streakeagle

The positions/shapes look close to identical. The "interchangeable modules" sounds interesting, but I don't know how that compares with the MCG Pro's adapatability. Increasing the force on the triggers and brake lever sounds cool, too. The original MCG Pro already does everything I could want. So, I don't really need this. But it sounds like it will be better in some ways and the weight of the all-metal grip does make the stick feel better even if I don't like actually touching the metal. My real B-8 grips feel almost as heavy as the TM metal grips, because only the outer shell and switches are plastic and the bottom of the one for my real F-4 stick has a heavy duty metal threaded connector. The material of the grip would matter less if I actually wore flight gloves. Then all that would matter is the shape and weight, in which case, the TM Hornet grip is my clear favorite. But without gloves, I love the F-14 grip's rubber pad/plastic shell for shape, size, texture, temperature and overall comfort. But despite my preference for both the Hornet and F-14 grips, the MCG Pro's overwhelming superior control options/capabilities ensure it is the one I use the most.

I had been going back to 436.30 or 442.19 drivers for my regular 1080 to overcome the MiG-21 radar frame rate problem, which also led to great DCS performance/quality overall. But MSFS and Star Wars Squadrons both need current drivers. It is a hassle switching back and forth I laugh at the nVidia fans that say only AMD has driver issues. I used AMD for years from a Radeon 8500 128MB all the way to a 7970 GHz edition until I needed the 1080 for VR. Over all of those years I had fewer problems than I have experienced with the 1080 as the drivers keep changing to address games I don't play, features I don't use, and hardware I don't have, breaking one or more of my flight sims.

Clearly, they make more money if they sell a complete black box/base/grip combo. It is in their interest to make it easiest to do just that. But, there are some people who simply won't pay for that but still want to use whatever grip(s) they happen to have with a new or extra base. They have decided not to miss out on these type of sales, but they aren't going to showcase that fact so they can get more money from complete setup sales by people who might only want the base, but not knowing that path exists, bite the bullet and buy the whole stick combo. On paper, that probably looks like the optimum solution. But I much prefer a straight forward approach: either sell or don't sell a product. Why on earth would you hide the fact that you are selling what someone wants and either risk losing the customer or forcing him to buy extra things he doesn't want because he is ignorant of the hidden product? If they like what they get, they will probably come back for more. Whereas, if a customer feels cheated/tricked, that customer may not ever buy anything at all.

The "all-metal aspect" is not a selling point for me. Real grips are overwhelmingly not all-metal. They do tend to have a metal core that gives them mass, but the outer shell that you touch is usually some sort of molded plastic/resin. Having a rubber pad on the side instead of a molded or engraved texture is not realistic either. My B-8 grips have a glossy, glass-like black finish with molded in diamond texturing on the sides to provide a non-slip grip, very similar to stock M1911A1 0.45 cal pistols. But real grips are for gloved hands. I play with bare hands. The VKB F-14 grip has a diamond textured rubber pad and I love the feel. I easily prefer its plastic outer shell to the TM metal grips. Metal grips are cold to the touch, but the longer you fly the warmer they get. The plastic grips don't feel cold and don't warm up as much with use. If I get this new grip, it will be for the comfort/feel of the rubber pad and just for the sake of completing my collection of VKB compatible grips. I don't know what the new leds do, but they wouldn't be too useful to me no matter what they do because I fly VR about 80% or more of the time. My money would be better spent on other things.

As it stands, I normally only use the Warthog grip for the A-10C and the F-16C, and those happen to be among my least flown modules, so I really shouldn't by another adapter even if it works the way I wanted/expected. But I already have just about everything else VKB has released for the Gunfighter Mk II/III series and it wouldn't break the bank for me to get one. I would like it if they had added the twist grip function to it, since I use that to flip the pages on the kneeboard, saving other buttons/switches for their proper functions in fully mapped sticks like the Hornet, Warthog, and Falcon. When I am playing multiplayer and constantly switching aircraft types, the MCG Pro with the optional twist adapter is by far the best choice. Even when fully mapped to support all the realistic functions on a Hornet or Falcon, I still have tons of extra dedicated triggers, hats, twist grip, etc to perform game tasks like F1 and F10 views, labels on/off, kneeboard functions, etc. When I am lazy, I just leave that grip mounted. But right now, I have the F-14 grip on the stick. Besides enjoying the newly released F-14A, it still works well for the F-86, MiG-15, F-5, MiG-19, and MiG-21 that I spend most of my time flying as well as all the prop aircraft.

