Ben Sones

And because I am a crazy person, I decided to try one more configuration: swap out the standard springs for the heavy ones, and then also swap out the standard "soft center" aviation cams for the "no center" ones. Swapping out cams is a little bit more of a project. It's not difficult, per se--just tedious. Getting those heavy springs onto the cams is a pain, though. The suggested method (hook the spring onto one cam, then grip the other end of the spring with needle-nosed pliers and stretch it out to hook it over the other cam) works fine with the standard weight springs, but the heavy ones require a lot more force to stretch out, and I worry about slipping and damaging the internals of the gimbal. So instead, I use Spring Replacement Easy Mode: flex the spring and wedge some dimes in between the coils to stretch it out. Five dimes is enough to hook the spring onto both cams using only my fingers. Then you just gently remove them with pliers (tip: instead of pulling the dimes, just gently wiggle them back and forth, and they will pop out on their own). Results: I like it. The "no center" cams give the stick the fluidity around the center of travel that I had with the standard springs, except even more so because now there's no center detent at all. At the same time, it has a nice level of progressive resistance as you move off center, and pushing the stick all the way full deflection requires rather a lot of force (still need to do something about base lifting at full deflection). Amusingly, without the center detent, releasing the stick results in just as much wobble as it had with the standard springs and soft center cams. I guess the physical detent acts as a bit of a dampener. That said, I'm not sure that I really care how the stick behaves when I'm not holding it. And spring force does keep it centered nicely--Joystick Tester registers a steady 50% X, 50% Y with hands off the stick, even without the detent to keep it centered. So, I guess I'll fly with this configuration for a while, to see how I like it.

My new Thrustmaster F-16C grip arrived, and I put it on my (desktop) WarBRD base, replacing the Virpil WarBRD grip that I've been using. The new grip is crazy-heavy--just shy of 1 kilogram, all by itself. I was expecting the standard springs on the WarBRD to be way too light for this grip; I've seen people on reddit and various forums saying that they can't even keep it centered, and that the grip leans a bit forward when your hands are off of it. I figured I might as well check it out before going to the trouble of swapping springs, though, so I popped it on the base, which is currently using the factory default "standard" springs and the soft-center aviation cams, and... it's fine? Like, the weight of the stick definitely makes the spring resistance feel lighter (especially around the center), though not as light as my CH Fighterstick, which is what I used prior to getting the WarBRD. If you move the grip off-center and let go, it will wobble back and forth for a bit before settling down, just from the weight of the stick. But it centers perfectly fine (values in Virpil's Joystick Tester are a consistent X: 50% Y: 50%), and feels fine to use, if a bit on the light side. The upside of the lighter resistance is that it moves very fluidly around the center; you still feel progressively more resistance as you near full deflection, but not enough to lift the base off the table. The main downside seems to just be the oscillation you get if you release the stick without returning it to center first, but is that really all that big a deal in practice? It seems like probably not. For comparison's sake, I opened up the base and swapped out the standard springs for the heavy ones (these are the middle-weight springs that Virpil offers, not the extra-heavy springs that you need to order separately). The heavy springs have a much stronger centering force, and correspondingly less oscillation when releasing the stick (though still some; given the weight of the grip, I think the only way to eliminate oscillation on release would be to add dampeners to the gimbal assembly). Resistance feels even more progressive, but now the stick is on the stiff side even moving around the center (it feels stiffer than the WarBRD grip with the standard springs did), and the center detent is much more pronounced, making precise movements around center more difficult. As you approach full deflection, resistance rises so much that the base lifts a bit. It's actually almost impossible to hit full deflection without lifting the base. I don't hate the stronger resistance, though I feel like the lighter springs are more practical for a desktop stick (no lifting) and offer better precision (movement around center with the standard springs is very fluid). Maybe the stronger springs would be better with the no-center cams? They certainly don't need the detent to help them center--the spring weight alone is probably enough. I dunno. The base lifting would still be an issue, though. Maybe I could add more weight to the base plate; it's pretty light compared to, say, the Warthog base. So I'm thinking about sticking with the standard weight springs. I'm curious: what springs are other people using? Particularly people using the WarBRD as a desktop stick. I know that's probably a small demographic, but mounting my stick is really not an option for me. My PC area is a multi-use workstation, and I need to be able to quickly and easily move all the flight gear out of the way when not in use.

The SCAS provides very minimal dampening that helps with stability if you take your hand off the cyclic, but which is pretty much immediately overcome when you make any control input. If it didn't, then you'd need to hold down the force trim button just to make regular control inputs, which defeats the purpose of even having it. You can test it for yourself, though--try retrimming with the press and hold method, and then try again via moving the cyclic and then tapping the button. Both methods have exactly the same effect, in game.

