P1KW

I confirm that Crossfire negative scale with the latest version of DCSW. Although the machine is modest and does bottleneck in the CPU this has been the behavior of a 6990: Take off Beslan, full screen (Crossfire ON). Crossfire Mode: -Off: 33 FPS -Default: 25 FPS -Compatible with AFR: 25 FPS (ABRIS and Skhv flash) -Optimize 1x1: 25 FPS Identical, in windowed mode (Crossfire OFF), 33 fps. Greetings!

If you do the roast too fast, is raw inside, and diners complain about your kitchen. Greetings!

If things have not changed, Crossfire negative scale. If you have a multi-monitor configuration, which necessarily go windowed mode, crossfire, auto-off. I do not know if this is solvable with SoftTh. If I get time off, this weekend will do tests with a 6970 and a 6990 full-screen mode and put the results here. With my 4 monitors settings in Windows extended mode, the result is identical in both, since I have to use the window mode. Greetings! PS: Maybe with EDGE, all this change, but would not bet a good vodka.

You fly straight and level with the helicopter compensated, the stick (or spring FFB) is anchored or centered, and coincides with the attitude memorized by the AP. Right. You enter a small change in attitude, and then you try to compensate, what happens is that the helicopter "jumps" from the attitude memorized by the AP to the position of the stick. That is the only problem, no matter spring or FFB. I attached another video, a short flight, compensate different attitudes. Note well in 00:45, which induce this effect, there is only a slight variation on the stick, but does not match the stored in the AP, and the helicopter falls nose down. In the rest of the flight the helicopter remains perfectly stable to compensate. Greetings!

A simplified version. The pneumatic pistons are 60 N (Newton), but excessive force, the ideal would be 40 N. But only had these pistons ... To change the axis screws (M8) of the differential brakes; You have to remove the bottom cover. Remove the wheel friction adjustment. The nut, lock nut, and spring. Remove the top cover. No need to remove the foot platforms. Remove the screw with which he replaced. The hardest thing is to machine a part, as the disc left in the 2nd picture. You have to join the M8 screw and piston kneecap. There may be different methods. Greetings! The problem is the center console that underlies the joystick, is about 20 cm wide, and is the one that defines the separation of my feet ...

For just left. Regarding the last pictures I changed the pedals (the bike) for a metal pedals, in the previous photo, despite being firmly attached, the black (plastic) allowed some lateral movement. Without spring, without a center. Touch is hydraulic, viscous. Greetings.

Not the solution, ED can make simulators, not miracles. The first FS I fly was handled better with mouse, at that time there was no analog joys. Maybe has not understood. The PeterP code is perfect with pedals without spring. If you insist on the spring will have to use the ED solution. In most helicopters pedals have no center, only a touch viscous. The pilot places, and there they stay. Greetings!

The FD is not used in reality: You lose many aids that are for something. Unfortunately, the absence of adequate control devices on the market, forcing us to modify existing: More realistic control since I've been flying BS (with G940) thanks to the bug in the last version and this little program from AveragePilot: Who said the G940 force can not relax while pressing the trimmer button ? This guy has done at home. Damper and friction effects in force feedback for Black Shark For the yaw I removed the spring to the pedals and I added hydraulic touch, with that touch the pedals are very viscous. Two pneumatic pistons. Thanks again to a third, this code from Peterp; How to unchain the rudder from trim Both should be included in DCSW. I'm sure ED reads these things. In any case, the human being has an amazing ability to adapt. If no joysticks, end up flying the Ka-50 with a mouse, but I understand that I comment above is the most natural. Greetings! Excuse my poor English, if I put something stupid, let me know.

A update, less backlash and more robustness. In testing phase. Duality is lost, only helicopter. Greetings! Thank you very much the magician Peterp, by doing this: How to unchain the rudder from trim

Hello, my English is very basic. Excuse. If I understand you correctly refers to the area without strength, around the center of joy. It is curious, but as I have extended the lever, and logically, the area has increased, and surprisingly the inconvenience to this dead zone has decreased perceived very natural. I guess he was referring to that he commented, Greetings!

