streakeagle

I would like it if I could separate the mechanical friction from the lever/axis. i.e. open the case, set the mechanical friction to my preference while being free to use the lever/axis the same way I do on the Warthog throttle. TM got it right separating the two, though it could be better if you had some sort of way to toggle between engaging and disengaging the lever from the mechanical setting, which would give end users the best of both worlds. For anything but helos, I prefer the maximum friction setting, which isn't that much friction compared to the real throttle quadrant I have that is an F-101 Voodoo mechanism paired with F-4 Phantom levers/handles. Of course, for helos, I would love to be able to disable the afterburner detent, too.

Let me get this straight: they don't provide a paddle because the don't want to make the grip unrealistic, but they won't produce a center mount version when that is the only way the real grip was used? Poor logic in my opinion. But clearly they know their market because almost no one asked for the center mount version. But a lot of people would have loved a paddle solution. I have the TM Hornet grip and the Winwing Hornet grip. They both have paddles. The Winwing grip has a lot of the features the Realsimulator version has plus the paddle. My problem is that I prefer the VKB base and have converted my TM Warthog and Hornet grips to use that base, so the Winwing grip that I like so much is useless. If I could mount the Realsimulator grip on my VKB base, it might be good solution. But it isn't designed for it, would require using the officially unsupported bluetooth interface, and would be missing the paddle. Presently, I fly center mount exclusively. My miniature Dachshund lays on a bed on my right at control console level while I am on the PC, leaving no room for a side mount stick. So, overall Realsimulator is not only one of the more expensive options, but isn't really supportive or optimized for my needs/preferences. Now if they made a centermount force feedback stick that felt as good or better than my VKB base and added the rest of the hornet stick with the paddle beneath the grip instead of a simple extension, I would pay a lot for that :joystick:

ED has a lot of coals in the fire. They are constantly trying to bring old content up to current standards while continuously improving the current standards. The Ka-50 and A-10C are getting some love. But that still leaves a lot of older modules that need the same treatment: P-51/Fw190D, F-86/MiG-15, etc. The F-5 is sandwiched in the middle between the oldest and newest modules. The UH-1 came out before the F-5 as well and is still waiting to get promised features, including multiplayer crew support. As long as ED keeps moving forward, doesn't go out of business, and finishes most of this before I get too old to enjoy it, I will be happy. But there are no guarantees. Despite ED never finishing any modules and against my better judgement, I keep pumping money into nearly everything they turn out. All I can do is provide financial support and patiently hope for the best. I would love to see the F-5 have all the bugs squashed and brought up to current module standards. But I don't know if that is ever going to happen based on my experience for the past several years. Fingers crossed and enjoying what is presently available as much as possible. :drink:

The successor to the F-4 was the F-15. The Successor to the F-15 was the F-22, but Cold War ended and money ran out. 20 years later, the new successor is the F-15. Notably, the number of seats is back to where it started: 2, which is what happens when you carry a lot of pounds for air-to-ground :P

I tried the Winwing stick for the past week or two. With lighter springs, I can live with the mechanical "clunk" crossing the center as one cam hits the stop and the other begins to move. But I have been flying Russian aircraft quite a bit, so I miss the brake lever on the MCG Pro grip. With the VKB, I can keep heavier springs and the stick still feels buttery smooth, even when crossing the center and at the same time, retains almost perfect self-centering without any deadbands. It would be better to use an adapter plate to provide an angle between the clamp supports similar to the Winwing stick's angle, but it is late and couldn't take the time or make the noise to create a plate for tonight. The fact is that the larger holes of the clamp can be used with nuts and bolts that fit the smaller holes of the VKB Gunfighter mounting base. Even without the angle, the mount is stable. So now I have my VKB and all its glorious grips back in service and it feels great. The only loss beyond a perfectly good stick collecting dust is that I like the Winwing Hornet grip better than the TM Hornet grip. If I could retrofit the Winwing grip with a VKB adapter, that would be great! I would take the VKB adapter out of the TM Hornet grip and restore its stock Warthog interface. I loved the TM Hornet grip, but the Winwing grip feels better and has more controls while retaining a more authentic appearance. The Winwing grip and stick won't get lonely, they will be sitting next to Warthog throttles and sticks collecting dust together while I continue to use the Winwing throttle and now the VKB stick with the Winwing desk clamps until I make useful progress with my ongoing home cockpit work.

I will try it right now. But I could swear I tried that. But because I have SRS and Vaicom tied together, and Vaicom doesn't recognize the A-4's radio setup, that is probably what prevents me from using SRS.

