streakeagle

I never used the relative trim axis and only rarely used the cursor control axis. I have far more use for simple 4-way hats with center depress. All I did was take out the screw and swap in the hat switch modules, which are keyed to ensure proper installation. I considered retaining the cursor control because I can program it to simultaneously be both cursor x-y analog axes and a 4-way hat with center depress, but I love the feel of the 4-way hat module over the analog module. If DCS ever fully models the MiG-29, Su-27 or any other aircraft I will regularly fly that have analog cursor controls on the stick, then I can easily swap it back in.

The w-cams weren't needed. I tried it out anyway, and it ruined the distinctively good feel that the VKB stick has crossing the center. I didn't throw them away, but I am certain that I will never install them again.

It is nice to have options I like the optional trim and castle hats, too. But the biggest gain isn't the weight or the button/hat color and shape options, it is the swtich/axis swap out options and button/switch/trigger quality and tactile feel upgrades. I was happy with the original, but this just feels so much better.

I have the Rift CV1, Rift S, Quest 2, and Reverb G2. The Rift S was a big step up from the CV1 and I enjoyed using it for quite some time. Then the G2 arrived. I didn't think I would be able to enjoy the G2 until I built a new PC and got a 3080 RTX or 6800XT, but I was wrong. I get the same or better frame rates on the G2 as I did with the Rift S (generally 5 more fps since the reprojection rate for the G2 is 45 vs the Rift S 40) and have tremendously better graphics in resolution, clarity, and colors. Going back to the Rift S is painful after seeing how well things can look in the G2. I will say that I think the Rift S had better and/or more stable tracking, but the image quality difference is so game-changing that I can live with the problems the G2 brings with it such as having to run both Windows Mixed Reality and SteamVR to play DCS. I just got my son a Quest 2 for Christmas and got the link cable, too. So, of course I tried it out with DCS World. It may be better than the Rift S, but I didn't do side by side testing to compare. All I know is that the G2 still looks so much better that the Quest 2 for DCS is a no-go for me. Its not that the Quest 2 is bad, its just nowhere near as good as the G2. I haven't tried the Valve Index or the Pimax, but the resolution, image quality, and performance of the G2 is so good that I don't how they could be any better overall. Of course, the Quest 2 is really a different animal. Its main function is to allow a wireless room-scale VR experience. It does that very well. It also looks great when running natively programmed and installed applications as opposed to emulating a rift with compressed image data arriving over bandwidth limited copper wire. My son enjoyed the Darth Vader Immortal series and I like the Angry Birds implementation as well as the default Robo Recall. At a lower price (not as low if you get the factory link cable and the factory case), you get more capability than the G2 at the cost of image quality/performance in DCS World. If you aren't a dedicated DCS World nut like me and love VR gaming as whole, the Quest 2 is probably a better option. Of course, if you have the money, you can always get both.

I generally use the stick with a very light touch unless I am in a rolling scissors. But even in a scissors, I rarely twist the stick. The springs in the axis are fairly tight, you don't get any drift if you don't apply enough pressure. What pushed me in this direction was the F-14 grip. It correctly has very few controls and on the F-14 almost all of them are fully used (the trim hat center press is the one extra unused control), so using the twist axis was a nice bonus. After that, I removed the screws from my SCG and MCG grips, too. I wish the TM grip adapters and the KG12 grips had the twist axis as well, as I could very much use the extra buttons when using those sticks. i.e. the F/A-18 uses almost all available controls when using the F/A-18 grip as the F-16 and A-10 use all of the controls when using the Warthog grip, and the KG12 has almost no buttons at all. If I wasn't so insistent on trying to use the most correct grip when flying particular aircraft, the MCG Pro is the one-size-fits-all solution. Every aircraft in DCS World can be mapped to that grip in a fairly realistic layout compared to the real grip control layouts and still leave plenty of extra buttons for personal control preferences. I have tried to standardize certain auxiliary assignments such as the kneeboard, F1 view, F10 view, labels, and show pilot functions so that the mapping is as similar as possible when flying different aircraft. The twist grip kneeboard paging assignments are a part of this freeing up two buttons and adding the ability to rapidly flip through the pages. As of last night, I had completed mapping the Ultimate for my most commonly flown jet aircraft and performed flights along the way to enjoy each one and verify the correct mapping. But I still have a ton of other aircraft to map and I haven't even started on the helicopters or WW2 aircraft. The only aircraft module I don't own is the JF-17. It is times like these that I realize just how big the DCS library has gotten and how much money I have spent on it between software and hardware. But even including the cost of building a whole new PC, it is still way cheaper than getting and keeping a private license. The annual flight physical and fuel costs are enough to discourage me given that I can otherwise spend that money on my 1981 Corvette and PC flight sims, both of which I can enjoy nearly every single day.

