Slick Fork

You're suggesting the whole extension kit over just the 100mm? So that'd be the 100+75+50 =225mm extension?

Good morning, Trying to decide on a new flightstick as my wife has lovingly let me know that's what I'm getting for Christmas! So, I'm trying to decide between the Mongoose and the VKB MCG Pro and would appreciate any feedback. I'm coming from a Saitek X55 stick and throttle so I'm sure either will be a significant upgrade. My thought process and research so far is as follows (Sorry for the novel) Base - both the Mongoose and the gunfighter base seem very well reviewed. Virpil had a few QC issues right out of the gate but has been diligent in getting them resolved and most people seem very happy with their customer service. I haven't heard too many complaints about the gunfighter either, but that may be due to the limited numbers of Rev. A bases shipped. Actual usage reviews seem to be very positive for both with an edge going to gunfighter for helo pilots due to the dry clutch system. I don't fly helo's that much so the adjustability of the Virpil base with the externally accessable screws has an edge in my mind. Extensions: I currently have a desktop setup but have read a lot of good things about mounting the stick lower (likely the side) and using an extension for better control. Both Virpil & VKB offer extensions - Virpil has a straight extension and VKB has a curved - I have no idea which is better, or how much length to go with. My initial thought was start with the 100mm straight extension off to the side and go from there but I would like some input on this. Grip: The Virpil grip would be a definite improvement over what I have and would probably meet my needs nicely as the only plane I seem to run out of grip controls for is the A-10c in DCS. HOWEVER - I REALLY like the 4 way + push combo's (especially the thumb) on the MCG Pro. I've never had an analogue thumbstick so I'm unsure whether this is important to me or not. I'm not worried about historical accuracy - I tend to fill the buttons if I have them and don't have a real interest in constantly swapping the grips out. So far for me the VKB MCG Pro grip provides the best number of options. Does anyone know if the rotation of the grip can be offset? Mounting solutions: I REALLY like the Virpil desk mounts. I like the way they work with the stick and can be quickly added or removed to my desk depending on whether I'm flying, working, or doing anything else. That versatility is something I really appreciate. VKB does not offer any kind of mounting solution. I can probably rig something up to make it work but the convenience of the Virpil system really appeals to me. I realise I can add the virpil mounts to any system but this does add to the expense. Throttle: Virpils throttle is (almost) out now. VKB's isn't even being whispered about yet which means it's likely 12-18 months before I can buy one at a minimum. I don't think I'll really be in the market for a throttle for at least 6 months but I have more confidence that Virpil will be shipping theirs when I'm ready than VKB will be. I'm sure the VKB throttle will be nice but if it's not ready when I am I'll have to figure out whether or not running two "systems" is a big deal to me. I'm pretty sure this is a minor picky thing I'm fussing about. Availability: The Virpil of course is shipping now, and has been shipping for a number of months. I feel there is also an advantage here because they've maybe had a chance to work some of the initial production bugs out of their sticks. If I put in for a gunfighter/MCG PRO then maybe there's a higher risk of early production type glitches? The other part is that while there hasn't been an announcement yet of further delays - everyone is still only hoping they'll start to ship on Friday. Advantage to Virpil Company reputation: VKB has the advantage here as the established player. That said, from hours of cruising the internet I'm hearing a TON of good things about Virpils customer service and efforts to make things right when something goes wrong. So do I value the old established company higher or the newcomer looking to impress? I think there's a slight advantage to Virpil here but it might be close enough to be considered a draw. Price: the Virpil with 100mm extension comes in at $453 USD shipped, the MCG Pro/gunfighter comes in at $505 USD shipped. I can add the desk mount to the virpil and get the whole package ready to go for pretty much the same price as the gunfighter/MCG. Advantage to Virpil here. TLDR; trying to decide on a new flight stick and the Virpil has an edge in most departments EXCEPT that I like the functionality of the VKB MCG Pro Grip a lot better. So... what else am I missing? Any suggestions or input would be great! Thanks,

Why limit the game? I have serious doubts that it takes that many resources away from anything else, and if it provides a way for new people to access the game that don't have the time to spend learning what every single button does... At the end of the day, the more people playing means that more people are buying modules and the more likely that ED and their partners will continue to churn out planes I want to fly in terrain I want to see... I'm more interested in that then I am in "purifying" the DCS experience and limiting it to only hardcore types. If maintaining "game mode" costs X and provides X+10 in revenue than it's worth doing. End of story.