The problem with this is that nobody is going to be looking down at their lap while trying to transition and trim a helicopter. The control map is probably a better reference for how the cyclic is trimmed, for the time being. I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Because of the way in which DCS models the trim, moving the stick to a new position and tapping the force trim button has exactly the same effect as holding in the force trim button and dragging the trim point to the same location. The controls do not recenter until you "drop" the trim point, so while you can see it being dragged around in the control map, this has no effect whatsoever on your control inputs. The trim remains centered at that last position it was at until you let go of the button. In the real helicopter, the reason to hold in the button is that it releases the magnetic brake, so as long as you hold the button, the controls move freely and have no centering action. There is no way to simulate that on a standard flight stick or rudder pedals in DCS, though, as they have a physical, fixed center. So, in DCS, holding in the button does nothing, in-game.

It's been explained ad infinitum at this point, including on this very page, but to summarize: 1. Returns stick to a known, 1:1 state, which can be useful because while an Apache pilot can always tell how the controls are trimmed by feel, a DCS pilot is using a virtual recentering method intended to replicate the functionality of the Apache's trim system on a spring-centered flight stick, and the drawback of this is that you have no way to know the actual position of the stick aside from remembering how you've trimmed it. 2. Restores access to the full range of cyclic/pedal input, which you don't have when the cyclic and pedals are trimmed. 3. Gives you easy, quick access to a neutral stick position, which is a position that you will constantly return to and/or pass through every time you transition. Like, you claim that a neutral stick position is some sort of imaginary thing that is irrelevant to actual flight, but that is simply not true. Comparing trimming the Apache to trimming aircraft is pointless; the trim system on the Apache does not work the same way as a fixed-wing aircraft's trim system (helicopters in general use a lot more trim than fixed-wing aircraft), and home flight sticks can't replicate how a helicopter's trim system works, either, unless you have a force-feedback stick. So, while a reset button is a fudged control that is not available on the real Apache, some degree of fudging is necessary to give virtual pilots a similar degree of control that a real Apache pilot would have. And at the end of the day, nobody is forcing you to use the reset button if you don't want to use it. If you are fine limiting yourself to only switching between trimmed positions, then just keep doing that. But every other helicopter module in DCS has a trim reset, and a lot of people clearly find it useful, so I'm having a hard time understanding the pushback.

I can postulate a situation where using the existing trim controls could put you in a worse situation, but that's not a good argument against having trim controls. I think everyone understands that a reset trim button is not a get-out-of-jail-free card that will always save you in a situation where you have already lost control, though I would argue that there can be value to returning your stick to a known position in an out-of-control situation, because you immediately regain access to the full range of cyclic/AT input in every direction, which is a thing that you can't have as long as the controls are trimmed. As I mentioned up-thread, access to the full range of control input is a thing that real Apache pilots always have, so virtual pilots are already flying with a handicap, and helicopters are difficult enough to fly without adding additional challenges to the mix. Additionally, real Apache pilots always know the position to which they have trimmed their controls, because the controls remain in that position. They don't have to try to remember where the controls are trimmed to like we do. Anyway, I think the ideal use case for a reset button is preventing yourself from losing control in the first place. And there are lots of situations where it's just useful in general, because the neutral control position (in both the game and real life) is not some random thing that has no relevance to flying. It's a place that the controls are going to be constantly returning to, or passing through, as you transition from one mode of flight to another. Need to transition from cruise to hover? You are going to be pulling your cyclic back to (and eventually through) that 0,0 position. Need to transition from hover to cruise? You are going to be bringing your anti-torque pedals back to neutral. A neutral control position is a touchstone that you pass through constantly; having an input that allows you to easily find it whenever you need to seems like a decent compromise to having a trim system that is (unavoidably) considerably harder to use than the trim system in the real aircraft.

That video really sums it up well. No, a trim reset button is not realistic. But flying a helicopter with a spring-loaded, self-centering joystick is also not realistic, nor are the various trim modes that ED has come up with to allow people to fly helicopters with joysticks rather than cyclics. As Redkite demonstrates in that video, the unavoidable problem is that a real helicopter cyclic does not lose any of its range of motion when you trim it. If you need to pull full back on the cyclic, you can do that from any trimmed position. With a joystick using either of the joystick-friendly trim modes in this module, you cannot pull full back on the cyclic if you have it trimmed forward. You have to first trim it back to neutral, then pull full back. You also have no way to know where neutral is, short of looking down at your lap and trying to gauge the position of the virtual stick (not a great idea if you are struggling with controlling the helicopter) or calling up the control map. In a real helicopter, you can feel where the cyclic is positioned. In a virtual helicopter that you are flying with a flight stick, it would be nice to have a helper function. Like, say, a "reset trim" button.