I didn't get a locking screw either. A bit of an oversight for the "Ultimate Grip". I used to have all of my VKB twist grips locked, but I unlocked them all after I learned how to map buttons to the axis. So I have several locking screws in the box where I keep all of my VKB parts. I use a 5-button map with the extreme left and extreme right buttons set to G8, which is a repeating pattern. I don't use the center button at all. So, I map this setup for paging through the kneeboard: twist a little to the left or right to see previous and next page, twist a lot and hold it there to rapidly flip through pages.

I am not a fan of all-metal grips because real grips use heavy duty resin/plastics for the outer shells, which very much changes the feel of the grip to bare hands compared to metal. This grip has the textured rubber pad similar to the design used on the F-14. The rubber pad happens to be a great feature for me as I like the feel of it and it helps avoid the feeling of metal that I don't like. The metal also has a texture that makes the grip feel better. But the metal grip has one important advantage: weight. Real grips are usually metal on the inside and therefore have significant weight. Combined with the weight of the actual stick, you can feel the "inertia" even if the stick has no tension on it. This "Ultimate" grip provides the same feeling of inertia that the TM grips have. I like the feel of the weight. I have always liked the functionality of the MCG Pro, but preferred the shape and feel of the VKB F-14 grip and TM Hornet grip. The new higher quality, stiffer buttons, switches, and levers combined with the "feel" of the grip has changed the game. I still think the US designs have better ergonomics, but the Russian design adds a tremendous number of additional control inputs for only a small loss in comfort/ease of operation. I was already using the MCG Pro a lot to support switching between so many aircraft types, particularly in multiplayer where I might be flying a MiG-15, MiG-19, or MiG-21 one minute or an F-86, F-5, or A-4 another with periodic flights in the more modern types that use most of the controls. If I am going to be flying MiGs, I strongly prefer having the brake lever, which is what locks me into the MCG Pro so much. All the leftover buttons/switches on the older aircraft grips allows me to map kneeboard, map, and other convenient game controls. For me, this really has proven to be the "Ultimate" grip, and I feel I got my money's worth even though I already had a 100% functionally equivalent MCG Pro. My old MCG Pro is now relegated to being a backup if the Ultimate fails and also the "display" model in my grip rack, filling the empty hole it left when in use.

Swapped out the two analog axes for switches. Set up a configuration nearly identical to my original MCG Pro minus the two axes. Now it is just the hassle of mapping every aircraft to the new grip. Very happy with the feel, particularly the buttons which are far closer to milspec. i.e. they feel more solid with stiffer springs.

So it was slightly late, but I got it before noon today. It is exactly what was advertised. I still need to connect it to the stick and try it out, but so far so good.

My DHL status still says by end of today (it was in Cincinnati late last night, too). But the day is almost over.

My new grip is supposed to be delivered tomorrow.

Nice!

I have had this MiG-15 glider since 1978-79. I never paid too much attention to the paint scheme until now. I thought it would be cool to have this scheme in DCS and started researching where it came from. Were MiG-15s flying over Korea in USSR markings? Would a Soviet pilot have had the leeway to have a custom scheme like this: altering the nose number "711" to a "7" separated from "11" by dice? Would a Soviet pilot have had a callsign in English under his canopy rail? Did Soviets know the US called ace MiG pilots "honchos"? I had to be creative in my search, but the internet did not fail me. Searched for variations of "MiG-15 7 11 honcho". I stumbled onto someone asking for others to make this paint scheme for an F-84F. Apparently, there was a late 50s (1958) movie called "The Hunters" about F-86 pilots in Korea. For movie purposes, F-84Fs were standing in as MiG-15s and one of them had a scheme very similar to this. So, apparently, aviation artist Lou Drendel was either a big fan of "The Hunters" or was requested by such a fan to make this MiG-15 painting, which then became the scheme chosen for this toy glider. I am disappointed in Tiger Squadron and Lou Drendel for doing a fictional skin instead of a historically accurate one. But it does look cool and would make a great DCS fantasy skin for F-86 vs MiG-15 duels. Here are all of the gliders I have from the Tiger Squadron series (plus an F-15 that was similar enough in scale and construction style that I bought it to add to this collection).

I am currently using the G2. The advantage of Oculus is that only one program runs: Oculus, whereas WMR has to run in conjunction with SteamVR. But unlike Oculus, when I put the headset on and WMR starts up, it goes right where I left it: to a virtual desktop and the ability to use the mouse instead of controllers. I can just click on my Open Beta VR shortcut and that automatically triggers SteamVR to start. To keep the Oculus software installed, I have to disable the Oculus services, otherwise Oculus starts when I start DCS even though I don't have an Oculus headset active or even plugged into the PC. The double layer software of WMR/Steam is annoying, but once it has been set up, it runs as well or better than Oculus.

