XAiracobraX

My Track IR Z axis is mapped to the Head Tracker: forward/back, but when looking straight up it does work "forward/back", maybe its only with the bf109, or only when looking 90 degrees. I will try another plane and see if it is with 90 degrees.

I guess I want it to work as if I am strapped in a cockpit. I guess my impression is that when strapped in I wouldn't be able to turn my body a full 180, but more like looking over my shoulder. It has to do with leaning left right forward only, I think.

Tape didn't fix it, alas where do I get contact cleaner auto store? Is there one that will be safe around plastic?

I'm more of a stick and rudder pilot (WWII warbirds, f-86, want the f-4), I've been looking for something close to the b-8 which the vkb seems close

Splendid, so you have a review of them? I have yet to find a review of f-14 grip.

Where did they claim the Mk I/II was steel? From pictures it looked like a cast material from surface roughness ( I might be getting the pics confused with the competition, I don't have either but starting to look into these).

I have a Track IR 5, using the hat clip. I have had it working fine in other games, FSX, Grit, IL2 1946, il2 BOX, X-plane. I am happy with the Track IR software profiles that I have. My problem is the controls that they are by default mapped to in game. I prefer that if I lean forward, I don't want to the view to zoom, I want the view origin to be closer to the nose of the aircraft. And regardless if I am looking forward or over a wing, when I lean right I want the view origin to move closer to the right wing. The controls that track IR gets mapped to by default don't operate this way. Is there a different set of controls that I should be mapping to instead? The difference is having your view blocked by the armor over head in the bf109 versus being able to see up, or being able to check six versus being able to check your seat belt.

I need help with Track IR in DCS. I don't know if it's just how this game does viewing, but my track IR is dependent on the path that I take rather than just the current location and orientation. For example, two different ways to get to the same position in real life, but two different results in virtual sim. If I lean forward and then look up, my virtual self leans forward and then looks up. If I do the reverse order, meaning if I first look up and then lean forward my virtual self looks up and then gets a slight zoom, but doesn't move forward. Another example. If I first turn my head starboard, and then lean starboard my virtual self leans port into the center of the seat (can't see behind me). If instead I first lean starboard and then turn my head starboard, then it looks over the starboard (right) wing. This has always bothered me some, that the order of operations matters. But this is a big deal in the bf109, its making me very nauseous. Looking around is way harder than it needs to be. Is there a way to make my virtual view based solely on my real life position? Meaning leaning forward in real life correlate to leaning forward in virtual, leaning port in real life correlates to leaning port in virtual, leaning starboard in real life correlates to leaning starboard in virtual?

I don't think it is the potentiometer because if I move the trim dial to one of the sides where it has resistance the jitter is gone. I think its more that the trim dial is too loose. When centered both trim dials have play, the pitch dial has a little play, the roll dial has much more. On outside, I put a piece of masking tape over the roll dial and the base to try to keep the wheel from moving. In the controller settings the jitter is gone, and when I move the stick around it seems stable. I plan on flying around tonight to see if this fixed it. Never know till you really use it.

Is that something I have to take it apart to do?

Be careful going the loctite route. I don't know what material the base is on the Virpil, as I don't have one, but I know the Warthog base is plastic. Loctite 242, the blue stuff, eats into plastic and causes it to break apart under stress. Loctite has a formulation specifically meant for plastics. If the VIRPIL base and warthog interface is all metal, than I would think Loctite 242 would be fine. But if there is any plastic, use something like loctite 425 or similar

I take back what I said, moving the trim dial doesn't really fix it. After playing more it always starts drifting again. Especially when trim wheel is centered. I ordered it in 2017, is it worth trying to see if CH products can fix it?

I have a CH combatstick, 1-2 years old. It has developed a weird jitter in the roll axis, it wiggles left and right but overall keeps moving left. Looking at axis tune in DCS it moves a good 1/4 inch on screen (~6-7 mm). Calibrating in windows doesn't help. It's been really frustrating. Today I figured out that fully rotating the roll trim wheel on the base to left and right limits several times cleaned it up and is stable so far. Is this normal that I need to move trim wheels periodically? Or is this a sign of things deteriorating?

This sounds like the same issue I have that I posted in the World 2.5 bug report section. I poorly labeled it. I uploaded tracks there, hopefully they look at it.

Here is a second track where I don't give my wingman orders, it still happens. Also notice in the begining that it sounds like there are two engine sounds playing that start playing over one another. Weird_sound1.trk

Track attached Attaching in game replay track. This is without using track ir to try to help narrow things down. Mission started from instant action > P-51 Mustang> Normandy > Dogfight. Computer: Windows 7 Pro, intel 4690K 3.5Ghz, 32 GB ram, MSI Twin Frozr v1 Nvidia GTX 1080, installed on a samsung 860 evo (same SSD OS is on) Weird_sound2.trk

Okay after playing more, it happens regardless if I order wingman or not. The sound is a low rumble with a very high pitch ring. Also, it sounds like two engine sounds are playing at the same time. And when on the ground looking left there is a weird gun fire sound repeating, even though no one is firing.