I considered something like that, but I'd need to push my chair back a foot or so to use it, leaving me farther from my monitor, which is a negative. I guess I could move my monitor forward, but there's a lot of cabling that feeds through my monitor stand and then is secured in cable routing channels behind my desk, so I'd need to readjust that stuff every time I did it, and... no. Just, no. And with my chair pushed back, I can no longer comfortably reach my throttle on the desktop, so I'd need to have a stand for that, too, and then I'd need to find room to store two big HOTAS stands in my office. Like I said, I considered all these options, and decided that I'd much rather find a desktop solution.

I'm looking to upgrade my HOTAS; I currently use a CH Products setup--Fighterstick, Pro Throttle, Pro Pedals. There's nothing wrong with it--it works fine and will probably continue to work fine for the next hundred years or so because: CH Products. I've had it for a very long time--I bought it when the original Black Shark came out, before DCS World even existed. I think I'm due for an upgrade. For the stick and throttle, at least. I like the CH pedals, and plan to keep them. I want a stick (and throttle) that will work as a desktop solution. I have neither the space nor the inclination to build a simpit, and I use this PC for a bunch of other things, including work, so I need a HOTAS that can be quickly brought out when needed and put away when not in use. I don't really want to use desk mounts, either. I don't need the extra setup hassle (even the quick release ones would be more of a pain than just grabbing a desktop stick), and I don't want to have to push my chair back farther away from my monitor (which you need to do even with something like the Monstertech mounts, just to get your arm at a comfortable angle to the stick and throttle). So: desktop gear only. Non-negotiable! With that in mind, stick height is an issue. My CH Fighterstick is 10.25 inches tall and is very comfortable to use as a desktop stick, even in prolonged sessions. The Thrustmaster Warthog is a bit less than an inch taller, which would also be fine (I tried playing with my CH stick on top of a book, just to confirm the comfort level of a slightly higher stick). Thrustmaster's stick also gets bonus points for being heavy and having a wide base, which are useful features in a non-mounted stick. But I don't want a Warthog HOTAS. I've tentatively ruled out the Winwing Orion (at least the stick--the throttle is a possibility). It's closer to two inches taller than my current stick, which is right on the edge of being too tall. It's also a lot lighter and has a terrible base. My desktop is a birch butcher block, and I am not at all certain those suction cups would stick to it. I considered MacGyver-ing a better baseplate but decided that I'm going to be spending that much money, I'd rather buy something that I don't immediately need to mod. Option #1 is the VKB MCG on a Gunfighter base. I'd want to go with the Ultimate, because I'd rather have three hats on top of the stick, and not one hat and two analog mini sticks. So that would be very expensive, and I'd probably have to hold off on getting a new throttle for the time being. I don't necessarily mind doing that: the CH throttle is fine, and I don't mind sticking with it for the time being. Replacing the stick is my higher priority. And the VKB Gunfighter/MCG combo has a lot of good features. It's the same height as a Warthog stick, and has a wide, heavy base. The stick has a ton of inputs, which is nice. So, it's an option. Option #2: get a Virpil WarBRD base, with a WarBRD stick. Virpil's MT-50 stick is way too long for desktop use, but the WarBRD + WarBRD combo is, like the VKB, almost exactly the same height as a TM Warthog stick. The WarBRD base is a bit lighter than VKB's, but it has a wide stance and seems like it would be stable. This combo is considerably cheaper (especially with the current 10% off promo), which is a major plus. The stick is plastic rather than metal, but I don't mind plastic as long as it's sturdy (my CH Fighterstick is plastic, but it's built like a tank). The main concern is functionality. Aesthetically, I like the minimalism of this F-4/F-5 style stick, but it obviously has a lot fewer inputs than the VKB, or even compared to what I have now. Two hats (with push), two buttons, and a two-stage trigger. That said, I'm comfortable using a modifier. I currently use the pinky button on my throttle to simulate a dual-stage trigger on my stick (the CH stick is just a one-stage), and also to double up some functions on my throttle hats. With a modifier key, the WarBRD effectively has four hats and four buttons, which seems like it should be fine for any modern jet? Crazy, or workable? Does anyone here fly modern aircraft with this stick? Thoughts?

Yeah, having something made is a possibility, I suppose. I also considered just buying the plate for the Super Libra and drilling new holes in it for the Orion. Or just use clamps, though that's what I do now with my CH setup, and I was kind of hoping to leave the clamps behind when I upgrade. Yeah, this is a possibility, too. I do like an F-16-style grip (I have one currently). It's comfortable, has lots of inputs, which makes it versatile for use on different aircraft, and I like the layout. That raises the cost quite a bit, though, because I'd either have to go for the full F-16 set, which is $150 more, or buy a separate F-16 stick and F/A-18 throttle, which still works out to be $116 more. Worth considering, though.