Hi, another update, this time the collective. It was a very complicated job to do. Anti torque pedals coming soon. Greetings!

New update ... UH-1 ready ... Greetings! Thanks to Peterp and Average_Pilot for his work, more realistic control of the Ka-50: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=40624 http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1628706&postcount=43

Updated for hydraulic touch. Without central point. Conjunction with Peterp-Unchain the Rudder from Trim is perfect for the Ka-50. I have removed the springs and have replaced these two gas struts, 6 kg to move, but as both pulling with equal force to the central axis those 6 kg is "poised". To achieve a viscosity uniform along the entire route the dampers are not fully open or fully closed at the respective ends of travel. There is no central point, I can put the springs for fixed wing, although I think with that viscosity is not necessary. The feeling is of extreme viscosity, as acting on a hydraulic system. Very similar to a assisted steering but something harder. The accuracy in the simulator, tested in BS1 and X-Plane, is much improved, it can move very progressive and entirely impossible to make small involuntary movements. At 0:53 move with little finger attempt to illustrate the force required to move the pedals, impossible. The video, a summary of the different options that I have managed to G940 pedals. Greetings!

Confirm, same problem with FFB in G940. Test, Ka-50. Greetings!

Follow with attention the development of their products. FFB I do not care because the limitations of the simulators, but a "Force Trim" electro-mechanical would be fantastic. Greetings!

http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=16e04abc11327c87e4d3f6ee0b31f5ec Greetings!

Patience is the mother of science. Do their job. You already have my money. Greetings! PS: Thanks for the info.

Сухой Су-27, of course. Greetings!

Right. Interesting the poll and its findings. The more surprising the F-15F, which was not made​​. 10 people like an airplane that does not fly. I was the first to vote for him. Sorry for the mistake. First, to clarify that my proposal is not throw them away the work of one of the teams. My proposal is to vary one project to another variant. I wondered if it was possible, but nobody has responded. Nor do I pretend ordain any developer what to do. But I am convinced that any developer, manufactures something without looking at the market. Managing optimistic numbers, understand that with two twins products, the market for F-15E, would look like this. 40% buy IRIS, 400 units 1000. 40% buy RAZBAM, 400 units 1000. 20% buy both, of 1000, 200. IRIS Total: 600 copies. RAZBAM Total: 600 copies Total ED: 1200 copies. If we have two variations, the market would be so, at least among customers "hard-core": 20% buy IRIS, 200 of 1000 20% buy RAZBAM, 200 of 1000 60% buy both, 600. IRIS Total: 800 RAZBAM Total: 800 Total ED: 1600. This on the one hand, are only imaginary numbers. But I suppose nobody will deny that such business is better for everyone. On the other hand, I was surprised the remaining 5x% of "I do not care." It is clear that American planes are not necessarily the most popular. I was also surprised the 8 people who want, "two products-a plane." Basically because they have not provided any argument. Nothing more. All this assuming that both teams will produce a simulation with the level of DCS: A-10C. The Time, will speak. Thanks for participating everyone. Greetings!

I think it is good reasoning listen to prospective customers. Are going to amortize these millions of dollars. :smilewink: Greetings!

It seems very important for the community DCSW. Two developers investing resources in exactly the same plane. It razononable. It is the logic of the market. Ok. Two products for the same plane. In the limited universe of DCSW. It's crazy! I do not intend to generate controversy. Show only my opinion. If you want to sell twice as "F-15's", make two variants, please. It's best for everyone, for ED, for developers, and for the whole community. Is it really impossible to alter one of the two projects? F-15C F-15F (single seat) F-15S (export variant) If more people of this opinion, and it seems reasonable to apply pressure on this channel, to participate, please If you prefer two products-a plane, also can argue. If it really is impossible to change one of the two projects, I accept it as such. But if there is the slightest glimmer, or possibility, you have to try. Greetings!

