Leaderboard

We have just reached 90% of the development. Enjoy and fly safe

Added custom PTB-800 drop tank to the Su-22m4. I also added pylon extensions/adaptors as well as properly positioning all of the ordinance placement

Su-22m4 for DCS World! Mod developement thread. discord: https://discord.com/invite/6yqcEngfE8 First of all, this is separate project from Sniper's and Octopuss Su-22. I'm making Su-22m4 with custom cockpit and external model, based on FC3 (Su-25A) avionics with PFM. Mod will be released soon as a AI 3d model replacement for Su-17m4 and then, in the meantime I'll work further on developing the flyable mod (mainly working on cockpit) External model is 90% done, with most of the animations, and some liveries. Liveries include Polish, Czech, Hungarian, Ukrainian, Russian, Syrian, DDR and some other. Cockpit needs to be animated as well with making all the scripts and logic in lua. Yes, it will have variable sweep wings! It will carry a lot of unguided weaponry such as bombs and rockets, as well as guided munitions such as Kh-29 missiles family, ARM and more. Maybe I will be able to add TV seeker view into the cockpit CRT without switching to Su-25T avionics, but I dont promise anything yet. No ETA, stay tuned, the AI replacement will be public soon.

Dear All, In this thread I’d like to gather all the products I’ve manufactured for easier reference. About me: My name is Peter and I'm a DCS enthusiast. This interest turned into passion in the past 10 years. My first project was when I made a home cockpit for DCS Viggen, then I realised I would like to made other people's game experience more enjoyable with realistic home made panels. I'm really passionate about creating, developing and made these panels from the first screw to the last on an affordable price. About my panels: All these panels made by 3D printing technology, surface-treated, the captions are made with engraving. On the software side the input components (switches, buttons, potentiometers, etc.) are working as a HID device (just like a joystick), the output tools (indicator lights, dislpays, etc.) - only a background software is required to operate. It runs alongside DCS using the standard Export.lua method. All neccessary scripts and instructions are included, with continous updates to ensure smooth operation and compability. Shipping and production time: The average production time is 1-3 weeks as it depends on the component availability. I'm located in Hungary, but worldwide shipping is available. Warranty: Every product come with full warranty. I'll provide a hussle-free replacement or repair to guarantee your satisfaction. Available panels: These items are in "serial-production": F-16ICP ARC-159 and ARC-182 radio for DCS F-14 Digital kneeboard F-15UFC The panels below were made for personal request: F-14 ACM F-14 VDI and HSD (for VR) These panels are under developement: F-14 TACAN panel F-14 AFCS panel F-14 display panel Mig-29 radar control panel Contact: If you're interested in one of these panels please check my Etsy website: https://skydefender.etsy.com/ or feel free to contact me in DM or e-mail: skydefsim@gmail.com. At the same time, I’m excited to introduce my latest panel: Mi-24P Weapon Control Panel.

Military Asset Pack USA 1.1.8 released! Changelog Version 1.1.8 Fixed AGM-158B issue Fixed Ticonderoga CMP missile connector issue Fixed Ticonderoga missile connector issue Distribution model This Military Asset Pack is available in the following versions: The standard full download. Remove old asset pack version and unzip this in your Saved Games mods\tech folder. The incremental download which updates your full download and contains only the changed files. You apply it by overwriting your current installation. Military Asset Pack Ukraine 1.1.2 released! Changelog Version 1.1.2 Added BRDM-2 green Russian version Fixed ADM-160B issue Distribution model This Military Asset Pack is available in the following versions: The standard full download. Remove old asset pack version and unzip this in your Saved Games mods\tech folder. The incremental download which updates your full download and contains only the changed files. You apply it by overwriting your current installation.

Also, to not get confused, some screenshots above have different external 3d model - those are before the model was made into M4 variant of the su-22 (2 extra R-60 pylons, countermeasures pods, extended vertical stabiliser). Here is how the external stuff looks now, as well as some liveries that will be included. Right now there are Luftwaffe, Hungarian, Libyan, Peruvian, Czech, Soviet, Syrian, Polish and Ukrainian liveries. Stay tuned and have a nice day!

