Scott-S6

A few special options could go a long way to reducing these inconsistencies for people that find them incongruous. For example, the mav boresighting. It's cool that it's modelled on the viper but it is also kind of a hassle, one which other aircraft don't have. Adding a special option to start with mavs boresighted would be a useful convenience.

Yes, that could produce some interesting results

Some of the people saying that play with G-effects off..

The NGAD is a pretty large aircraft - I doubt very much that it has VTOL and would question why that would even be desirable.

It makes sense for an FSSB to have that deadzone and that latency in the real aircraft to prevent jostling of the aircraft translating into inadvertent control inputs. Doesn't make sense with a gimbal stick. For people suggesting that they can't see a difference, try flying a variety of aircraft back to back. With both sticks there is a distinct difference between the 16 and the 14/15/18 although it's definitely more noticeable with the gimbal stick where the larger inputs needed by the viper are very obvious. Something is different about control inputs on the viper. ETA - I quite frequently give people their first taste of DCS and get them to fly a bunch of different aircraft. I generally keep them on the gimbal stick initially (because the FSSB is out of reach on cost for someone just starting) and I always have to make a point of telling them that the viper needs bigger inputs.

I have to agree with Minhal. I have both a FSSB (realsim) and a regular stick (vpc). The viper is great with the FSSB. With a regular stick it requires large, aggressive control inputs, markedly different to other aircraft. This should be a special option - "realistic" mode for people with FSSB and "regular" for normal sticks.

Agreed. I think folks with chair mounts are going to want to mod them. I built my mount with this in mind (currently using the blackhawk grip with a 100mm extension)

That is the optimal way to do it, it will work fine.

They said release planned for Q3 in their forums.

Exactly.

No, I have the CM2. It's basically the same thing but without the clutches - I only dabble with helicopters.

You could use it on the desk with no extension (although it does not come with a plate for desktop use) but you really won't be getting the full benefit. You want at least a 10cm extension, ideally a 20cm for helicopter use. That will require a mount that positions the base well below the level of your chair. Monstertech, virpil and others make mounts. They're also not difficult to make yourself. To give you an idea of size, this is my CM2 (which is roughly the same size) with a 10cm extension. The alu extrusion is 80x40mm (DIY mounting setup). Second pic shows a warthog base for scale.

I'm going to need one. And an extra long cover to go with it.

Perhaps you weren't following where I was telling about the A10A? Which desperately needed the C upgrade package in order to perform that function? As I've said repeatedly.

If you want to argue philosophy, relativism might not be a good place to start... It should be clear that in this context "good" means "able to deliver to the requirements in the operating environment". Either something can do that or it can't. That the very limited set of options available at that time of doesn't include anything that can does not change that miss into a hit.

"The best" doesn't automatically mean "good".

You're arguing that least bad automatically becomes good?

Fair, I made my point poorly. The initial CAS role was diluted by cold war concerns and the battlefield envisaged for it's CAS role had ceased to exist by the time it entered service with training focusing on the Soviet armour column attack role. While it can deploy Mavs unaided it has a highly limited capability to identify targets for them in the conditions it actually found itself operating. So the A10A never got an opportunity to be good at CAS.

Like many military programs, requirements evolved and accomodating other needs diluted that original intent. As for the other aircraft also having nothing for target identification other than eyeballs - by the time the A10 saw combat, that low and slow window for unaided target ID was no longer practical thanks to improvement in AA, especially effective and ubiquitous manpads. The A10A never got to see the battlefield conditions thar it could have shone in. Yes, the A10 deployed lots of AGM65s and we all know that the AGM65 camera is extremely poor for target identification even if you're not flying at the altitudes that A10s were forced to fly at during GW1. It's okay for a fulda gap scenario where everything beyond a certain line is enemy (but it'd still be nice to know if that blob is a tank, SPG or AAA without flying into AAA range) - it's not suitable for any more complex environment which certainly includes CAS and we see this in the friendly fire numbers. The C upgrades were deeply needed by the A10.

Or, those incidents were mostly prior to the C package at which point the A10 was terrible at CAS, something it was never intended to do?

If you talk to infantry that have received CAS from an A10 (note - not guys that have witnessed this from a distance) and have seen up close just how large the dispersion of that gun is - their feelings are rather mixed. Prior to the C upgrade package, the A10 was terrible at CAS - nothing to assist the pilot in target identification and no ability to deploy precision munitions unaided. There's a reason why the A10 had so many friendly fire incidents prior to to that and remember that we were two years into GW2 before the C upgrades started being rolled out. CAS, of course, was absolutely not what the aircraft was designed for.

OP has track IR so he can just lean forward to look at the displays more closely and turn his head slightly to look over his shoulder. The reason OP sees these different FOVs is because of different equipment - screen without head tracking (needs to be zoomed in and out situationally), screen with head tracking (typically close to pic 2), head mounted display (typically close to pic 1). OP, if you want to calibrate for your display then the A10's canopy bow is very useful. Grab one of the sets of cockpit plans, draw a triangle with the a point at the center of the pilot's head and the other two at the base of the canopy bow. Measure how far the center of your head is from the monitor and you can work out how wide the canopy bow should measure on your screen. Adjust the zoom accordingly.

This is the seat as it is now, I can't find any pics of the intermediate state where I'd shortened the pan and put a wooden contour between the pan and cushions. (the odd texture on the cushion is from the hexagonal gel filler - very comfy)

I have a very similar seat from NLR in my cockpit and found the seat base to be too close to flat, resulting in it becoming uncomfortable after a couple of hours. A wooden wedge between the seat pan and cushions made a big difference. I later fitted a Martin Baker seat box which is aggressively contoured and now it's excellent.

This isn't an RB thing - pre-order and then EA is an ED thing. After several recent EA releases that were definitely under-cooked I'm not surprised if ED is being cautious (and RB have always released modules into EA in a relatively complete state). I do find it rather curious that you're advocating for modules to hit EA in a less complete state.