streakeagle

I found a source of aluminum tube that is close enough in dimensions that I am making my own extensions. I need to use the ends/wiring from an existing extension to complete them, but it is very straight forward: 1. Cut tube to desired length (1 inch O.D. with 1/8 inch wall thickness is what I think I bought, the stock ends fit snuggly enough not to wiggle at all). 2. Remove ends from existing extension (preferably an extension as long or longer than the length you need so you don't have to extend the wiring between the ends). 3. Make templates for holes from existing extension. 4. Use templates to mark holes on new extension. 5. Drill out holes on new extension. 6. Install ends.

There's a guy on ebay that repairs and resells Warthog boards in North America. https://www.ebay.com/itm/Repair-Service-Thrustmaster-Warthog-Throttle-Main-PCB-Bricked-Warthog-Fix/233195609114?hash=item364b8a9c1a:g:0woAAOSwWrxcH5VO

My current monitor is a TCL 49-inch 5-series 4K@60Hz/HDR. I got it for about $300. It is the best monitor I have had to date. I would have gone for the 65-inch for about $600, but the 49-inch is much lighter and easier to move around. I also have Oculus Rift, and Oculus Rift S. What really draws me to VR is the 1:1 head tracking with a much wider vertical field of view. For me, that is what provides the immersion more so than the stereoscopic 3d effect. But after flying VR for awhile and struggling to get a steady 40 fps with decent quality settings, the 4K display is absolutely beautiful at a steady 60 fps. I can use maxed out settings with 4K other than MSAA at x2. Before the Rift S came out, I was flying VR about 50 percent of the time. With the improved visuals of the S, I now fly VR about 80 percent of the time. But I still love to enjoy a 49-inch 4K display. I see no reason to limit myself to playing only one way or the other. So I don't buy into this constant arguing that everyone should stop buying monitors and convert to VR or that VR isn't good enough yet.

With the release of the Rift S, I am flying VR more. 1 or 2 fps isn't a big difference. There are essentially two realms: try to hold 40 fps with the highest quality settings possible or if your gpu and cpu are strong enough, try to hold 80 fps with the highest quality settings possible. I am going to guess that the 3rd gen Ryzen and 9900k are close enough in performance that given a decent gpu will be too close in performance to distinguish... i.e. hold 40 fps with the same settings or maybe hold 80 fps with the same settings. If that is the case, then it is just a matter of personal preference or whether you intend to use the PC for more than just playing DCS World in VR. Multithreading is coming sooner or later for just about everything. But is it coming soon enough to sacrifice even a slight amount of single thread performance to make sure you have a decent multi-threading support? I have been sitting on the fence for a few years already. Still nothing leaps out at me enough to make me pull the trigger on building a new PC. I will just keep sitting here until something forces me to act.

SimShaker for Aviators was basically made for the Gametrix pad. But you may need to buy Simshaker Wings depending on which sims you are flying. Aviators covers the most important ones: DCS World, FSX/P3D, and X-Plane. While Wings covers Falcon BMS, War Thunder, and Aerofly FS2 as well as experimental limited support for the IL-2:BoX games. For the record, I like Andre's JetSeat Simulator Edition (SE) so much that I bought a 2nd one to make sure I had plenty of spare parts since Gametrix took the seats out of production. I may also end up with two sim pits, so I can have seat pads for both until parts start failing :)

I am with you, brother! (2819)

I will say this, I have been flying the F-86 too much recently with the arrival of the hornet and the falcon as well as rotating through various aircraft to try out all my new grips. So, I flew the basic intercept mission over the Caucasus terrain and found that the gunsight was very accurate out to 3,000 ft. To the best of my recall, I was never able to get the bullets on target, even in level flight, without aiming a little high until the range got very short (< 1,200 ft). That was a huge improvement for me. Next, I flew the dogfight mission over the Persian Gulf. It is a 1 vs 1 with a MiG-15bis. The point was to try to get into a steady state turn/loop and test a rear quarter steady state tracking gunshot, which is exactly what this sight should be good for even under decent g-loads. It was hard to control the range and keep a steady load because the AI is almost always trying to force an overshoot or pull away while turning fairly hard and alternating between diving and climbing depending on speed and altitude. But, I had no problem using the sight effectively at ranges under 1,200 ft. It helped to pull just a tad of lead, but I seemed to still score hits even when holding the piper on the target. Maybe it is just me, but the F-86F gunsight seems to be working better than ever if not 100% correctly. But there are two sides to this equation: even if the bullets are too slow, as long as the sight computes the correct drop for the bullet speed being used, it should still work fine. So there are really three things that may need to be tested and fixed: 1) bullet velocity adjusted to reflect reality rather than using WW2 bullet parameters. 2) barrel warping effects on dispersion over time 3) gunsight correctly computing lead for the bullets being used, whether they are slow WW2 rounds or faster Korean War rounds. The extra parameter out of my reach is how closely DCS gunsight algorithms match the computations of the real gunsights. Gunsights were mechanical computers that had many limitations. I don't want a P-51D or F-86F with a modern gunsight that perfectly predicts the bullet impact point for the specified range. I want the piper to move the way it would on the real gunsight in response to my aircraft's motion and the range input. That includes stability issues (if any) and intrinsic errors. Some gunsights were better than others, particularly when it comes to dynamic dogfights with constantly changing loads.

