streakeagle

I have never really cared for the cold metal feel of the Warthog grip. My all-time favorite grip is the B-8. I have two real B-8 grips. They are heavy and have metal internally. But the outer shell is some sort of heavy duty plastic or molded resin. It has a gloss finish that may be painted on or is the result of polishing the surface. The sides have a checkered pattern similar to many pistol grips. It does not feel like cold metal at all. I really like the size/shape/feel of it in my hand. The MCG Pro does not have the heavy, sturdy feel of the B-8. It also does not have the polished, glossy finish. The shape is a little smaller. It has something like the checkered pattern on one side. Despite all the little differences, the MCG Pro feels a lot like my preferred B-8, which is a big plus for me over cold metal. As the F-14 grip appears to have largely derived from the B-8, I will probably enjoy the size/shape/feel of it.

That looks great, but I think I like my metal one better despite not actually being black.

You can cut it any way you want it, but Belsimtek was on a track, and ED stopped them cold and redirected them: F-15C fm upgrade, F-5E, F/A-18, and F-16. ED is sure they are going to eventually do an F-4, but they can't even tell you when they are going to start because they aren't even sure what they are going to be doing before they can get to the F-4.

Why would VKB limit their designs or increase their cost/complexity trying to sell accessories compatible with their principal competitor's products? If you can afford it, it is better for both them and their customers to push sales of their Gunfighter Mk.II stick bases. If you can't afford their product or simply refuse because you are happy with what you already have, you weren't their target market. They wanted to make something for people who wanted something more than what the Warthog offered in both quality and capability. But it comes with a much higher price. I like the Warthog HOTAS, but the stick has always had its limitations. I decided to try VKB when they announced their MCG Pro. It killed two birds with one stone: a much better gimbal and support for Soviet style sticks with analog brake levers, flip down triggers/safetys, etc. I paid more for the VKB stick/grip than I paid for the entire Warthog throttle and stick HOTAS, but I got what I paid for. The feel and precision of the gimbal is amazing. The MCG Pro was perfect for flying certain MiGs and the Spitfire Mk.IX, but was still more than compatible with anything that worked well with the Warthog grip. As it stands, VKB has provided adapters that are easily installed to use the TM Warthog and F/A-18C grips with their Gunfighter Mk.II stick base. So you can keep your Warthog or even enjoy the new Hornet grip on a base that not only has a much better gimbal that can be tuned to the owner's preferences, but supports grips with much greater capability than the TM grips: more hats/buttons, analog axes and cursors, etc. I have absolutely no trouble flying with the Warthog throttle and VKB Gunfighter Mk.II in DCS World. So, I don't understand the need for VKB to urgently provide a throttle to make their stick/grips more attractive? I now have a large assortment of VKB compatible grips, most of them replicas or reasonable approximations of real grips. The F-14 grip will be a great additon to my collection.

You don't buy the VKB F-14 grip for buttons/axes counts. You buy it because you want an ergnomic and functional replica of the real F-14 grip to perfectly match the DCS F-14 module in much the same way the Warthog grip is the perfect match for the A-10C and F-16C with no extra buttons or analog axes, only the controls available to pilots of the real aircraft. If you don't have a VKB Gunfighter Mk.II and don't want to spend the big bucks to get one, this isn't the grip for you, either. Thrustmaster's Warthog stick base is inferior to VKB's Gunfighter Mk.II in almost every way. A key compatibility issue is that VKB grips support multiple analog axes for things such as cursor control, brake levers, rudder twist, etc. while the Thrustmaster grips don't have the option for even one analog axis nor does the TM stick base support as many button inputs. So supplying an adapter to use the VKB grips with the Warthog base doesn't make any sense as you will lose quite a bit of functionality, especially if you are trying to use an MCG Pro on a Warthog base. On the other hand, if you already have a VKB Gunfighter Mk.II or you can afford to buy one and already own a Warthog stick, you are the person that VKB expects to buy this grip. You can get the Warthog adapter to retain full use of your Warthog grip, and with a little filing to round off one of the corners of the adapter, the F/A-18C grip is fully functional, too. I am in this category and can't wait to get the F-14 grip to complete my collection of grips compatible with the VKB Gunfighter Mk.II.