If the overlay is red, it isn't connecting. The text turns gold when you are really connected. If you have the auto connect settings enabled, SRS will connect and go gold when you join the server. For TX, I am running with SRS and Vaicom Pro (voice command) and I have my push-to-talk buttons configured to be the same in both applications and I don't have any buttons mapped to PTT in DCS World control settings. I also have the checkboxes/settings enabled that tie SRS and Vaicom together. So, other than figuring out which radio types in Vaicom should match to which PTT buttons assigned on my HOTAS per real aircraft arrangements, my transmit functions generally work without issue. So, I have no idea what might be wrong with your install/settings that doesn't allow you to transmit. The only problem I have right now is that Vaicom isn't working with some aircraft, the Fw190D9 is the aircraft of interest where I have the problem. One other important setting: are you using the DCS setting for easy radio comms? Or the realistic mode where the frequency and ptt button used matter?

I am generally against labels. I have never used them in DCS playing offline. But after seeing how the dot implementation works on the Korea server with AI, I don't mind them. As with anything there are tradeoffs. The goal is to simulate reality, but the available options don't achieve that. Without labels, spotting is unrealistically difficult and moreso with 4K monitors. The contrast and detail are all wrong. Additionally, visual identification of aircraft type and friend/foe is horrible until too close. Look at small civil aviation aircraft and airliners for reference of what ranges you can really see the wing and tail planforms and know what type of aircraft it is. Unless they are head on, it is quite some distance. But with labels, spotting is almost automatic at a certain range if someone has good scan discipline, not to mention odd visibility through clouds, etc. But I like how on the Korea server, I first see a dot. If I toggle labels off, I can still generally see the aircraft in VR (Rift S), but it is blurry and may not have enough contrast to be seen. Then as I get closer, the dot turns red or blue to provide IFF at realistic ranges: which is not only realistic to be able to distinguish aircraft types when the graphics won't let you even see the shape of an airplane, but it great for game play. When I play online, I want the realism, but I also want to actually get into dogfights, not circle endlessly or get unfairly bounced due to the limitations of the graphics. So, I have reached a point where I don't mind dots being on or off. I am happy either way. I just don't want text names or ranges. "I'm Gumby, dammit! I'm flexible!"

I didn't have a problem with my Mk II and therefore didn't notice much of a difference upgrading to Mk III electronics and cams. My centering was excellent with either version using 10 or 20 cm extensions with single #50 springs. I did destroy a bearing trying out #50 x 2 on both axes only to find out later that the suggested limit is #40 x 2. I was able to replace the bad bearing, but also bought a 2nd base to before attempting the repair... right before the Mk III was announced. Just my luck. But now I have both bases upgraded with the full Mk III package. The only thing I am missing is the new black "black box".

I need a monitor with large vertical not wider horizontal. As I toggle back and forth between Rift S and a 49 inch 4K Tv, it is the lack of vertical field of view that really kills me. Whereas my horizontal field of view is almost the same. I also count on stereo 3d images to allow me to see around canopy frames. Aircraft with large frames or frames down the center of the canopy (Fw190 and MiG-15) are horrible on a 2d monitor with TrackIR. In VR, I can see right through them because normally only one eye is blocked by the frame while I am visually tracking a contact in an aggressive rolling dogfight (which also needs that vertical field of view so I don't have to look up as high and still see the control panel/gunsight or canopy frame references to maintain awareness of where my airplane is pointing/going versus where I am looking). My ideal monitor would be a 4K monitor so large that the vertical field of view would match my Rift S, which is probably around 100 inches.

Nice review. I started with CV1 and decided to go with the Rift S after Matt Wagner's review. The CV1 was just too hard to use. I couldn't read gages, I couldn't spot airplanes. Rift S was a huge step forward for me. Lately the Rift S is looking better to me, I don't know if it is something in my perception or a real improvement between DCS, Oculus, and Microsoft Windows patches. but I am very happy with the image quality in most aircraft. My only complaint is that the fps is almost always 40 or less with larger missions, complex cockpits, etc. and that means ASW, which frequently means "ghosting" in dogfights. If I could run at a steady 80 fps with image quality settings at or nearly at maxed out settings with no ghosting, the Rift S would be good enough for me. I am considering an HP Reverb G2. But maybe I should wait a little longer for a bigger generational jump in VR, cpus, and gpus to move forward. The one item you mentioned that would make me want the index is FOV. I want a natural, full FOV, but in the interim, I will settle for whichever company can deliver the largest FOV while having the best pixels per degree while still being playable at 40-45 fps in DCS World. So, the one reason for me to try the index is it might be my best option for FOV until better hardware is available. For now, I will just keep studying these forums for reviews like this one so that I can make a well educated decision whenever I finally pull the trigger on trying to upgrade from the Rift S. The problem is that I really need to upgrade the PC/gpu as well. But I have been waiting for the cpu/motherboard combos to have meaningful gains in DCS World rather than around 20% I can get right now. I am also having trouble justifying $1,000 or more for a gpu. The ones I like are at least $1,200, when I have consistently built solid gaming machines for $1,500 prior to the inflation of gpu prices a couple of years ago due to bitcoin mining. Suddenly, upgrading VR headsets sounds cheap compared to buying a GPU that can run it.

