theGozr

Yes bigger dot for higher resolutions with reflections !! a MUST ! 100 % agreed

Humm not flying those.. need AFM first ;)

Old timer are the best for sim :) les computer buttons :)

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=119635

So those possible added necessity options in the base_joystick" .ula should be possible to change return { forceFeedback = { friction Force =1.0 damper Force =1.0 spring Force =1.0 trimmer = 1.0, shake = 1.0, swapAxes = false, }, 1.0 value maximal acceptable in relation with the actual calculated forces. Or do it realistically for actual FFB Joysticks in relation with the real calculation forces. This would be great..

In the .ula i set at 1.4 at the moment

DCS:Hawk? two seater.. is the second cockpit working (basics) ?

Well in RL it is easier to see the ground distance on so you do have much more feelings on approach and fleure the ground in time, in DCS we have a tendency to over land hard due to the lack of feeling and distance ratio sight.

Hoo Yeaas ! ;)

Trim UP or Down elevators on SU-25A and SU-25T are assigned to the wrong controls on 1.2.7 My aircraft pitch to the right the only way to correct this problem is to trim "UP" to align my stick which is not correct.. I can no longer trim my elevators. Version 1.2.6 was ok

Yak-9U or MiG-3

Yes nice indeed.. any one would be just a total fun and very useful in many matters. Been waiting that for a decade. :) Yes Tharos you are right :)

Any news on this? Thanks

If i recall this well it was possible to do it via LAN on Lockon 1 long ago.. than it was placed a side.

Since DCS is going complex and much more ported into simulation which is good why not having a dual seats or one of the aircraft we already have. The possibilities to be able to teach while in the same aircraft would be just fantastic and to a very good use or heaven navigators many aircraft come in minds . Which aircraft would you like to have in a DCS module ? Su-25UBM Su-25UTG SU-27UB F-15-D etc..

Just in case. A copy paste this can be more precise in the FFB feel in relation with Joysticks that we are using . === The stick force gradient is the force required to change the load factor of the aircraft a given amount. The value of the manoeuvre stability of an aeroplane is 150 N/g. The load factor in straight and level flight is 1. The increase of stick force necessary to achieve the load factor of 2.5 is 225N. In straight and level balanced flight the aircraft is at 1g and the stick force when trimmed is zero. If the aircraft is now subjected to a positive g manoeuvre, stability of the aircraft resists the movement and control forces (stick force) increases. Since in the question the aircraft has a stick force gradient of 150N per g, the temptation is to multiply the stick force by the amount of g, but as stated in balanced trimmed flight at 1g stick force is zero. You must always subtract 1g from the g value given. So 2.5 g -1g = 1.5 x 150 = 225N. Stability increases in a manoevre due to changes in angle of attack on the aircraft, this is called aerodynamic damping. Increased stability increases stick forces. Source: (http://www.atpforum.eu/showthread.php?t=9693) The manoeuvre stability of a large jet transport aeroplane is 280 N/g. What stick force is required, if the aeroplane is pulled to the limit manoeuvring load factor from a trimmed horizontal straight and steady flight? (cruise configuration) The limit load factor is 2.5g. Rest of the logic is the same. Thus 1.5 x 280 = 420N which is the answer. If the maximum pull force acceptable is 50 lbs and the design limit g of the aircraft is 6g, what stick force/g must be achieved to permit the aircraft to be manoeuvred to its design g limit? Answer: 10 lb/g 6g - 1g (level flight) = 5g 50lbs / 5g = 10 lbs/g If a stick force of 20 lbs is required to pull 4g from the position of trim, the stick force gradient is: Answer: 6.6 lb/g 4g - 1g (level flight) = 3g 20lbs / 3g = 6.6 lbs/g The CG of an aeroplane is in a fixed position forward of the neutral point. Speed changes cause a departure from the trimmed position. Which of the following statements about the stick force stability is correct? a. An increase of 10kt from the trimmed position at low speed has more effect on the stick force than an increase of 10kt from the trimmed position at high speed. b. Increase of speed generates pull forces. c. Aeroplane nose up trim decreases the stick force stability. d. Stick force stability is not affected by trim. Option "A" is correct. Answer (b) Is incorrect. If the CG is ahead of the neutral point we will have a stable configuration, so an increase in speed would require a push force. © Is incorrect. If you trim nose up, you would have to keep a forward pressure on the stick to maintain straight and level. If you increase speed, the forward pressure would increase as the elevator become more effective, and that is in the same sense you would expect with a speed increase, so stick force stability increases. (d) Is incorrect. If you trimmed nose down you would require a pull force to keep the nose up, and fly straight and level. As you increased speed the pull force would increase, which is not what you would expect, so that is an unstable stick force. So trim does affect stick force stability. You can calculate the difference of a 10 kt change at low speed and high speed to prove the answer. It goes about the percentage change in lift. If you assume a CL of 0.3 in straight and level and substitute changes of speed maintaining the same angle of attack, then you will see that the percentage change in lift, and therefore stick forces, will be greater at lower speeds. L = CL x V2 (no change in the ? ? or S so we can leave them out, in this calculation) (I also left it in Kts, as it will not affect this specific calculation, but we should use M/sec). At Low Speed: e.g. V=60 kts L = CL x V^2 L = 0.3 x square of 60 L = 0.3 x 3600 L = 1080 After a 10 kt Change in speed from 60, V = 70 kts. L = CL x V^2 L = 0.3 x square of 70 L = 0.3 x 4900 L = 1470 Change of Lift 1470-1080 = 390 Change of Lift as percentage = 390/1080 x 100 = 36% At High Speed: e.g. V=120 kts L = CL x V^2 L = 0.3 x square of 120 L = 0.3 x 14400 L = 4320 After a 10 kt Change in speed from 120, V = 130 kts. L = CL x V^2 L = 0.3 x square of 130 L = 0.3 x 16900 L = 5070 Change of Lift 5070-4320 = 750 Change of Lift as percentage = 750/4320 x 100 = 17% So the change is more (36%) at low speed than (17%) at high speed. Thus option (A) is correct. Source: (http://www.atpforum.eu/showthread.php?t=647) Stick force per g is dependent on CG location. The magnitude of the stick force required to pitch, for an aircraft with manual controls, is determined by the distance the CG is forward of the neutral point. A high limit load factor enables the manufacturer to design for a "Lower" stick force per g - Correct statement. Passenger aircraft are stressed to 2.5 g, the normal limit load factor. As you manoeuvre the aircraft from trim you will feel a increae in stick force up to the limit laod factor. This is the stick force gradient (stick for per 'g'). The stick force limit is defined by cS25 so you cannot exceed the max value. If you were to increase the limit load factor the stick force per 'g' would decrease. Source: (http://www.atpforum.eu/showthread.php?p=48119) The stick force per g is a limitation on the use of an aeroplane, which the pilot should determine from the Aeroplane Flight Manual is an incorrect statement because stick forces are specified in CS23/25 the design requirements for an aircraft and not in AFM. Source: (http://www.atpforum.eu/showthread.php?p=48119) Stick force per g is independent of altitude - Incorrect statement. Stick force per g increases when the centre of gravity moves forward - Correct statement. 4.4 Stick-Force Characteristics ( just a quick idea ) http://flysafe.raa.asn.au/safety/zodiac_FAA_Review_Report.pdf