This is extremely disappointing news to me. Belsimtek not only had the best initial releases, but were almost the sole producers of the modules that I really wanted most: the UH-1, the F-86/MiG-15, F-5E, and F-15C FM upgrade. I also loved the matched pairs approach: UH-1/Mi-8, F-86/MiG-15, AH-1/Mi-24. The F-5E is almost the perfect balanced opponent for the MiG-21bis while the F-4E would be the historically correct opponent. The F-4E and AH-1 were projects I was really looking forward to vice the umpteenth implementation of the F-16 and F-18 in PC combat flight sims. I understood that the F-4E and AH-1 got bumped down because of the F-16 and F-18... now they are bumped down because of the P-47 and Mosquito? I was expecting an announcement about F-4E progress in a year or two... now it sounds more like it is at least 4 or 5 years away if it ever gets done at all. It figures the one aircraft I wanted more than any other that had already been showcased as "in progress" is now effectively cancelled until further notice. I hope Heatblur picks up a Navy F-4 variant before ED gets to the F-4E. They already have decent AI for a two-seat carrier-based all-weather fighter. An F-4B/N or F-4J/S would be just as good to me as an F-4E. The only bright side of this news is that I can put off work on building a USB F-4E throttle for my simpit. I already have the handles mounted on an axis, but I need to mount it to the console, restrict the angular movement to the correct range, and somehow implement the idle and afterburner detents.

While I would take the "throttle only" option if it came with a huge reduction in price, I like what they have produced. I have no interest in desktop mounts. I still prefer an actual side console, preferably built to scale. This throttle / panel combo saves a lot of work buy giving you a good start. I won't order one any time soon as I am waiting to see the long term results: 1) Are there enough sales to keep this product on the market and support repair issues? 2) How well do these hold up after extensive use? 3) How many revisions will it go through before the design is stable and reliable? The price is fairly high, but I am willing to pay it if I know it works well, will last a long time, and can be quickly/easily fixed if something does go wrong. The last Hornet throttle advertised on these forums looked fantastic (and was only the throttle). It was really expensive. But it never achieved regular production with a stable design, was cancelled, and the people that bought it are stuck trying to solve any remaining issues on their own. I am glad I didn't buy it. This one initially looks way better and provides a lot more for the price: stick, throttle, and panel. The unboxing videos have given me a great first impression. It seems the main problem is the stick/cam setup. I don't need the stick, so that is not a big deal. But if the stick is revised and turns out to be better than my current combination (VKB Gunfighter Mk II with Thrustmaster F/A-18C grip), I would be happy to get my money's worth. So, I will keep following posts about this setup by people who are using them and try to set aside some money just in case I decide to pull the trigger.

ORDER #2819 I ordered two since I have two throttles. The difference in the cursor control on the Warthog throttles and the VKB MCG Pro stick grips is night and day, which made my decision to buy this mod very easy.

I removed a small locking screw, which allowed me to pull the shaft that was holding the bearing to the assembly. I just need a way to press the bearing out and have new bearings on the way. Bearing is now pressed out... waiting for bearings to arrive tomorrow, then I will have to see if I can put Humpty Dumpty back together again without damaging the new bearing (or other bearings for that matter). I suspect one of the pitch bearings may be on the verge of going because they were exposed to the same 2x#50 spring force as the bearings that damaged the roll bearing and I use pitch a lot more than roll. But I will have 9 extra bearings if I can install the new one without damaging it.

I have a Leo Bodnar BU0836X myself. Great piece of hardware and supporting software.