No, I understood what you said. I'd like to try and explain myself with some contextual points: 1) Every other third party developer I've interacted with has cared about their modules. However they work within the capacities they have available and sometimes that just means they don't have the resources to maintain older modules at the expense of working on new projects 2) Adding to the above, I don't think you understand the 'drop off' in sales after a release and just how severe that can be. DCS for developers is like a dog - it's not just for Christmas, it's for life. A DCS module has no finite end. It goes on forever, yet the money it is making later on is just not enough to justify the investment required to renovate it. You'd have to most likely pay tens of thousands of dollars for a full art overhaul, for example - which is one of the most obvious and common issues with older modules - and it simply will not make that money back. There are ways to do this e.g. BS3 or A-10C2, but in order to justify selling an update you end up having to invest even more because you need developer time to design and create marketable features on top of QOL or art updates - or risk the wrath of the community. It's not easy. 3) There are legal methods in place that guarantee modules do not simply disappear. I realise the irony of saying this after Razbam's modules have been removed from sale, but again, that situation is not comparable to what happened with PC. 4) I'm grateful for your thanks regarding the quality, professionalism and communication that people like Dan, Rober, Joose and I brought to Polychop. We worked very hard on that. Especially Dan. It was not easy. 5) I think that most of your ire is directed at Razbam, and I get it. But that's an extreme situation and I think it's fair to say both parties have learnt a lot from it. I don't think it's fair to point to that situation and declare that PC is special - rather I think you should recognise that the RB situation is what is special, or unique, or more extreme, whatever comparison you want to make. And the reactions of the people involved reflect that. I certainly can't hold a moral high ground on those developers who spoke out, because I haven't been through what they went though. But given what we ex-developers of Polychop went through, I can absolutely understand the emotional distress and difficulties experienced having put so much of themselves into their work. Losing the Kiowa and Gazelle wasn't easy for us, especially after all the work we did to fix the reputation of Polychop, but at least it was our choice to do so. They didn't have that choice. Anyway, I hope this helps clarify my position a bit. I do understand your feeling, but I feel directing it at Razbam is pointless and possibly unfair given that situation, and aiming at any other developer (including ED) would similarly be unfair.

Su-34 is already being developed by small team (separate from Su-30 guys) and I'm lucky enough to be a tester for their team. Also no ETA yet but the project looks promising, it has CWS like in su-30. This livery will go hard on Fulda map

I would like to see Nordhorn on the map in the third phase. Established as the Nordhorn Air-to-Ground Weapon Range by the Royal Air Force, the area was and still is available to NATO forces for training exercises. Coordinates: 52° 26′ 9″ N, 7° 12′ 29″ E (some miles NW of Rheine-Hopsten AB) Good information (and pictures) can be found here: https://www.relikte.com/nordhorn/index.htm or on Wikipedia

Just a quick update, I am having continued difficulty getting the colors right for the Euro 1 birds. I will not release a livery if it is not right. Still working though. -Woog

Costs are a big part of it. When fighting an insurgency, which is the mission Skyraider II is intended to, the game is cost effectiveness. Why waste oceans of fuel and a Maverick to hit an insurgent compound when you can sip fuel and do the same job with a well placed APKWS? This is for an environment without almost any ground to air threats. It also uses the P&W PT-6A, which everyone and their mother operates. In addition, it enjoys a huge level of part commonality with a sizable fleet of aircraft that's already been operating since the 1990s. Another reason is that Air Tractors can operate from any strip. I've flown civvie Air Tractors and they're as rugged as it gets. They're also responsive and fun to fly. And one more huge benefit is the loiter time. It's up there at near 8+ hours or so. So basically, this is what you want on call if you're a SEAL team infiltrating an area hostile non-state actors are holding. This is not something you want to blunt a Russian push into Germany with, but something you're going to cover special forces extracting with a VIP.

The MiG-29 update is ready, you can download it here: https://github.com/TicTac-93/FC-Clickable-Cockpits-Continued/releases/tag/v0.3.0 This aircraft has a lot more going on than the previous ones, so there may be bugs. If you find anything let me know! You can post here for support, or open an issue on the GitHub This took much longer than I wanted (over a month!) but only because I haven't had enough free time to work on the mod. There aren't any major roadblocks in the way of the remaining aircraft, and I'll continue working towards a 1.0 release with all FC aircraft supported.

DCS did an amazing job on the L-39. I have a little bit of real-world seat time in the back of an L-39, and being in the back seat of the DCS version feels just like the real thing, at least to me.

Alright, now I'm suspicious... this thread is quiet.... too quiet....

We have made a report and the team will be checking it, thank you.