I have gone from a Rift S to a G2 and haven't upgraded my PC or gpu to accommodate the G2's needs. I can say that at this point, after carefully picking and choosing the tweaks I have found on these forums/YouTube, that I am at this point I am running with the same DCS and nVidia settings I used with the Rift S, but have the fps close to being locked at 45 fps (as opposed to the 40 fps of the Rift S) I have see 45 fps (though sometimes dipping down to 30-45) on the Super Carrier deck, whereas the Rift S had trouble trying to hit 40 on SC. So with equal or better framerates, I am enjoying the higher resolution while still keeping MSAAx2 to reduce shimmering textures. If I go to MSAAx4, the image quality is amazing, but the frame rates are pretty much locked at 30 fps. Besides looking a lot better with the higher resolution, the G2 is showing far less ghosting than the Rift S, almost none at all. G2 audio beats the pants off Rift S audio, no additional headset needed to have good sound and a good mic. But, the smoothness of the G2 image seems inferior when I move my head and WMR/Steam VR bring their own issues including stability into the equation. The Oculus software was way more stable and aside from the horrible ghosting of targets in fast moving close-in dogfight, the image looked more fluid / less choppy despite the slightly lower 40 fps frame rate. I am hoping that when I get around to upgrading my pc and gpu, possibly to a 5800X or 5900x/6800 XT, that G2 will really shine across the board instead of primarily in the area of screen resolution/clarity. I just got a Quest 2 for my son and I am waiting for a link cable to arrive to see how it runs DCS compared to the Rift S and G2. But what I really want is to be able to run the G2 locked to 90 fps in worst case scenarios even in multiplayer with maxed out display settings. But the combination of hardware limitations in VR (even with the fastest cpus and gpus you can buy) and DCS software limitations leave me just hoping I can lock the fps to 45 with decent display quality settings.

I bought two Warthog adapters (there was no Hornet adapter at that time) and filed one down to fit the Hornet grip. While it works well, having the same firmware for both but having different button maps means if when you switch grips, you have to adjust your DCS profile for a given aircraft if you plan to fly it with both grips. While you can save both profiles and easily load them as needed, I was expecting the dedicated Hornet adapter to not only have a different shape to fit well without modification, but also a unique firmware to automatically create a separate, unique controller name for DCS controller profile purposes. I was considering buying one. But if they both use the same firmware and DCS still sees it as the same grip, I don't have to worry about spending money to replace an adapter that already functions the same.

The trim hat on the F-14 grip feels almost identical to the trim hat on my real B-8 grips (I have two) except that the force required to operate the B-8 hat is at least 2 times higher. For me, it is a near replica of the real thing. So you may not like the feel and therefore call it cheap, but in my opinion, it feels very close to the way the real F-14 stick grip would feel as it is clearly a derivative of the ubiquitous B-8. The similarity to my real B-8 grips in both function and shape/size/comfort is what makes me love this grip so much. Also, the trim hats on my real B-8s only allow 4 positions you cannot move the hat diagonally. It is the two-stage trigger that is a fail compared to the real two-stage trigger on my B-8. You should feel the "click" as you pass through it, not just hear it. My real B-8 has the same feel, force required, and sound for stage 1 and stage 2. The force required is close to the stage two of the VKB F-14 grip, but the sound is a louder version of the stage one and neither stage of the VKB feels anything like the real ones.

For taxiing around runways, navigation, and sightseeing, 2D flat panels still offer a fantastic visual experience, especially if you have a large 4K display on the order of 46 inches or larger. But after flying air-to-air in VR for so long, I can't visually spot/track targets very well at 4K or even 1080p. VR used to have two main problems when I got the Rift CV1: cockpit clarity and spotting targets. The Rift S gave me enough clarity for most cockpits and ED patched in something that makes air contacts a lot more visible in VR. With the Reverb G2, my the visual quality is rapidly approaching my 4K experience, but with the added benefits of 1:1 head tracking and longer range spotting ranges. Another big difference is stereo images: in 2D, I lost a track of visual targets quite frequently on canopy frames. In stereo 3d, one eye usually maintains a visual without even moving my head and the 1:1 tracking allows making smooth corrections in head position to keep things in sight with minimal disturbance even if movement is required. I flew TrackIR for years, so I know I can live with it. I still use it about 20-30% of the time. But if I am flying air-to-air, which is most of the time, I am in VR.

I recently realized VAICOM was the source of my track replay problems and unfortunately created a duplicate thread about the issue. I am pretty sure I had originally been replaying track files without issues while using VAICOM. I am not sure when the problem started. A similar problem is how radios were broken in WW2 fighters for VAICOM. I have to use easy communications for radios to behave acceptably in WW2 fighters.

