kablamoman

I'm sorry but you don't have a full-blown simulation of the stick: This weird behavior is only enabled in the pitch channel with a non-FFB stick! Aerodynamic loads in roll (that are just as valid as the control pressures generated by the bobweight and bellows system in pitch) are not modelled in this fashion at all (nor should they be), but in the traditional way every other non-FBW module does it -- which makes it even more of an inconsistency. I suspect that at the core of this is the fundamental mistake of conflating the control pressures under load with stick position, they cannot be treated the same. By conflating it in this way you have decoupled and broken the pitch axis and induced uncommanded oscillations of not just the visual representation of the stick -- but of the horizontal stab and thus the aircraft itself. I repeat, it's not just the visualization of the in-game stick: It's the stab and the aircraft itself, as well. The neutral trim point (small diamond on the controls indicator) acts as a re-scaling reference point for our joystick input pitch axis in our non-FFB sticks. It's our fixed spring and cam loads in real life that provide us our approximation of control pressure, and the in-game trim is the means by which we re-align the in-game neutral trim position with that center. Edit: Struck out the part about the roll channel as the F-4E roll control is not actuated directly but via hydraulics.

It's not that I don't think I can get used to it. It's that I understand but disagree with the entire premise of how you've chosen to model the stick. Fundamental to flying in a non-FBW aircraft is the relationship of stick position to the deflection of control surfaces. The real F-4, despite the control feel mechanisms, still maintains the relationship of stab position to stick position regardless of how the control forces may be being modulated by the system. Control feel with non-FFB hardware is an old problem in sims that's been tackled many different ways. The reason I fly DCS and not IL-2 is because DCS generally retains the key relationship between the virtual stick and your control peripheral, and therefore control surface deflection itself, foregoing the conceit of attempting to emulate feel in software. This module is now breaking that tradition, and despite the beauty of the entire package it really is a deal breaker for me. It's not just the stick moving, and so it's not just a visual problem: The stab is moving along with it. As such, the relationship between my stick at home and the stab in the game is broken. Feel is irrelevant to this critical point, and it can and should only be added as a layer on top of this with proper FFB support. By abstracting this function, you have not-so-arbitrarily broken the critical link between the pilot and the sim. I say "not-so-arbitrarily" because there is a reasoning behind you doing this, and it is based on actual simulated control forces. But again, the fact that you've modeled the bobweight and bellows system is not at issue, despite the fact that you seem to be implying that's what some are complaining about or needing help to understand. I believe it is also invalid to say that changing the stick simulation would somehow invalidate all the other good work you've done: One need only look at any other non-FBW module in the sim. All of those aircraft in real life were flown by pilots subjected to the same types of control forces and pressures as the F-4, and often have their own distinct systems just as the F-4 with its bobweights and bellows, and yet each one of them has been fully realized in the sim without having this particular issue. You can have all the same control forces and reactions included in your model -- just as the warbirds and other non-FBW aircraft do -- but without decoupling the stick as you've done.

And I too! Again, I really appreciate all the hard work. I completely understand the impetus to pursue some of these kinds of things as well. I fly for a living and understand all too well that some of the visceral feel involved in the act is all too often just out of reach of simulation. Fancy equipment and VR gets us close. Talented developers also help bridge the gap in many innovative ways, as you have all shown you are capable, both in the Tomcat before, and now again with the F-4E. I am sorry to focus on this one aspect so acutely, but it's only because it's the one thing that stands out to me in an otherwise monumental and beautiful offering.

Honestly it seems like you've gotten lost in the weeds with regards to simulating the control feel mechanisms designed into the aircraft, and overlooked the fact that its entire purpose was to make it feel like an aircraft in terms of control response. It's a system designed to modulate pressure forces, and you've conflated that with stick position. The output of the system is no different from a pilot's point of view than the aerodynamic forces acting through the control linkages of a P-51. The stick gets heavy as you pull harder. It gets lighter as your airspeed decreases. It gets heavier as you disturb it from trim and will want to return to its trimmed position. etc. In the absence of proper FFB, I can infer what's happening from what I see happening on the screen. Virtual pull weight limits can even restrict my virtual stick travel in terms of max deflection or rate, or rescale my axis inputs and map a new trimmed neutral center -- but the one thing they should not do is disturb the stick with inputs in direct opposition to my commands. It feels terrible, it feels wrong, and it does not feel realistic at all. With my spring-loaded stick, I can no more feel the P-51 control forces than I can those in the F-4E. And yet the former module respects my control position, while the latter does not. It's the same with other non-FBW modules. There was no need to reinvent the wheel here just because the F-4E happens to have a complex control system you have reverse engineered. That system is about feel and shouldn't be treated any differently than the feel of any other non-FBW aircraft in the sim. That is to say, we can't and shouldn't feel it without FFB!