My diet is very varied. Eat everything. But there is something beyond the capacity of my digestive system. "Business decisions." I regret putting the discordant note, but what is this inconsistency? As a potential customer, it seems a waste to have two developers doing the same plane. Simply escapes my capability neuronal. I understand that ED should be more regulated third party development. Greetings!

朋友你好。 非常有趣的图片。 他们是这么好心地提供更多的信息？ 它是一个“MOD”？ 它是项目为“DCSW”吗？ 您好！ Hello friends. Very interesting pictures. Would they be so kind as to provide more information? Is it a "Mod"? Is it a project to "DCSW"? Greetings!

Hi guys, a update. I put two videos (poor quality, sorry) with the latest update. The old system was fine by the extreme simplicity of the assembly. But (there's always "buts") had several ideas that pushed me to improve. The 1st, the need to turn them over for use in a conventional manner. My poor table, long since not table, cockpit is, thus, to get under them around was a nuisance. 1st solution = to 1 disadvantage. G940 pedals are close together, more like a helicopter than a plane. As I mounted the helicopter to the sides of the plane that had left me to go together separate (heli) and vice versa (aircraft) but hey, it's a minor inconvenience. The 2nd improvement was the angle of the pedals. In the original cut, the foot was returning too upright, it was pretty easy to fix, but here comes the 3rd improvement ... The 3rd. Spring, friction and backlash. The bad (good) was opened to remove the dock and discovered that the main axis pivots on a bearing. With the previous system operated by friction, (actually totally acceptable) and "eating up" the slack pivot system differential brake, also negligible. But I'm sure in a real helicopter there is zero backlash, and since departed center bearing, homemade rods did you see in the video. 4 bearings, 4 hose clamps and threaded rod 6 mm, very homely. The idea was to transmit directly from my foot to the central bearing, frictionless, and without gaps. To act with the rods I had to replace the original screw on pivoting brake differential by other longest, is the only (easily reversible) modifications to the original pedals. The connecting rod system, and the angle of the pedals helo, has forced me to mount these more advanced than the pedal plane, another minor inconvenience. Finally the spring, the spring of discord. Ah! And the viscosity of the yaw axis. The original spring G940 is about 5 cm in diameter and 2 laps. When you push the right foot, tense the 1st round, and with the other foot backwards, turn opposite the spring. The downside is that there is a point at rest center, good for fixed wing, but bad for helos ... I also wanted to outsource the spring, that is, put it and remove it from the outside, in this, the solution has been by chance, with no preconceived idea of how I would do it. I put two springs longitudinals in each pedal, with only one strain is very soft, it is perceived more as viscosity, and there is a slight indication of the central point (well to compensate for the Ka-50) but not perceived step through the center, great for helicopters. It is equivalent to not using spring. With two put springs, tension is greater, not excessive, and the central point is clear and definite. Although a single spring serves perfectly, is the choice for fixed wing. And that's it. The truth is that I had a hard time the issue of the rods, but have been great, looking like "monster", but very smooth and precise mechanical level. One more point, G940 pedals have no own electronics, another substantial improvement has been not connect to joy, I have connected to Leo Bodnar card type, in a panel that had only buttons. I've gone from 256 to 4096 steps. Greetings!

The G940 is a good joystick for the Ka-50 ... but there is always a but ... You will need moding to get good performance. Should first extend the stick. It is not essential but highly recommended. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=84793&highlight=g940 You will also have to replace the electronics that control the throttle and rudder. As the above is not essential but recommended. http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3541231/1.html If you are willing to take this job, you will have the best HOTAS for the Ka-50, otherwise you will have a great HOTAS but with minor problems. If you pilot WWII aircraft type (DCS: P-51D Mustang) would say that is the best possible option. In any case, neither option is perfect for the Kamov. Neither Logitech, or TM, or CH or Saitek, but everyone flies with them. Greetings!