Ranma13

I find the FSSB base to be more accurate than any physically-moving joystick because there's no stiction, no slack or deadzone, returns to dead center every time, and can be adjusted through software instead of having to swap out springs and cams. It also has additional features that are unique to it, such as: 1. A speaker and a light to let you know when you're getting close and at the max deflection. 2. Ability to set different sensitivity levels for pitch and roll, independent of each other. 3. Ability to change the 'axis balance' so that, for example, it takes more force to roll left than to roll right (they call it the NASA sensibility). 4. Ability to change the angle of the output so that you can rotate the stick while keeping the axis perpendicular to the front of the aircraft. This is similar to how the VKB and Virpil sticks can be physically rotated, but this is done through software instead and can be adjusted on the fly. 5. Ability to change the sensitivity on the fly, which is very useful when you need to lower it for AA refueling, for example. 6. 4 different profiles that can be swapped between on the fly. Some of these things can be done through the sim by changing curves, but not all sims support this and it's better to have them as part of the joystick's firmware rather than having to configure it for every sim. As for getting used to it, it only took me a few minutes, and I felt like I had much better control right out of the box. Things that I couldn't do before, like AA refueling and close formation flying, I can do now without much effort. As a real F16 pilot said, "the side-stick controller takes about as much time to get used to as it takes to read this sentence". That said, I did find that I would inadvertently bob the aircraft around a bit when pressing buttons in level flight because the force I use to press the button is picked up by the stick. I've since adapted to this and compensated for it. The base is also more suitable for jets that will smooth out the movements than it is for aircraft that won't (like WWII aircraft). It almost feels too responsive for aircraft with direct control surface linkage, because every small amount of force you exert on the stick translates to a movement in the aircraft. An extension wouldn't make sense for a force controller unless it's for aesthetic reasons because the stick doesn't move. It only flexes a bit, and feels similar to how a piece of metal flexes when you try to bend it.

Crosswind is only mid-range. Has he tried Baur or Slaw?

At what price point? Sim racing pedals with real hydraulics are generally $1000+.

I currently use it as my center TrackIR button. In the past, I've used it as the lock target button in the Ka-50 and the cancel lock button in the Su-27. It's useful as a single push button if you're not using the slew cursor.

This is dependent on the server and whether they allow export lua or not. Without the export lua, the motion platform can't get any data, and hence it won't work on those MP servers.

Only one force feedback device is supported, and I believe it's hard-wired for the joystick. You won't be able to get force feedback into the pedals unless you export some data and write a custom driver to control the pedals.

But why the Warthog throttle? Why not compare the T-50 throttle to the Saitek X56, TM T.16000M, CH Pro Throttle, or even the long-discontinued TM Cougar and Saitek X65? You guys are holding the Warthog throttle as a gold standard, that if the T-50 throttle can have the same controls as it does, then it will be good for all modern aircraft. But by the same logic, I can also say that if it has the same hats, switches, and axes as the Saitek X56, then it will be good for all modern aircraft. What you guys are asking for is not for a better throttle, but a drop-in replacement for the TM Warthog. Just take a look what you guys said: If the T-50 has the same 4-way hats, boat switch, speedbrake switch, and china hat, how is it at that point not a replica of the Warthog throttle? I get it, you guys want a throttle that has at least the same number of bindable buttons and axes as the Warthog does, and that's totally fine. But don't make the claim that it be a better throttle overall, because the Warthog is far from the best throttle for all sims. You really missed the point. I'm not talking about the difference between digital and analog, I'm talking about the difference between what 'functionally equivalent' means. Just as a hat is not the same thing as an analog stick, a hat is also not the same thing as a latching toggle switch.

Yes, that's a good definition of 'functionally equivalent', but unfortunately it's not an all-encompassing one. The definition will change depending on who you ask. Just as you feel that a hat switch is not able to perform the same functionality as an analog mini-stick, someone can argue that a hat switch also can't perform the same functionality as the speedbrake (ON)-OFF-ON switch. Another person might feel that an analog stick on the thumb is not functionally equivalent to an analog stick on the index/middle finger. This is why I'm saying that we should stop comparing the T-50 throttle as 'functionally equivalent' to the Warthog throttle, because not only is it a vague term, but the Warthog throttle itself is not very well-suited for a number of sims. Let's instead talk about the features we want to see in the next version of the T-50 throttle, starting with the mini-stick.

