Scott-S6
-
Posts
552 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Scott-S6
-
-
3 hours ago, qadqdae said:
well, will you lose anything even if you pre-order it?
You'll not have that money for the 5-6 years it'll take to get into a decent shape if it's undercooked so there is absolutely an opportunity cost.
-
On 7/30/2025 at 2:33 PM, draconus said:
No one promised 2026 release. We don't even know if development already started.
The FAQ says 2026 release goal. I agree that it sounds exceedingly optimistic but ED have now set that expectation.
-
4
-
-
6 hours ago, Irpus said:
Isn't the Vkb STECS corresponding to the above description?
Inviato dal mio Tapatalk
No, the grips don't have the slider (although the wheel can be a substitute if you don't also need an analog rotary), the latching 3pos or the spdbrk switch
Closest currently is the virpil cm. No spdbrk switch but the slider can be configured as a latching 3pos.
-
On 3/18/2025 at 8:12 PM, SharpeXB said:
What’s always disappointing to me with these high-end throttles is they try to emulate the actual ones and the result is they don’t have enough buttons on them. And if anyone flies different aircraft why would you want a Hornet specific device? Real aircraft don’t need a zoom view axis and such. Like I don’t have a use for all the switches and knobs for the side panel. And no use for dual throttles. I just want more buttons on the handle itself where they’re more useful. I’ll just keep the CH forever
100% this. We need a throttle with analog stick, analog slider, latching 3pos, latching/momentary 3pos, analog rotary, encoder rotary, selection of hats and buttons.
At that point you can configure it for almost anything.
-
Given that two independent pedals don't work anything like rudder pedals I think you'll be struggling. Why not just get a control board and a single motor from the Rhino chaps and make your current pedals FFB?
-
1
-
-
On 7/9/2021 at 6:17 PM, skywalker22 said:
No, it is not beyond my comprehension, trust me.
And thank you for your opinion. I am only here to investigate if its worth of spending 500€ for the throttle or not. And I don`t really care about the money, I have plenty of it, but I would like to spend it good, not that I would be disappointed as soon as I would try it 1st time out.
The question is, which planes do you fly, which buttons do you use? Do you use any of those 5 way buttons? And what are your thoughts on them?
I have a CM3. The switches are definitely mediocre, in my opinion, but they are above average for consumer sim gear and I would say that it's currently the best throttle available, certainly the most versatile.
I would like something better but it does not seem to exist.
On 7/31/2021 at 7:45 PM, skywalker22 said:A question, regarding new detents on CM3, lets say, if we take F/A-18, is it possible now to use the throttle and detents instead of Shift/Alt + Home keys for start-up the both engines?
Yes, you can bind virtual buttons to the area of the axis behind the shut off detent and then map release of that to the start/shut off function.
-
15 hours ago, TobiasA said:
For the sake of DCS, I hope they won't do it again. And I don't think so.
I'm not sure how it can't be released under cooked if they're getting it to EA as quickly as they've suggested.
-
2
-
-
14 hours ago, Matis said:
i understand you and agree with module to be as feature rich as possible and reliably working upon EA but i hate to be the one to say that "pilot body" is not a critical part for an aircraft to work, it is though part of the final package
you are right F-16 had rough start but i would not judge its progress / quality by adding pilot body at later stages, in my eyes they set their priorities rather wellregarding Eurofigher, Mig-29 or any other future model i would hope to see the aircraft flight model and systems be prioritized before such things as pilot body
do not get me wrong i do not want to undermine your comment, just to point out that priorities are what is important to set correctly and do not judge current or future modules by lack of some features that actually might not be so crutial in a module to work properly and thus can be added at later stages of development / EA
The years where it had a deeply flawed flight model were a much bigger problem. The pilot body was a flippant example of something required for a finished module and which is created by a team separate to the systems, weapons and flight model teams who do, obviously, have much more important things to work on. The models&textures team are generally finished with a module long before the other teams so priorities within the module didn't delay the viper pilot body.