Hi, Currently we do not plan on adding key binds for gamma. I can mention it to the team but can not promise anything.

Mind you, if you're not using Quaggles input injector, none of your "old" control assignments will work from the get go on that "new" PC (because of different USB IDs) and you'll have to do quite a bit of profile importing or file renaming. Still better than setting up everything from scratch, though.

Yes, James has provided the early 70ies Knox class Destroyer Escorts in three variants. We're looking forward to release them in Vietnam War Vessels 1.1.0. Meantime more texture oddities of the MiG-21MF was fixed. Also three digit bort numbers have been added to the Fishbed. We're also trying to reduce the number of errors and warnings logged in dcs.log, so real problems stand out better.

Да это важный вопрос! Ведомый всегда на определенной частоте. В брифинге всегда указан канал. Если вы связываетесь с ним на другом канале, он не услышит и не ответит. В этом случае нужно проверить еще раз полетную инфу и частоту звена в брифинге. Если он все время отвечает что-то типа - не могу работать, не имею возможности. То в этом случае, добро пожаловать в ДКС. Это очень частая проблема ведомых. Их как будто бы надо самому заводить на цель, учитывая направление, дальность до цели и тд. У меня они выполняли работу при таких условиях - по пути в зону работы дайте ему строй - ведомый сзади 1.5км. Пусть идет далеко позади вас. Заходите на цель, отрабатывайте по противнику и на выходе из атаки дайте ему указание - атакуй мою цель. Это плюс минус рабочая схема днем. Ночью он все равно будет тупить.

( @Slippa get in here before the picture goes wonky - try it on desktop. Its beautiful)

Hello everyone! This is a small update, but I wanted to update the version to at least let everyone know that this mission pack has not been abandoned. As always, IRL has a way of getting in the way of DCS, but all missions are continually tested regularly to ensure functionality through updates. Thank you all again for the support. These missions have and always will be what they are because of all of you. Until next time, fly high, fly fast, and watch your states.

The dream ain't dead yet. I am trying to get something started. I believe orange create made mushroom clouds

Hello! Thanks for your continuous effort to make this script even better! Some names of the JF17 weapons have changed since ED integrated them in their files: ["C_701T"] = { explosive = 38, shaped_charge = false }, ["C_701IR"] = { explosive = 38, shaped_charge = false }, ["LS_6_100"] = { explosive = 45, shaped_charge = false }, ["LS_6"] = { explosive = 100, shaped_charge = false }, ["LS_6_500"] = { explosive = 274, shaped_charge = false }, These are the corrected names! The GB6's and BRM_90's are ok, but I haven't tested all weapons, maybe there are more...

I too was hesitant at first after reading about the quality issues, but I haven't had any issue to date and Pimax are very open and active in the VR community (Reddit / Discord etc). The positives: Much bigger sweet spot and sharper image than the G2. Can quite easily wear my SteelSeries Arctis Nova Pro headphones without having to remove the attached earphones. There is enough room where I can wear my glasses. CL is much more comfortable and better fitting headset than the G2. The negatives: PimaxPlay software isn't as refined or user-friendly as STEAM or WIndowsMR, but it is getting better. When in VR desktop mode, I wish I could move mouse pointer using my mouse instead of having to move my whole head because it's locked to the centre of the headset - very annoying. There might be a solution for this but I haven't found one yet. The weight, it is heavier, and takes some getting used to.

Thanks for all the useful hints here. I went with Ryzen 9950X3D. The system is running now. And wow. On servers where I had around 6ms CPU frame times, spiking up to 12ms even up to 19ms with the Intel -> On these servers I now have between 2,5 ms to 4 ms. No spikes at all, no more stutters. I will try to give you guys a better comparison looking into my stutters video archieve. I cant compare directly any more as the Intel system is dead. But its a huge improvement!

