Galinette

This is a question for @jojo

Just wait for January OpenBeta Release

Updated the color, and I think it needed a little more style SunVisor.mp4

Hi, I'm doing my own custom grip for a Virpil base which is warthog grip compatible. Is anyone selling PCBs? I know these are rather simple, but I would rather spend time doing what I do best rather than learning PCB software I'm mostly interested by a full board with everything, but I can solder. Thanks!

Here is it! It's ready for Prusa Slicer (there is a modifier to enforce supports at one strategic place) If you print on another printer, you may have to set support to the pointy overhang at the afterburner detent, which can't be properly bridged throttle-detent2.3mf The idea behind this detent, is the afterburner detent should not be a groove that locks the throttle in place and require effort to go either directions, but rather a stop ; if you go up to the detent without going beyond (mil power) you should be able to throttle down without feeling any resistance. The drawback is, it eats up a little bit of axis range. I have another design in mind with a movable part that should be better, no axis range lost and much more firm detent. I'll post it here once finished!

Yes. Depress unlocks in A/A. A/G undesignation must be done with Aft and Forward (to exit and return to A/G)

M91-M93 were removed on purpose, they are not a thing on the M-2000C I'll check HUD brightness

Perfect! We made the random G/D change some times ago upon request from an IRL M2000 mechanic that had OCD seeing the switch at the same position every time

It could be the igniter plug selector. This one is just between fuel cutoff and starter press button. This switch has three positions : Vent (disabled), G(left) and D(right). For startup, you need an igniter plug so you need to be either on G or D. On Vent things will go as you describe, no flame, so starter will stabilize RPM at about 30% and after a timeout it will stop. The igniter switch is randomly set on G or D at cold start. That's because they should be worn evenly, so pilots switch between G and D at each startup. They don't set it to "Vent" at shutdown. Normal procedure would be changing position between G and D every time, but you can let it as is. Now what may happen, is you are used to do a left click every time. If the switch was on D it goes to G and that's fine. If it's on G you set it on VENT.

No, a constant force stick would be basically unusable in a plane pitch control as you wouldn't have any muscle feedback on where your stick is. You are confused with other systems. Some FBW aircraft have a "force only" stick that only senses force and does not move. This is the case on the F-16 for instance. The stick action is always increasing with applied force on those. It can be linear or non-linear if this makes handling better but, the action is always a strictly increasing function. This exists for the sim world, RealSimulator does sell one. Other FBW systems have a more traditional stick that moves, also with an increasing function of force (like most our sim sticks), like the M-2000C. I think Airbus sticks are in this category. Only helicopters have mostly no force in the stick (but damping instead : force isn't a function of position but movement rate)

From memory it's 0-8kg progressive force to go from center to the elastic limit (9G in A/A mode) I had the occasion to test the real one on the ground and fly in a sim having the real one. BFM is definitely arm workout

No problem! If it works well I will change the minimum slider value to 1

You can even set the value to zero in Saved Games (Config/options.lua) without modifying your games files. But again, I know the throttle logic, and it expects an actual cutoff axis range with a non zero threshold. Because we wanted to be able to move continuously the throttle to the cutoff position while pressing the red button, and not having a "jump" of the throttle position in game. 3% axis loss was an acceptable trade off.

You can change the slider limits, it's a dlg file. And you will likely have issues

Okay, I see We still need a minimal non zero idle detent, since the M2000 bind does only unlock the idle range, and does not actually move the throttle. But it's 3%, not 15% I'll see if we can move it to 2% or even 1%. 3% was chosen because the idle position is critical as you burn your engine when starting on idle, and people with old jittery throttles have spurious cutoff unlocks and then claim it's a bug...

