Posts by qwerty42

    Deleting posts, but more specifically, editing the wording of them without any indication that it had been done, is why I left a couple years ago. I only drop in now to report bugs. I don't think they realize just how annoying that actually is to users, *especially* ones that have donated a lot of their own time to make contributions to this sim like larrylynx.


    Add to that, the huge amount of enthusiasm people have had to volunteer countless hours of their time and efforts and try to make tools and aircraft to grow the sim, and the near lack of support from IPACS to do so (I know larrylynx in particular encountered this for a good long while with his heli and nearly stopped development on it altogether). It's just a shame. We've had people like nickhod who are professional coders, trying to build all sorts of cool tools for people to expand and customize the sim, and ultimately giving up and leaving because of roadblocks they hit that they got no dev support with. I'm not even referring to major feature requests; I'm talking very basic functionality tweaks of SDK tools that would have enabled his stuff to work better.


    When I first figured out how to use the geoconvert tool to refine terrain meshes, my post on how to do so was first deleted until I complained. I had to convince the forum admins to allow it, and agree to put a disclaimer about how it might break regions in the sim before they put it back up. It ended up being very popular with a lot of people using it, and building further on it to refine their own sceneries. It added a lot of value to the sim for many users, and like most of the user developments, we essentially had to reverse-engineer things to make it happen and work around unknown limitations and bugs in the SDK tools.


    I do respect people like Jet-Pack a lot. He's a good guy who does try to be helpful. It's just the closed-wall culture of this sim itself which has caused a lot of great people with huge enthusiasm to eventually have their excitement damped and move on to other things. Also, it's clear that dev focus is largely going into the mobile version and niche customers. I don't mind that -- I just wish things would be more straightforward about realistic expectations for future features and additions. I think it was 2017 when I first bought AeroFly FS2, and I can say firsthand that while they've added a few nice new aircraft and great VR support, many of the things that have been implied as "planned" aren't here yet. This is a sim best taken as what it is, right now, and consider any future additions as bonus gravy, because the future roadmap is uncertain to users and the dev team is too small to do things at a pace competing with other packages. I don't mean that negatively -- it's just a realistic statement of observation based on history.

    This is the same bug I've mentioned several times in this forum and tagged the devs. To repeat it again:

    • The Vulkan renderer is broken over Oculus Link (and AirLink) when running the native Oculus build. It causes massive head-tracking lag, making things extremely choppy and dragging the world around with your head movements.
    • If you change to OpenGL, it works fine.
    • If you force it to run through steamVR instead of the native Oculus runtime, it also works fine with both renderers.

    Just tested this again a few minutes ago to be sure, and yep -- still the same behavior, even with the latest AeroFly beta. Graphics driver version makes no difference.

    This is the same bug I've mentioned several times in this forum and tagged the devs. To repeat it again:

    • The Vulkan renderer is broken over Oculus Link (and AirLink) when running the native Oculus build. It causes massive head-tracking lag, making things extremely choppy and dragging the world around with your head movements.
    • If you change to OpenGL, it works fine.
    • If you force it to run through steamVR instead of the native Oculus runtime, it also works fine with both renderers.

    admin  Jet-Pack (IPACS) Hi, just want to bring to your attention that there is still a bug with Vulkan when using Oculus Quest devices with their pc-link cable. It's what the user in this thread was having an issue with, and it has been commented on in several other posts here with people not knowing what the real issue is.


    The effect is this: if you are running with Vulkan enabled, launched into the native Oculus VR build (*not* steamVR), then the rendered scene is VERY laggy with head movements. Any normal-speed head movements cause an effect where the world rendering is extremely delayed, and as a result the outside view gets dragged along with your head motion. Instead of the cockpit and scenery remaining fixed while you move your head, they move with your head at a variable rate.


    I tried to record this on the 2D mirror, but it only shows up in the headset. The mirrored desktop view looks completely normal.


    If you change back to openGL rendering, the issue goes away completely, and the app is its normal extremely-fluid performance at 90fps.


    I was one of the users who used to have the problem of the Vulkan Oculus build going straight to a black screen, until your update a few months ago fixed that issue. However I'm wondering if this is still somehow related.