I found something weird By trimming my plane UP or Down it actually trim my Ailerons and center my Joystick at will. but it doesn't do anything to the elevators. unlike in the version 1.2.6 Is this a bug ? Both SU25's are affected.

So far with 1.2.7 Horrible time load even just reflying a mission that you just did test.. why ? FPS much lower as before.. for no visual improvement ... why ? Joystick FFB are horrible.

So shake at 100 is out of question working or not.. I made it at well 40% just because. now FFB is at 100% .. in the FFB2 when FFB is OFF or just by releasing the hand from the handle the trimming is centered as soon as you enable it the joy goes off center onto the right direction at list for me. now in windows the Stick is perfectly centered as ALL other sims. So I wonder why in DCS it is not.? We need also to really re-adjust the spring loaded effect on any directions. Is this going to be looked at ? Thank you for an answer. Am I really missing a setting somewhere ? Maybe

Yes this is how he should be ... +1

Ok here a sample that is just bad. I'm not forcing and look at the stick shakes.. and everything else on that matter. All the Force feed Back of ALL aircraft are just overlooked. I cannot imagine something like this is not pointed out .. an Aircraft do not react like a CH or Saitek Joystick or anything other spring mounted sticks. Period.. ask any pilot..

http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?p=4581604#post4581604

I just restarted DCS after flying yesterday night 1.2.7 and today "Downloading repair... a long download.. ????

Mine is very turned down as well.. you can modify it here. \Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\Config\View\View.lua function NaturalHeadMoving(tang, roll, omz) local r = roll if r > 90.0 then r = 180.0 - r elseif roll < -90.0 then r = -180.0 - r end local hAngle = -0.25 * r local vAngle = math.min(math.max(0.0, 0.4 * tang + 45.0 * omz), 90.0) return hAngle, vAngle end head_roll_shaking = head_roll_shaking_max = head_roll_shaking_compensation_gain =

Well I can work on this FFB fort the FFB2 looking for the file parameters. Friction Force Damper Force Spring Force Minimum needed setting at list. I can make it as real as possible .