Goblin

Well, the folding/erecting of the fin doesn't involve the pilot, at all. It would always be in the flight position when the pilot arrives. The folding/erecting procedure is always conducted by the mechanics, with the engine off. Removing chocks is commanded by the pilot, after engine start. See the difference? A fin fold feature would add nothing to the simulated pilot experience in DCS. But it would be cool to see static aircraft parked with the fin folded, or aircraft being towed with folded fin.

As stated, it would only be relevant for parked aircraft as it has to be manually lowered and raised.

I love your simpit!! Here's mine. It converts into a bed bench. Slightly smaller than yours, I think? I made it pre-VR, and may build a new one, based on lessons learned, and your pit, which have some really neat solutions.

What do you mean by that statement? Are VKB making joysticks for real aircraft? I have been a happy VKB customer in the past. But if this is how VKB is promoting their business, I won't be returning...

Duh! It's Stealth..! ;)

That was...interesting! ;) Thanks for all your hard work with this! I never dared dream about a DCS level Viggen. Edit: the Nav systems vimeo vid doesn't work due to privacy settings.

I have ejected from the F-5E a lot lately ;) That ejection sequence is a lot like you describe. Not sure about the numbers, but you remain with the seat for quite some time, if you eject at high altitude.

That, and field of view.

More developers testing new tech is always good news! If they pull this off, I will probably become a customer of theirs. :)

Thanks! Well, some parts are off the shelf items ;) I agree! I didn't like the one on the TM Cougar either.

Thanks, Brewnix! I used Shapeways 'Strong&Flexible' https://www.shapeways.com/materials/strong-and-flexible-plastic I then sanded the parts and painted them with a automotive touch-up paint for exterior plastic car parts (bumpers and such). This paint is thicker than normal spray-can paint, levels well and covers small surface irregularities. I laid down maybe three layers, with light sanding in between.

Here's the finished RDR ConTrollR in another thread under the Input/Output forum section. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3177832#post3177832

I have finally finished my radar controller stick! Using HOTAS thumbsticks and hats have never been my thing. Clumsy fingers, I guess. When the Heatblur (fm Leatherneck) released the DCS: AJS 37 Viggen in early access I decided the time had finally come to make a radar controller. The Viggen uses a joystick on the left cockpit panel, behind the throttle, to control the radar and Rb75 (AGM-65A Maverick) targeting. As it happens, I had a 'pincher' style gimbal laying around. It's a leftover from my VKB Black Mamba stick as I bought the new replacement cam gimbal, from VKB. VKB makes excellent stuff, and this leftover gimbal is still very good, even if it has been surpassed by their newer designs. I also used the VKB Thrustmaster adapter, to connect to the gimbal. I set out to make a stick that would resemble the Viggen radar stick, but not necessarily a 100% replica. I had to make design concessions due to CAD software limitations, lack of personal abilities and choice of material and electronic hardware. So bear with me if this isn't a perfect Viggen copy. :) It should have the same functions as the real deal, though. The stick grip has: A rotary encoder wheel in the stick grip head. A three stage trigger. (Signals for semi depressed, fully depressed, and released) A three stage selector on top of the stick grip head. Two buttons, one on the left side of the grip head and another on the right side, near the base. The base has: Proportional X&Y axes. A 7 stage rotary selector. A small rotary encoder in front of the stick, and a larger one behind the stick. Two switches, of which one is guarded. All in all, 27 button commands and two axes. I designed the stick grip in TurboCad 3D and had it 3D printed at Shapeways.com. The PCB designs are my own, made with help from both this forum and others. I use a Teensy2 microcontroller and the fantastic MMJoy2 software to program the Teensy2. I put everything inside a Hammond aluminium box and stuck a SAAB metal badge on it. Hey, it's for a Viggen, after all! ;)

VirusAM, I can't turn ASW on or off either. I have only tried with the KP 1-4 commands though, not the tray tool. I have no idea why, unfortunately.

This illustrates my post about how good sims are today, vs. years ago. I started flightsimming in single digit FPS. 1-3 FPS or so, back in the 80ies. Not long ago FPS in the 20ies was considered great. You showing a graph of a flightsim reaching above 120, dipping down into the 50ies tells me that you have no idea what I'm talking about, or that you will never understand why I think DCS rocks, even in Early Access. I'm not writing this as some sort of personal attack on you. I really don't. You are absolutely entitled to your own opinion. It's just that I, and others, probably have a totally different background and experience when it comes to flightsims and the development thereof. We look at that graph and think "Whoa! That's awesome" :) In DCS I see a flightsim that has had multiple improvements in graphics, content and otherwise. That comes at a cost. Sure, performance has been degraded in some updates, and increased again in subsequent updates. It's not like ED doesn't care about performance in DCS. It just comes down to personal expectations. My expectations are met, yours are not.

Indeed it was. :) My point was that DCS is a very complex piece of software. It's scope is enormous. Level of detail is staggering. It goes without saying that project DCS is resource intensive and challenging. If there were two or more developers of competing products you could compare them and say that one is better than the other. At present there isn't one, other than ED. So how can anyone say the development of DCS could be better..? DCS 2 is a test environment. It's where ED test their product by code updates. That doesn't mean every update has got to be an improvement in every aspect. Features are added, removed or tweaked. This last update saw some new graphical features. You can't expect that performance will increase as well. Software development is often a case of taking two steps forward and one step back. There are a number of settings you can reduce in order to increase performance. Since I got a Oculus Rift I learned that DCS looks quite nice on low settings :)

So...who else is making a combat flightsimulator with this kind of realism and magnitude..?

And digital on/off joysticks! It was like flying with the trim hat! I still remember my first successful landing... Oh, I don't know why VampireNZ left you out, but here's a high five and a hearty backslap for ya! :megalol:

Here's what Cobra said about the current state of the mirrors, earlier. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3030572&postcount=4

Simple for you and me, yes. But think of all the new guys who grew up on consoles. They don't have our background. I don't think they understand the development process of a game. I started in the mid -80ies as well, on a C=64 and SubLogic Flight simulator. And I agree. These are the best days. Although I enjoyed the old days as well, because we always had the best flightsims ever produced back then as well. :)

We can dream! But if TM is making anything for a Hornet, I believe it's a stick grip.

DCS: F/A-18 Hornet has moved up to become the next project to be released by ED. A year ago the module could be 1-5 years away. I doubt TM would want to gamble on releasing a new airframe specific stick, without there being a contract of a flightsim supporting it. TM & ED have cooperated before. The contract of doing so again may have been entered since last year. Just speculation, of course, but plausible to me at least ;)

The hen or the egg..? The fact that testing was internal and closed, came out of necessity. Group communication was cumbersome. Updates came per regular snail mail. Discs in an envelope. Feedback via email, or newsgroups. There were also a lot of users wanting in on the testing. We practically begged developers to get to test. And yes, if paying for it was an option, many would have. Let me tell you something about Average Joe. He will buy smokes, even if he knows smoking is hazardous, and will kill him. It actually says so on the package, black on white. He still smokes. You can tell Joe that this software is unfinished and buggy. But he will only see the cool youtube videos and the screenshots, and then post about how he gets lousy performance and even accuse everybody else of lying, who says they don't. Is the developer to blame for all this? Not if they tell Joe that the software is undergoing testing and will have faults and problems.

When the Pentium arrived, I actually thought I'd never afford one :) Thanks!

You deserve a medal! ;) Perhaps... But reading the forums tell me that some just read the words 'early access' and think it's a done deal. Finished! Ready to play. You just bought it a bit earlier than the rest. :)