The issue with this statement is that people are tying the definition of "better throttle" to whether the A-10C throttle controls can be mapped to it. My issue is not with wanting a mini-stick; I need a mini-stick on my throttle as well, and I won't be purchasing the T-50 throttle unless it gets one. My issue is with people saying that they want the T-50 to be functionally equivalent to the Warthog throttle, but then don't clarify what that means. What does 'functionally equivalent' mean? Does it mean simply adding a mini-stick? What about the boat switch, speedbrake switch, and china hat switch? What about the toggle switches? Also, every aircraft's throttle is unique, and the more you make a throttle suitable for one, the less it becomes suitable for another. Wanting something that is completely suitable across all aircraft is impossible. The Warthog throttle doesn't have the two axes rotaries on the right throttle lever that you would want for Falcon BMS. It has too few axes for IL-2, where you would want additional axes for the water and oil radiators, RPM, prop pitch, and mixture level. It doesn't have an axes dial to control radar elevation for the F/A-18. It doesn't have enough push buttons for Russian aircraft. The toggle switches are not ideal for games that don't support them. It's not ideal for space sims because it lacks a center detent. The only thing it's a great match for is the A-10C; everything else is a compromise in some way. The T-50 throttle is the same; no matter which aircraft you fly, there's going to be something additional that you wish it had. Everyone's requirements are going to be different as well. What's important to you to have in a throttle is going to be something that someone else doesn't care about. Saying "we just want a better throttle" really means "I want a throttle that matches my requirements". I'm not saying that we shouldn't voice our requirements; you need a mini-stick, so do I. But let's avoid statements like "we want a better throttle" without clarifying what exactly you want to see in the throttle.

The Warthog throttle is a direct match to the A-10C. You cannot design a better throttle for the A-10C unless you copy the same throttle design, at which point you don't have a new throttle, you have an upgrade of an existing throttle. Also, Virpil is a company that makes Russian HOTAS controls. I suspect that what you want is not a better throttle, but rather a better A-10C throttle. Virpil has already stated that they don't want to copy an existing design, but rather release something that hasn't been covered yet.

Yeah, I'm not sure why people try to compare the Virpil throttle to the TM Warthog one for the A-10C. If you fly the A-10C, you're not going to find a better throttle than the TM Warthog. Not to mention that the TM Warthog has some significant downsides, like the crappy slew cursor, the poor to non-existent support of toggle switches outside of DCS and BMS, the lack of axes and buttons, and finicky idle/AB detents.

$400 USD, for those who don't want to click the link. Likely will be closer to $500 with S&H to the USA. Cypher, I was wondering if you can help answer the following questions: 1. For the 8 push buttons, are they tactile buttons that have no travel before activating, or do they have some travel before the button activates? 2. Do the 3 rotary encoders have a center push? 3. To confirm, are all the toggle switches latching? What about the T1 switch under the switch cover? 4. How is the friction of the throttle levers adjusted? Does it require that the throttle be turned upside-down? 5. How are the idle and AB detents adjusted? Does it require that the throttle be turned upside-down? Are there different heights that the detents can be at, to give a more distinct or subtle feel, or are they simply engaged/disengaged? 6. Can the detents be adjusted independently of each other? Can you have an idle detent without AB, or AB without idle, or do they have to be adjusted together? 7. Can we get a shot of the front of the throttle pre-production sample, to show the buttons on the front of the throttle levers? 8. Do the two analog dials on the base have a click button at the beginning of its travel, or are they purely dials? Does it have a center push button? 9. Is there an analog stick version planned? If so, is there an ETA?

Can you take a video of it happening and post it here?

There's nothing bound by default, but there are key bindings for it. Do a search in the control settings for 'TACAN', and the properties you're looking for are TACAN channel ones increase/decrease and TACAN channel tens increase/decrease.

Yes, 2 rockets.

I did some testing with that mission on DCS 2.5 and I got some interesting results. When targeting a bunker with the Shkval, the targeting computer indicates the max range of both rocket types to be 1km. You can fire them from beyond that range, but it almost seems like there's some sort of rapid damage fall-off as the range increases. I've scored direct hits on the bunker from around 1.2 to 1.5km, but the script says I'm 2-5m off and the rocket did no damage. When I close to less than 1km, then the damage is applied as expected. There also seems to be issues with the hit boxes for the bunkers. Sometimes when firing from point blank range and scoring a direct hit, the rockets won't do any damage. If I change my position slightly, then suddenly the rockets will properly damage the bunker. The back side of the bunker seems to be one area that I frequently have trouble with, and the front seems to be the most reliable when it comes to detecting the hit. I find that it takes around 3 salvos with either the S-8KOM or S-8OFP to destroy the bunker. Whenever I score a direct hit with the S-8KOM, the script reports 4 hits, but with the S-8OFP it reports it as 2 hits. I know from experience that the OFP does more damage than the KOM, but perhaps there's a special setting that makes the KOM's do twice as much damage to bunkers.

Another 2 pictures released showing the grip, home version compared to the military version:

I find that the boresight circle for rockets is pretty accurate out to about 3km, you just have to anticipate the half-second of lag between pulling the trigger and the rockets actually shooting out.

