Youtch

Where else were you capping the CPU, except in DCS FPS limits?

Fov also plays a major role in the perception of speed.

So far i had used this thread for information, but maybe it was incorrect: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/91406-uh-1h-how-many-degrees-of-travel-in-the-collective/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Do you have the source for cyclic travel because I was finding conflicting information, is 13 inches the total travel for one axis, or the travel in each direction? Thanks again, y.

Following up on the quest to try to configure FFB to feel as realistic as possible for UH-H1. I understand that the cyclic does not self-center as for fixed wing aircrafts where the stick is "spring loaded" as for instance in F14 or F4 or ww2 propeller planes, the cyclic instead moves freely and will not return to the center by default. So far so good, one of the most magic part of FFB is to get rid of base spring. But this lack of self-centering does NOT imply that there is no changes of force felt along the travel range of the cyclic. In UH-H1, I read that the force required to make any input changes depends on the amount of deflection, the more deflection the more force required in the input. Is this correct? I came recently to discover this while trying to figure out how UH-H1 pilots are able to feel where is the neutral position of the stick when the aircraft is not yet forced trim before take-off, since there is no instrument whatsoever in the cockpit reflecting the angles of the blades. Basically without any spring on the stick and without displaying the position of the controllers, I was crashing on take off because the stick was not near the center. Apparently, pilots can feel the center because there is a steeper gradient of force just around the neutral position. Anyone would have more information about this? I wish I would be able to capture this behavior, but I have no clue how to create a gain curve in VPForce_Configurator to link more deflection with more force without using spring mapping. Many thanks in advance here for the community of Subject Matter Experts to bring some more light on this topic.

Many thanks for your answer. If this is correct, I understand that to replicate this with FFB, it would imply less spring strength for roll than for pitch, which i understand that is the opposite of what is currently implemented, where roll requires double strength than pitch If I understand correctly, are you suggesting also that left roll and right roll differs in the pressure to go full deflection? Any reason for it, or it is just to fit the ergonomics of the wrist?

Dear community, This is a question related to force feedback. In its current implementation, F16 module is sending FFB information to configure 100% spring force for X axis and 50% spring force for Y axis. I know that in real life, the stick does not provide any feedback (apart from small vibrations at high Gs), and it is a force sensitive stick travelling only a few mm, hence it is very hard to try replicate this with a FFB stick. But, my understanding is that IRL there is no real difference in sensitivity between X and Y axis on the side stick. Is my understanding correct or am I missing something? What is the rationale behind this decision of differentiating so much X and Y axis coming from? Is it due to ergonomics of the position of the stick on the side instead of centered, where movements in Y directions might be more difficult to do than movements in X directions, due to the anatomy of the wrist? Many thanks in advance, y.

I was glad to find this thread. With the jittering of the HCMS it is impossible to make the alignment procedure on the f16. I don t seem to find in OpenXR the shake reduction, is it still there? It might not be available with Motion Reprojection. Thanks again, Y.

What about the F4?

I have learned since my first day with ChatGPT yesterday to challenge it much more, and cross reference everything, which helps fine tuning information. But fact is that it has access and can browse pilot manuals much faster than me. Thanks for your feedback

First experience with Chat GPT, still learning here. Many thanks for your answer! According to these pictures, most of the plane in DCS do have their elevators dropping

AI found the answer (although it seems it went very creative and did not check any pictures... DCS Fighter Jet Elevator Droop Table Aircraft Elevator Droop (Engine OFF, No Hydraulics) Elevator Droop (Engine ON, Idle Hydraulics) Notes F-4 Phantom II Yes No Stabilators droop when hydraulic pressure is lost. MiG-15bis Yes No Early jet design; elevators droop when unpowered. F-5E Tiger II Yes No Stabilators drop when the engine is off. F-86F Sabre Yes No Elevator droops with no hydraulic pressure. MiG-21bis Yes No Hydraulics hold surfaces in position when running. F-14 Tomcat Yes No Stabilators droop significantly when powered down. F-16C Viper No No Electric actuator locks stabilizers in place. F/A-18C Hornet No No Fly-by-wire holds control surfaces at neutral. A-10C II Tank Killer No No Manual trim keeps elevators neutral. M-2000C No No FBW system locks surfaces in position. AV-8B N/A Harrier II No No FBW prevents droop at all times. JF-17 Thunder No No FBW controls surfaces even when engines are running. MiG-19P Farmer Yes No Old Soviet jet; typical droop when unpowered. MiG-23MLA Yes No Stabilators drop without hydraulic pressure. F-15C Eagle No No Electric actuators hold position. Su-27 Flanker Yes No Elevators droop when powered down. Su-33 Flanker-D Yes No Same as Su-27, droops when unpowered. MiG-29 Fulcrum Yes No Stabilators drop without hydraulic pressure. J-11A Yes No Same as Su-27, droops when unpowered. AJS-37 Viggen No No Hydraulic lock holds elevators in place. C-101CC Yes No Elevators droop slightly when parked unpowered. L-39 Albatros Yes No Common for older Soviet trainers. MB-339 Yes No Stabilizer droop is typical of its design. Mirage F1 Yes No Hydraulic pressure loss causes elevator droop.