I have been playing with the new 2.5.6 patch installed. I am playing the p-51 instant action dogfight over Normandy. If I don't tell my wingman to engage nothing strange happens. If I order my wingman to engage bandits, then sporadically through the combat the sound drastically changes, i.e. the engine sound goes away completely, and it becomes a sound similar to a slo-mo effect in a movie, when this occurs my game stutters harshly. I originally thought it was due to the damage assessment overlay having a slo-mo effect or wake turbulence when I get close to getting diamond ring on bandit. However, I tried also with the damage assessment unchecked in options and it still occurred. I have not messed with the wake setting, but given that it doesn't occur when not ordering my wingman I don't think its that. I have done 6-12 play throughs, every time I ordered wingman to attack it caused this weird effect, it did not happen in any play through in which I gave no orders to my wingman. I have enjoyed playing this mission many times in the past, but have never seen this happen. Is this an intentional effect that I can turn off or is this a bug?

You are right, I do concede that I don't actually have problems with convergence set in this game, at least in the sense that I can consistently take out both me109 in the instant dogfight over Normandy. Multiplayer is a different story. I guess I just need to be more flexible. I do still wish WEP and the automatic coolant / radiator were improved to be more reliable.

The report that picture is from is a North American Corporation publication, not a USAAF manual. AAF Regulation 50-17 called for using AAF Manuals of which manual 51-127-5 dated 15 Aug 1945 superseded those previous. I have found AAF manual 200-1 dated January 30 1945 which focused on gun harmonization of the USAAF fighters that has some at 1100 ft. But it specifically states: "The harmonization patterns were compiled at the proving ground command to facilitate the conduct of service tests on aircraft weapons. ...The patterns for harmoniza-tion contained herein are indorsed by Army Air Forces but may be amended by each individual station in accordance with local conditions to obtain effective fire power. " Just because they researched and used it to test service life for guns doesn't mean that was what they used in combat. Seems like AAF pilot manuals were what was provided to prepare pilots for combat. The Manual 51-127-5 I cited is later than both the NA report that picture was from as well as AAF manual 200-1, it covered the K14 gun sight so it was not for another gunsight. It would be nice if we knew what individual fighter groups used.

I have a copy of the pilot training manual TECHNICAL ORDER NO. 1F-51D-1 (AAF MANUAL 51-127-5) for the P-51 Mustang dated 15 August 1945, I also have the equivalent for the p-47b/c/d/g TECHNICAL ORDER NO. 01-65BC-1 dated 20 January 1943. Trying to use the former for the P-51 in DCS has resulted in two specific discrepancies that I would like better understanding on. First is use of war emergency power on page 14. Here it states "This throttle reserve is called war emergency power, and should be used only in extreme situations. If you use it for more than 5 minutes at a time you'll risk damaging vital parts of the engine. In training therefore, the throttle must never be moved beyond the gate stop. Whenever you do use war emergency power, be sure to note the length of time on Form 1A, and also report it to the crew chief or engineering officer so that record can be kept and the engine inspected before the airplane is flown again. The engine must be removed for a complete knock-down inspection after 5 hours." The way I understood that is you can use WEP for 5 min at a time, cumulative time must be tracked, with full engine inspection/rebuild at cumulative 5 hrs. Time between would have perhaps depended on when engine cooled down some. I have not been able to have even one 5 min WEP use without blowing the engine. Has anyone gotten WEP in DCS figured out? :helpsmilie: Second is on page 40 regarding gun harmonization. Note, I am not an advocate for everyone having ability to adjust convergence by preference. During the war pilots didn't fly the same plane each mission, even flying different aircraft same day. The manual states on page 40, "The guns are adjustable on the ground, so they can be harmonized to different patterns for various tactical situations. Usually they are aligned to converge at a range of from 250 to 300 yards." In feet this is 750 ft to 900 ft. The P47 manual has similar but on page 41 of its manual lists "250 or 350 yards" and provides both in the convergence diagram on page 42. "Tactical situations" is mission specific but revolves on the simplest level between air superiority or close air support i.e. aircraft on air superiority mission may have a different convergence than those on CAS mission. My question is why is 1100 ft the convergence in DCS? Would it be possible to have two set harmonizations, one for air superiority and another for ground attack? If not would it be possible to change the 1100 ft down to something within the range listed in manual?

I also noticed this in the standard release of dcs but it's in English in the open beta version. Also the standard version has different slides to scroll through during briefing whereas open beta doesn't have the slides during briefing

From the color pictures of the k14 gunfight that I have seen seem to show a black crash pad. I don't want to be overly critical but, the pad in game to me looks very similar to the rocks we have where I live and its throwing my mind off. Can someone please send me reference(s) showing a brown crash pad so I can get my mind to stop thinking it's a stone? Otherwise I like the updates

I have been using the same 22" monitor for the last 11 years so I really don't understand big monitors and what things are gimmicks and what matters. Does freesync work well in IL2 and dcs? Really, hoping to hear peoples more recent experiences regarding freesync in DCS and IL2. Will the curved screen of the samsung offer more immersion than the flat asus? At what size does curved monitor start mattering? Is a 27" 16:9 small enough that there is little difference between flat and curved?

Okay, what do you guys think about these two: 1. Samsung c27hg70 with a Radeon RX Vega 56 2. ASUS ROG Swift pg279q with a Nvidia 1070ti Option 1 is cheaper as long as I don't have to move up to a vega 64. Mostly I like the samsung monitor better, even though I don't care for HDR, but I have usually liked the nvidia cards better than the ATI cards I have had.