I have been following this thread for a very long time. I will probably get this once V2 is shipping. Keep up the good work making and refining this really cool device for DCS World!

Uncheck g-force box for every aircraft/profile... edits complete. This was advised by the people that sell the jet seat and by pilots that they had test it. I finally did it, and it makes a noticeable difference... rumble that I thought was from the engine/flying, was actually g-forces. Eliminating this setting allowed other, more subtle settings to become more prominent, most important being the feeling of buffeting, which is generally the approach of stall onset. Better perception of buffeting means less need to watch the AoA meter because you can easily determine what level of buffeting occurs for a given AoA indication. Of course, you could use the deadband adjustment for the g-force rumble, but I would rather feel buffeting gradually increasing which is more useful to me than simply vibrating in proportion to g-load.

I took apart my Winwing stick today. Based on the youtube video I watched, the cams appeared to adjusted perfectly from the factory. So I didn't mess with their set screws at all. What I could see while moving the stick was the clunk sound and feeling I get is the cams' set screws banging on the stop. This is a design feature. It can't be eliminated. But I swapped in the softest springs provided (#4). This makes the stick feel a lot more like my VKB and it reduces the clunk sound a little and the clunk feel a lot. But I still feel it. So if I call call the VKB a 10 and the Warthog a 5, with the hard springs, the sound/smoothness of the Winwing was about a 7 or 8. With the weak springs, I would call it a 9. But of course this comes at the loss of the feel of the strong springs. But the feel is fairly close to my preferred VKB single #50 per axis, so I don't score it as a loss. I would still take the VKB over the Winwing, but the gap is very small. Other features like the very nice F/A-18 grip, desk clamp, and variable height extension might make the Winwing a better choice for many people. After flying with the Winwing Hornet grip for so many days, I will miss it whenever I use the TM Hornet grip with the VKB. I love the extra buttons/hats and the overall feel of the grip, including the material/texture, which feels even better to me than the TM Hornet. I would love it if I could adapt the Winwing grip to the VKB Gunfighter base.

I concur. The throttle would be hard to beat without expensive milspec replication. I still find the Warthog throttle to be good, but the Winwing implementation that assigns a button input to every switch position makes button mapping in DCS World much easier... I rarely need to edit LUA files to get the in-game switches to behave correctly with the available stock input mappings. The key word is "rarely". I still have to use LUA edits to get things to work the way I want on a couple of aircraft. But that is inconsequential, because I still maintain all the LUA edits the Warthog throttle requires after every patch.

What I got out of this is that something was wrong with the installation, and his attempt to solve his daughter's problem led him to do a reinstall that somehow fixed whatever was broken in his original install. So, if you have abnormally low performance compared to others, the problem might be a minor driver/software issue that can be overcome with a complete uninstall/cleanup/reinstall, which is generally true with almost any PC hardware in a windows environment, especially with Windows, gpu drivers, and VR drivers constantly being patched.

I watched the video. Without changing the cam profile, I don't see how an adjustment is going to change what I am feeling. The design has two cams for the same axis, similar to the Warthog. What I hear and feel is the transition from one cam to the other. Adjustments may be able to reduce that effect, but it can't eliminate it. Softer springs may improve the feel, but are the extra springs provided softer or harder than the installed springs. VKB has a single continuous profile. So the only thing you feel or hear on the VKB design is a product of the cam profile. The spring hardness does affect the feel. Double #50's actually killed one of my bearings (apparently the most that is permitted is double #40s), but it also made even the smooth center feel more like a hard detent. After comparing the feel of double #40s to single #50s, I have stayed with the single #50s, which have enough force to pull heavy TM grips back to perfect center even with the 20 cm extension yet provide the smooth almost undetectable centering detent. If I could get the Winwing to feel that nice, I would be much more likely to keep it in use, but there is the issue of the grips. I have two VKB bases that work perfectly and at least 6 compatible grips. In the time that I have been using the Winwing, I miss using the F-14 and MCG Pro grips, which are the ones I tend to use the most. Having the Warthog adapter for the Winwing will be nice, but that only gives me the A-10/F-16 grip, which is the one I use the least. I still want to see how well I can tune the Winwing, but its service time will end after I make an adapter plate for the VKB to use the desk clamp or make a new wheeled base for the stick/chair to replace the one that is being returned to F-4 Phantom stick duty.