I have tried everything that I can think of, but still no joy: if I use VAICOM, my track files don't record commands triggered by voice, which means when I fly from a cold start, most of my track files are completely worthless because in the track file, my engine never starts.

Behavior is similar with the F-5: the track doesn't show the ground air supply being connected and therefore the engine doesn't start. It seems that the track system is not recording commands that are triggered by VAICOM, but I know of another person that has a setup using VAICOM Pro and SRS like me... but he doesn't have this problem. Maybe I need to reinstall VAICOM Pro?

For the longest time, I have had a problem playing back track files, particularly with the F-86 Sabre. Everything works fine except that my aircraft's engine doesn't start. You can see me flipping the correct switches, but the RPMs never come up. Today, I completely uninstalled DCS World Open Beta (my only install) and re-installed it. I found my track file working correctly. So I tried again with VAICOM Pro running and "bang!", I found the cause of the problem: VAICOM Pro can be running and the track file will play back correctly IF I turn on the ground power using the in-game Function Key menu system: i.e.: backslash for radio menu, F8 for ground crew, F2 for ground power, F1 for ON. The track will show the engine rpm coming up as soon as the starter switch is flipped just as it does when playing live. But when I use my voice to tell the ground crew to turn on the ground power via VAICOM Pro, the replay track fails to show the engine rpm increasing when I flip the starter switch and the track file diverges from that point on because the aircraft is never able to taxi/fly without the engine running.

The native resolution is 2160x2160. 2144 < 2160, so if you use that resolution, you will be under native in one dimension. So if you want "native" screen quality pixel for pixel, Steam does not have an option to exactly match it. You are going by total pixel count, but image quality gets distorted when when you have to shrink an image 2160 pixels tall into an image 2144 pixels tall. Likewise, it will be distorted being stretched from 2160 to a higher number like 2196. So do you go for performance by compressing the native image into the lower 2144, which loses information, or do you take a small hit to stretch to a slightly higher resolution? The answer is: each person should decide for themselves. It is easy enough to try the slider at 48%, 50%, and 54% (which are the numbers I see being thrown around). I have been running 50% because I prefer to equal or exceed 2160 in both dimensions and it is no less "native resolution" than 48%. By your accounting, as long as the two numbers multiplied together hit the total pixel count, that is native. But try creating an image that has the right pixel count but the wrong dimensions for you desktop background: it either has to be stretched or compressed in one direction, and either way, it looks a little off. But you lose more details compressing than stretching.

I simply set my export.lua to read only. I can run SimAppPro at will without it messing up the lua. I periodically run SimAppPro to update firmware but otherwise don't use it.

I really love this stick. Winwing thought that after trying their stick, I would like it more than the VKB, but there is no comparison. While Winwing's stick is a big improvement over the Warthog and their take on the Hornet grip is also superior to TM Hornet grip, I still feel and hear the cams as I cross the center. The VKB is as smooth as butter and still centers almost perfectly even with a 20 cm extension and heavy metal TM grips.

Two #50 can damage the bearings. I lost one of my bearings that way. I use both the 10cm and 20cm extensions as needed depending on the grip. I have found that I prefer single #50 or two #40.

The original article compares VR to 3d TVs. 3d TVs came and went very quickly. VR differs quite a bit in that it was waiting decades for some technical breakthroughs to make the product small enough, light enough, and high enough in image quality to even be marketable to consumers, but now that it has crossed that line, it continues to improve and the market is still growing and adapting to new technology and consumer demands. The market is still fairly small compared to smart phones and gaming consoles, but the number of quality and quantity of devices keeps increasing as well as the percentage of people that own them and use them. PC virtual reality is still way too expensive for most people, but the Oculus Quest series has the simplicity and pricing to drive right into the heart of becoming a mainstream technology product. Fortunately for us flight simmers, some companies still see the value of making a decent consumer grade PC VR headset and even the Oculus Quest series provides a link cable to provide a secondary PC capability. It is still too early to say VR is here to stay. A more realistic comparison than 3d TV would be using motion controllers with video games. Wii was a massive hit because of its fantastic library of physically interactive games that also support multiplayer at a comparatively low price. Adults played the games at parties. Kids loved the games. People actually stood up and actively moved around while playing games. The amazing success of Wii led to PlayStation and XBox providing comparable control interfaces and games. Years later, Wii is long gone, XBox discontinued support for the Kinect camera used for its motion controller interface, and how many developers even bother to make games for motion controllers that most people don't have or don't use. VR support costs time and money. If the market doesn't pick up enough, most if not all game developers will stop making the effort to support it. But based on the push for Oculus Quest, I think the standalone headsets are here to stay. It is console and PC VR that remains in danger of going away. Why would anyone keep making VR games for consoles and PCs if most people don't have or use VR?