    My system is a 1080Ti GPU, i7 8700k CPU, and MSI Z370 Gaming Pro Carbon AC motherboard. I wondered if this was an Nvidia driver bug with my older 1080Ti card, but the user above has an RTX3070, so it's affecting newer cards as well.

    This solved the problem! Thank you very much - do we have an idea of when Vulkan will work with Q2 with Link?


    Many thanks!

    Glad that fixed it! I'm not sure if this bug is even on IPACS' radar. It only seems to affect Oculus Quest headsets running via Link. I've mentioned it in a couple of threads here now, but ultimately they're going to need to test it with an Oculus Quest headset too in order to replicate it and fix it.


    There's another thread about the same problem here: RE: Vulkan not working with Nvidia drivers 461.40

    Do you have Vulkan enabled in the sim, or are you using OpenGL? If you're using Vulkan, try changing it to OpenGL and restart the sim. Let us know if it improves things. There is a bug with Quest2 + Link when running Vulkan in AeroFly which makes head movements very ...weird.

    Sorry! I just checked this and it turns out it works totally fine. When AeroFly is running in the SteamVR runtime, it maps the back button to a click of the left thumbstick inward, rather than the Oculus menu button on that controller. So, there's no conflict--you can access the AeroFly menus with the stick-click; you can access the steamVR menu with a quick click of the menu button; and you can access the Virtual Desktop menus with a long-press of the menu button.

    1) With wireless Virtual Desktop ( and not near the PC ) how do you assign a Quest2 controller button to the key "ESC" so you can get to the setting pages?

    2) Is there any future ability to get ASW / Motion Reprojection for wireless VD

    3) If you use the Link Cable, can you get some ASW?

    Hi there,

    (1) If you mean the button that lets you get back to the AeroFly menu screens... yeah, that's a little weird with wireless and VD, for a few reasons. First, since VD has to run AeroFly in SteamVR, the left menu button on the controllers becomes SteamVR's menu button. Second, VD also uses that same button to access the VD menu and environment, via a long-press. Third, AeroFly uses that SAME button to access its menus, also via a long-press. I think you can see the issue here, lol. I use a HOTAS almost always so I haven't bothered to see if it can be fixed, but if AeroFly lets you remap that button to one of the others on the left controller it'd work just fine.


    (2) I hope so, but I don't know. The VD dev is a really smart guy, so hopefully he'll figure out how to make it happen someday, but as it stands his streamer/capture system doesn't have any way to access the lower level ASW and motion smoothing funcionality. Apparently they operate on some layer that is related to rendering the image in the hardware that his code can't grab, yet. If he can get it working, I'm not sure I'd ever bother plugging the link cable in again, because other than that drawback it's just as good or better than Link, IMO. Even the motion-to-photon latency is lower with VD than the wired Link cable, which is hard to believe but it's true.


    (3) Yep, if you use the Link cable, you get all the same functionality as a hard-wired Rift or Rift S. There's a drawback, though -- the compression to run Link eats up a significant amount of GPU overhead, compared to a Rift or Rift S. So to get visuals as good or better than the old headsets, it takes a fair bit more processing power. With everything running at maximums though, it does look quite good, and is a definite improvement in most ways vs. my CV1 Rift.

    Yes, it works very well, but just a few things for others to know:


    (1) Only the SteamVR build will run through Virtual Desktop wirelessly. The native Oculus build doesn't appear in the headset, even if you force it to launch. Not a big deal, still works just fine, just something to be aware of.


    (2) Wireless VR through Virtual Desktop does not support Oculus ASW or SteamVR's motion smoothing, so you will want to make sure you've got AeroFly's graphics settings configured so that you can hold a stable 90fps (or whichever framerate you've selected in Virtual desktop's options -- you can choose 72 or 80Hz too. Just make sure your system can comfortably hold the chosen framerate or things will get choppy.)


    Other than those two minor things, it works very well. Visuals through Virtual Desktop over wireless are great--very crisp. Also I'm getting ~30-35ms latency on my setup which is on-par with a hardwired Rift S. Compared to the Oculus Link cabled solution for Quest1/2, somehow Virtual Desktop manages better visual quality for a given amount of processing overhead. Link works fine too, but it uses more system resources to get an image on-par with what Virtual Desktop delivers. I know that sounds crazy but it's true, at least for now.

