Rechs

The other part was availability. Once I placed the order, the stick showed up in 3 days. Anyway, nothing against FFBeast at all and it seems like a solid product. I already had other stuff like Brunner pedals so wanted to keep things the same. The stick is an absolute beast. Super happy with it. I specified hardware stops for a center stick setup and with a 300mm extension its perfect.

Yes it does. To answer your question, I got tired of DIY projects. I want an off-the-shelf solution that is plug and play and has customer support if I need it. Also I haven't really looked into it too far but I recall reading somewhere that due to FFBeast's place of origin, that option is rather problematic for those of us in the US. I wrote it off at that point.

That is good to hear. I decided to join the insanity and just ordered a CLS-P. Have you by chance tried it in DirectX mode with Brunner's USB Config Tool? Not sure if that's what you meant by DirectInput. I've owned a CLS-E stick for about a year and a half now and have been using it in DirectX mode. The biggest drawback I see is you lose most of the CLS2SIM behavior programming features. Can't set software stops, a specific force curve or any of the custom stuff. On the positive side, force trim and trim offset work natively (personally tested in DCS Apache and Strike Eagle) with no fuss.

Yep total necropost, but the internet isn't exactly teaming with CLS-P info. Did you ever find a way to alleviate this?

In addition to display export, I've been wondering about VR implementation since the module was announced. Having to use the mouse to click on the display would be a step-down from current 4th gen modules with the myriad of MFD and UFC etc products that allow easy control by hand. Unfortunately feeling for buttons and switches by hand won't work with a flat touchscreen, so I do hope ED has a plan to solve this from the beginning.

Another user requested the addition of a separate channel for FFB collectives (Brunner makes one). Since it sounds like the dev team is already looking at this, I think it makes sense to combine the requests. Here is the thread: Brunner FFB collective: https://www.brunner-innovation.swiss/product/cls-p-collective/

@Raptor9, it's great to hear that the developers are tracking it and that there is a plan for integration. I'm definitely looking forward to the day it gets implemented. Thank you for escalating this to the right people.

That is great info, thanks Raptor.

NP% is Power Turbine RPM, so you are correct. I just re-read the posts above and I see you were talking about advancing the engine power levers, not the collective. My mind didn't really register it the first time as this alone should not cause the helo to spin uncontrollably. The only way I see that happening is a) applying power via collective without realizing it (like if another controller was also bound as "collective" and it was commanding torque input) or b) erroneous rudder input due to a calibration/binding/dual controller interference issue (same scenario as the collective example above). Glad to hear you got this fixed though, inexplicable response that goes counter to what should be happening is super frustrating.

Here's my nitpicky contribution: the main rotor % readout you guys are referring to is actually torque, not RPM. The main rotor spins at constant RPMs and when you pull up on the collective, blade pitch/AOA changes (which increases torque and lift).

Understood on the curves. It’s been about 25 years since I last used anything FFB so I’m learning and re-learning. The new MKII Brunner stick (came out about a month ago) is ~50% stronger than the old CLS-E model. It’s plenty strong for a 30cm extension and that’s what I’m using. I had very mild curves applied to a Virpil CM2 base with the same extension so I didn’t give it much thought, just copied the settings over. I went with Brunner for two reasons: availability and integration with their pedals. In Brunner’s native software mode, the pedals link to the stick via Ethernet cable and show up in the same profile. Makes it much easier to switch between different profiles. Also, Brunner devices can be networked to link two sets of controls, as in a physical two-seat aircraft.

Are there any plans to support multiple DirectX FFB devices in DCS? I just got a Brunner MKII FFB joystick and MKII FFB pedals with the assumption that I’d be able to replicate full force trim functionality, given the fact that DCS lists “instant trim/FFB friendly” option for both cyclic and pedals. Based on that fact alone I assumed everything would work properly, but that is not the case. When I put both the cyclic and pedals in DirectX FFB mode (native DCS support) and enable “instant trim/FFB friendly” mode for both, the cyclic works as it should. The pedals, however, just replicate whatever the cyclic does. For example: Starting with the cyclic and pedals centered (verified via controls graphic overlay), press force trim interrupt, move cyclic left, release force trim interrupt. The cyclic stays in place in the new “center” location (like it should), but the pedals move left (both physically and input-wise) by the same amount as the cyclic X-axis deflection (without touching them or giving any pedal input). It’s as if there is only one set of FFB input in DCS, and both devices are being treated as one. It’s been pretty frustrating trying to figure out a workable solution. For now I took the pedals out of DirectX mode and disabled centering force in Brunner software while selecting “rudder with no springs or FFB” in DCS. The pedals now function like a regular set without springs and with a damper kit. Still, not exactly why I bought them. One other thing I noticed is that for force trim to work properly, there can’t be any curves applied to the cyclic X and Y axis. If a curve is applied, then the new cyclic position after trimming ends up being offset from the red trim X location on the graphical controls overlay, and the difference in locations seems to be proportional to the amount of curve modification applied. This definitely seems like a bug. Best I can tell is after you apply a curve, cyclic sensitivity is modified accordingly but FFB input isn’t, leading to a pretty large discrepancy.