Dudikoff

Virpil base, VKB uses a different mounting system.

Pretty much any decent monitor will work well, as it just requires that a quality scaler unit is put inside. Of course, any 120+ Hz monitor will be expensive so it's a sure bet that it will work well with Nvidia cards, too.

IMHO, there's not so many reasons to aim for the native G-Sync screens anymore since Nvidia does now support Freesync screens in their drivers as well. The G-Sync screens do usually have a lower VRR FPS range limit, though, but they also do cost noticeably more. I.e. while the Nvidia screens will have their range starting from 30 FPS, for the Freesync screens it depends on the model (some start from 30 as well, but often its 40 or even more). On the other hand, the brands seem to consider Freesync as a budget option so those models won't normally be the full bling ones (e.g. like with laptops where Ryzen configs seem to come with worse displays, wifi cards, etc.). The good news is that future Nvidia G-Sync implementations will support Freesync as well so you could have an AMD card with it and not lose the VRR functionality.

Acer would be a better choice since it can work at 75Hz, but the LG 37.5" with 144Hz and native G-Sync support is close to release (38GL950G), though it will of course be noticeably more expensive.

Do you have the Black Shark 2 upgrade perhaps? The campaign asks for a proper Black Shark 2 key IIRC and there's a thread somewhere on how to ask for the full module key (there's a link somewhere on your account page). Edit: Found it: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=206579

That's too be expected since you're using the 4K resolution so the GPU is the limiting factor, while your original CPU was fast enough not to bottleneck the GPU. Perhaps there would be a slight difference in some mission with a lot of AI units? It depends how much they've gained in general CPU performance per clock in all those generations, but I wouldn't expect too much since I got the impression that Intel were basically selling the same CPU architecture over and over with only slight improvements. I guess it was much more profitable to invest in marketing and shady anti-competition deals, rather than into a new CPU architecture.

The F-4J/S have a much more capable A2A radar system, but IIRC they only carry dumb A2G weapons, so the F-4E is certainly more interesting in that regard (plus the internal cannon).

How does this relate to the topic of F-14D? ;) Back to the topic at hand, I don't see why the relatively low procured numbers would be a reason against it? The Navy ordered 200 of them and expected to get more, but due to the end of Cold War and short-sightedness of both the Navy and Grumman, the Super Hornet was chosen to replace it and the F-14D and its proposed growth programs (which came much too late, I guess) were canned. The F-14D was the best of the F-14 we could get - a proven airframe and engines with some digitized systems which only made the airplane easier to operate and even more capable. What's not to like here?

Great job there. Which pilot did you use for the Ka-50? I have both of these kits stashed somewhere (including a Heliborne cockpit set for the 50), hope I'll get to finish them some day.

The notebook 2070 is somewhat more gimped than the previous generation, plus of course, the CPU in a desktop will have higher clocks. https://www.techspot.com/article/1849-desktop-vs-laptop-gaming-performance/ If you could find a notebook with a notebook 1080 (not the Max-Q version), it would perform closer to the desktop 2070 than notebook 2070. Something like Alienware 17 R5 or HP Omen 17X. But, since you already have a decent desktop there, it would make sense to simply replace the GPU, rather than to pay more than a double the price of that GPU for a laptop with similar performance.

Given the roles, a more apt comparison would be the Su-22 (export variant of Su-17) which was widely exported already, plus the MiG-27 was more expensive, I guess.

The F-35 doesn't really fit with the others mentioned here. Unlike the others, it looks ungainly because of its fat proportions which are not due to the LO function, but the requirement to use the same design as the Marine VTOL variant which means the fuselage had to be thick enough to fit a vertical lift fan.

Yeah, I'm using some baby powder to make it usable. Not a great solution, but it gives me better results than trying to remove the stuff with alcohol (which I tried on some headphones and a mouse - the mouse revealed a white semi-transparent plastic underneath so that was a bust). I presumed it's the driver, but had to ask. Definitely not likely I'll find time to get into device driver writing from scratch, especially for the mode switch only. It's something Logitech should have provided in the first place as all other HOTAS have their mode switches mapped to DX buttons by default. Really turned out an unwanted baby for Logitech, the G940, given how shoddy the software was. That 386DX40 was my first PC as well, but I never got the 387 co-processor (there was some q387 emulator for games which required its presence, IIRC). I remember it was quite expensive, so much in fact that my parents didn't get me a new one for like five-six years (the next one was Pentium III 450 - quite a few generations happened in between).

