Hiob

For me (potent GPU but slightly outdated CPU) it fluctuates wildly between GPU and CPU bound.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

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.

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!

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.

Doing a proper (additional) 3D-Rendering in the mirrors is definitely tasking for the game engine. Something that would (assumingly) very heavily impact performance. I'm pretty sure ED is aware of that particular shortcoming, but won't do anything about it until the overhaul of the game engine (aka Vulkan API) is complete. Assuming that my deduction is correct, nothing will happen about this, no matter how insistent this topic is brought forward. my 2C

On the inner left side of the footwell there are two tear shaped handles.

The slower you go, the more you have to compensate for side slip in a turn by use of the rudder. Generally speaking, that is normal. I assume such basic flight characteristics are modelled in the Corsair as well.

Public Beta (aka EA) simply has much more people testing. Sometimes brute force can't be compensated.....

Kiowa works just fine in FFB. Note though, that the DirectX FFB-output of DCS is very limited for most modules. You need an effects-software, that can make use of the DCS-Telemetry for the full experience. For the VP (Rhino) eco system that would be TelemFFB. The Beast has its own effects app afaik. When you use a Moza, you are out of luck for now and have to live with what they offer. (Which is to my understanding "lend" poorly from TelemFFB and gets slowly developed further)

I don't have issues with the flight model per se. I think the "problem" is more that literally 3mm movement on my input device results in a 4G pull. The translation between input and virtual stick seems a bit excessive. Nothing that can't easily be fixed in early access though. Other than that I'm sure there will be lots of tweaks to particular items of the fligh model. As always.

Well, then get a FFB mod for your pedals. I would recommend…. I’m flying with a Rhino. Can’t use curves. I think the input control vs. simulated controls translation still needs some tweaking. It’s EA after all….

by virtue of a catch-all email domain, which almost every (good) service offers. So basically, I have a random email domain like @blala.bla and I can make up any prefix to this I want on the fly. Like “RandomVendor@blabla.bla”… the catch-all will receive it. If I start getting spam, I can see immediately who leaked my adress and disable it. Very useful! SimpleLogin for example

But I’d be surprised of it could ever outrun a late Bf-109.

The Corsair doesn’t strike me as a high speed design. Whereas, given the huge surfaces, I could imagine it as being good at turning. But that is only my unprofessional deduction from the optics.

My biggest Problem is that I can barely pull the stick 3 mm before reaching 4G and stall onset? That can't be right, no? The Stall onset effect isn't really that great either.....