I would say that the first instincts of your SMEs were correct in this instance, before "they got used to it" being modelled in this fashion. I do not find myself trimming any more for this module than I would have done in any other non-FBW module. Nor do I have a problem with the bobweight and bellows system being modelled. None of that is the problem. For what it's worth, IL-2 has used a stick model that's given stick forces primacy over stick position for quite some time, and it suffers from its own set of problems. The basic facts are that there are real limitations imposed on what you can do without proper FFB hardware, and though many have tried to convey some kind of artificial feel in the software by factoring in control forces, you start to run into problems when you start to abstract the control inputs of the player in ways you shouldn't. I can tell you that there is nothing realistic feeling about this system on a non-FFB stick -- it has only added a second "fake" layer of a decoupled virtual stick into the mix that oscillates and opposes control movement in a way that can't be accounted for. This is not how aircraft controls behave: You don't pull back on the stick and then have it phase through your grip like a ghost for a moment in the opposite direction before it returns to your hand with every pitch input. These control forces should be simulated and be sent out to FFB devices where players can feel, manage and respond to them, but they should not be moving the stick when a player's grip is holding it stationary -- that's not how flying an aircraft works. Modelling the system responsible for generating the forces in the aircraft (the control linkage, bobweights, bellows, aerodynamic loads) was worthwhile, of course. But going the extra step of trying to reinvent how the standard DCS stick model works with a standard joystick was counterproductive and has introduced its own new set of problems.

Bobweights (and various bell cranks, cams, and rollers) -- but no bellows. The specifics of the system are not really important, though. Both systems are there to provide a specific stick feel throughout the performance envelope so the pilot can feel what the aircraft is doing IRL. Real control forces are useful for max performing or having extra sensory input telling you how close you might be to stalling, for instance. In real life, you have to learn how to take that information into account, and often times even consciously work against it, depending on what you want to accomplish. As sim pilots, we learn to use specific visual cues like pitch rate trends, or slight wing dips, or buffeting in response to our input, or even aural cues to help clue us into some of these things. The great thing about FFB if you can get a stick that incorporates it is that you don't have to guess at it as much and can enjoy the real feeling of controls that become loaded with speed, g, or excessive trim. The problem with this specific module is that they have broken with DCS tradition, and they are manifesting those control loads in the stick simulation in the form of uncontrollable stick position changes. You cannot damp them or prevent them from happening by holding your stick firmly like you'd be able to in real life. No bueno and leads to a sloppy feel in pitch, which accomplishes the exact opposite of what the bobweights/bellows were intended to do when they were originally conceived and designed in the first place! I just went round with Steam trying to get a refund, but was unable, due to the time I already put in experimenting with the module trying to figure out what was going on. So, you're stuck with me complaining I guess, Heatblur! The module is really a work of art, though, so I guess I am glad to support the endeavor (and I'd like to hold out some hope for future improvements in this area).

Appreciate it. I do recognize what a monumental undertaking it's been and wish you the best of luck. Back to the warbirds for me, I guess!

With respect, the problem is not with the simulation of the control feel system of the plane, but rather a side effect of how the virtual stick has been modelled for non-FFB users. The bellows/bob weight system is for modulating control pressures -- not stick position. In essence, it is providing the same kind of stick feel to the pilot as they would feel flying a more traditional type of flight control system. In the latter case, those pressures would be provided by aerodynamic forces acting upon the control surfaces as expressed through the control linkages. From the pilot's perspective, the stick should behave relatively the same as any other aircraft in terms of stick forces and their relationship to deviations in trim speed and stick inputs, albeit with differing levels of those forces. In the module, though, what we have is a virtual stick that's been modelled to incorporate FFB-like feedback, even without FFB hardware. The result is that the virtual stick is being moved in ways it shouldn't -- in direct opposition of the user's direct input, as the other posters have shown above. This is not good and breaks some pretty important rules about emulating sticks in flight sims, leading to some profound controllability problems that have nothing to do with the underlying systems.

