[Flight model how is it and how's FFB]

23 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

So the module doesn't support the stick moving when trimming currently.

Disagree with your analogy, personally I don't like faux effects, but that's just me.


Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk
 

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

[Flight model how is it and how's FFB]

55 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

Even with DX only or with telemetry effects?

Not really. The stick in the C-101 doesn't move, while you can "let it go" when you trim. Same for FBW like the F/A-18C. I assume that's what he means.  

Cheers! 

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.

[Flight model how is it and how's FFB]

7 hours ago, BeforeBroadband said:

VP Force Rhino doesn't. 

Yes it does. If it doesn't for you, you've missed something.

7 hours ago, BeforeBroadband said:

Stick forces get relieved, but it stays still.

This is self-contradictory.

[How is speed derived?]

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.

[CPU bound vs. GPU bound]

16 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

Yup, and that is how a balanced system is likely to behave. Looking at blue sky and ocean unloads the GPU, so the CPU is the limiting factor. Down low over complex ground details, the GPU may hit its limits first. Maybe once in a while you'd hit near max load on both CPU and GPU, but it is likely to be transient. 

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).

[CPU bound vs. GPU bound]

26 minutes ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

That’s what many people don’t seem to get: you’re always bottlenecked by something, or you’d have infinite fps

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

[CPU bound vs. GPU bound]

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….

[Flight model how is it and how's FFB]

On 6/21/2025 at 2:18 AM, ldnz said:

but I'd imagine with FFB there would be enough weight in the pedals to completely change that (like it does for the stick)

unfortunately it doesn’t, no. You can put more resistance to it, but still a minuscule movement results in wild nose reaction.

4 hours ago, PatrHasle said:

Thanks for the reply. So your stick moves forward when trimming nose down and backward when trimming nose up? Tested it again on my system yesterday, but my Sidewinder Force Feedback 2 still doesn’t respond to trim at all. Very weird that it seems to work for you. Otherwise I would just have assumed that force feedback (disappointingly!) just has not been properly implemented yet… I know that we are also using different Force Feedback devices - but so far (with any other module), it has always worked out of the box for me. Are you using some third party software to generate the force feedback data?

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.

[CPU bound vs. GPU bound]

12 hours ago, The_Nephilim said:

well I had seen the expanded DCS tool many times but not sure where you say it shows you the limiting factor, where does it say that in the DCS Tool? I will check the GPU Usage but curious about the DCS tool?

 

I also use VR so I guess in a way I am FPS Limited but I am not sure if I am or not.. the FPS seemed locked at 60fps. IF that is the case not sure what more horesepower would do for me?

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.

 

2 hours ago, Bounti30 said:

Hello everyone. Since version 2.9.15, I've been limited by my graphics card. I'm using Quest 2 with Link, and all my drivers are working fine.
My system is an i9 9900k, an RTX 3090, 64GB of RAM, and a 1TB NVMe SSD. My operating system is Windows 11.
My settings in DCS aren't optimal. I'm using OTT with supersampling at 1.3 and openXR toolkit turbo mod.
Why is this high GPU usage ?

My flight, only me with a P51 on Marianas WWII Map

My CPU usage is correct

 

My log

dcs.log 120.34 kB · 1 download

Thank you

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…..

[CPU bound vs. GPU bound]

3 hours ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

In VR or 2D?

Personally I am “CPU bound” 100% of the time in VR, even in a free flight mission on an empty map. This was the case with my old 5900X and still is with my current 9800X3D. GPU usage is 93-94%, and I can indeed push visibility range without affecting framerate.
When I test a mission in 2D, I’m “GPU bound” 100% of the time.

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.
  

[MiG-29A Fulcrum - Announcement]

8 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

Think of Gandalf, it arrives exactly when it means to  

Now you're teasing us.... 

(that kind of cockiness can only mean it is close! )

[CPU bound vs. GPU bound]

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

[CPU bound vs. GPU bound]

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

[CPU bound vs. GPU bound]

8 hours ago, The_Nephilim said:

Well and my question is how do you tell you are GPU Limited, I always here many answers to this question and never really found what is true about it..

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....

[CPU bound vs. GPU bound]

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.

[CPU bound vs. GPU bound]

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.

[This simple fix may provide Nvidia GPU users with a 25% performance increase!]

8 hours ago, 71st_Mastiff said:

just so the VR guys know, it doesnt work for VR. well at lease not for mine.

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.

[Flight model how is it and how's FFB]

10 minutes ago, Hotdognz said:

That's the same I feel with the Rhino FFB.

Sent from my CPH2333 using Tapatalk
 

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.

[Flight model how is it and how's FFB]

7 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

Like Hiob wrote. Remember to not use curves and keep saturation at default, because changing this messes up the FFB.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk
 

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.

[This simple fix may provide Nvidia GPU users with a 25% performance increase!]

13 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Just pointing out that this isn’t a “bug” unless you think Nvidia intentionally hides this feature in order to handicap their cards for no good reason. Odds are this is already enabled by default for any game that it’s worth running on. 

Figures… anyone else actually test this in DCS? My guess is you’d have to be in a GPU limited situation to see a benefit if there is one. And DCS might still enable this by default anyways. 

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.

[Depth Perception for DCS Mirrors (VR)]

9 minutes ago, Camble said:

@Czar66 lol keep 'em coming!

Yes, stereoscopic mirrors for VR will be a performance hit, but it's achievable and VR users accept the trade-offs associated with VR. There is still an issue with the cockpit mirrors in 2D though, because they're just rendering to texture and don't account for the pilot's head movement. Implementing proper reflections for the cockpit mirrors won't really impact performance, and might actually improve it since the existing mirrors do impact framerate so much.

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...)

[Who tested the Flight Model?]

On 6/23/2025 at 3:52 PM, =475FG= Dawger said:

With regard to Pitch sensitivity, it all comes down to the philosophy incorporated in programming the interface between what the human player inputs and what the elevator (or HSTAB in a fast jet) does and how fast. 
 

One philosophy is to program elevator movement rate for controls according to an ‘average’ pilot strength and produce schedules or algorithms of elevator movement rates according to this ‘average’ pilot strength and airspeed. This will make the elevator movement slower than the human input at any airspeed above zero.

Another philosophy is to make the human movement of the controller translate directly to corresponding elevator deflection no matter the speed.

It sounds like the Corsair has the latter.

If it does, I suggest a three foot extension on your joystick. 
 

 

 

 

NOTE: I haven’t flown the DCS Corsair

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.

[Depth Perception for DCS Mirrors (VR)]

56 minutes ago, draconus said:

Even fixing the current wrong mirror rendering would be a huge step forward. Stereoscopic view would be a cherry on top. And I don't think it's that taxing - mirrors are optional anyway.

How taxing the current implementation already is, can easily be observed when toggeling the current mirrors on and off. Not saying that there aren't obvious examples for better and worse implemetations, and therefore potential right now.

My argument was, that limited resources are better spend in advancing the new engine, than beating a dead horse.

[Simplified rudder use in options folder]

Even when I put the saturation to 30%, the nose swing when touching the pedals even slightly is off the charts. I can adopt, but it is far off all the other warbirds.

The problem is less the input device (or the curve) but the excessive effect of the ingame pedals. If that was real to life for the F4U, I can't imagine how they hit anything in ground attacks.

NOT hating on Mag3, just saying, that imho, there are tweaks necessary during EA!

[Simplified rudder use in options folder]

That would be interesting to know. 

I assume that it is off. 

But still, there is something very wrong with the current rudder implementation. The reaction to miniscule rudder inputs is wild. I don't know if this is related, but I hope for a first round of EA fixes soon.