I realize it's a very Apple ecosystem thing to shore up gaps in macOS with 3rd party apps, but BetterDisplay can do this for you: https://github.com/waydabber/BetterDisplay
(Run non-retina displays at 2X frame buffer for proper anti-aliasing)
This is awesome. I had just written off the reduced quality of my external displays and gotten used to it. I feel like I just put my contacts in after turning on HiDPI. Just wanted to say thanks!
Edit: Also want to mention that window sizes and various UI elements also snapped into their 'intended' locations. Two screens, both 1440p, one ultrawide for anyone reading. YMMV.
Interesting, I've never seen a big Github project with only a `README.md` before. It looks like they moved the open source part to a new branch[1], before halting the open development completely (I don't mind, just observing).
Thanks for the advice! I tried downloading this app and set both displays to HiDPI and UI elements seemed to sharpen, but certain icons are still blurry. I didn't see any options related to setting the framebuffer, I assume this happens automatically. Will keep experimenting...
I have not looked very hard but I don't think this app fixes the fundamental issues: which is the removal of proper sub-pixel antialiasing for anything that isn't considered a retina class display by their standard.
This sort of app might get a better output by forcing the 2x rendering and then scaling it to the native display resolution but it cannot possibly be of the same quality as what we had before, unless they rewrote rendering or something like that.
As far as I know there are 2 "real solutions": you buy a display that is retina class in one of their historically supported resolutions or you accept to lose a bit of desktop space by running a "sub-retina" class display at x2.
For example, a 27 inch "4k" (they are 3840x2160) display will get you a desktop space of 1920/1080 in HiDPI mode.
That is sad because a 27-inch iMac from the early 2000 had more desktop space, an image not as sharp but it wasn't bad as long as they kept sub-pixel antialiasing.
As far as I'm concerned, it is that way because they went the lazy way around implementing HiDPI and being able to market it like they were so much better than Microsoft. But that only works if you solely buy their hardware because nobody followed them on the desktop specs (even though it's slowly coming lately it seems).
This issue in my opinion is a testament of how much anti-consumer and disdainful Apple is; because it couldn't possible have cost them a lot of engineering to be able to support both, it is clearly for their bottom line and that's it.
Another way to think about it--i.e. hoofed animals can only walk or sprint. Humans can jog, so as long as a human hunter can pick up the trail after the animal sprints out of sight, the jogging will eventually win out.
I was trying to help with a simplified mental model. Sorry, I thought the "another way to think about it" part was clearer than it might have been.
The linked paper in the parent comment has a graph on page 347 (page 2 of the content). The human's walk curve is substantially more efficient than the other gaits, included on the graph, which is the point I was trying to make. Humans best their caloric/distance ratios over time ("endurance hunting").
I guess the precise definition would be most ungulates, but not migratory ungulates?
> Although not extensively studied in non-humans, endurance running is unique to humans among primates, and uncommon among quadrupedal mammals other than social carnivores (such as dogs and hyenas) and migratory ungulates (such as wildebeest and horses)
Anyway I was attempting a clumsy metaphor to aid someone's understanding, not trying to be pedantic. It's easiest to compare sprinting and not-sprinting.
You can get 15TB U.2 NVMe drives and use a PCIe U.2. adapter! Whether it fits in a SFF is going to depend on the specific chassis, but anything larger and it's fine.
You can also use an external PCIe Thunderbolt enclosure for macOS.
* "Controller" isn't used much as a term, when you start looking around. You'll see things listed under "transmitter" or "radio"
* The majority of FPV transmitters use OpenTX or EdgeTX software (EdgeTX is newer and a fork of OpenTX). Both of these support plugging the transmitter in to a host computer over USB, where it can appear as a HID joystick
* ExpressLRS (ELRS) is an open source radio protocol, with 2.4ghz and 900mhz versions. 2.4ghz is a denser waveforms, so better latency, but less penetration (unless you are going loooooong range, default to 2.4ghz). If you buy a radio today, get one with ELRS built in
* And there is a 3rd option for more convenience, since both HID over USB and BLE wirelessly require a tiny bit of menu fiddling: A dedicated simulator dongle. This acts as a full ELRS receiver, so you would just turn on your radio within range and play the simulator: https://www.getfpv.com/squid-stick-wireless-usb-simulator-do...