I would definitely get FC3. I agree with the others: I wouldn't make CA a priority, better to get another high fidelity aircraft module. If you don't mind the missing/broken features, the F/A-18C is module I would recommend if you can only afford to get one. It is incredibly easy to operate despite all the MFDs with their endless menus. It has decent power and excellent agility for dogfighting. It is also a very capable ground attack aircraft (or will be as features are added/fixed). It can operate from aircraft carriers. But the thing is, these aircraft are modeled to a very high level of detail. So, it can take a lot of time and effort to really learn any one aircraft. Pick an aircraft you really like and are willing to spend that time and effort learning. If you have no preference, the Hornet is probably the best choice. But if you love the F-16 or MiG-21 or the AJS-37, etc., pick one you love over what someone else says is the best. But read up on the bugs/problems before buying a module to make sure you won't be disappointed. If you have some extra cash at some point and have even the slightest interest in flying helos, the UH-1H is pure joy to fly and even better in VR. The Mi-8 is a lot more complex, but is also really fun to fly/operate.

My SCG Pro was supposed to arrive yesterday, but came today. Since I already had the standard SCG, there are no surprises: it looks and feels the same except that the side button is a hat switch with a center depress and the top left hat can be analog or a hat as indicated by a red light and toggled by the center depress button. The SCG Pro arrangement very similar to US F-16/F-18 grips, but I find it closer in shape/comfort to my all-time favorite B-8 grip. I wish the SCG had an analog brake lever rather than a twist axis, but I suppose I could use axis tuning to make it work as a brake lever. Besides and analog brake lever, the MCG Pro has one more push button and one more hat/center drepress, which gives it a lot more flexibility, but I much prefer the SCG for its ergonomics/arrangement. Thrustmaster really missed the boat when they designed the Cougar and Warthog to permit interchangeable grips, but took so many years before ever releasing a 2nd grip option. VKB for the win with multiple grips of their own and adapters to allow me to use both Thrustmaster grips, too!

I don't fly multiplayer in DCS World very much, but having multicrew support for the UH-1 would be a big deal for me. My son has never taken much of an interest in flight sims, but I am pretty sure we could play this together if he was my co-pilot/gunner. We could play in VR together. I am sure he would love to use the miniguns to mow down light vehicles. Then, if he really enjoys it, maybe I can get him to start flying his own helo so we can fly in pairs. Wishful thinking, but I have been waiting for this feature for quite some time to see if my plan will work to get my son to fly with me.

I just got my SCG Pro grip in today completing my collection of grips compatible with the Gunfighter Mk II. Now, I am going to be waiting for the pre-order announcement. I also just purchased a 2nd Gunfighter Mk II because I damaged a bearing on my first one. So, now I have one fully functional and one that just needs a new bearing, providing some redundancy... but now there is a Mk III!

