M1Combat

That's what I said :)... That's also what I said :). So you're saying one side operates in a way to hide some capability but the other doesn't? I know you're not saying that... I'm trying to point out that we're saying very similar things :). Exactly

"When they get in a fight, they fight to win." - A fight is a different thing from an expedition or practice. "The US not wanting to export it probably has more to do with keeping the enemies guessing about what their best fighter can really do in terms of sensors and range, to maintain the deterrence afforded by its reputation." - I mean... that's basically exactly what I said ;). Also though... If it were only sensors and range they want to keep to themselves... they could supply with inferior sensors and range :). But they don't... All I'm saying is read between the lines. Same for the M1. You've got folks saying "Ahh look, they suck in Ukraine" but then you also keep them fighting in the most dangerous fights in the theater and you ask Australia for more... Oh and the ones they're using are at a tech level from the 80's or early 90's... nowhere NEAR the capability of the newer ones. I'm not an American Exceptionalist... But I do read between the lines and I've heard both the F22 and F35 with my own ears. You can tell a lot from the sound of a jet engine at full chat.

Yup. Total crap.

The F22 can't be sold. To anyone. For any reason. The F22 pilots actually have a keen interest in helping allied AF's sell their aircraft AND in keeping the capability of the F22 under wraps... So... Which way does that fight always have to go when someone's watching?

Yeah... Prob solved... Move along then... nothing to see here :).

Small chance I found the problem... null

So I just roughed in my new triple screen setup. Works fine in iRacing for anyone wondering. Keep in mind the headset's not plugged in and WMR isn't running. In DCS I launch using the MT.exe shortcut, it launches the launcher where I move it to screen mode and hit launch... It launches in VR mode. I then used Skate's launcher and told it to launch in non-VR... It launches in VR mode or it launched the launcher or something... I can't remember. Point of this one is just that I also tried Skate's launcher and no joy. I navigated to the VR tab in options and the use VR box is unchecked already. I decided to reboot just in case... same VR launch. I uninstalled WMR (reverb G2 headset) and same thing... launches in VR. I checked the VR box, exited, re-started and then unchecked it and re-started... same thing... I feel like when I moved to OXR I set something that forces VR mode maybe? Anyway... Any thoughts? I'm away from my rig right now but I'll be back to it in a few hours in case anyone needs logs etc. Thanks in advance

So it didn't work then??

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.

Agreed. So the right terms might be "You've changed things that make it fly differently" or even "You've changed things that cause the aircraft to react differently to control input". I'm not trying to be a hard ass here... I'm just saying that the ED employees likely have a somewhat more nuanced approach to what they include when discussing "the flight model" than some of us why just fly the things. Because they and we operate from a slightly different perspective... we should all be willing to look at the subject with that in mind.. Them and us :). So yes... I also think Nine could probably have replied "We changed some parameters"... If he even knew LOL...

That sounds a lot like progress :)... Keep up sir... Well... That's not "the flight model"... just a referenced data point the flight model uses. And the thing that caused that change is in the patch notes right?