One more thing to mention... A lot of the hate seems to spew from those claiming the Mig-21 is broken... I don't have the mig-21 so can't comment on it's "completedness", but up until today I've never seen so many posts complaining about it, which makes me wonder if it's really broken or if the haters are grasping at straws because that's all they've got left.

I'm still a little torn on this. While like others I had dreams of a full fidelity mig-29, there was nothing that could've indicated what the model was going to be, and therefore the only expectations developed where those we put into our own head. Does the plane fit in DCS? Maybe it does. It's not a combat plane but to my knowledge no other sim provides the fidelity level for flight characteristics that DCS does. So while it's not a plane that fits into the "combat simulator" model we all subscribe to, it is definitely a plane that will take advantage of and show off DCS's dedication to producing lifelike flight characteristics. For me, I don't know if I will buy it for the simple reason that I'm not super interested in aerobatics. That said, I support it if it brings fresh money and fresh blood into DCS. I think the risk that civ planes will dilute the "purpose" of DCS is small. A 737 model in here wouldn't stand a chance, aerobatic birds are a different ball game... they at least will take advantage of the environment DCS has provided so I have no objection to it. I really don't get the hate, if you don't like it don't buy it. Simple as that. As I said, the only expectations were the ones we made for ourselves. I'm disappointed it wasn't a plane I'd been lusting after, but just because I didn't get what I want isn't a reason to trash the developer... Maybe this will give them the funding to develop a full fidelity Mig-29 in the long-run.

Lots of places in Canada at least have similar issues with trees up close to the runway. Not so much in bigger airstrips but lots of smaller volume airstrips like that out there. Lack of landscaping doesn't leave a whole lot of safety margin but I don't think I've ever landed or taken off with a wing hanging over one side of the runway so not really an issue unless you get into some trouble - or need the extra room to turn around...

Although it may not be "officially planned" I would be surprised if ED didn't leave the infrastructure in (or develop it to some extent) for someone to very easily mod all the modern Navaids etc. to make Normandy fully compatible with all modern aircraft and systems. It doesn't make financial sense to spend this much time and effort on a project and purposely hamstring it for the vast majority of your audience. I can't see them doing it themselves as that would require a TON more effort on the towns and cities to bring it up to their standard but making it easy for an "unofficial" modern version would make the map infinitely more saleable.

Uggh, I'm sure it's been mentioned already but the LAST thing this community needs is another installation branch that's incompatible with everything else. I like Steam because of the sales, the flexibility in payment options (e.g. steam gift card) but the big one is I get it in NON USD pricing and the exchange rate is ALWAYS better than the one my bank gives me on my credit cards. I know why people dislike steam and can appreciate their arguments as valid but for myself I'd be thrilled if ED moved everything to steam. I currently buy my modules on Steam and use the keys in the stand-alone versions because I also have Nevada, Mirage, Grippen, etc. I would guess that the small percentage steam takes as commission would be more than offset by the exposure to new users buying their first module and getting hooked.

I have the Viggen and the Mirage. Out of the two I'd agree with the consensus that the mirage might be a better choice for someone new to DCS. It's not really a true multi-role but it's fun to fly. IT's primarily an interceptor that can drop bombs when needed. Viggen is beautiful and getting better but a very specific mission profile and not necessarily a newbie friendly aircraft (but better than the Mig-21 I hear) I know you listed a fully clickable cockpit as a requirement but don't discount FC3. Especially if you are unsure whether or not you are a ground pounder at heart or an air to air guy. FC3 will let you fly airplanes in both roles to your hearts content and let you spend your future money on modules that are meaningful to you. It's often on sale for dirt cheap. It would suck for example to buy the Viggen and decide you really hate the A/G role... I've surprised myself by finding out that I really like dropping bombs and blowing shit up so the A-10 and Viggen get most of my time.