Hello friends, I worked hard this weekend and I`ve created some first skins. So what can I say: I had to downsize the textures because of my VR settings and in order to save RAM. I still fight gainst the pylon settings given in ED`s engine. If I renember correct there is maybe a lua-life somewhere where the angle of the weapons can be corrected - there was some in the very old past. Maybe hardscripted or coded nowadays? Still lots of animations have to be done but so far, I´m pretty satified about the results ... I think the low poly replacement is comming to an end. Cheers TOM

Hey, so this is work in progressnull. Map of all points of interest in Czechoslovakia for Phase 3. SAM sites, army HQs, Radar stations, Recon Stations, etc. Some POIs have historic pictures of the sites PS: It would be really cool if we had more of Germany - Czechoslovakia border, there were daily incidents, mostly helicopters. https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1rjchW0foDuvc8evbCmMCEtY60xwlJlw&ll=49.80965116878947%2C14.9276151&z=7

Not to sound like a broken record, but the values your team tested are incorrect. Based on my limited test, a 20% survival rate from a rear aspect shot is unacceptably low. That's like saying there is an 80% chance of your computer crasheing upon loading Windows. Would you find that acceptable? Here are my questions: 1. What is the target that a missile (Fox 1, 2, 3, or other SAM) aims on the Hornet? From my perspective, it appears to be the pilot! 2. Why is the survival rate of the MiG-29S (as I tested) at 100%? 3. Does this imply values for the MiG-29 are incorrect or unrealistic? 4. (Speculative) Will the values for the upcoming MiG-29A (full-fidelity) have parity with the Hornet or similar Western aircraft? 5. Why does ED believe the survival values for the Hornet are correct? 6. What is it going to take to improve these values?

It might not be a bug, but your values are not correct. This is a problem for most single seat aircraft. You vastly overestimate the likelihood of a pilot being killed when their plane is stuck by a missile. This thread is about the hornet, but lets use the Viper as an example. In Desert Storm Vipers were hit and shot down by an SA-6, SA-3, SA-8, SA-16, and even a mk 84 bomb that exploded under the airplane as soon as it was released. In all of these, the pilot safely ejected. The plane hit by the SA-3 flew for 150 miles before it's engine quite. Another Viper was hit by an SA-3 over Bosnia and also flew for a while before the pilot safely ejected. There's even evidence to believe Scott Speicher ejected from his hornet after being hit by a R-40 from the front. The pilots, across all aircraft, are much more likely to survive after being hit by a missile than you give them credit for. I'm sure the numbers match your targets currently, but it's your target pilot killed percentage that is wrong. The combat records are there to prove it.

Rather than a circle or point to point (racetrack) this lets you define a large squared-off oval. Length x width, direction of travel, etc. Think "tanker" and "rectangular flight path" rather than the tanker suddenly pulling 30 degrees of bank to get back the same direction it came. Length is the long side, width is the diameter of the circle it flies to get on a heading back. Ok, maybe not a five year old. I avoid those.

Hello, I have encountered two things I see repeated in a few places that would be very fun for the module! Most common, I see late MiG-17F fighter bomber squadrons being modified to fire S-24 and needing to stiffen the rear shock absorbers to increase ground clearance. This would be a very fun weapon for such a small and spunky aircraft! Two, I found a mention that S-21 was designed with MiG-17F in mind, and that the sight would program the fuse to detonate at the range the sight was at to, making it an extremely potent anti bomber/large aircraft weapon. Saying the weapon could explode 15m from a bomber and still be expected to mission kill it.

@Rudel_chw Thank you for your feedback, really appreciate it! If you are really interested don't hesitate to write a DM, we can check the accurate delivery fees.

I HIGHLY DOUBT IT. CH has repeatedly stated that he likes having the freedom and control to create anything. Cheers, Timex 3

Having Keybinds to adjust Gamma would actually be a frickin' great relieve. The gamma issue is one of those annoyances I came to accept as just given (since simulating the iris would probably be too much to ask - and honestly I never thought about that). But having proper Keybind options (digital and analog axis please), is the second best thing. @BIGNEWY @NineLine Could you guys please forward this? I imaginge adding keybind options for something that already is adjustable on the fly (by virtue of opening the ESC-menue) is a doable thing (priorities are another topic of course, I'm aware). TY