It does seem that rushing quickly to release and then letting the module languish in EA for 6-8 years is becoming the new normal for ED.
-
On 7/19/2025 at 6:36 PM, TobiasA said:
The development would happen in a time that would proof that the F-16 is the forgotten child...
I just doubt that they are so fast. But all I care for is the Tiffy. And my beloved Viper.
If it's anything like the Viper it'll be released completely under cooked and then take years to gradually fix and complete (it'll soon be 6 years and we only just got a pilot body)
-
1
-
-
An M2000D would make the money launch itself out of my wallet.
-
1
-
-
On 1/19/2025 at 10:12 AM, TobiasA said:
what makes you believe that the F-35 really will be ready in 2026?
Perhaps people are getting that "belief" from the F35 official FAQ?
When will it be available?
Development will start in earnest in 2025, with a release goal in 2026.
-
2
-
-
On 3/10/2025 at 12:50 PM, Jayhawk1971 said:
Especially if during development some initial features get refined to be more realistic, which will trigger the usual suspects into grabbing their pitchforks yelling that their module is being "nerfed".
I think the bigger problem is that those refinements often make tutorials or manuals incorrect and they then don't get fixed promptly (or at all) which then creates problems for people acquiring the module later.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Marshallman said:
There is a UK warehouse if you research and thereference was to stock
They have warehouses in multiple countries.
You were speculating about "overseas manufacturing". It's all made in Lithuania.
-
The other quick and dirty solution is to recalibrate the axis and just not move it all the way to the top.
-
On 2/3/2025 at 2:20 AM, Firechickenfan said:
I know that this is years later, but could you please elaborate on the electrical tape? What gaps do you mean?
Mine is doing this exact thing, and so far, this is the only answer.
Thank you for your time.
Having fixed a warthog grip recently - the problem is that the tailpipe works loose. The shell is not a close fit to the tailpipe so the screws loosen and then you get this problem. The screw primarily responsible for this is not externally accessible so tightening them is a hassle. Additionally, the zinc will eventually strip if you keep retightening them.
I suggest using a suitable (mild) thread locker such as pink loctite and using something to fit the tailpipe more closely to the grip. I used epoxy putty to glue the tailpipe to one side of the shell, coated the exposed side in silicon grease to keep the epoxy from sticking and then filled the other side with epoxy putty as well. I also replaced the zinc tailpipe with a steel one while I was doing this
You could alternatively use layers of tape, air dry clay, acraglas, whatever. Anything that makes the shell of the grip hold onto the tailpipe will help reduce this problem.
-
On 12/28/2024 at 9:27 AM, Marshallman said:
I emailed them and got this reply yesterday
Currently, the Rotor Plus Base is on the back-order with the estimated lead time being about 4–7 weeks.
I'm presuming overseas manufacturing, maybe with the MozaAB9 too
....
Regards
What do you call "overseas"? Virpil is a Lithuanian company and makes their stuff there.
-
Mine will be here tomorrow so expect pics of the inside over the weekend (because I suffer from a compulsion to take things apart)
-
On 1/29/2025 at 3:05 PM, i-scott said:
I have Virpil pedals which are normally working fine, but, (there is always a but) for some reason has lost the bindings, what I mean by this is a day or so ago I was on flying a10IIc and had to use pedals on the ground to steer etc and to control yaw in flight. Yesterday I want on to practise the F4 and started to taxi, but was unable to steer. On checking control settings I found that the bindings weren't there any more. Trouble is you can see the VPC device in the controls but when you pick to pind to brakes or rudder etc. when you go to select the binding options for Z-Axis, Slider and Dial are missing.
If I use windows Game Controllers to inspect game controllers I can see the VPC Rudder Pedals and when I check the properties I can see Z-Axis, Slider and Dial fine and they work, react to me using them on the hardware.