I damaged a bearing on my roll axis by using two #50 springs and later found out the suggested maximum is two #40 springs. I have yet to fix that bearing, but I got a 2nd Gunfighter Mk II so I can afford to risk damaging the first one trying to fix it myself. There are two reasons I tried using 2 x #50 springs: 1) I am using the 200 mm extension that came with the MCG Pro / Gunfighter Mk II I originally purchased a while back, and 2) I am using heavy Thrustmaster Warthog and Hornet grips with adapters. When my 2nd Gunfighter Mk II arrived, I used only 1 x #50 spring, but tried out the special cam provided with Warthog adapters. Presumably, this cam is designed to provide stronger centering action for the extra weight of the heavy metal Thrustmaster grips. This cam created the sensation of a center detent, not unlike the feel of a stock Warthog stick/gimbal. At the same time, the #50 spring wasn't strong enough to keep the grip centered with either the 200 mm extension. I didn't buy the VKB stick so that it could feel like a Warthog and have worse self-centering action. Tonight, I put the stock cam (10) back in place and went to 2 x #40 springs on the pitch axis and left 1 x #50 on the roll axis. Problem solved. The stick feels smooth and centers perfectly in pitch. I turn my grip to the fullest extent to the left (counter clockwise) to keep my wrist straight while holding the grip with my right hand. This causes some issue with centering in the roll axis with only 1 x #50 spring... it tends to stay where you put it once you get near the center. If you center it, it stays there. If you bump it ever so slightly, it stays there, too. I am going to fly this way a bit before think about increasing the springs to 2 x #30 or 2 x #40 since I managed to damage the roll axis the last time I used 2 springs. I got the KG12 grip with the 2nd Gunfighter MK II. It feels great and works well with the Bf109 and Fw190s. My main gripe is that the button off to the left side at the top of the stick isn't a button at all, but a POV hat. The POV functionality is great, but I would have appreciated a center press function in addition to the POV functionality. It would be nice if there was a switch to detect the position of the flip down trigger/safety. It also would be nice if the top center switch had POV functionality in addition to button action. This would have maintained the look and feel of the grip while multiplying its usefulness in PC sims. I would also really have preferred to have had the historically accurate checkerboard texture of the real grip. It feels so much better than smooth surfaces. There were better versions of the KG12 type grip available at one time (thinking of Baur) and I regret not getting one when it was available. But this one is good enough for my purposes unless a better one becomes available. Right now, I have been rotating between all of the grips I have working with the Gunfighter MK II except for my SCG basic version. MCG Pro with MiGs and Spitfire that have braking lever on the stick. Warthog grip for F-16C and A-10C, Hornet grip for all other US aircraft, and the KG12 for the Bf109/Fw190s. I have an SCG Pro arriving in two days. I may end up using that for all US aircraft except the F-16C/A-10C with the Warthog grip and the F-15C/F/A-18C/AV-8B with the Hornet grip. But the SCG Pro size, shape, and controls arrangement make it a great choice for all US aircraft, making the Warthog grip and Hornet grip optional depending on whether I feel like swapping grips or not.

Very interesting!

What is a Gunfighter Mk III?

Focusing on the flight model: Accurately modeling the FM to a highly detailed level is what draws me to any flight sim. The original flight model for LOMAC/Flaming Cliffs, now called the SFM, was never good enough for me to enjoy flying, despite so many other excellent aspects of those games. Only the retrofitting of the PFMs to the FC3 aircraft has finally made it worth my time to fly those airplanes. But it is absolutely impractical to use hyper-realistic PFMs with AI. It not only requires more processing for the physics calculations multiplied by the number of AI aircraft, but also requires more processing for the AI to correctly decide on throttle, stick, and rudder pedal positions to "fly" the aircraft as a player would. But it is not impossible to make a much simpler flight model that still "hits the numbers" from the flight manuals and looks convincing enough to maintain immersion and present the player with realistic challenges from green to ace AI pilots. I can name at least two older jet air combat sims whose flight models for AI are far superior to DCS World. I can also name many others that are as bad or worse. Focus off of the flight model: Even if the flight model is decent, other aspects of AI behavior can ruin the experience. Are they able to see/track everything 100% of the time with situational awareness far beyond any ace human pilot? Or are they too blind? Can their tactics and precision be scaled to their rated experience level? Do they ever miss when firing weapons? Do they always miss when firing weapons? It is extremely challenging to make convincing AI that is scalable from green pilots to aces and able to handle various types of aircraft ranging from subsonic, guns only WW2 fighters to Mach 2 missile armed fighters to helicopters and attack aircraft. Hopefully, Eagle Dynamics can keep improving AI over the years to keep up with their extremely diverse aircraft and weapons and state of the art program code for modeling AI. No matter how much time and money is spent, neither the FMs nor the AI pilots will ever be perfect, but they can and should steadily improve over the years to come.

Tabular data <> scripted. Aerodynamics is far from being simple linear equations and real-time computational fluid dynamics of any accuracy aren't even possible on a PC. Tables provide two key aspects to real-time flight simulation: 1) looking up a number in a table is much faster than calculating one and 2) given sufficient dimensions/resolution, tables of data derived from emprical data are far more accurate than any real-time physics calculations that can be performed on a PC, especially for transonic and supersonic aircraft. Name one flight simulator available to consumers that doesn't rely on data tables. Don't say X-Plane, because its blade element theory is far from accurate and anyone doing serious training/research using X-Planes' engine is inserting their own flight model, which is typically going to be comprehensive tabular data from real flight tests, wind tunnel tests, or advanced computational fluid dynamics.