USAF Museum quotes F-86 M3 as having a muzzle velocity of 2,870 feet per second (875 m/s). The gunsight has all kinds of problems with reliability, but when it was set up right and working, it was accurate. It is funny how the P-51D gunsight is fairly accurate, but the later F-86 gunsight with radar ranging far less accurate.

So, I tried out the new VKB MCG Pro diff.lua for the F-5E. It isn't bad at all and will work great for people who like using a controller out of the box rather than taking a lot of time to map everything to match their preference. But, I disagree with three assignments: 1. What should be the nosegear button (button low on side of grip) is assigned as the limiter override lever. 2. What should be the weapons fire button (red button at the top left of the grip) is assigned as the nosegear button. 3. The weapons fire button is assigned to the flip down trigger. I submit that the weapons fire button should be mapped close to where it is on the stick in the game: the red button at the upper left. The nosegear button should also be assigned to the button closest to the one shown in the game: the button low on the left side of the grip. The analog brake lever would be perfect as the limiter override, but since it doesn't behave as button out of the box, the flip down trigger makes a nice substitute since it is also a lever.

The failure of a button is more likely due to a problem on the little green PCB inside the grip. I lost the function of my first trigger detent. The switch was good, but the multiplexing board that serializes the button data to send to the base had a bad input. Replaced the board, trigger worked perfectly again.

I can't stand operating a mouse from hotas controls. To me that is the slowest solution of all if you don't turn your head to look directly at the control. I use a real mouse for controls other than MFD and HOTAS buttons, the problem being it is set up exclusively for right-hand use. My MFDs are positioned close together, dead center, and a little too far out of reach. If they physically matched the VR pit geometry, they would be almost effortless to use and adding prompts to identify the center buttons would help make it even faster. VR gloves or natural hand tracking would make the MFDs far superior to any HOTAS or mouse solutions, as long as the virtual fingertip accurately depicts where your real fingertip is located. Until the tech catches up, the finger tracking tool advertised and sold on these forums provides almost a perfect interface mimicking mouse actions with finger pointing and buttons on the side of the finger device. I am seriously considering getting that, but it still has the limitation that the button must be in view to see and touch it. Whereas using real-world controls, I can be looking over my shoulder and still press an MFD button or any other switch/lever I happen to map via usb controller boards. The more you play that way, the faster you get. It is hardly "fumbling around" unless you are in a panic, only marginally slower than what you can do when you can actually see the MFDs.

I could live with natural hand tracking if it was very precise. Haptic responses would be better, but the hand or controls could provide a visual cue like flashing/changing color or a small text caption when you were in a certain proximity indicating what the control will do if you move any further. For instance if you put your real finger in a position below a toggle switch that is down or off and start to move it upward, it could glow with a color meaning "up" or "on" or text like "generator on". If it was a knob, you would pinch the knob to get the "glow" or caption, then twist the desired direction. Where as haptic responses would put pressure on your fingertips to indicate proximity. To work really well, the virtual hand and real hand should move together almost perfectly 1:1. But your brain should be able to use the visual images to get the job done even if the scale isn't exactly 1:1, no different than if you are reaching for something in water and the light is being refracted. This is where real world simpits can still function very well: If you can see the virtual pilot's hands moving 1:1 with your real hands and your cockpit controls are placed almost exactly where they are in the virtual view, you would have the best of both worlds. In this environment, you could place a board at the right distance and angle (using the virtual hands to test reach and boundaries), then trace/transfer the size/locations of gauges and switches by drawing them on the board. The existing touch controllers could have a pen carefully mounted on them to permit this to some extent if you have your IPD/world scaling set to be true 1:1. The pen would have to be offset to reflect the difference in the position of your virtual hand vs the real hand, which could possibly be calibrated by peeking out of the visor (as I already do when comparing my pilot head/seat/stick position).