So far I have,
- disabled hot plug and re-enabled
- Recanned all devices
- Unplugged the rudders and Plugged back in
- Done a purge of all USB Devices removing all that are not used and to keep all usb Device down to a minimum (about 7 devices)
- Downloaded VIrpils Software updater and applied latest firmware. Also Virpils software shows the device properly
- Removed the User Config folder and allowed it to be rebuilt
- Removed and reinstalled main DCS Game
Right now I am stumped and not sure what step to try next, can anyone help
Here is the screen in DCS settings
null
In your last screen shot you are looking at the binding for a digital input, not analogue. I.e. you're binding a key or button specifically to rudder left rather than binding an analogue axis to the rudder. You need to select the axis bindings section in the controls menu, the default view shows digital only.
-
On 1/24/2025 at 2:41 PM, eatthis said:
iv just got mine, no spare switches to swap, are they supposed to come with it? if not how do i get them?
It's not swappable switches - the hat switches are all 4-way plus push but there are swappable hats that limit or don't the functions. These are supposed to be included.
I'm still waiting for mine.
-
On 1/7/2025 at 2:41 PM, crispy12 said:
Yes, this is the Moza MH16 on the Moza base
I checked the Moza discord, and the reply from Moza was the real F16 doesn't have it, therefore their stick is a replica and doesnt have it either. Which is a pretty silly response considering this is not a replica stick but a mutlipurpose gaming stickEven sillier considering you don't have functionality that the F16 has when you use it on a non-moza base.
-
1
-
-
On 1/5/2025 at 1:22 PM, crispy12 said:
The push doesn't work on the TMS, DMS and trim hats.
When used on the Moza base? That's interesting.
-
19 hours ago, propeler said:
You are not right
You just do not know about it ;). FFBeast is close. On my mechanics design it easily makes 15Kg on 200mm extender. With mech from Victor it makes 28Kg force on full length stick.
So not the 40KG need for the M2000 then?
16 hours ago, Thadiun Okona said:So many people fixate on 1:1 forces without considering how miserable it would be in many cases and how unnecessary it is for a good experience. Most cases would require replicating the seating 100% as well due to ergonomics of the design and you would also need to be strapped in the same way because that's part of req for pulling/pushing those forces. This seems like one of those things people spend too much time wondering if they could without wondering if they should
I don't disagree but I'm not the one asking AI to make a profile for the AB9 that replicates real world forces, something that the AB9 is patently incapable of doing. (And even if it could, he'd need to tell the AI how long his stick setup is...)
-
2
-
-
13 hours ago, propeler said:
Here is testing data from soviet book. It is measured force in kilograms to displace stick per 1 centimeter. Left - pitch. Right - roll. For instance Me109G at speed 400km/h require you to pull around 6 kilos to move stick 1cm.
Here is another graph. It shows how much force you need to pull in kg for rotation speed 1 radian per second.
So yes. Force on planes could be very high. null
Exactly - to simulate the forces needed for the first cm of moment you're maxing out the AB9's forces. These forces are higher than modern hydraulically assisted aircraft but they are still considerable.
-
2
-
-
13 hours ago, propeler said:
Let's be honest, in extremes. Typical load curve will be closer to this:
Even based on your example for an unspecified aircraft (odd that you wouldn't mention what aircraft this is for) the AB9 is way off the correct forces with any decent length of extension. If we go with a (rather short) 10cm extension then it's doing ~6kg versus the 16 in your graph. For a 20cm it's doing 4KG Vs 16.
Hornet needs about 19KG aft pull, M2000 needs a 40KG aft pull for max pitch input, just for example. None of the FFB sticks available are anywhere close to realistic forces.
With a 20cm extension (30cm stick including grip), the AB9 can't even provide enough force for a 2G pull in the hornet.
This doesn't mean that it's useless but don't pretend that it's generating realistic forces.
-
3
-
TQS Target enable not working
in Controller Questions and Bugs
Posted
It will if the problem is you using the button incorrectly. I think the issue is that the button doesn't do what you think it does.
It switches between bore/slave while you hold it depressed. It does not lock targets, that's TMS up as you've been repeatedly told.