As I've already said, it moves 4mm at max deflection. Four millimeters to command a 9G turn. Nobody is going to perceive a 4mm movement when they're applying 31 pounds of force. It's not positional feedback, it's flex. By making it feel like the stick is flexing in the hand, the pilot gets a better idea of how their inputs are being received, and it also acts as a small buffer that smooths out the force being applied. Think of it like a hex key that you're using on a very stuck bolt that's so tight, you need to insert a screwdriver into the long end to extend the lever arm. As you try to turn the hex key, the bolt won't move, but the hex key itself will flex. You feel the flex in your hands and it acts as a dampening effect, which enhances your perception of how much force you're applying. Compare that to a wrench turning a very stuck nut. The wrench doesn't flex as you're applying force on it, and you can't tell as easily how much force you're applying, so you can easily end up applying too much force.

The F16's side stick moves 0.178 inches at max deflection (31 lb of force), and only when you're pulling it... A tiny bit of movement was added to the stick because pilots didn't like the rock hard feeling that the original stick had. It's the difference between gripping a metal rod and feeling it bend a little when you apply force on it, and gripping a concrete rod and have it not budge at all. They added a bit of flex in order to enhance the feeling in the hand.

You missed the point. Just as it's impossible for me to show you my proof unless you came over to my house and gave me several hours of your time, it's impossible for you to show me how the T50 is better than a force sensing base. In either case, this conversation is one step away from personal attacks, and it's neither my job nor my interest to convince you otherwise. If you like your T50, then I'm happy for you. I haven't researched much into the Warthog version since it's not available for consumer purchase, but as I understand it, the Warthog is the military version and can stand up to more duty cycles than the Lighting version, whereas the Lighting version adds a LED and possibly additional features. You won't be missing out on anything by picking up the Lighting version (not like you have a choice either way :)).

Likewise, I can ask you for evidence to prove your standpoint. You'll find that it's impossible unless you can sit someone down and replicate the exact environment that you performed your own evaluations in. And there's always going to be someone who says otherwise, either because they have experience with only one side, or they haven't used the other side enough to formulate a good opinion. It's the same way a race car driver may find his 400 HP car to be faster than a 500 HP one, because he's more familiar with the 400 HP car despite the 500 HP one being objectively faster. There are some things I can offer up though, based on personal experience. Displacement joysticks requires gimbals, and gimbals have some inherent issues. Most of us are familiar with the stiction issue in the Warthog sticks. With the VKB Gunfighter base using the MCG Pro with extension, the joystick has trouble returning to dead center if softer springs are used. With heavier springs, the joystick has no issues returning to dead center, but the extremes of the axes movement start to feel too heavy and the stick becomes very springy. To counter-act the springiness, you can tighten down the dry clutches, but it will start introducing stiction. It's a very fine balance to get everything just right, but even then it doesn't feel 100% right. Other joysticks like the T.16000M are too stiff and the springs can't be changed out, and others like the FFB2 have a lot of center play. With a force sensing base, there are no gimbals, springs, or cams to deal with. To return to dead center, simply stop applying force to the stick. Issues such as stiction and center play are non-existent. Also, because humans are much better at judging force applied rather than distance, it's possible to get very fine control over the amount of pressure being applied, and thus much finer control over the aircraft. With a displacement joystick, you first have to apply enough pressure to overcome the inherent friction in the springs and cams, but a force sensing base starts registering any force applied on it almost immediately. By the time you apply enough force to break static friction in a displacement joystick, that can be enough force to register as much as a 10% movement in the force sensing base.

Without any control loading, mechanical linkage, or G forces that can tell us what the aircraft is doing, the most important criteria becomes how precisely we can control the aircraft in the absence of these forces. A center-mounted stick with an extension will provide more precision than a stick without an extension due to its longer throw, and a force sensing base will provide more precision than an extension stick due to the force sensors. Whether the stick mounting position matches its position in the real aircraft is a secondary concern. We also don't experience issues that would affect real pilots. We don't need to worry about G forces, we'll never get injured in the right arm, we're not forced to use a center-mounted stick so that the backup mechanical linkage will work, and we can mount our switch boxes and secondary displays wherever we want. Conversely, we have issues that real pilots don't need to worry about, such as keyboard and mouse placement, rolling office chairs, and VR. In summary, just because an aircraft has the stick mounted in a certain position, doesn't mean that it's automatically the best position. The best mounting position, given your specific sim setup, is whatever will give you the best precision when controlling a virtual aircraft.

Did you change the bindings for camera control to match your new setting?

Did you reverse the FFB axis for the A10C? It needs to be done for every plane, the setting is not global.