    Another thought: I don't know if this is true of the most recent geoconvert version, but in the past, if you're converting large areas, having a computer with an SSD vs. a HDD can make a huge difference too. When I was converting a large area in the past, geoconvert used up all my system RAM and started writing to disk for everything else it needed. My PC was hung for 12 hours, making almost no progress. I re-started the process on a laptop with a slower processor, same amount of RAM, but with a very fast SSD, and the whole thing was done in a few hours.

    "Also, here are the detailed values of that resolution limit, for each level and varying with latitude, in meters per pixel: resolution vs level vs latitude link"


    Thank you @querty42 . I was always a bit curious about people giving the meter per pixel value without the latitude in mind. The consequence is also, in a 2024x2024 tile the lat resolution is different to the lon resolution. :)

    Yep, that's correct! In those plots and the table at that link, the numbers I've shown are the most detailed resolutions for the entire tile, meaning the lowest value in units of meters/pixel for each. This takes into account the different lat and lon resolutions in a given tile. I presented it that way because it lets you know what imagery resolution you need in order to fully take advantage of a certain AeroFly level.

    So making meshs for levels higher than level 11 is kind of redundant.

    Please anyone correct me if Im wrong in this assumption

    It's only useful to convert beyond level 11 if your starting mesh data is higher in resolution than an AeroFly level 11 tile.


    In AeroFly & geoconvert, the 'levels' are really resolution levels. As you get closer to the ground, you need a higher resolution (level) to keep things looking good. As you get closer to the terrain, you'll see level 9 data, then level 10 data, then level 11 data and so on. If you're right on the ground or very close to it, you'll see level 15 data, assuming you actually have level 15 tiles converted.


    Each 'level' in AeroFly has a certain resolution associated with it (this resolution actually varies a bit with latitude because of how the tiles are mapped to the spherical Earth). Your downloaded geotiff source data also has a certain resolution. If your source data isn't at least as high in resolution as the AeroFly level you're converting to, then it is indeed a waste of time because it won't gain you anything by converting it. It's like zooming in further on a photo when you're already seeing the individual pixels in it. It will still convert just fine, it's just that each successive level beyond the resolution maximum of your source geotiff won't have any more detail than the one before it. Hope that makes sense.


    Also, here are the detailed values of that resolution limit, for each level and varying with latitude, in meters per pixel: resolution vs level vs latitude link

    Ultimately, the only person who can decide this for you is you. The rest is just other people's opinions. If you already bought it, reinstall it and try it. In the amount of time you'll wait for other people's responses and reading through their subjective commentary, you could just as well try it out for yourself.


    There is 1 new IPACS helicopter. The rest is largely unchanged from 1 year ago, other than some new scenery available from 3rd parties as well as some 3rd party free and payware aircraft too. In performance it will absolutely crush X-Plane. In visuals, it will be better in some ways and worse in others. Same goes for flight models, flight physics, and aircraft selection.


    All that said, if you ever found X-Plane in VR to be 'smoother,' I can't think of any possible explanation for that except some kind of issue with your installation or hardware. I own both, have spent hundreds of hours in both, and X-Plane (while great in many ways) cannot touch the smoothness and performance of FS2, period.

    Is that gap between your scenery and the default being caused by a mask that was created when you converted your scenery? If so, you might not be seeing the default scenery at its max resolution, making it look worse than it really is.

    Have you ever sat in a real plane of that size? You're basically a sardine in a can and it's indeed very cramped by most people's standards. In a Cessna 150 or 172 you're nearly shoulder to shoulder with the other person in the cockpit and touching the door on the other side.


    That said, having the IPD of your vr device adjusted correctly can affect the appearance of scale. To me AFS2 feels very accurate in terms of scale.

    Jet-Pack (IPACS) I just wanted to say thanks for your consistently helpful and receptive tone on this forum. Even when comments are critiques or criticisms, such as in this thread, and even when they are sometimes incorrect, I don't think I've ever seen you take on a negative or defensive position in responding to them. It's not easy to do that, so just wanted to highlight it and let you know it doesn't go unnoticed.