15 is the maximum, the minimum is 3. Why not 0? Because cutoff was designed to work like IRL, which means cutoff is an actual throttle range. The red button being only an "unlock" that prevents moving into that range. Pressing it doesn't shutdown the engine, but only allows moving the throttle to the range where it will shutdown. So an actual axis range must be reserved for cutoff. If you have a CM3, save yourself a button! Set the slider to 3, add an "axis to button" below 2%, bind it to "Cutoff unlock" and set a mechanical detent that requires pulling the unlock trigger to go below 3%. This way, you get the exact behavior of the real thing. The sliders were precisely, developped with the CM3 in mind. And if you want, I have a 3D printable M2000-C style detent for you specially designed as well (Unlock required to go cutoff, no unlock required to go idle, and symmetric afterburner detent stop with no required unlock action)

The bug is confirmed, but I believe this is a general DCS issue. Should be tested with other aircraft.

Here is the explanation for the elastic limit. On the real jet, when you pull the stick, you feel a stop at a certain point that commands 9g. It's the "elastic limit". The stick force feeling is rather linear between neutral and the elastic limit. If you pull much harder (about 40kg), it's possible to move the stick beyond that point for about 20% more travel range, up to a "hard" limit that corresponds to 11g. The use case is emergency only. You can't exceed 9g inadvertently due to the force profile. Now there are three possible settings to simulate this in DCS, and a slider. Clamp : when the bind isn't pressed, pulling beyond the elastic limit position will do nothing, it will stay at 9g. To exceed, you need to press the bind and go beyond the elastic limit axis value. Scale : when the bind isn't pressed, the full stick range controls up to 9g. When pressed, the full stick range controls up to 11g Disable : your stick always controls the full 11g range. It's not recommended unless you have a modified stick with a special force profile that mimics the elastic limit, as you want to be able to stop at 9g in normal conditions. This is doable with custom Virpil cams (I have one) Beside this, a slider allows adjusting the elastic limit position on axis. Default settings are good for normal use. You will need to bind the "Elastic limit" command to go beyond 9g

In the mean time, I managed to do the no engine landing. 30000ft, 40NM, 100% fuel. Glide at 280kts (needle indicator, not DCS). Level at 5000ft and slow to 230kts, pitch down with airbrakes, flare and land at 200kts. Burnt a tire and touched the grass at 30kts. It just works

Hi What doesn't make sense is messing up a FM set up around a LOT of reference points (the above being one of many) because viper players are upset of the performance comparison. I'm ready to tune stuff brought with valid arguments and sources, not this. The only thing that might be concluded here is, maybe the gear drag is too high (despite it being checked like the airbrakes). And if it was decreased, you won't have anyway a big margin in the no engine landing procedure. Can we close the topic? I've got a radar to develop and it will likely be endless debated as well (remember the "ludicrous" detection range which is now acknowledged as legit ) If really the M2000-C BFM performance is a problem for you, add a tournament rule to enforce the central tank. And remember to practice your BFM. Tactics and skills are everything, endless two circle rate fight is boring. Thanks EDIT : I've tried again the no engine approach. Works perfectly with 100% fuel and gear down at 5000ft. Little margin. Thanks.

Just opened one of your tracks (full AA) and you're still starting at 10000ft

Did you disable slats?

Two wing tanks, it should start being able to dry cruise below 2T internal fuel

You need to switch off engine at 30000ft, 40NM from runway, and have slats disabled For this test. Also, it's not 10% engine required to keep hydraulics but 30%. And yes it's not yet modelled properly (big realistic elec+hyd overhaul planned) That's more than 10% drag or lift change, it's huge.

About removing some L/D ratio artificially between 5 and 12 degrees AoA, besides giving the CL and CD an unrealistic shape, this has the effect of loosing the ability to dry cruise at FL500 where some loadouts that can do it and some can't. The margin is extremely tight there and this is an important feature. Plus giving a weird effect with the chevrons that seem to "fall" when smoothly increasing the load factor during a turn, which is also not observed IRL. I can't describe the few hundredth hours spent at studying it, but we have thought all of this. Also about the Jx... I think (but it would need a confirmation) the nominal values are not an average, but a decision minimum. Actual value vary on every engine. And, we are just at this value in the current module.