intended position to see all of it, but you know how big your body is and you bring that intuitive awareness with you into VR. If in VR the distance between your viewpoint and your virtual seat is a lot less than what you know is the distance between your real eyes and your real back side, you notice it looking around the consoles, or at least I do. It interacts with the pilot body in the cockpit as well (for planes that have it). In most of them I feel the default viewpoint is too low relative to the body, as if the eyes were at chin or neck level. If you can move the seat, and the body with it, this goes away.

I care about the seat movement actually being modelled because as a tall person in VR, it's immersion breaking to look down and see the seat so close to my face it would need to be inside my belly to be there. If the seat button just moves the view, that doesn't solve the problem. If the view is off that can be moved in other ways anyway.

OK, so I didn't check every plane but I see now F-16 and Mirage work as I want, the button actually moves the seat along with your view point. But for other planes I own, F/A-18, F-14, JF-17, the button just moves your view point. The seat stays fixed relative to the cockpit, and the viewpoint moves relative to the seat. Wish they all worked like F-16/Mirage now!

I think it's really cool that the seat height switch can be clicked in some planes, but it's a real shame that it moves the entire cockpit up and down, so really it's just a shortcut to head/viewpoint vertical position. It would be great if it moved just the actual seat within the cockpit.

Thank you, that makes sense now. I am not using "easy comms", I have the buttons for the two radios bound to my HOTAS, but even so pressing \ will open the radio menu on whichever radio was used last. But you are probably right, even without easy comms the shortcut keybind tries to call on the wrong radio. In any case I recently started using VoiceAttack and downloaded some profiles for the radio menu, so this is not an issue for me anymore. I just push the button for the radio tuned to AWACS frequency and voice command the rest :)

This does not work for me. I followed the instructions and created a folder "Cockpit_J-11A" under "Liveries" in Saved Games, but still there is no J-11 section in the Special options. Note I own Su-27, but not FC3.

Yeah but I don't have to go all the way down, I can set the slider wherever I like, just look for a compromise.

This explains it quite well. Apparently WMR headsets don't include this built-in overhead, which is fine I guess for the Reverb if the resolution is so high it's clear anyway. Might try sub-sampling a little to see just how much clarity is lost without this built-in 1.4x.

Hi, one more question if you don't mind. You have a Reverb Pro with a nominal resolution per eye of 2160 x 2160. You say you try to set supersampling as close to native as you can, and I can see with your SteamVR Resolution slider set to 100% you get 2208 x 2160. Now, my understanding is that VR needs a minimum amount of supersampling to counteract distortion that happens as it projects the image. For example, I have a Vive Pro with a nominal resolution per eye of 1440 x 1600, but with my SteamVR resolution slider at 100% I get 2016 x 2240. So I'm rendering at basically the same resolution as you even though I have a lower res headset. Is it a quirk of the Reverb that it does not need this basic level of supersampling even for "native" resolution?

Was their INS up to the task? With no terrain following radar and/or second crew member?

Very interesting, for me PD/supersampling makes spotting go to hell but MSAA makes it better. However I also decided it isn't worth it for perf, and it seems to smudge some text too.

What's your reasoning for using 2x MSAA? Personal preference for prettyness, reduced shimmer, spotting?

Very interesting, thank you! Even if the tactics are for helicopters, it gives a very good idea of the co-ordination and attack styles required.

My understanding is that Soviet CAS doctrine was pretty much as rigid as their GCI, with strict ground control of the aircraft involved. But I know very little about this subject and I'm curious to know more, especially once more sophisticated/dedicated aircraft turn up like the MiG-27 but also Su-17/22. These aircraft look very specialised, designed to come in low and fast, not loiter, and have forward looking optical sensors, but how does all this capability integrate with ground-directed strikes? Can their sensors do a laser-spot-search to find something a ground controller is lasing for them? What would a typical attack profile and workflow look like?

The Su-27 has FBW since the beginning, but it is FBW specifically designed to create the need to trim. This was for perceived safety reasons and because it was a habit of all pilots, they didn't really see it as workload and thought it would be weird if they didn't have to do it.

Did a bit of testing and I don't get a big performance hit from going High visibility range and 16x anisotropic filtering, which is good and things do look quite a bit better. I also tested low vs high terrain textures and didn't notice a performance hit there either, hard to tell if there's any visual improvement. So is this still a dud setting?

AA is off Anisotropic is at 4x. I'm in VR and mostly went off your settings but turned a couple of things down, like Visib range to medium for better performance. I think I'm going to bump visib range up to high and anisotropic to 8x see if that's still fine for FPS.

Does the comparison of low vs high terrain textures still hold true? So there's no real visual benefit from high? I'm asking because I often struggle to see features such as roads, cities, fields clearly enough to use for visual navigation or basic target finding until I'm right on top of them, and the terrain looks very smudged/blurred even at moderate distance. Would this be mainly impacted by the "visibility distance" setting instead?

It should be fairly simple, I've changed it back now for "ICS menu" so all the "Chief" combos work without me needing to press things. Basically, with the PTT option I have set, neither the \ key nor any of RShift+\, "RCtrl+\ etc open the radio menu on their own. Instead the \ key acts as a primer, that then makes any of the 3 "mic button" presses open the menu in that device. So ICS menu is always two lines: Press \ Press RShift + \ Same for UHF 1 or UHF 2: Press \ Press RAlt + \ OR RCtrl + \ The conditional you have set inside "Comm reset" to open the right radio based on the set variable would probably need the lines that open and clear it brought into each condition, so it clears the right one.

Ha ha, thank you, and thank you also for your answer in the other thread. I was hoping to do something quick and simple but if that's the case I think I better give up on this idea before I start :D Also I have issues editing the DDS files since I use GIMP not Photoshop. Sometimes it works fine but if there are Alpha layers it does weird things that I don't really understand.

Thank you very much for your help, your profile looks awesome and I'm looking forward to using it lots (with some small tweaks). 1. Yup, both on and off. unlikely to use either really but deleted the sound file line from both. 2. & 3. I can see now it basically boils down to "Comm reset" and "ICS Menu", as all the rest just cleverly call those. But I decided to change it up more than re-mapping the button, because I like my button setup and am happy to press the buttons to spawn the comm menu, and just VA from there. So I disabled all lines in "Comm reset" and "ICS menu" except the F11 x2, because the way I want to use it, I'll open the right radio manually, and I just need a small reset catch in case it's in a context menu. I'm assuming everything will just work from there.

What's your technique for changing the background colour of the cockpit? The flat file DDS doesn't look easy to work with. Personally I would like to go the other way, I like the blue but the default is too light and washed out looking compared to many pictures of the real thing.

I want to do a little bit of cockpit modding, not much just change the background colour of the panels (not the instruments) and clean up a little. But the DDS files given are just flat files, no layers. My gut reaction is "surely all those other cockpit colour modders don't spend hours masking around all the instruments and manually painting to preserve the shadows etc.", do they? Please tell me there's a trick that makes this easier. :music_whistling: