Drakoz

Most DCS modules support FFB in some form or another. Not all are perfect, though. For those that aren't perfect, or if there is no FFB support, simFFB fills the gap. simFFB implements the feel of friction, hydraulic feel, spring, as well as a single button magnetic lock feature (like for helicopters), or a hat trim function. So if a DCS module does not have FFB support, simFFB fills the void. You have to search for it as the original author is no longer supporting it, but it still works. Or PM me and I can send it to you. Source code is included. As for the Hornet specific stuff - I own the DCS F/A-18 but I haven't flown it enough to answer your questions. I don't recommend extending the G940 stick. The G940 gimbal is a little week and has slop. A longer stick may weaken the gimbal more. Plus the FFB does not kick in initially for slight movements, so the stick can move maybe 1 mm at the top when you let it go due to weight (gravity) before the motors will hold it. If you extend it, that 1mm movement will be worse and you will likely not be happy with using an extender. Maybe I'm wrong, though, if you set the FFB spring effect at max or higher (greater than 100%). See below... But if you must... The first link is just talking about taking the stick handle apart and moving the stick handle halves about 5cm higher on the existing internal shaft and just screwing it back together. If you look at the stick handle from the side, you'll see 3 or 4 screws which you can remove to disassemble the handle. I have not tried this mod, though. Again, I don't recommend such a mod because as the original poster says, it will make the stick less stable (the handle won't grip the inner stick as strongly). But at least it is easy enough you can try it and see if you like it. No materials or permanent changes. The second link, with such a long stick may actually make the FFB feel better because the G940 motors, when maxed out (> 100% spring force), are very strong - too strong in that you feel like you are fighting them. So with a long stick maybe the motors will hold the stick better. But again, the gimbal for the G940 is really not a very good design, and putting such a long extension on the stick may prematurely wear the gimbal out or break the plastic pin that links the axis together. Just my suggestion - something to be aware of, but don't be afraid to try it. Regardless of my lack of recommendation, it might actually work out. But don't get too ham fisted with the stick, because you can break the gimbal.

Another data point... I've been using my Warthog Throttle for at least 5 years, light to medium use. The rubber pads still have many years of useful life on them. It may depend a lot on how far you crank the friction pressure down. Most my usage, I have had it set to low friction. I don't use the Warthog Stick very much. I fly with a FFB stick instead. I own two complete Warthog setups (throttle and stick). Both have had moderate use (the 2nd setup was bought used and had similar use as explained above before I bought it). Nether has ever had any issues. My only complaint has been that the Left Pinky Switch feels a little flimsy on both my Throttles. I haven't used the sticks enough to "break" anything, though. The Warthog stick is overall a much better build than the Cougar stick was, though, but people have had many complaints. The Warthog throttle, though, has generally been bullet proof and very highly rated. YMMV of course. Again, I am very saddened to hear TM support has gone down hill. They used to be excellent.

What is your goal? To save money by buying older used stuff, or get a brand new kick butt PC with the latest and greatest? If saving money with older parts is a goal, I can explain exactly the difference between old and new, and I would say your original system, if buying it for cheap used, is plenty to have fun. In fact, I'd say forget the RTX2080 and buy and older GTX1080 or 1080Ti - if saving money is your goal. My old system was an i7-3770K (what, something like 3.7GHz?), 16GB DDR3 RAM, 2X GTX670 SLI video cards, Z77 motherboard, Samsung 850 EVO SSD. It ran DCS 1.5 and 2.0 well enough on one 1920x1200 monitor with medium to high settings but sucked for anything more. Bad for multi-monitor, or high res monitors, and forget VR. Two years ago, I upgraded the dual GTX670 SLI setup with a single GTX1080 (not TI, just original 1080), and that same system was able to run medium to high settings on 3x 1920x1200 monitors (5670x1200) with the same or better frame rate. I was very happy with that setup. A 6 year old CPU, MB, RAM with a GTX1080 was good enough. I adjusted my settings to maintain 25FPS of faster, and that was using high settings with a few medium or reduced settings to keep the frame rate up. Nothing I missed. Yes, higher FPS would be better, and I could get 50FPS if I turned down the settings, but I preferred to keep shawdows and other features like that at least at medium while maintaining a good draw distance (default high setting draw distance). FYI, I mostly fly helicopters where FPS matter more than for jets, but 25FPS was still enjoyable. Less than that, and the frame rate lag was too much. This system didn't work as well for 3x monitors with DCS 2.0 to 2.2 flying through Las Vegas, but with optimizations for DCS 2.5, it was better and very tolerable before I retired it. A couple weeks ago, I upgraded to an i9-9900K, Z390 MB, 32GB DDR4 RAM, but using the same GTX1080. With the same 3x monitors and same graphics settings, I got a 10-15 FPS improvement give or take the situation. The i7-3770K ran around 25-35 FPS. The i9-9900K system runs around 30-45 FPS. The biggest improvement came with (as you would guess) more complicated missions or multiplayer where my older CPU wasn't handling all the AI as well as the newer one. Somewhere in there, I upgraded to a Samsung 970 EVO NVMe stick, but that, relative to the 850 EVO is insignificant when it comes to frame rate in DCS, and only barely affects game load time. The SSD should not affect FPS, and any SSD is fast enough to prevent most loading hesitation. The extra 16GB (16GB vs. 32GB) of ram may help for multiplayer, but the consensus I've seen here is 16GB is fine for the most part. Any SSD will do fine. I didn't list details like the speed of my ram or overclocking because that kind of stuff is mostly in the noise. I over clocked the graphics cards but didn't overclock the CPUs. If saving money is your goal, I would go back to your original system, and replace the RTX2080 with a GTX1080 or 1080Ti. If VR is your goal, maybe get the RTX2080, but not the Ti. Oh, and for the older system move on to Windows 10. MS doesn't advertise it, but I think you can still upgrade an older Win 7 license to Win 10 for free, and I highly recommend you do that.

