Hiob

You can‘t just put player flight models and AI flight models in one bucket. The first is only computed once the latter potentially dozens of times simultaneously. and I would reject the notion that the AI can be simplified to a point mass. Things like AOA (to pick but ONE prominent example are strongly correlated to the loss of energy e.g.

I happen to think, that it isn't for the most part a limitation of available data, but of computing power. If any AI aircrafts flight dynamics would be thoroughly computet in realtime, considering all necessary parameters, it would most likely melt your CPU. Therefore they rely basically on lookup tables with limited data points. I may be completely off here, I'm just speculating. But it makes sense to me. That's not meant to be an excuse or something. I would like the best possible (realistic) flight model and capabilities for AI as much as the next guy.

very true

The main problem with AI aircraft in dogfights is that they don't seem to bleed much energy when pulling tight or at least regain those energies very quickly. i don't think the problem is mainly fixed parameters like climb rate or sustained turn rate. Or in other words, where the player has to constantly balance his energy budget, the AI pilot doesn't seem to care much. But - at least from my part - that is just subjective observation. Didn't do any "scientific" research on the matter.

Probably posted a hundred times already, so here's the 101st: Interesting collection of Aircraft btw.... only one we'll lack is the Jag.

fair enough! @Charly_Owl Almost 1000 pages! Awesome, man! Thanks a lot! MVP!

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.