You cannot. It's built into the stick simulation in this particular module even with the FFB option turned off. The other options in the "Special" settings pertain only to pull force available and "blending" which dynamically adjusts that value. The feedback loop overriding the user's stick positions is not something you can turn off.

This is exactly how I'm processing this. Understandably, an attempt was made to convey some idea of the control forces and feel of the plane by abstracting the virtual joystick and making its position subject to the simulation forces. The problem is that this cannot be done properly without force feedback. Approximations have been made, as in IL2, where the stick position doesn't command a position, but a force applied -- at least in that title it is consistent across the board, but it also does not result in realistic behavior in terms of real stick position vs. in-game control surface deflection through a range of speed. In the F-4E module it seems to be trying to do too much and has over-thought and over-engineered the simulation of how the real aircraft's control feel system integrates with the virtual stick. The irony is that from the pilot standpoint this system should not feel any different than regular control forces generated by aerodynamic loads and declage/trim in a more traditional aircraft. The only difference would be to what extent and how heavy or light the loads are -- but certainly not how the stick behaves. The DCS warbirds and even the F-14, have already solved the problem beautifully, while also allowing for the addition of control pressures to be added to the simulation through proper hardware endabled force feedback. Even for spring-centered sticks, trim neutral stick positions can change (by scaling the axes values instead of changing the virtual stick position entirely), and aerodynamic loads on the controls affect handling and can even restrict pull forces and rates of deflection. There are ways to finesse it while respecting the actual position of the player's control device. @Super Grover I implore you to rethink how this has been implemented and go fly some of the warbirds to see how to properly handle stick position with regards to self-centering spring-loaded sticks. For instance, with an old warbird parked on the ground without any aerodynamic load, the stick is completely dead -- yet the control input isn't being overridden by the simulation and changing the position of the stick to be resting full forward or at some other appropriate position. Due to hardware limitations, you must assume that the stick is being held in place by the pilot, and so the sim dutifully holds the stick upright, as the real life springs keep the axes centered. But with FFB it's another story and the stick will be appropriately dead. Right now, with the current simulation of the F-4 stick is a bit of a muddled abstraction without FFB: We have a case of the plane actively fighting control inputs and inducing oscillations with no way to stop it. I realize a lot of work -- blood, sweat, and tears -- was put into simulating this system, and I believe it should still pay dividends when it comes to providing accurate force feedback. But as someone who really loves flying in both real life and in VR -- and can especially appreciate all the work you've put into this module -- I think the stick behavior we see for non-FFB sticks needs to go back to the basics.

Understood -- except the in-game stick simulation should not be moving the stick if we are holding it in place! With a spring-centered stick, it's as if our pilot is gripping and holding the stick in the center, irrespective of control pressures. What you have done is added a parameter more suitable for FFB sticks to the virtual stick for even users of traditional sticks, and this creates a pretty bad oscillating feedback loop that we cannot damp. The end result is unrealistic, as if we were flying with a limp noodle for an arm, and the stick does what it wants. Please consider revisiting how you've handled this, or adding further options for non-FFB users to get rid of this effect. Please look to the warbirds for reference for how they handle stick and trim forces. The bobweight/bellows system is a system for inducing feel and pressure -- not overriding stick position as it is currently doing for non-FFB sticks! In practice the pilot should not experience it differently than they would the aerodynamic forces acting on the stick in a more traditional aircraft like the warbirds in the game.

And I'm saying this is poor design, and no other plane in DCS behaves this way. Essentially what is happening is that a FFB channel has been added to the stick simulation that can't be disabled for traditional joystick users... This introduces a control feedback loop that the player is unable to dampen or arrest, and it gets worse when the simulated stick neutral position gets aft of your actual Y-axis, and things get really touchy. The bobweights and bellows perform the same function as regular aerodynamic forces acting on controls in a traditional aircraft, and in the absence of FFB hardware they should not even be introduced into the control loop for the sim if the player has a regular joystick. One need only fly one of the warbirds to see how the trim forces should be handled properly -- you can trim and recenter the virtual stick neutral position, but there is not the additional feedback channel adding the oscillations and instability. I really think heatblur needs to take a hard look at this and I am pretty flabbergasted none of the beta testers highlighted it as a huge point of concern.