And finally, on radios themselves:
* The big split is between smaller "gamepad" style transmitters and full-size box transmitters. The larger versions usually have more inputs than you would use, for other radio control hobbyists (wings/planes/etc)
* Radiomaster is a solid recommendation. Check out the Pocket as an intro radio ($65 USD), and then the Boxer as a step up ($140 USD base, or $260 with all-metal gimbals and upgrades)
* Unless you have a strong reason to, like someone is gifting you a pile of quadcopter hardware using a different protocol, go with ELRS 2.4ghz built in
ELRS is fine but Crossfire is considered by many to be the superior radio link. The TBS Tango 2 is a great transmitter and comes with Crossfire built in.
Ever since ELRS 3 came out, I haven't met many people that argue that Crossfire is a superior radio link. The fact that ELRS 2.4GHz has gotten to 100KM and even now ELRS 900MHz RX's and TX's are widely available still gives that option, too. The smaller antennas for 2.4GHz are so much more convenient, as well.
Also, ELRS has modes to go to higher refresh rates than crossfire in 900MHz (200Hz vs 150Hz for crossfire). ELRS is also being rapidly developed(https://github.com/ExpressLRS/ExpressLRS/releases/) and has Gemini dual-channel modes (including cross-band support that doesn't have hardware for it yet), whereas crossfire (or TBS in general) has barely done anything.
And ELRS is cheaper (as it's open source) because of multiple hardware vendors and is more widely available as TBS has always had rather poor inventory management (their site now shows as unavailable for many components).
Don't get me wrong, crossfire was an absolute game changer when it came out, but TBS has really stagnated over the past few years.
This is my understanding of the state of the art in transmitter technology too. ELRS equipment and software offer a number of advantages over every other protocol I have used. It’s easier to pair and configure, it offers robust connectivity even in lossy signal environments, and its range exceeds that of any video downlink on any of my aircraft.
The one exception to your statement is "easier to pair". ELRS has historically been more of a pain to pair and update than crossfire.
Crossfire has OTA updates from the TX to the RX's, so you just need to update the transmitter and updates can then be pushed to RX's next time you connect. On crossfire, the button on the TX's always allowed for easy push-button binding.
ELRS was a pain having to flash and update binding phrases via wifi, which often had poor wifi chips on cheaper receivers. You often needed to take your RX, update it near a computer, update the binding phrase, update your TX, update the binding phrase on it. You had to do this for each RX individually (still do for updates).
3.4, released just last week, now allows for push-button binding on RX's (the button was originally reserved for recover modes on boot).
However, once you're configured and bound, ELRS is technically better at every turn. If they figure out a way to get OTA updates (harder for them as there's dozens of different hardware vendors with diferent designs and limited flash space on them) to RX's, there's no reason to do crossfire. The only remaining issue with ELRS is that there are bad vendors with poorer quality hardware, but it's only an occasional problem.
Pentax cameras take a different approach with stabilization--rather than stabilize inside lens, which means every lens is shipping its own stabilization solution, they stabilize the sensor itself.
It limits stabilization to two axes, but now any lens is essentially stabilized. And it also lets them do some tricks, since it's so integrated. One is to do sub-pixel sensor shifts for higher res photos, and another is to do astrophotography tracking when GPS data is available.
Most cameras these days--other than the low end and the very high end--have IBIS (In-Body Image Stabilization) built in, and then stabilization built into the longer lenses (typically > 100mm). In higher-end/more recent cameras that both IBIS and lens stabilization can work together to improve how effectively the system works. I don't know if it's true of universally, but the recent cameras in Nikon's ecosystem which I'm familiar with use a 5-axis IBIS unit. A quick search suggests the K-1ii and some other Pentax cameras also moved to 5-axis IBIS--probably one of the reasons most brands are claiming 5+ stops in-body these days.
OM-1, formerly Olympus, does has some very cool tricks using the tiny micro 4/3s sensor combined with a sick IBIS unit allowing hand-held astrophotography that the larger companies haven't bothered with.
