M1Combat

Both techs seem to ghost at any setting under max quality, but at max quality... for me FSR has less to no ghosting. Seems consistent in all games but you have to be using the tech for quality and not frame time... because if you're doing it for frametime then you won't likely be using max quality. Honestly though... I don't use either one if I can avoid it specifically because of this.

AMD's FSR is much better. Does all the things that DLSS does visually... but without the ghosting. Way better... Even on my NVidia 3080 ;)...

I open mine too... and then set them to auto when I'm raising flaps and gears. I haven't flown the 51 much recently but it used to be that on a hot day on a server/mission that doesn't arm/fuel you... you could overheat and blow before or soon after takeoff simply because the doors are "SO" slow. At this point it's habit for me... and one I don't mind keeping up with.

No. It's directly attributable to what the aircraft is capable of.

Yes you still need this bound. What you need to do differently relative to regular (return to center) style setups is choose a different stick mode in the "special" options for the Apache. I don't recall what it's called for that type of stick though. Something about ne centering spring or something like that. Also... the idea with the FTR button... Press it and hold it while YOU are flying. Release it when you want the chopper to fly and continue doing the flight envelope you've placed it in.

That's kinda what I was thinking.

Thanks for the clarifications Raptor. To note... It's my humble opinion that there should be a master setting for FFB availability and the default should be "off"... which would then preclude any aircraft from having their defaults set to use a FFB stick type. I only suggest this because the Apache (at least when it was originally early access released) was set to use the FFB based control modes in DCS. Many folks didn't and maybe still don't know this, and it took quite some "shouting it from the rooftops" for people to catch on. I'm fairly certain the FFB sticks are very much the minority even in this community. Anyway... I know you're not the person that makes that decision... but I do feel like this style of decision shoots ED in the foot all too often :).

Yeah I feel like the Yak still needs a decent bit in the FM department but I'm only going by what I've heard. How does the extra, edge or even maybe the spitfire do with that one?

But how well does it handle a stalled hammer head and/or tail slide?

I believe I addressed all that in my post I agree. That would be significantly better.

I mean, sure... but why? Did you think they just stopped and didn't tell us? Did their lack of saying "we're still working on it we plomise" (kudo's for knowing the reference BTW) make you think they stopped? We all know they're making progress :)... telling us doesn't change anything. I'm sorry but if it's an "early access" release that means they will still have tons to do with the Phantom before "actual release" :). As much as I'm hoping for the EF... It's my 2nd or 3rd fav jet ever... I'm hoping they don't divert too much attention away from the Phantom too early :)... even through the Phantom is quite a ways down the list for me. We're talking about HB here though. They have a pretty good reputation around these parts :).

I run a 2TB 980Pro for DCS alone so I've not really got a dog in the fight, but... I do think it could be useful to have a checkbox in the special options for each aircraft that will tell DCS to DL all liveries or some core set of like 3-6 liveries for each individual aircraft. THAT SAID... Can someone explain to me in clear technical terms exactly how ED is supposed make the updater decide who has what options set BEFORE the game is running? I mean... I can think of a couple ways but I just love how folks are always like "JUST GIVE US A CHECKBOX EZ PZ HOW HARD CAN IT BE???".

People are effing hilarious. Absolutely ANY excuse to feel robbed LOL. VR is clearly "not" a core feature in the context of the other core features that are still in that section. If you take a look at what things remain included in the core feature list it's very clear that VR isn't and shouldn't be there any more than "Display devices" or "HOTAS RIGS" or "Homebuilt Cockpits" should be there. OK OK... I know, I know "Multi-Display Support"... @BIGNEWY MAYBE You wouldn't mind moving that one down here too... Honestly it could go either way. Multi-display support is almost always implemented per-software (keep in mind folks.... multi display is very different than multi-monitor... Google "frustum" to see why) whereas VR has an open and/or standard API that the software just ports the output to... So honestly multi display seems to make sense in core features or hardware and software Anyway... Just watering the mole hill

I didn't ask you to remain silent sir :). I asked you to be nice, and it was simply asked because the world needs more nice and less rude. Your post was clearly an obvious jab at what you think was a release that shouldn't have happened because it made something subjectively worse for you and it was also made from a "high horse" as it were. It's fine to see it that way... that's not a problem... but some snide comment about it doesn't change the fact, doesn't help anyone and only serves to add to negativity. So be nice ;). Please :).

Well... That's a pretty "This is a released product and we better not eff it up" approach... to put it nicely. IMO... If they find something that's modeled wrong or has wrong parameters they should strongly consider fixing it even if it affects other things in a negative way. The reason for that is simply because "early access... so deal with it..." as well as the simple fact that there could be ways they need it tested by the open beta team (damn near everyone I think... It's an opt in situation so if you're there it's your fault) so they can gather data about how it's affecting people that aren't gradually being introduced to the changes. Maybe they need to throw it all in one package for the open beta testers because the closed beta testers become used to the model as it gradually changed so now they're blind to the culmination of the total package of changes. Or... maybe it's an integral tested part of a bigger change and that change is important to push to the open beta testers so they run with it. Also... maybe keeping it "feeling nicer" masks issues in other parts of the model that they need to have corrected, but they aren't finding them because they've masked it by incorrectly tuning some other part. Either way... Be nice.