Hello, I understand that many of the older planes had their elevators actually dropping due to their own weight when the plane was parked, with the stick dropping forward as a consequence. Then upon switching on the engine, the propeller wash would raise the elevator into a centered position. I understand that some planes have a bobweight to counterbalance the weight of the elevator, and hence the elevators are never dropping. I understand that more modern plane might have an hydraulic system to raise the elevator upon turning on the engines. DCS needs to always align the elevators with the actual position of the stick, which is then usually centered as most of the sticks are with a spring-loaded base, hence not reflecting correctly the position of the elevators for a plane at cold start. But some Force Feedback Software such as TelemFFB for VPForce Rhino allows to simulate the elevator drop, which is a very cool effect, that left me wondering to which planes this elevator dropping effect actually applied. Does anyone know if the elevator dropping applied to any post-ww2 planes implemented as a module DCS? Parked F-14 seems to be with elevator dropped for instance. Many thanks in advance, y.

Mine looks more or less centered but with less travel in the forward position than backward (I am using a Rhino) Does anyone know how much resistance there is in real life to the stick movement. Is it light on the hand or rather heavy requiring strength to pull back? As I am trying to configure FFB as close as possible to reality. Many thanks in advance, y.

I was very glad to have fpund this thread to help me tune my FFB Rhino, many thanks for posting it and all those who replied. I bought a Rhino after checking your vids on FFB, and I also have to thank you for this, as this is the best purchase I ever made. This thread made me wish that there was a post consolidating the feel on the stick of all the helicopters and planes in DCS to help with the configuration of FFB, maybe with associated configs as well, to get got instance for F18, F14 or A10 the most realistic feel. This would really help those of us who never got the chance to pilot the real thing when having to configure FFB for these modules. Thanks again, y.

Going back to this thread Anyone has found a solution for this? DCS seems to be listing the devices in very creative ways when displaying the columns, not matching windows order, which makes findings the bindings very cumbersome. Many thanks in advance, y.

Are you using it together with motion reprojection?

Which tool have you been using?

MANY THANKS FOR CREATING THIS! Do Mariana and Caucasus map still require F4 MOD to be installed for this to work?

Thanks for your answer. I am quite bothered by seeing ghost plane whenever a plane is crossing in front of my nose with high deflection, or even seeing it with my own plane whenever I switch to the fly-by view. Is this due to the ghosting of DLSS or to the artefact from Motion retroprojection? Unfortunately I am incapable of running the game without Motion retroprojection. Many thanks again, y.

Does this trick eliminate ghosting even when you have motion reprojection enable?

I would if I would have a headset, unfortunately my G2 is finished, and I am in a market for a new headset and also a new GPU (coming from a 3080). Hence, I am questionning myself if I should buy a new headset without or with eye tracking, based on added performance and clarity, or if it is better to go with fixed foveated headset and invest into a more powerfull GPU. I was initially under the impression that it might be better to invest more money into a headset with eye tracking to use Dynamic Foveated rendering, than investing into a 4090 instead of a 4080 for instance, or a 5070 Ti instead of a 5090. But since I cannot experiment it by myself, I am putting this impression out there to be challenged by people who might have played with both Dynamic and Fixed Foveated rendering, and be able to assess the performance gain from one to another, as well as the overall impression of clarity.

Thanks for your reply, very helpfull. Good to learn the possibility to live with a smaller center size with eye tracking dynamic foveated rendering compared to fixed. -> Hence the difference here would be 97% at 0.5 resolution vs 75% at 0.5 resolution. But I am quite surprised to hear that both dynamic and fixed accommodate the same 0.5 resolution for the peripheral area. I was assuming (maybe wrongly) that you could live with lower resolution on the periphery with dynamic eye tracking, since you would not really realise the resolution of the object out of your focus because out of your eye cone, while with fixed looking at the sides would result in a very blurry impression hence requiring to dial up the resolution of the periphery.

Thanks for your answer, I was also considering getting an original crystal instead of the crystal light for eye tracking, despite the battery problems.

Thanks for your reply. This somehow confirms my initial impression, although i have a hard time to find data which could quantify the actual difference between Dynamic and Fixed foveated rendering in terms of number of pixels rendered, or effective reduction achieved compared to full resolution for each solution. I was thinking indeed that you could potentially achieve much higher reduction with DFR than with FFR, because with DFR you can focus on the cone only and leave all the rest with very low resolution, and not realize it, while in FFR the resolution outside the cone still need to be somehow higher to not be shockingly blurry. Hence, if DFR with eye tracking can achieve 70% reduction of pixel (as per a post mentionned above), what can you reasonnably expect for reduction with FFR to obtain a similar impression of clarity?