Now you're asking. As mentioned, it took some trial and error to get it to work. IIRC: Before getting stuck in, I'd looked up typical bomber formation, as used by the 8th Each flight had 3 aircraft (not the 4 that DCS can seemingly support) Built the front (lead) flight or 3, gave them the flight formation for bomber. Set them for "late activation", which I'll come back to later Picked a suitable generic livery and full bomb load. DCS has a number of "generic" B17 liveries, meaning that it's now easy to set say the front 12 aircraft (4 flights) as a specific squadron, then the next squadron with a different livery, which is very cool Create the route for the lead. From what I could see, typical cruise speed was around 220-230knots, ground speed. I set mine up at angels 24 I used fly over waypoint for the starting waypoint. Wouldn't trust DCS to take off and get to that altitude The waypoint that you add the "carpet bombing" option to, ensure that it's a good distance before the target, too close and they don't have time to get ready. I think I set mine at 10 miles, which may be too much, but seemed to work Copied the front flight. Pasted as the left group and renamed it accordingly. My naming convention was lead, lead left, lead right, lead back for the front 4 flights in the lead squadron Added the waypoint action for big formation. Chose an option of Open formation. Linked the new "left" flight to the lead Copied the front flight. Pasted as the right group and renamed it accordingly Added the waypoint action for big formation. Chose an option of Open formation. Linked the new "right" flight to the lead Copied the front flight. Pasted as the back group and renamed it accordingly Added the waypoint action for big formation. Chose an option of Open formation. Linked the new "back" flight to the lead Revisited the spacing. Within the formation options, there is a spacing in feet. The options are: Distance (i.e. distance behind the flight linked to) Height Delay (?? Sorry, can't remember the exact name, but it's something like that). This refers to the lateral relationship to the flight that is linked to. When zero, it means you're directly behind the linked flight. A negative value is to the left, a positive to the right When I used the default spacing, I had issues. So updated them to: Left flight -200', -200', -400'. That meaning that the left flight would follow the lead, but with it's lead aircraft 200 feet behind, 200 feet below and 400 feet to the left Right flight -200', +200', +400' Back flight, -400, -400, 0 Using the above spacing seemed to result in the aircraft having sufficient room whilst sorting themselves out once activated The next squadron was a copy of the first, then renamed. My naming convention was left lead, left left, left right, left back for the front 4 flights in the left squadron I did use a different set of liveries for the squadron, which is a bit tedious to do, but looks cool Linked the Left Lead to the lead (first flight created in the lead squadron). Retained the space for flights within the new left squadron, and stacked it lower, behind and to the left. So spacing for the left lead was something like -400, -600, -1000 Repeat the above to add the right squadron and rear squadron I didn't want the formation to always start at the beginning of my scenario, hence why I set all flights to late activation. To sort that out: Created a new F10 radio option, to allow the choice of formation activation Activated all of the flights with the F10 Created a new trigger zone where I wanted the formation to exit towards, which was well away from where I'd probably fly Have the final waypoint for the bomber formation to be within the trigger zone Have a trigger to de-activate ALL of the bomber formation flights when any coalition aircraft is within that zone That final trigger zone nicely cleans up post mission. That gave me 48 aircraft in a box formation, that once it had been given 5 mins to sort itself out, looked pretty good, happily flew 300 miles over 5 waypoints, bombed a target and then went home again and when at the end of it's flight all disappeared. If I wanted to expand on 48 aircraft, I'd just copy the whole group and place it behind the lead group. I seem to remember that's how the USAF operated in practice, i.e. lead group, space, next group, space, next group etc. Can't remember the distance between, but it'll be online somewhere. If you're really stuck, happy to just give you my mission.

SBD and TBF are planned for WWII Pacific Pack:

Hehe, glad to have helped out. I get what you mean and I had the same concern when designing it. Couldnt come up with a better UI that still has the center area free for "Jester Wheel INFO" and "Jester Wheel User Input" (two features which are used occasionally in the wheel that take the center area).

The map clearly has the Berlin wall which means the earliest date would be 1961, which would be 2nd/3rd generation. For Gen 0 / 1 jets we would really need an early cold war Germany map (which might also double as a WWII map) and right now I might fly the early jets on this map or I might have WWII battles as well I would also buy a 1940s version for late war and early clod war scenarios.

In fairness, ChatGPT is a TERRIBLE reference. It makes stuff up if it's not sure/doesn't have actual info. I would not trust any info you get from it. It might accidentally get something right, but the number of posts in the ED forums alone where it has provide plainly wrong information is mind blowing.