I flew with the KG12 in the Bf109 and Fw190s yesterday. I did great in the 109 and the D9... the A8, not so much. The available buttons/hat switch are more than enough for in-game functionality. But I have to use up one of the hat switch positions to flip the trigger/safety lever in-game. If I have two hat positions leftover, I can use it for pitch trim. If I have only one, I can use it to toggle the pilot body or the kneeboard. As for flying the MiG-15 and MiG-19... I defer to the MCG Pro with its analog brake lever, one of the primary reasons I bought it in the first place.

I just got back from a trip and decided to check the VKB website. I found the SCG Premium right-hand grip for the gunfighter Mk.II finally in stock again, so I ordered right away. This will give me pretty much every grip that is compatible with the Gunfighter Mk.II. I had purchased the SCG standard edition to cut-up/modify to create a basic B-8 grip, but had learned I really like the size/shape/layout of this grip. But the standard edition didn't have all of the switch functions needed to fully utilize the grip as a stand-in for most US grips. So, my options now include: 1) VKB MCG Pro, perfect for Soviet aircraft and adaptable to most aircraft. It is great for aircraft that need an analog axis lever for braking, an analog cursor control, or that need a flip down gun safety/trigger. But the size/shape/arrangement is not particularly comfortable for me. 2) Adapted TM Warthog A-10C grip. Never my favorite grip layout or shape, but perfect for flying the A-10C or F-16C. The main problem is the heavy weight is less than optimal for the Gunfighter Mk.II stick. 3) Adapted TM F/A-18C grip is one of my favorites. Close to my preferred B-8 size/layout but with many of the extra switches found on the above grips for more advanced aircraft. It is obviously perfect for the F/A-18C, but works very well with the F-15C and F-14B. I don't mind using it with any of the B-8 grip aircraft (UH-1, F-86, F-5E). But like the Warthog grip, it is a bit heavy for the Gunfighter Mk.II stick. 4) VKB KG12 grip is very limited and specialized, but is a reasonable approximation of the Luftwaffe KG12, which is obviously great with the Bf109, Fw190A8, and Fw190D9. This will be my least used grip, but it will probably be the only grip I use when flying German fighters. 5) VKB SCG Pro grip will probably be my grip of choice when I am too lazy to swap grips and/or want the lighter weight that the Gunfighter Mk.II was designed to accommodate. Its size, shape, and layout provide a similar experience to the F/A-18C grip but with nearly all of the additional controls found on the MCG Pro. Aside from analog axis lever aircraft, this grip can pretty much be used to stand in for any other listed above. I suspect this one will ultimately get more use than any of my other grips. It will be my go-to stand-in for the B-8 grip until I have my real B-8 modified to work with the insides of the SCG standard.

I have seen the old posts about that. Baur's KG12 or was it KG13 also came in a Warthog compatible model, which I regret not buying. I am primarily interested in replicating actual grips... if the grip looks and feels nearly 100% accurate and manages to squeeze in extra features, I am okay with that. I would love it if VKB or Thrustmaster would make a 100% accurate B-8 grip with perhaps the only difference from my real grip being the updated thumb switch seen in the F-5, instead of a simple press only switch. The addition of some sort of paddle switch similar to the A-10C or F/A-18C would be useful too as many aircraft, like the F-4, had some sort of auto-pilot/stability override paddle right below the grip.