Don't think anybody's doubting the historical importance of the aircraft. It just flat out doesn't look like an interesting aircraft to fly. The required mission profile is pretty ho-hum - fly out in the dark, mostly straight and level, drop a couple of bombs. Head home, repeat. I think the novelty would wear off REALLY quickly. Just my 2 cents though, others might find that thrilling.

I don't doubt it at all, and I'm typically one of the ones who chimes in on the side of patience with ED. That said, I'm really kind of torn about Normandy I bought NTTR over a year ago thinking it had been in Alpha for ages already and it couldn't be much longer. As much as I've been Jonesing for a new map to fly around on, I was really hoping that at the very least the platform would've moved to beta before I was asked to plunk another $70 CDN down. I do appreciate the constant development and push for improvement, it's something I haven't seen in any other game I own. But - there are no other games/Sims that I have where I've sunk over $500-$600 once I tally up all the modules. ED has received a substantial chunk of my gaming budget. I say all this as someone who has no clue about software development. I'm confident ED is doing their best and will release as soon as they are able, doesn't mean we don't get to be a little frustrated and impatient ourselves. We're human too.

Hmmm, ok. makes sense technically that's the way it would go I suppose; but at the very least then I would hope that this is indicative that 2.X will be moved out of alpha sometime VERY soon as they will now have TWO paid maps that people have dropped cash for that are still in alpha. Technical issues aside it's a good way to frustrate people.

The merge is required for Normandy is it not? It's gotta be just around the corner.

I think he just means that aircraft development is occurring separate from Game/Terrain development and that the pace of one doesn't slow down the other. Maybe an argument could be made RE resource allocation; but I know nothing about software development so I wouldn't want to venture an opinion there. Could be completely different skill sets? That said, I'm rather anxious for 2.5, and my A/C stable is rapidly rounding out to a point where I'd MUCH rather spend my money on new maps.

You'll likely need to deactivate them pre hardware swap and then re-activate them with the new stuff.

It'll show up if you have a radio comm menu open as now you can select your communications with the mouse.

You didn't really indicate what you like to do when you're flying, or if you've flown other sim's and enjoy that so I'll respond on the assumption that you're new to flight simming in general and for that reason alone I'd advocate FC3. Going with FC3 will give you a chance to fly a bunch of different types of platforms and a variety of mission profiles. You'll do some ground pounding in the A-10A, You can fly fighters, etc and that should give you some insight into your high fidelity model purchases. For example It'd be a shame to drop $50 on the A-10c only to find you really dislike flying AG missions. Just my two cents.

I think we get spoiled a little with these guys. None of the other games or software I use has this level of continual updates and communication with its customers. As I'm sure everyone else would, I'd love to have had 2.5 over Christmas but I do genuinely appreciate that we'll be getting a much higher product when it arrives. Curious though, if Normandy is coming out first it will be released in 2.x Nevada to work alongside Vegas?

No, I didn't do anything to it. "start mission" works fine as do all the wingman commands and if the airfield I want is closest that works ok too. I'm trying not to mess with it too much as once the merge hits (hopefully by Christmas) it'll all change again anyway.

I'm using it with limited success in 2.0. If defaults to the closest airfield so sometimes that bit's ok. Wingman commands etc. work just fine.

I have the Mirage and love it, I have Nevada and enjoy the change of scenery. Don't have the F5 (but have been tempted) so I can't comment on that. I'd say get a plane that does something different than what you have already. I'd think that you'd find the F5 to be too similar to the Mig-21, whereas the Mirage would add something new for you. New scenery is nice but once you get past the initial ooh's and ah's Nevada doesn't really offer anything that caucasus doesn't. I don't regret buying it at all because I enjoy flying there, but if I had to choose between a map and a plane it would be the plane every time because of the change of experience it brought to the table. A new map simply adds different wallpaper to what you're doing anyway.

I use a combination. I have a "basic" DCS profile for my X-55 which runs a couple of commands such as trackIR pause & Centre and a few others that are escaping me at the moment. The rest I find easier to program in DCS myself. One of the big advantages is that I can program/swap bindings on the fly while still in a mission as I try to figure out what works for me and what doesn't.

I like #2

Africa, SE Asia, Central America

Some scenery!