The mode that I need per the manual is the gyro with 300m fixed range for close-in dogfighting. When you follow the manual's switch lineup to get that mode, you end up with a reticle that just moves from side to side with no vertical compensation at all. However, if you follow those directions but change just one switch, it seems to be working the way I wanted: Per the manual, you need the weapon mode air/ground in air mode, missile/gun in gun mode, the shoot/bomb in shoot mode, and the auto/manual in manual with the twist handle range rolled all the way back to minimum. That lineup doesn't work right in the game, but if you move the auto/manual to auto, you can see the gunsight go to a dramatically larger, fixed reticle when you roll the twist grip all the way back to minimum range. This appears to be the fixed 300m mode, because the range is otherwise 600m to 2000m in auto, which would cause the reticle to have half the size at 600m. I suddenly find myself able to live with this now that I have the mode I wanted. I had also tried out the rockets/bombing modes recently and they seemed to work well with recent patches. I am sure this fixed range 300m mode was actually working for quite some time, but I wasn't using it because I was expecting the manual mode to work per the manual, including the 300m mode. With the realization that I have the gunsight mode I wanted most, the main thing I am missing is a virtual pilot body. I love to have the pilot body enabled when I don't need to see around it and especially when I am flying in VR. The AJS-37 Viggen finally got a pilot body... and it came out long after the MiG-21. Magnitude 3 LLC/Leatherneck needs to get hot and get that pilot in the game!

If video drivers cause security flaws, maybe we are using the wrong gpu. I would think the "GeForce Experience" would be the source of security issues, and that updates independently. But my home pc exists for one reason: to play fight sims. I will use the driver that works best with my flight sims. If it somehow gets hacked despite being behind a router and firewall, I will just wipe the drive and start over. I have a work laptop whose job is to be "safe". Other issues forced me to go back to an earlier driver. Based on someone else's experience, I chose 436.30, and it not only solved the problems I was hoping to fix, but made a lot of other things work better, too, including DCS World. Older hardware tends to run better on older drivers that were optimized for that hardware. Unless you are playing a newer game that requires a fix in a more recent driver, it is often better to stay with a mature, stable driver that offers optimum performance for older hardware. Having said that, I am still curious to see if the latest drivers solved my other problems and maybe equals or beats the performance of my old driver while also adding some new features. But I would rather spend time flying the MiG-21 than testing various drivers, and I have been having a blast flying the MiG-21 with VR in multiplayer with fairly good performance and enjoying the upgraded cockpit/canopy glass.

I will look into it.

What is there to adjust? Mine came with a couple of extra sets of springs. I don't know if the springs are stronger or weaker than what is installed. But I didn't see any extra cams to try.

I am considering the $422 model. I would like to have the displays when I fly with TrackIR. But I am lazy and don't want to mess with DCS BIOS. So, I would probably be better off with the cheaper model.

The only time I could feel center at all was when I was using double springs. But it didn't click at all, I could just feel it hitting the center. Using single #50s, it is buttery smooth. Whereas the Wingwing stick is almost identical to the Warthog in this respect: I both feel and hear a "clunk" as I cross the center in either direction. In a weaving scissors, it very much annoys me.

The gyro gunsight reticle mode that I need that is presently broken is the fixed 300m range maneuvering target mode used in dogfights. Following the MiG-21bis flight manual: rockets-guns to guns, bombing-shooting to shooting, auto-manual to manual, gyro-missile to gyro, and twist-handle range all the way back (making the break off light come on), then adjusting the span knob using the outer scale to set the wingspan. This should give you a free-ranging gyro sight with a fixed 300m range input and the reticle sized to show when the target's wingspan is at 300m. What I get is a sight that wobbles left and right with no vertical movement. But at least the reticle changes size based on the wingspan knob. How many years was that aspect broken? With auto mode on, the gyro is set up for the 600-2000m range scale for targets not maneuvering or pulling less than 2g. Clearly, the range and g requirements match that for engaging large bombers, because 600m is pretty much the outer edge of range for hitting maneuvering targets in high g dogfight, and 2g isn't dogfighting. Gyro mode is not used for missiles, so the sight reticle uses the span knob to set mils to mix with the fixed reticle for intricate aiming techniques described in the manual. The reticle only moves based on a mix of gyro and range input (radar or manual twist handle), it should never move otherwise, and certainly never follows the target like a hud box. Some patches have fixed/broken the gun sight reticle behavior in different ways, but it has never worked 100% correctly and only with one of the very recent patches did it start approaching correct behavior. But after all this time, the gunsight still doesn't work right? And why in a sim like this would it have a checkbox option to make it follow the target like a hud box? But other than the remaining oddities of the ever broken gunsight, I am very happy with the present state of the MiG-21 compared to the past few years. I enjoyed the original release/early patches a heck of a lot more until the last couple of patches. Accurate or not, the current flight model is the best it has had and I love being able to see through the glass instead of having sun glare, dirt, and the double layer of the HUD/windshield making it very difficult to see a small target under many lighting conditions.

This is a great mod. Someone should be making and selling things like this to make the Warthog as good as it can be :)