Nobody expects any documents from the Russian government, but some models were exported and obtaining their documentation might be possible (like e.g. Razbam got the documents for the Cuban MiG-23MLA we're getting, documentation is pretty much available for the export MiG-29 9.12B).

As I have the G940 stashed somewhere, the rubberized coat became rather sticky, though, but I'll try out this firmware update for sure. But, as I remember, it had a 3-position mode switch on it, which unfortunately wasn't mapped to the DX buttons and was thus only visible and usable by the Logitech programming software (which was pretty bad). Do you think it's something you could mod perhaps with the firmware or it's part of the drivers? I presume the latter, but had to ask. Thanks.

Wow, this is really a hard-hitting update detailing a higher-than-expected progress on a number of modules/features. Thanks.

I'm sure this was asked for long before, but to no avail. Yes, the game needs it, but it's probably not that simple to implement given the current code. E.g. should a Neutral aircraft AI react when it's attacked and how should its side react after that towards the attacking side and so on.

As a Cougar owner, I'm also interested in the set of spare parts.

IMHO, getting a bigger monitor with a lower resolution would never be beneficial, even more so for DCS where you need a decent DPI for cockpits. Since you don't replace monitors every day, I'd definitely get a 27" (not sure if that resolution is acceptable for you on the 32" one) 1440p monitor (and I'd aim for more than 60Hz if financially possible) for your 980 and adjust the DCS detail level if necessary (though I'd expect it should handle it fine on high details for up to 60 FPS). Then later when you upgrade the GPU, you'll be all set to enjoy DCS in higher FPS and decent resolution, rather than needing to buy a higher resolution monitor as well.

The numbers in the poll, more specifically the ratio of TM vs VKB in the context of the viewpoint that TM should adapt to their standard. Please note, I'm not doubting that VKB base is superior, but I'm just noting the business potential of selling VKB grips to owners of TM-compatible bases. The stick is grip + base and your case is kind of a hybrid one, I guess. I presume the point of the poll was to determine for which products they need to provide default mappings. Not sure which parts you consider to be contained in this 'MB' exactly, but perhaps you should check video. So, a small VKB to TM converter board would be required and would be a part of the adapter set, of course. Again, a long time ago VKB also announced an MCG-TM grip with a TM compatible mount and signals, provided by putting such an extra adapter board in between their MCG board output and the TM mount. But, please, I really don't intend to contaminate the thread with this discussion any longer as VKB is obviously not interested in selling their grips to owners of TM-compatible bases (TM Cougar in various aftermarket gimbal forms, TM Warthog, Virpil, RS FSSB, etc.).

Got it, but if we take this poll as a valid reference, it's quite a weird stance from a business perspective, IMHO. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=218695 Thanks for the answer.

They did announce MCG TM variant a long time ago, so they definitely *had* some plans to tap into that market. Not sure if that still stands, though. Yeah, I guess that depends on how you're used to configure the controls. I was writing from a narrow perspective where some programming options not supported by DCS control setup are expected. I guess those are pretty few and not that crucial, though and perhaps that Joystick Gremlin software could handle them, I didn't have time to check that out yet.

Did you also collect feedback for a TM base adapter perhaps? I'm sure there are customers out there with TM compatible bases who'd prefer your grip over the Virpil one. Since you don't offer a throttle, you can't expect people to ditch their current HOTAS systems, but selling them grips until your throttle is ready would be a way to attract them to your eco-system. I guess there's my answer. Oh, well..

The tall footprint is there for a reason (so that the throttle movement is more precise) and removing this would remove its main feature over the other throttles.

Entitledness, complaining, selfishness? You might want to tone your imagination down a few notches.. Nobody's expecting them to do anything, it's just potential customer feedback.