some1

True, helicopters require lots of precision yet they have the lightest controls, and the pilot can remove all centering with a press of the trim button on the stick, leaving only the damping in place. Flight simmers often forget that flying aerobatics in a real aircraft is a very taxing physical task due to g-forces, and the controls have to be tailored accordingly. Your arm weights around 5% or your body, so, let's say 4kg. At 8g that's 32 kg, and a large portion of that is added to the force acting on the stick, even with zero muscle effort from the pilot. The stick has to be heavy enough to oppose that, through the strong centering, bobweights etc. The worst thing to happen is if the pilot pulls the stick, g-force increases, he inadvertently pulls more, g-force increases even more, and we end up in a positive feedback loop that can even result in pilot blackout and aircraft destruction. Because of the above, the point where simulated force equals the real is not realistic at all In real life g-force "helps" the pilot pull more with less effort. But we have none of it in desktop simulators playing in 1 g environment. By the way, you want precision in the sim, you can remove the spring completely and fly very accurately based on stick displacement only. You can't do that in a real aircraft that makes even meagre 2-3 g maneuvers, you won't be able to hold your hand still. The requirements of real environment are vastly different to the requirements of our simulators, even the hardcore motion platform sims can't fully replicate that. No one makes them requiring 30 kg force either. F-16 stick requires maximum 7,5 kg in roll 13,5 kg force in pitch (that's for the absolute max of 10.86g, requires less for 9g), Airbus stick requires 10 kg force in pitch, 2-3 kg in roll (it's assymetric). That's enough to avoid PIO and unwanted activation due to forces acting on the pilot in flight, without unnecessary workout.

From what I've checked during the weekend, the sight is quite accurate with radar lock. Even seems better than F-14.

The range ring looks good now. Not sure about sight accuracy, it seems a bit off (too little lead), but maybe it's just the sight imperfection.

Sounds like you need to invert FFB axes in DCS settings. For reference, on the ground you should feel a normal centering in roll axis, but no forces on the pitch axis until you gain speed.

In the context of the game, you have some advantage, but not enough to mindlessly lit the burners and extend in every situation. That's what I get from people posting in this thread. In the context of real world comparisons, they usually don't talk about MiG-21bis in particular.

Isn't that what we're doing in this thread already?

Lock first, then switch weapons.

Keyword: in real life. Anyway, the Phantom doesn't get much more thrust from being 70's variant, on the other hand it may have more drag and weight than earlier models.

Usually when you hear such statements in real life, people don't say it in comparison to the 21bis, but older aircraft. 21bis is the latest version of the Fishbed, it only began service in 1972 and it wasn't an adversary for the F-4 in real conflicts for most of its career. The bis was delivered to other countries like Iraq or Syria only in the late 70's and early '80s.

Yes, I noticed the same issue and was about to make a bug report too The problem is that FFB spring force is initially set at lower value on mission start (around 50% I think), while it should be at 100% on airstart when the aircraft is flying at high speed. It seems that the joystick spring force gets updated only when the internal FFB calculations drop from 100%. Until then you're flying with half the force on the stick while internally F-4 thinks you're already at 100% so it doesn't send new FFB numbers. When you slow down or start agressive manoeuvres the new FFB spring values will be finally received, and that's what you feel as sudden force increase, because your stick goes from 50% to 99%, 98% etc. It's more noticeable with high pitch gain settings in special options, because then the Phantom FFB stays at 100% spring in most of the speed range.

You can try this little challenge to verify that. Just load the mig21 mission and stay on his tail in another mig21. https://forum.dcs.world/topic/326798-ai-turn-performance-impossible-for-a-human-aircraft/#comment-5226532 How "flying very precisely" allows AI to sustain 7g at 1000 km/h is anyone's guess.

Easier to tell jester to go back to search mode by double clicking jester action button.

What is considered weak in real world applications is still very strong by flightsim hardware standards. According to the linked document, a change in airspeed of 50 kts in landing configuration still results in a force change of several kgF on the stick. Meanwhile in Heatblur's implementation the change in these conditions is something like 0.15 kgF on a VPForce Rhino... when measured at max deflection, and much less at neutral trim position as measured in the real test. It's basically a limp stick. Even the strongest FFBeast hardware will not produce realistic forces with FFB inputs like that. Here's a comparison of how FFB works in practice. Blue line is DCS F-4 at stock settings. Red line is DCS F-4 at 250% gain, even when scaled it is still very weak at approach speeds. Yellow line is how other ED aircraft with aerodynamic forces on the stick are implemented. Not great either, as FFB spring saturates quickly, but at least the stick is centring nicely at low speeds and feels more like a real airplane. A green line is a possible compromise solution that would both provide decent centring force on takeoff and landing, while also retaining the effects generated by F-4 Phantom control system. *The lines are drawn from a few data points so they may not be fully accurate, it's just for illustrative purpose.