A400M Liveries Fix – Texture Issue (Normal Map) I tried the solution mentioned earlier, but it didn’t work in my case. For many A400M liveries, especially the German ones, the MAM_A400M.dds file was incorrectly converted. The file size was over 83 MB, which caused issues. I used NVIDIA Texture Tools Exporter to reconvert the textures to the latest DDS format. After conversion, the MAM_A400M.dds file is now only 23 MB and works correctly. To save space, I placed the shared MAM_A400M_B.dds normal map in the "Airbus" folder. Then, I added the following line to the description.lua of each A400M livery: {"MAM_A400M", NORMAL_MAP , "../Airbus/mam_a400m_b", false}; Result: All liveries now load correctly with proper normal maps. Important: Do NOT add this line to the “Airbus” livery itself — it will break that livery. Download link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kQsf_wiODwoUh0ZnuTCoK-in3fShRQaI/view?usp=sharing (All credit goes to the original creator.)

null

In fact, that's the reason for Mode 4 on Western aircraft. Modes 1, 2 and 3 are not encrypted, so anyone could do that sort of thing by simply interrogating them. If you don't turn off those modes, anyone with an interrogator can see exactly where you are.

Hi, you have to unbox Seq1(2 or 3), then you can scroll down to WP59

It is a button only, it can be pressed. The secondary functions are not about "weapon selection" but rather "weapon related". While hold down it enables slewing for Mavericks and Sidewinders. See the manual for details: https://f4.manuals.heatblur.se/cockpit/pilot/stick_seat.html#air-refueling-release-button

1. Yes, the hydraulic damper is able to move the pedals according to hydraulic force triggered by the autopilot system so that it can use the full authority of the anti torque control The only way for heading hold to work is pilot has to take feet off pedals or atlas more touch the top of the pedals. So only possible when pilot removed feet or uses only their heels. I think it is common misunderstanding to think the system works while pilot is using pedals for normal flight 2. A. I wouldn’t say it is needed to move the pedals for hover, but that I don’t think any pilot would really take their feet off the pedals and let the autopilot handle anti torque for takeoff or landing. Maybe to help hold once in position. Letting Heading hold take care of it also isn’t perfect because the nose needs to move left about 7 degrees before the Heading Hold is outputting maximum force. Again, I think it’s a misunderstanding that heading hold is there so pilot can take their feet off pedals for takeoff or landing. Is is there only for maintaining heading once already stable B. Our Mi-24 is a later model with larger anti torque rotor blade chord by about 12%. This gives it better Yaw control then earlier Mi-24D and 24V models. 3. Yes. Turning Pedal Auto move to off changes the Heading hold from having 118% authority + trimming to only 18% authority + no trimming. It is not harder to fly because SDV-5000-OA is only helping Heading hold, which is only needed to keep a specific heading, a function whose usefulness depends entirely upon your flying style. It has no function with the “stabilization mode” with microswitch pressed that actually helps dampen yaw, reduce ditch roll, and make maneuvering more smooth. It is most realistic with pedal auto move on and having microswitch in your pedals bound to microswitch. But understand that Heading Hold is almost certainly never used in takeoff/landing so pilots can take their feet off the pedals during the most dangerous phase of flight, and i would bet that many pilots go through whole flights while never using heading hold. If you are flying along a route, route hold is much better as it corrects for wind. Using heading hold by taking feet off pedals was likely good for allowing pilot to mess with some switch/knob or navigation, pay attention to some task and let heading hold keep the aircraft mostly straight. It is not something to actively assist you in all phases of flight at all times But that’s also part of being a simulator, some users use features much more then they would be used in real life; and some use them in ways they were not intended to be used, or use them differently because the implementation can’t be identical to reality (the “activate microswitch by moving pedals from center” giving the impression that heading hold that should assist you whenever you fly straight instead of having to be knowingly engaged in reality by lifting your feet)

null Hi all, I'm working on my FREE campaign for the KW on Afghanistan map and i'll be posting some updated (for more detailed updates you can join my discord server - there's a giveaway of 2 Scouts Out book audiobooks too! https://discord.gg/JNgXHFAg ) Hope you guys like it, it'd be great if some of you who were there could chip in with some advice I have a couple of 58 pilots helping me already.

I don't know where you get flight model and xbox from, but I assume you're just committed to being disingenuous or have no understanding of the issue. Like I said before, to some degree the sim needs to be accessible. This sim has a small userbase and the majority of them have limited hardware. Reasonable accommodations need to be made for the use of a standard HOTAS. That means if stick forces are going to be modeled into a non FFB stick, there needs to be a virtual pilot modeled that reacts to those forces reasonably. It doesn't make sense to assume the pilot will always have noodle arms or never brace. It's why you have your helicopter trim release gimmick options, lower details, and a host of many other options unique for each aircraft concerning force, trims, and rudder assistance. I do and can expect the devs to adjust virtual pilot models so that people with a HOTAS aren't limited to an artificially degraded experience.