I still use mine with VR. I am able to find a corner, then count over. It is a little slower than being able to see where my hand is, but ok for non-critical button pushing. Eventually, I will mount them in a way that allows me to arrange them to match their location in the VR pit as well as put "bumps" to help locate particular buttons, which will make them work really well for aircraft that have them.

FC3 is the best deal: A-10A F-15C MiG-29 Su-25 Su-27 Su-33 The simplified systems are annoying if you are used to clickable cockpits, but the flight models have been vastly improved to match other DCS modules. Despite having four air superiority aircraft which have similar flight envelopes, they all "feel" different in response to control movements. The Su-33 is the bonus: a carrier based aircraft for more interesting landings and takeoffs. A very long time ago, when DCS had crazy sales all the time, FC3 was selling for just $12. That was a steal for anyone who caught that price.

I would want the gloves for interacting with the cockpit. I would want to see the virtual pilot's hands following the gloves in a realistic way when the virtual pilot body is enabled, which would be almost all the time for me as long as it looks good and works well. But there should be a sensor on the glove to know when a hand is on the stick or throttle so that the in-game image "snaps" to the correct position regardless of where the stick/throttle are mounted in reality.

This is good news. While I can enjoy good sounds, it is the FM that makes DCS World my "go to" sim. The better the Lift, thrust, drag, and inertia are modeled over the entire envelope, the more realistic the flight model becomes, which is what I value more than anything. The M2000C and AV-8B certainly need to be finished as soon as possible. I was under the impression RAZBAM had different teams for different aircraft so that they could have parallel progress in multiple projects. Bit this statement tells me there is a bottleneck, which tells me I should treat RAZBAM the same way I am treating some other DCS World 3rd parties whose progress on released modules is slow or non-existent: no more early access purchases until my existing modules are finished to my satisfaction or at least show significant effort in that direction. Having said that, my preference is for older, historic Korean/Vietnam/Arab-Israeli Cold War aircraft up to the early/mid 1970s. So I am more interested in the MiG-19P being completed and I really want the MiG-19S or its Chinese equivalent for historically accurate Vietnam and Arab-Israeli missions. But of all the RAZBAM aircraft released/announced/or currently in progress, the MiG-23ML is the one I really want to see released and finished the most. It is a unique aircraft that would be extremely challenging to fly against its US teen fighter Cold War opponents. If ED ever gets to the late model F-4E, the MiG-23ML vs F-4E is almost a perfectly balanced DACT fight, similar to the MiG-21Bis vs F-5E.

As the Rift S made a big step forward in perceived visual quality despite only a modest increase in resolution, I am flying VR a lot more, now. But when the controls are reasonably close to where they appear to be, I can use them quite easily. So, despite focusing on VR, I intend to build accrate, functional pits in terms of switches, knobs, etc. The big savings on a VR pit is not having to animate gauges, lights, and displays. Having multiple panes that fit in place of the Hornet panel to accommodate various aircraft types would be cool. But how accurate can they be if they have to fit the dimensions of the Hornet throttle? I plan to eventually make some interchangeable front panels for my favorite aircraft. Some front panels just have a few knobs on the gauges, others have some switches and/or buttons that are critical to operation and/or combat. But I have too much going on right now and can't make the time to improve my simpit.

But ED agreed that it had created a horrible situation by sanctioning the effort and took on the mantle of keeping the promises that had been made. Otherwise, I would not have received the Normandy terrain/assets pack and Fw190 and Bf109 for no further cash outlay. The P-47 and Me262 are the only elements from the original promises not yet delivered. Why would they deliver everything else, but skip the Me262, which has already been "in progress"?

The Me262 was a "promised" aircraft that a lot of people who paid money thought they were going to get. Like the NTTR terrain, it needs to be delivered despite the delays involved simply to make good on what people paid for rather being pushed back further to support other people's requests. The current plane set focuses on some of the best fighters througout history as well as an equivalent opposition fighter from WW2 to the 1990s. The Me262 very much belongs in the plane set and to follow tradition, the Meteor should be added to provide an equivalent opponent (though I wouldn't mind a P-80, instead). If DCS is going to prioritize whatever the forum crowd currently wants rather than meet its prior promises, I vote for the P-40B in AVG colors or maybe an F4F vs A6M2 dueling pair or an F6F vs A6M5 dueling pair. Any classic matchup from the Pacific would make me happy. But make no mistake, if/when the Me262 goes up for preorder, I am buying it.