I hate to be that guy, but I think there is a huge problem with the way the stick has been modelled. The bobweight/bellows system is meant to provide artificial feel, and as far as I can tell, it shouldn't really behave much differently from the pilot's point of view compared to any other aircraft. The more out-of-trim you get, the more restorative pressure there is on the stick. The more G's you want to pull, the heavier the stick. This is the same for any aircraft. What we have with the way the simulation currently works, though (at least with a spring centered stick), is a situation where the system essentially snatches the stick position from the player's hands and moves it uncommanded in response and in opposition to their actual commanded controls -- this should absolutely not happen. If I'm holding the stick at a certain deflection, the stabilator should not budge -- as even the video says, they are directly connected and it's only the control pressures that are being changed. The end result of what we have in the sim right now is that at low speeds it tends to get especially unstable when trying to trim the aircraft for approach speeds and becomes very hard to control as it actively works against you making it the most ridiculously hard to land plane I've ever flown in the sim or in real life for that matter. Think of using the Huey's force trim with a spring centered stick -- it gets really squirrelly. Something really needs to be looked at here, and I think it may play a role in a lot of the FFB complaints that are floating around. I am still trying to wrap my head around it, but something ain't right.

Reading this I am a bit worried the behavior I am seeing in the sim with my non-FFB stick is by design. I am experiencing some pretty heinous lack of control at lower speeds, like when on approach, where pitch inputs on my real stick end up being directly opposed with a slight delay by the in-game stick simulation, which makes it atrociously easy for it to develop into an oscillation with increasing amplitude making the thing next to unflyable. At these speeds it should be trivial to hold the stick at a steady deflection and make small adjustments, but the simulation seems to induce instability by taking direct control of the stick away from me entirely. I am still hoping this is a bug of some sort. Is it possible that a pitch and roll curve has induced the problem somehow? I have made sure "use force feedback" is unchecked in the MISC options.

I just spent all night trying to figure out what's going on with no luck. On the controls overlay you can see the actual stick position and the in-game trimmed center position diverging quite erratically and in opposition to every manually made pitch input with the stick. The problem is not as noticeable at speed, but once you've slowed down to approach speeds it's especially noticeable and induces oscillations that make the thing borderline unflyable. I am not sure if this is a bug (potentially with FFB, even though I've made sure it's off, and have toggled it to be certain), or perhaps a side effect of how stick forces have been modelled-- but I can say that with a fixed center spring and cam stick it does not work out well at all, and it certainly does not fly like anything I've ever experience in real life or in the sim. Basically, small adjustments to pitch on approach, where you should be able to comfortably hold a steady deflection are impossible as the stick simulation actively works against your inputs (or seems to).

That post may help.

Great to hear! Thanks, and best of luck.

I trust that something is up. The way the tail wheel is erratically bouncing when rolling on smooth surfaces in a lot of the videos looks problematic, as well as the fact that it seems to get damaged shockingly easily. Hopefully that's something that they've fixed internally already. I was just trying to provide some clarity about the tail down moment during a wheel landing. It's the biggest thing you have to worry about with wheel landings in real life, and depending on the plane, the wheels spinning up may or may not be a whole lot of help. The tail typically produces a net negative lift, so I'm afraid without carefully timed nose-down/tail-up elevator it's not going to prevent the nose-up torque on a wheel landing.

Generally, the above may be true, but you may not be understanding the kind of "bounce" Yo-Yo is describing. It's something unique to tailwheel aircraft with the center of gravity behind the main wheels. If you try to land on just the mains with any kind of sink rate, the center of mass behind the wheels will want to keep going down when the mains touch, which means it will generate a pitch-up torque, which increases the angle of attack of the wings, generates additional lift, and lifts you off the ground again. If you try to correct it by pushing the nose back down, you'll most likely induce an even worse pitch-up moment the second time around, and so on, leading to a kind of PIO that bounces down the runway. A successful wheel landing means accounting for this by minimizing sink rate and will probably also require some properly timed nose-down elevator to damp any nose-up tendency.

The Q3 hand tracking actually works really well and is super easy to get setup using Virtual Desktop. It quickly becomes apparent that the real issue is that the cockpit controls were not designed with this kind of fine finger tracking capability in mind. Each module and maybe core DCS would have to be redesigned to take proper advantage of hand-tracked manipulation of cockpit controls, along the lines of what VTOL VR has done. I think there's a lot to be excited about as this kind of thing gets developed in the future (hopefully).