Does anyone know if there's an aftermarket base plate available that will fit the Orion stick? Not the gimbal--just the plate. I'm considering an upgrade, but I'm really leery of the "tiny plate with suction cups" base plate that the Orion gear uses. I'd prefer something more like the Warthog base--wide and heavy, so it doesn't move during use. Winwing sells a larger plate separately, but for whatever reason it only has holes for the Libra (and why Winwing doesn't use the same mounting configuration for all their gear is also a mystery). I know the Orion mounting holes are identical to the Warthog's, but it doesn't look like you can buy a Warthog base plate on its own, and I haven't been able to find any aftermarket options for one.

Definitely not, but the steering assembly on even a budget car costs more than flight sim gear--even the high-end stuff from Realsimulator.

Does anyone know how tall the F-16EX stick is on an Orion base? Shorter than the F/A-18 stick?

I'm using a CH Fighterstick, Pro Throttle, and Pedals on Windows 11 with no issues. I don't recommend using the CH software, but I wouldn't recommend using it with Windows 10, either. Windows natively recognizes all of the CH stuff and allows you to calibrate them, anyway.

But we did get the Persian Gulf map. The US has a military presence in the UAE, and Iran and Russia are strategic allies. Iran flies MiG 29s, Su-20/22s, and there's speculation that Russia is going to provide them with Su-35s. That map is tailor-made for a UAE-Iranian conflict, which would very much be a clash of US and Russian interests. I totally agree that focusing on Normandy or the Battle of Britain (or the Pacific theater!) would be smart, as those are big holes in IL-2's lineup (at least until they release their upcoming Normandy campaign). But their approach to WWII content seems haphazard, almost like they are randomly drawing projects out of a hat. For example, consider ED's WWII-era modules, in order of release. And yes--I know that not all of these are ED's modules, but even if you narrow the list to just their projects, it still doesn't really feel like they have a coherent plan... P-51D Mustang: Introduced in the spring of 1944, flew in the Normandy invasion, and for the remainder of the war. Iconic aircraft, good start. Fw 190 D-9 Dora: German air units got the first D-9s in September of 1944. At that point the Allies had (mostly) liberated France and were fighting the Germans in the Low Countries. Bf 109 K-4 Kurfürst: First models were introduced in late October of 1944. Fought in the Battle of the Bulge. Normandy map: In 2017, DCS finally released a map for their growing warbird collection, but it was an incredibly weird choice based on their existing modules. Because while the P-51D flew over Normandy, the Fw 190 D-9 and the Bf 109 K-4 were both Battle of the Bulge planes. It would have made a LOT of sense for ED to release an Ardennes map, as all three of these aircraft clashed there. But nope--we get Normandy. At this point, you would think that ED would be thinking either "We need to get an appropriate map for the three aircraft that we have," or "We need to get more aircraft that fought in Operation Overlord." Or, ideally, both of those things. So, what was their next project? Spitfire LF Mk. IX: Okay, cool--the IX's went into service in early 1943, but they did fight in the Normandy invasion. So, now we have two Allied planes that fought in Operation Overlord... and no Axis planes. Theater-appropriate Axis planes, please! Polikarpov I-16: WHAT IS EVEN GOING ON? This Soviet plane went into service in 1935, and first flew in the Spanish Civil War. They were massively outclassed by the German fighters in the early months of Operation Barbarossa, and by 1943 the USSR was no longer using them. Did this plane even fly over the western front? Fw 190 A-8: Okay, FINALLY we get an Axis plane that fought at Normandy. P-47D Thunderbolt: I am predisposed to love the Jug, and ED is flipping the script a bit by including two variants with the module. But the D-30 is post Normandy, and the D-40 is a late-war plane. Sure wish we had an Ardennes map! Channel map: ED finally releases a second map for their warbirds, and it is ANOTHER MAP OF THE ENGLISH CHANNEL. This map is shifted a bit east, and includes the Port of London, which would make it ideal for depicting the Battle of Britain, if the number of existing DCS warbirds that fought in the Battle of Britain weren't zero. Mosquito FB VI: Okay, introducing a twin-engine, multi-role plane into the warbird lineup is a good idea, IMHO, but they still have zero BoB planes, as this variant did not go into service until mid-1942. I saw someone on reddit joke once that the "C" in DCS should stand for "Cockpit" rather than "Combat," and when it comes to the WWII era, there's some truth to that. ED does an amazing job simulating these aircraft, but they do a pretty poor job simulating the conflicts in which they were used. IL-2 is lightyears ahead in that respect--especially when it comes to single-player content. I would kill for an IL-2-style career mode for DCS's P-47D.