Gladman

Sorry to ask but why would you use FlyInside for DCS when you have native support? I have used FlyInside for P3D in the past because of a lack of native support so I understand the use of the program but what advantage would there be to adding the load to your system when its really not needed?

I've never had to sand/re-grease mine and Its seen heavy use for the last 2 years that I've owned it. I never really had the stickion issue either (luck or whatever), but I added an extension almost immediately after I got it because I built the good old roger dodger pvc stand and I modified it to accept the extension.

Smooth like butter. I made a good choice I believe.

The exponential difference between the CH and the TM is the sensitivity of the stick and throttle. Both are a huge difference to the sim experience and TM takes both categories. I had CH for years and it did me well but it really depends on what you want to do with the sim. If all you want to do is fly around and blow stuff up, your good with any product but if you want to get into the more precise things like formation flying and AA refueling it is easier with the TM product. I won't say it that it can't be done with others, it can, but it takes much more effort and unrealistically so.

Yeah, like I've said they all have issues but I would suggest it a mistake to not consider the TM because of a few bad reviews. As stated above, no product is flawless.

My first real setup was CH, the same as lasvideo. I replaced them because they had serial port connectors and USB was the new thing. They are a great quilty but not the precision the TM offer. Then I had Cougars. They broke shortly after I got them. They were excellent but I was tainted. I went to Saitek and used them for years. Excellent product as well but they were not a precise as TM. Now I'm back to TM. There's good and bad. The new VKB stuff is interested. There's all metal versions of this and that and I assume better than TM. I don't know, I haven't owned them. People do get emotionally attached to their favorite product but my statement comes from years of experience with various products. Your mileage may vary.

Every product has its problems, every person treats their equipment differently. I've had CH, Saitek, and TM. They all break. You however can't get the precision you need out of a less expensive set. There are other options these days but you won't be disappointed if you buy TM.

Even if it doesn't take DCS to the next level, which I think it will, its still going to be a great experience with other games. We're at that point with the technology that its just simply fun to have. I gotta say, I jumped onto the bandwagon, primarily because of Wags statement. I'm not sure it was the right thing to do but VR is a lot of fun in a lot of ways and I just want the latest toy. Now, back to waiting for the Harrier and Hornet to release. :)

Oh man, that really makes my day. Thanks for the effort.

The Mig-31 would be fun as well but for some reason I don't have the love affair with it that I do the 25. I must have spent more time drooling over it when I was a kid or something.

Here's hoping that its developed at a later time. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure I have a couple years worth of getting good at the harrier before I get picky on munitions but its always fun to drop some CBU's. :)

A rather bold statement.

I would assume that like most people, the lack of a clickable cockpit is an absolute emersion killer. I'm actual quite surprised at your statement.

Yeah the 15 is one of those aircraft that truly deserves to be a full module. The 14 is coming, the 18 is almost here, the Harrier is close. When it comes to true 1980's iconic aircraft the only two missing in the North American sense is the 15 and the 16. I do hope it happens in the somewhat near future.

I'd much rather have an Apache or Cobra.

I'll take a Texan 2. :)

Oh man, so excited for this!

Yep, we need more migs. I'd love a 25.

Love it

Does it happen when you use full screen (Alt-Enter)? Really curious. I was about to start a campaign.

Owning both, I have found the TM to be a different animal all together. Generally yes you can say you want x functions on both and manage it but the difference lies in the two way vs the four/eight way switches, rotaries, etc.

LOL, fair statement. Beyond that, the RCAF has used a third party company that flies Alpha's for aggressors. So, hey, bring it on.

Well stated. Personally I think the L-39 is a fantastic module. Its well done and it works well. The thing I don't like about it is that its Russian and I of course prefer the North American variants of navigation, HUD symbology etc. For our Russian friends or those that want that experience I can see no reason to not want that airframe. Your right, the other two just don't cut it and that's where I would like to see a Hawk 100. Its used by a fair number of nations and of course would have the instrumentation I pursue along with many others. I have to admit that I am looking forward to the A-29. Its a different feel than other aircraft in DCS. If done properly, it'll be a very nice addition.

Yeah, I'll admit my comment didn't put a positive spin on a rather neutral question. Your comment however has further pushed the boundary of who can be the most negative influence on the forum. Thanks for carrying the torch.

Other than a Hawk 100, there's no need for another trainer. I'd only want the 100 because its part of the RCAF.