Hey buddy don't worry about it! I actually think there might be something going on with the brakes after all. I usually feather them pretty lightly with all my landings, but I just spent a while testing, and trying some pretty sporty braking, and then switching over to the 47. I noticed I can get the same wishy-washy suspension feel on the 47 by adding a negative curve to the brake axes. So it's as if there might be some strange curve applied to the mustang accidentally even if you're set to neutral. As a work around for now try applying 30 curve to the toe axes on the mustang. It does a lot to get rid of the mushy suspension feel.

Something doesn't sound right. Any chance you can post a video or a track with your controls indicator turned on so we can see what you're experiencing? While I definitely think the struts are much squishier than they used to be, and maybe even a bit too squishy, I'm not having any trouble feathering the brakes. So, your statements are a bit confusing.

I don't like it because it introduces different kinds of artifacts, depending on the tech being used. Legacy reprojection on my Index simply inserted an extra frame, interpolated rotationally, and this resulted in ghost images/trails for faster moving objects. The newer motion smoothing also tried to correct translational motion as well, and introduced a lot of weird effects in flight sims like a warping effect around a propeller, etc. I haven't really bothered with any of the oculus spacewarp stuff, nor have I experienced OpenXR or WMR implementations, I just try to avoid it. I have the same processor/GPU combo, and I've been tuned to maintain 80hz, 75hz and later 72hz without any reprojection or spacewarp, first on an Index, then a bigscreen beyond, and then on a Quest 3, respectively. It's just a matter of maintaining below the frame time threshold. 90hz is a higher minimum to maintain and to do so you may have to lower resolution (if your GPU is the bottleneck) or maybe some of the more computationally expensive visual settings like view distance, if it's your CPU dipping below the threshold.

It’s not so much chromatic aberration in the sense that one might think. I don’t see it around edges or contrasting shapes — it’s the entire area of the screen outside the sweet spot. I find it especially apparent at my high twelve in the sim, usually a nice shade of sky blue. If my head is facing forward centered on the gunsight, I see the sky transition from blue to red as I progressively look up with my eyes along the front to top of the canopy. I can adjust the HMD up slightly, or I can tilt it slightly to recenter the sweet spot a bit higher to eliminate the effect above, but then it becomes more pronounced at the bottom. There is a similar green/blue color shift at the horizontal edges, but this tends to be less apparent to me against the sky backdrop we’re typically seeing in the sim. By comparison, the Index provided a clear picture, and consistent colors and brightness through the entire FOV. With the head centered on the gunsight in the Mustang and sitting in my usual position, for example, I could glance up to above the top canopy strut, and down as far as the top of the weapons panel. Albeit, at a lower resolution in general. The Quest 3 features even better edge-to-edge clarity, color uniformity and brightness, with just about the same FOV I could achieve in the Index. With the added benefit of being a higher resolution overall (though not quite as sharp as the BSB in the center field). With the BSB in the Mustang, head centered on the gunsight, it was a struggle to read the airspeed gauge, and red color shift was apparent starting above the gunsight just below the top canopy frame. To be clear, my facial interface/gasket fit wonderfully and comfort was great in the BSB with zero light bleed — I still found the screens to be excessively dim compared to the index, unless I overdrove the display brightness to 150% at which point persistence problems were unsuitable for even just turning my head. At 100%, persistence was still obviously there but a bit easier to put up with.