Imagine you are new to DCS and new to VR and have never even seen these forums. The existing system of using an in-game checkbox to toggle modes and requiring a restart as well as having to manually switch settings after the restart is slow and clunky. You wouldn't be able to do any better without searching these forums for hints on how to force SteamVR, switch modes, and automatically save/use settings for each mode. I have seen it done in a very intuitive way: one shortcut to start the sim and a clicking a button on a dialog box or two to get into the mode you want... then automatically and instantly toggling between VR/desktop mode without any kind of restart by simply taking off the VR headset or putting it back on. Surely ED could come up with a better interface than they have now. Also consider if you have both regular release and open beta versions installed. You could conceivably have 6 different shortcuts just to start DCS World if you needed desktop, Oculus, and SteamVR in both release and open beta.

Unlike Oculus software, WMR opens exactly the way I left it: with a Desktop window in front of me. I may have to click on the Desktop to get the image to begin actively refreshing, but from that point, it is just like being on the desktop. Also, unlike Oculus, WMR lets me use my mouse inside their environment, which is great since I don't normally use the VR controllers. So, if I am sitting at my PC, all I do is put on my headset. WMR opens to my desktop. I click on the start menu button to expose all of my short cuts and proceed starting any required/desired applications from there: Simshaker for Aviatiors to get my vibrating seat pad working, VoiceAttack with VAICOM Pro, SRS (though it may be configured to start when DCS starts anyway), Discord if needed, finally my DCS Open Beta VR shortcut created using the DCS Configuration Manager 3rd party tool. If I didn't want all that extra stuff, I could just click on this icon. From that point, I see the SteamVR environment start up, which leaves me in the grid with the starry sky until DCS starts up as I have SteamVR home disabled. The only problem I have with this setup is that when I exit DCS World, I am left in the SteamVR environment. So, I have to remove my headset briefly if I want to exit SteamVR and stay in WMR or if I want to restart DCS World. Otherwise, I just remove my headset and shutdown SteamVR first, then WMR. If SteamVR remembered the desktop and/or used the mouse the way WMR does, I wouldn't mind going straight into SteamVR, but since WMR natively supports my way of doing business by opening from the start with a virtual desktop view and a functional mouse, it is my preferred VR interface.

It would be nice if DCS was like another combat flight sim I fly. Every time you start it, it asks which way you want to run it based on what it sees available... Oculus, OpenVR, etc. If you say no to those options, it just runs in desktop mode. Also, that same sim automatically switches to desktop mode when you take your VR headset off, then switches back to VR when you put it back on. Whereas, I have to use a 3rd party tool with DCS to decide to start in VR or desktop mode which also conveniently saves different options files so you don't have to change graphics settings when you switch modes. But that tool doesn't allow you to toggle between Oculus and SteamVR, so I had to create an extra shortcut to force SteamVR for LeapMotion. Now that I have a Reverb G2, SteamVR is my normal mode, so I have to disable Oculus services to keep DCS from starting Oculus in VR mode. Meanwhile, the other combat flight sim didn't have to adapt at all, as it continues asking what I want every time I start up, which solves the problem in only 1 or 2 button clicks.

I have the Rift CV1, the Rift S, the Quest 2, and the Reverb G2. Hands down, the G2 is the best option for DCS. With my older PC and basic GTX 1080, the G2 looks better and runs the same or better for any given settings despite its higher resolution. I run with forced motion reprojection (45 fps) and in most situations I can hold that, compared to the Rift S at 40 fps. I didn't see the G2 as being much of a step up from the Rift S for DCS World except in the area of fps, as it has the 90/45 fps as an option, which allows me to match the 45 fps of the G2 and CV1 compared to the 80/40 fps of the Rift S. After flying with the G2 for weeks, it is hard to fly using the Rift S or Quest 2 as the cockpit looks so much better using the G2 with MSAAx2.

They way I manage oculus software is to go into the services and set both oculus service to disabled. When I want to run oculus, I just put them back to their original settings. One is automatic and the other is manual. Using this technique, I don't need custom dcs shortcuts to force steamVR as DCS will run oculus by default when it is available and will run SteamVR when I have it disabled.

A Korean War era Essex CV was quite a bit different in configuration/appearance from the World War 2 era. But in the interim, I would gladly use the WW2 Essex and F4U-1D as stand-ins in a Korean War server/mission environment.

I pulled the trigger. Order accepted. I can't wait to try it out.

I guess it is a good thing I kept my base plates. I have two. I have never used them.

What base number is needed? Do I have to open up the base to get the number?

I definitely don't need it. The functionality of the original MCG Pro is nearly identical and is easily the most capable of all the grips I have. But I want it. As CPUs and GPUs that I need have been sold out and I still keep racking up overtime every week, $275 doesn't sound so bad to experience all of the great features of the "Ultimate". The modular, interchangeable, reparable switches with optional hats are a big selling point for me.

I am still holding out for V2. I am looking forward to the day when I can brag about my finger pointer thingies just like everyone else using these in "the Forgotten" on Sunday afternoons.