Ok, now I see what you mean, you need to set a large number there to actually see any effect at all. So for example 100 on the slider is a 10% deadzone, and contrary to what the manual says, it's the total deadzone size, so +- 5% on each side of the detent.

Not according to Heatblur's own manual. Either way, doesn't work.

Hmm, I though that this could be theoretically possible, but assumed that this is not the case, considering the target velocity is not indicated anywhere else. DCS manual also has no mention of this feature and the wording even suggests otherwise. Looked at the real manual and also can't find anything on such feature.

The setting in the options has no effect, there is no deadzone for afterburner detent. I use split throttle with separate axis for left and right engine.

Here's my summary of how it works right now. https://forum.dcs.world/topic/349269-force-feedback-settings-discussion/?do=findComment&comment=5439674

When linking TADS to FCR targets, it will slave and track current vehicle position, not the FCR contact. This is noticeable on moving vehicles, which are not in the same place as they were during radar sweep. But linked TADS will follow them somehow, and I can even switch between vehicles in the convoy with NTS button, even though the contacts on the radar (and C-Scope) are in completely different place by now. ah64link.trk

I've looked into FFB telemetry on my joystick and yeah, my conclusion is that the stock settings are pretty much unusable on most force feedback devices. At 100% gain in the special options, the pitch axis works like this: 1% force when stationary. less than 5% force at 150 kts. 12% force at 200 kts. 50% force at 300 kts. 100% force at 470 kts, give or take. Roll axis does not have the dynamic feel system, so it's fixed at 25% force. This may be mathematically correct if you have a stick capable of producing 30-60 kgf at 100% force, but for most of consumer devices, the stick is basically limp at traffic pattern speeds. You can crank the gain up, but a small number remains a small number even if you multiply it 250%. And the joystick will saturate quickly below 300 kts. A more practical solution would be something that Aerges did for their module, which lets us set the minimum force, and then the force increase is scaled on top of that baseline to match 100% at the intended target. Or just bring the force build-up with airspeed more in line with other DCS modules from ED, like warbirds. Right now it does not feel like any other aircraft in DCS, and I don't say it as a compliment.

I'd say the ones built from a single piece mold, like Realsimulator or Tianhang. They don't have a seam in the middle. Most popular grips are built from two halves with a shaft wedged between them, all held together with tiny screws. So if pull very hard, it all wants to come apart. On top of that, Thrustmaster shafts are rather brittle, but there are aftermarket replacements available.

You need to go to https://forum.dcs.world/attachments/ and remove some of the old files you've uploaded in the past.

If you hold the grip firmly in place and keep trim button down, then at some point the stick in game will move by itself, the aircraft will pitch up and you won't be able to compensate even if you push the grip forward. Then after the aircraft slows down, the stick in game will reposition itself again. This is ED's way of simulating control forces too high for the pilot to handle. Doesn't matter if your joystick makes 1kg or 30kg, the game will reduce the movement range for you. It works "okay" (sort of), if you stay in correct trim and don't use any curves.

Curves modify the input as usual, but they do not modify the forces, or rather modify the forces as if the stick was in a different place. The stick position does not align with the forces any more. This is especially visible in helicopters with central trimmer, but it gets messy in aircraft too. True, not sure how much force most of the popular grips can take, but even with Rhino and FSSB set at moderate levels, I have to tighten the screws on my Virpil and Thrustmaster grips from time to time, as they become loose and you can feel the main shaft starts to move. There are people who snapped the shafts on Thrustmaster grips, fortunately there are replacement parts from less brittle material. Or more sturdy grips like Tianhang. It's not about what's plausible, but rather what's practical. Real pilots like what they're used to in real life. But I'm not sure there are many people here who would want to dogfight in a Hornet using realistic forces, requiring 18kg (40 lbs) for max deflection. If you're one of them, then sure, FFBeast or a custom VPforce with a set of stronger motors, or that ultra expensive Brunner base is the way to go.

Below is the setting I use with A-10. The real F-14 has 4 inch forward/5.5 inch aft stick travel, so my guess would something like 75% max forward position instead of 35% for the A-10. When rescaling an axis you may also need to reduce that axis gain. FFB trim is badly implemented in both F-15E and Harrier, it works on top of non-FFB trim that is still active. At least that's how it was last time I checked. Q-Feel is not simulated. And FFB doesn't work at all in the Mig-19.