I've been running an Index for 4 years, with a focus on IL2 and DCS for the most part. I was really looking forward to the BSB and making it my new daily driver as all the early influencer stuff, specs, and first impressions made it sound like it was a no-brainer upgrade from the Index. The kinds of things it was supposed to be really good at, were great for flight sims, while the tradeoffs were things I thought I would be fine with. Unfortunately, this was not the case at all for me. Indeed, my experience with it has only served to highlight just what a champ of a headset the Index was for its time. The biggest issues, without question, have to do with the miniscule tolerances required by the teeny hardware and optics. It quickly became apparent that the device has an extremely small sweet spot -- it is so small that simply moving your eyes is enough to leave it entirely. This makes the problem of the already smaller FOV much, much worse. It seems that anything outside of the immediate center of the lenses is blurred severely, which makes it feel like your view has been slathered in vaseline. I suspect that many of the complaints of excessive glare are largely (but not entirely) the result of this effect. My initial unit had an IPD that was slightly too wide, and this presented big problems for convergence when looking at objects close to my face, like instrument panels or gunsight bases. Because the inner portions of the lenses were a blurry mess, it was impossible to see things clearly when they were up close. To Bigscreen's credit, their customer support is exemplary, and they worked to get me a replacement unit with an IPD 2mm narrower and this resolved the convergence problem for the most part, but with the new, narrower IPD, a larger portion of the outer edge became blurred. When dealing with customer support, I also requested a thinner facial interface, hoping that getting closer to the lenses would widen the sweet spot, and they obliged. However, when the replacement face gasket arrived, it was no thinner, and support informed me they couldn't get it any closer due in part to my face shape (more pronounced brow compared to my cheeks). In desperation, I cut away the excess from one of the gaskets and was able to get close enough for my eyelashes and even portions of my eye lids to make contact with the optics -- and while this helped somewhat (not enough), it also meant there was very little cushion left to soften the hard edges of the device and the vaunted comfort went out the window. Even with the sweet spot maximized, the outer edges of the FOV are a blurry mess: This makes things like checking six require you to turn your head even more (whereas you could clear your six with the edge of your FOV in the index) or maintaining a basic scan of your panel while looking out front next to impossible. If you tilt or move the headset slightly to make more of the instrument panel (lower FOV) clear, the high 12 portions of your outside view become a mess. Another problem is the oft boasted about OLED color: I don't know what people are smoking to not mention this, but another quirk of the areas outside the sweet spot is that colors are shifted to red in the vertical portions, and to blue/green on the sides. When fully half of your useable FOV sits in these areas, and the colors are shifted, it makes for a psychedelic experience, flying through with a blue/red/green sky. I was pretty shocked at this one, having fondly remembered the OLED colors in my old Vive. I think the reviewers are honestly on crack, here -- what good is "great color" if 50% of the display is color-shifted??? Both units I tested behaved identically in this regard. Similarly, I also find that the great "low light", high-contrast performance is completely ruined by the poor brightness of the display in general. Pancake optics end up dissipating the panel's actual brightness and traditional LCD panels just amp up the brightness to compensate -- you can actually overdrive the BSB OLED panel to get similar brightness to say, an Index at 100%, but you will get terrible persistence: Think motion blur, whenever you move your head. I did run the BSB at 100% brightness as a middle ground -- but even without overdriving it above that, it still has noticeable persistence and is still too dim! This made the color and light in the night scenes lack "oomph", and the great blacks were smeared with glare anyway. All this on top of the things I was already prepared to accept, like smaller FOV (not as easy to look up across the circle in a dogfight), and lack of the phenomenal audio solution of the Index. I was actually looking forward to 75hz and a hard DP connection. I bought a 4090 to drive it and keep it above 75hz minimum at all times without motion smoothing or fixed-foveated rendering. The 4090 coupled with a 14900k did admirably even in demanding multiplayer scenarios and over large cities with the render resolution set to 80%. The headset was indeed very clear in the sweet spot. Impressively so. In addition to the form factor and comfort, clarity in the immediate center field of the display was probably what I enjoyed the most about the headset. That said, the persistence issues did take away from clarity of the panel/DP connection, as any kind of motion resulted in fine detail being smeared and lost. For DCS, this headset just did not work out for me. I love what the company is trying to do. I love the focus on dedicated, no frills, high-performance, innovative PCVR. So, I'll not be returning it -- hell, I've even ordered the hard head strap, as the soft strap it comes with does not provide the experience the HMD deserves -- and I'm excited to see what they'll do in the future. After trying to make it work, I gave up and went back to my Index (it really is a phenomenal headset), but the BSB also highlighted its one big weakness: Resolution. I was so bummed out I finally caved in and picked up a Quest 3 from a local retailer. The optics are absolutely stellar, and resolution isn't a problem -- the visual experience really is a worthy successor to the Index. I am still coming to terms with the lack of DP and the problems with encoding and streaming the display signal, but wireless has been a fun experiment so far. I really wanted to not like, and return the Q3, but it's looking like it's the main contender for my daily driver at this point. Hope these impressions help.