Previously, I had no problem flashing Winwing products. Originally, my throttle and startup panel were plugged into the motherboard per recommendations for flashing and to comply with my own strategy: with the throttle/startup panel clamped to the desk, it made sense to use the motherboard usb ports while my hub was for devices that move with my chair/old left console with the Warthog throttle. When I got the new takeoff and combat panels, there were no motherboard ports free, so I used the hub that was inches away. Everything flashed fine. I recently built a new wheeled platform for an F/A-18 left console and mounted the throttle/startup panel on it with the usb hub. So the throttle and startup panel swapped ports with the new panels. I just now tried to update with the latest software patch/firmware and immediately had problems. I figured out that I needed to unplug all but one Winwing device to flash correctly. I don't know if this was a power issue, a noise issue, or some other problem and I didn't try to use the hub ports at all even though they had previously worked fine for flashing just to narrow down the risk. So now, after repeated flash failures (software hanging anywhere between 0% and 45%), having only one device plugged in worked perfectly (while still having many other peripherals plugged in such as a VKB stick and two TM Cougar MFDs). I am happy that everything appears to be working but disturbed by the fact that I did not have any problems before the latest SimApp patch/firmware updates.

Given that pain stores can use a color sample to try to match paint, find something they can scan to try to match the color: i.e. you could use model paint to paint a sample or better yet find a real object painted in zinc chromate that fits their scanner. Or you could use real zinc chromate primer which appears to be readily available if you "google" it.

The ability to move, resize, flip pages, and bookmark important pages in the kneepad while displayed in-game are a big deal to me. This capability is useful in every single flyable aircraft, which makes it a significant upgrade. This functionality should have been there all along, but the transition from what we had for years makes it a big deal game-changer. Combine this with the VAICOM kneeboard and you nearly have perfection. I will enjoy this upgrade every time I play DCS World. Thank you ED DCS World developers for squeezing this into your busy schedule!

There is a specified time delay. The two engines power opposite sides, so the one you start affects the response time of the needles to the test. If you follow the manual, the system meets the specification (as stated in the tutorial). If you follow the tutorial's procedure, it takes much longer to charge/discharge pressure and will never meet the specification.

If you read the real F-14 manual, then read the DCS F-14B manual, then do the DCS F-14B cold start tutorial none of them are the same and due to incomplete systems modeling and/or incorrect procedure sequencing, you can really follow any of them without skipping steps or ignoring the response or lack of response to the player's inputs. So, what would be nice to see is the DCS F-14B manual and DCS F-14B cold start being the same and sequenced so that what you see agrees with what the manual/tutorial voice says. Of course, the closer they follow the real manual, the better. For example, in the real manual, the preference is for starting the left engine first. In the tutorial, the right engine is started first. The hydraulic tests conducted after starting the first engine don't behave the way the tutorial says they should. If you follow the manual's preference for the left engine starting first, the hydraulic test works perfectly. The diagnostic tests performed by lifting the knob, rotating, and then pushing the knob back down generally don't show the results specified in the tutorial. Waiting for a go/no-go light, waiting for spoilers to drop, or the stability switch to reset to off are pointless because they won't happen and you have to pretend it worked and skip to the next step. Yet other ineffective/unimplemented steps from the real manual and some in the DCS manual, aren't even mentioned in the tutorial. What would make sense to me is either omitting all of the pointless/dysfunctional tests or including all of them instead of cherry picking which ones are in the DCS manual and/or the tutorial mission. Compared to releasing the F-14A, this is a trivial problem. But will this cold start procedure ever be made fully functional and mostly follow the real manual?

I had problems with the F-14 ICS cold mic/hot mic switch, too. I had to dedicate a separate switch for the in-game ICS while still keeping my previous TX5 PTT input mapping to get the animation of the in-game ICS cold/hot mic switch to behave correctly and be able to talk to Jester and the ground crew. But, as others have stated, using the in-game ICS Hot Mic position allows communication with other systems (TX1/TX2).

LUA edits are a great way to get the functions you need when the code is available to do it, per above. But it does come at a cost. Every time DCS is updated, the files will be reset back to default. You can go to the backup folder and paste over the new default file with the old edited file, but that is risky. The input files change fairly often. I typically use Notepad++ to do a file compare for each input file I have customized. On a good day, nothing is different except for my edits. But usually at least one aircraft's input file has changed and I have to manually copy / paste the extra control scripts into the new default file. Verifying and/or pasting in custom input scripts can get really tedious when you have a lot of aircraft with custom scripts and patches come out frequently.