Hiob

That's actually a brilliant take. Simulating History is up to the mission/server-creator.

Just relax and don't use them. Multiplayer-Servers, that feel dedicated to realism can choose to restrict the use.... I don't see exactly where the problem is, unless feeling miserable and making everybody else suffer along is the intend. Just cheer up!

it grinds my gears, that contributors like you are met with so much opposition (to put it in mildly). sucks. I hope the appreciation outweighs it tenfold!

to each his own of course, but I can't imagine to do without TelemFFB.

Using the Rhino without TelemFFB would be like buying a sports car and getting rid of two wheels...... it's an elementary part of the experience. Granted, there are some exotic trim variants in certain aircraft, but generally (for non-fbw), if the stick moves for the aircraft when you trim, the Rhino will move as well.

Yes it does. If it doesn't for you, you've missed something. This is self-contradictory.

Think of gears in your car. High RPM = 1 gear. And manifold pressure as you accelerator pedal. You want to be in the right gear. You don’t want to start from the line in 5th gear and give full throttle. Neither you don’t want to cruise down the highway in second gear. And always keep the right order of operations. If you want to accelerate, you downshift first and then put the pedal to the metal.

True, but I wouldn’t encourage chasing a perfectly balanced system, for that balance point can shift vastly between scenes and setting. Unless you are consistently below your personal fluid fps threshold, I wouldn’t bother even looking at this stuff. If you are suffering and have the wish to upgrade, chances are you have a) a system that is a few generations old which would likely suggest to upgrade the hole system to current gen or b) you have a rather clear idea of which is holding you back. (Likely the oldest item).

…and what you are bottlenecked by can virtually change by the direction you‘re looking at…..

Well, remote diagnosis is always difficult matter First of all, being bottlenecked isn’t inherently a problem. It is inevitable. If you’re fps haven’t got worse, I would just assume that DCS is better utilising you CPU now. Otherwise, …. I don’t know. There could be a ton of reasons….

unfortunately it doesn’t, no. You can put more resistance to it, but still a minuscule movement results in wild nose reaction. Question is if trim following is enabled natively by directx or is a feature of the effects software (TelemFFB for Rhino devices). I assume it is the latter here.

I’m not quite sure if I get the issue here. When you open the fps counter in DCS and press the little arrow to expand it, you get a graphic representation of your frametimes and above that it says in clear text what is currently holding you back (and even why and what your theoretical fps would be without the bottleneck). Sure in VR you are locked to a fixed frame rate (intentionally), and if you never drop under your desired target fps you certainly don’t need an upgrade, however, most people will experience occasional drops below the desired threshold when facing demanding circumstances. DCS utilizes the CPU much better since the introduction of MT. And they continue to improve it since then. And if you are bottlenecked by your GPU, where is the problem? Also I don’t see a single core maxed out…..

2D. I fly VR very seldom. But of course VR has different needs than 2D. Generally speaking. ED improved the CPU utilization a lot lately. I used to be GPU limited, even on a 4090 for the longest time. Now I often find myself CPU limited. I don't have a "gaming" CPU though. "Just" a 5900X.

Now you're teasing us.... (that kind of cockiness can only mean it is close! )

For me (potent GPU but slightly outdated CPU) it fluctuates wildly between GPU and CPU bound.

Actually the ingame FPS counter explicitly tells you how you are bound and by what. Just checked

Well that is actually pretty easy. Given you use the right tools. First that comes to mind is the integrated telemetry of DCS. Ctrl+Pause gives you the FPS and when you expand, it actually shows you what the limiting factor is (make sure you are not limited by a fps-limit). Another way is to use the Afterburner/Riva Overlay and see if the GPU is fully utilized (97-100%). If limited by CPU, the GPU may only be used by 50-70% or so...... Without an kind of utility or telemetry analysis, it is indeed impossible to tell whether you are limited by CPU or GPU....

On second reading of your Question: You can, to an extend, influence the load on CPU or GPU. In a nutshell, "eye candy" like shadows, draw distance, lighting, textures etc. are straining the GPU, texture resolution (and therefore size) affects the VRAM need. CPU is strained by lots of scripting or a ton of AI units. Also secondary tasks, like putting out telemetry (minor load), running other stuff in the background and so on.

There is no "better". Unless you artificially cap the fps at a fixed refresh rate you will always be limited by one or the other. The question about what the limiting factor in any given situation (scene) is, is only relevant, if you want to decide on an upgrade. E.g. it doesn't makes sense to upgrade you GPU, if you are severly bottlenecked by your CPU most of the time. Be carful though. Some telemetry reporting "CPU limited" can also mean, that there is for example an FPS cap enforced. Which would be governed by the CPU and therefore reported as CPU limited. Be sure to open the gates before reading any telemetry with this in mind.

VR usually locks to a fixed refresh rate. Depending on where you are as a baseline, you won't see an improvement. That doesn't necessarily mean, that there ain't any.

I would describe it as too weightless or lack of inertia. It feels like a kite. Interestingly somebody just said the the same about the P-47 to me on another forum. There is a lot of subjectivity involved in this evaluations. I really feel bad for the devs. Must be sisyphus work to get it right.

That's generally true. Most likely the Corsair isn't any special in this. So I stand by the statement. However, in its current state, I'm really not happy with the controls implemetation. I have seen videos that suggest that adding huge curves etc. vastly improve the "issue", and that maybe true, however (not even talking about FFB here) from my pov it is the very sensitive reaction to the virtual controls that is the biggest part of the problem. Obviously I have no idea about the real thing, but it feels very different from all the other WW2 modules in DCS and that is currently my only reference. Also, even if FFB is still a niche, it shouldn't be disregarded completely. That's the state of the matter for me right now. But I'm not worried. We are just a couple of days in EA and such are the things that usually get a lot of improvement during EA.

Wether you call it a bug or an oversight or something else doesn't matter. It is a thing for Intel systems, doesn't cost anything to rectify and has a proven effect. Not worth arguing about.

Agreed, question is if the current engine allows for this. That was the part I'm not so sure about. It is in its core very old after all. I would love the mirrors to work properly! VR and 2D. Currently I usually turn them off. (Which opens the next can of worms: Some mirror "off" look much better than others...)

Personally, I would prefer a linear response to range of motion of the physical device. No matter what. In the sim space, a lot of players have "realistically" long extensions on their sticks and full deflection of those should correspond with full deflection of the virtual stick (and a linear response in between). That would also benefit FFB users. And of course the second part of this (and where I feel the Corsair is a bit off right now), is the "twitchy" response of the Aircraft to the input of the simulated controls. Or lack of inertia, or both.