The tactics in the book were largely written with the assumption that no aircraft can sustain corner speed. Not even the F-16 could really do that at the time that book was written. Maybe the Block 50 F-16C and F-14D changed that reality. So going nose low to keep max turn rate is critical to winning the turn fight. If the fighters are otherwise equal, the one that doesn't go nose low, will lose angles, while the nose low fighter will still have the energy to pitch up for the shot after gaining the advantage. If the aircraft in question can sustain best cornering speed, there is absolutely no reason to go low. If their specific excess power is such that they can sustain best cornering speed while climbing, then the advice would be the opposite: go nose high to maintain optimum turn rate while gaining altitude. In a fight between an F-15A and F-4E, the F-15 has a problem: no high lift devices and pretty much the same max-g as the the F-4E. But the F-15 can pull that 7g while climbing while the F-4E has to stay level or go nose low. To an extent, the F-15A could do this to the F-16A: the F-15 couldn't turn with the F-16 on the level, but it could climb while pulling 7g, which the F-16A could not. Gunsight footage from the 1970s shows this as the F-15 slides out of the gunsight in the direction of more altitude. So the principles of the book are generally correct, but you have to look at the actual capabilities of the aircraft and realize how they change the application of those principles beyond simply deciding whether an aircraft is an energy fighter and/or angles fighter or neutral relative to a given opponent. Thrust to weight has come up just a bit as well as new tech like vector thrust that slightly changes the available options.

I was a submarine sonar tech and operated both the BQQ-5B FY83 SHAB and the BQR-21. Our displays had compass headings across the top, while the vertical represented time. We typically ran either a North centered display (similar to a compass with North at the top) or a South centered display, with a "V" bow marker to show which way ownship was currently heading (like the outer ring). But we were just a button push away from using relative bearings with 0 degrees at the center and representing the direction the ship was traveling or 180 degrees marking the ships' stern. Relative bearings also came up automatically if we lost the ship's heading input for any reason. The reason for being able to switch to south centered displays is to put key contact data where it is easier to see. i.e. if contact data was crossing the south, making it a south centered display put all of that data together at the center rather than split between the edges of the screen... same thing for bow centered or stern centered: use whatever makes the data you are analyzing easier to read. No matter what I liked, all that mattered is what the people in control needed to see: they wanted North/South centered displays so that they could correlate sonar information with the paper chart/plotter they were using for navigation and tactical decisions. But when trying to build fire control solutions in my head, putting the bow at the center of the display was by far the easiest way to build the tactical picture since I didn't care what our actual heading was, but where the enemy was relative to my course and speed. In the end, you can adapt to what you are provided, but it would sure be nice if you had switches, like I had in sonar, to make it the way that works best for you rather than what other people liked or wanted :P

Got my KG12/Gunfighter 2 desktop week or two or three ago... really fast from China after ordering. The KG12 grip is disappointing compared to later products. I didn't read the product description, but expected the two buttons on top to be single press buttons. The center button is exactly what I expected: a single press button. The button to the left isn't a button at all, but a POV hat with NO center push. In theory, the POV hat is really a plus providing four buttons instead of one. But without a center push, it can't perform its real-life function without taking up one of the POV directions. Given the way later grips like the MCG Pro and SCG Pro have been produced, it would have been really nice if the top button was also a POV hat with a center push. The trigger safety is nice and works well, but unlike the MCG Pro, the safety doesn't provide any button inputs to the grip, so the in-game cockpit can't reflect the position of the safety. The MCG Pro is a benchmark in how to make a stick look and feel like a real grip while also having features that make it work exceptionally well with simulator requirements. The KG12 would also be just a bit better if it had the historically correct checkered pattern rather than a smooth surface. In the mean time, I haven't heard a word from VKB after they acknowledged my original inquiry about how to fix the bad bearing. Now that I have an operational Gunfighter Mk II again, I may try to fix it without their guidance when I can make the free time to do so. If I can get it apart without damaging anything, I have also considered trying to mechanically mate the pitch and roll sensors with my real F-4 B-8 grip/stick combination. If I could accomplish this in a way that was reliable and would last a long time without needed maintenance/repairs, I would be in heaven, but also need to build a 2nd seat/pit to use the operational VKB and all these other grips... which is my long term goal anyway: one dedicated F-4 cockpit with real F-4 throttle handles/left console panels and real stick/grip with a 2nd pit being more a less an F/A-18 pit but easily modified/re-arranged to handle any DCS module by swapping out grips and side/front panels.