Bring an unslatted version of the F-4 Phantom to DCS World if you want to experience adverse yaw. At high AoA, you can't use ailerons to roll, or you will depart controlled flight with a high probability of going into a non-recoverable flat spin. Only the rudder can be used to roll at high AoA. The slatted versions of the F-4, such as the F-4E Belsimtek is supposed to model, greatly improved the F-4's behavior at high angles of attack. So you can safely pull much higher AoA without risk of departing and get much better sustained and instantaneous turn performance, too. But nothing is free in aerodynamics. The slats increase zero lift drag, which reduces top speed, acceleration, and climb performance.

No worky with DCS no getty my money. If I am going to spend 1-2K just to get force feedback, it is going to work 100% with my primary application: DCS. I own FSX, X-Plane, Prepar3d, etc. But I don't fly them often. So it needs to work with DCS World and keep up with both Windows 10 and DCS patches. Additionally, DCS needs to support FFB correctly for it to be worth my money not a vibrator. I already have the Gametrix Jetseat Simulator Edition from Andre, which is awesome. A FFB stick needs to replicate the artificial feel more modern aircraft and the directly connected feel of older aircraft. Though just having force trim (apparently kind of working already) would be a great thing to have.

That is a dead-on review. It is a great HOTAS, especially for the money when you can get it for $350 or less. It has some flaws, but you have to spend a lot more money to get a better stick, and even then, all you get for that money is a stick. I love the VKB Gunfighter Mk.II gimbal with the 200mm extension, but I damaged a bearing from using too much spring force and had to switch back to my Warthog stick until I repaired it. I was already primarily flying with either the TM Warthog or TM F/A-18C grip on the VKB while flying the F-16 and F/A-18, so going back to the Warthog stick/gimbal with a 150mm extension didn't cost me any functionality of the grips. It didn't really affect my flying at all beyond the feel as the VKB is nowhere near as stiff. Between the benefits of the extension and years of flying with the Warthog, I didn't have any problems due to the "stiction" or the "bump" when crossing the center. If I didn't love the VKB and the variety of grips I can use with it, I would be perfectly happy to continue flying with the Warthog stick.

The inside is more important than the outside. If the newer ones with plastic cases are better in a significant way, I will surely end up with one or two of them.

I will probably need to reduce the spring force, but using the 2nd gunfighter as an F-16C sidestick is looking very practical. The movement isn't that much when you don't use an extension. Just a matter of keeping my dog out of the way.

Bearings arrived tonight. I also ordered a bench vise (for some reason I have never gotten one). I pressed the first new bearing into the roll plate and it seemed that it created some friction or ruined the bearing. So I used my center punch/hammer to extract it out. I ruined another bearing trying to tap it in with a hammer. I was using a screw to try to apply pressure to the center of the bearing (like my punch), but it wouldn't go in level and I jammed the screw in the center of the bearing. So I went back to the vise and slowly pushed the third bearing in. It still felt too tight compared to the way the bearing free wheels before I press it in, but I decided to move forward. After assembly was done, I had two leftover parts: a lock washer that looked like it went on the shaft that goes through the bearing, but I had already used one and the clearances looked correct. So I didn't disassemble everything to try to squeeze it in. I also was left with a very small spring that I don't even remember taking out. It looks like something from a ball point pen, but I don't remember removing one from the Gunfighter and I don't remember having any broken ball point pens in the area either. If someone can tell me where it goes and why it is important to put it back in, I will do so. With everything back together, I chose to put 2 x #40 springs the same as I am using on the new Gunfighter I have been using since this one broke. It calibrated perfectly and I am going to continue using it to verify I reassembled it correctly and to see if any other bearings are going to fail because of being damaged by using 2 x #50 springs on both axes. So for the time being, I now have two fully operational Gunfighter Mk.II's and a whole bunch of grips I can use with either of them. If my dog didn't lay next to me on my right when I am at my PC, I would set one up with the Warthog grip to be my F-16C sidestick. I think I might be able to squeeze the stick within reach, but when my dog is laying there, I might have problems pulling the stick back. Maybe I should get one of those fancy expensive F-16 sticks that uses force sensors and doesn't move much?