TARGET will not support the MFD pedals unless you modify the pedals to take the output of the pedal's pots and directly connect them to the Warthog rudder connector bypassing the MFD's USB circuit, etc. Basically a bad idea. There is little reason to make the pedals work with the Cougar using TARGET, so as stated, just use the pedals separately as normal. TARGET supports the Cougar completely. Works just like the Warthog. Software support for the Cougar should be fine unless (or until) Microsoft changes the driver system again and the Cougar drivers no longer work in Windows. It's been, what, 20 years since the Cougar came out. I assume TM won't update the drivers for the Cougar again. But I may be wrong. For the price, buy it unless you have the extra money to buy a Warthog instead. Even if you buy a Warthog or other stick in the future, you may find you like using the Cougar throttle for certain aircraft, for example. I like it better for WWII airplanes, but use my Warthog for the jet sims. To use the Cougar Throttle with the Warthog stick, you would still need to plug in the Cougar stick (because the Cougar throttle has to go through the stick - no separate USB devices like with the Warthog), but you can ignore the stick and just program the Cougar throttle. TARGET supports combining the Cougar and any other TARGET supported device as normal (e.g. the Warthog of T16000). For reliability issues and how to fix them, read up on the suggested site: http://www.cougar.flyfoxy.com/index.php That is where all the common issues were explained with solutions. Pots, the gimbal, and maybe one or two controls on the Cougar Throttle (the 3 way switches and one Pot) sometimes had common issues as explained at the flyfoxy site. It may be possible to replace the gimbal eventually with an Uber II NXT like gimbal set. The Uber II NXT is no longer available, but (I forget his name) here on the forums has posted 3d printed parts on Shapeways which basically do the same, along with instructions to replace the pots with hall effect sensors. My Cougar gimbal has horrible slop and I plan to machine a new set of Uber II NXT like gimbals. The Cougar with that gimbal actually feels better than a Warthog stick in many ways. Better for helicopters for sure. Doesn't matter so much for jet sims. So long story short, you won't really go wrong buying it for the $110 price, and even if it isn't perfect, you are still getting something you can work with to make it better for many years to come.

The OP figured it out and commented on his Youtube Video. It is the common issue of having an analog axis tied to the throttle lever. If there is any jitter (due to a noisy pot) on the axis, the throttle lever will move just off full throttle. This causes several things to occur, but the most frustrating one is auto pilot won't engage. You should see a master warning light, and the AP light lit on the warning panel. The solution is to add a 5% dead set in DCS for the axis you use to control the throttle. Set the dead zone at max throttle part of travel so that if the axis jitters, it will not exceed the dead zone and disengage auto pilot. There's no need, but I also put a dead zone in the lower 5% of travel just to prevent the throttle from having jitter issues there as well.

I bought a tube off eBay but I don't see anyone selling just the 767A by itself currently. The eBay seller I bought from is micro-tools.com (Dixon, California) and they list it on their website, but currently out of stock. https://www.micro-tools.com/products/767a-50grt

The rubber friction pads are definitely wearable items. I had mine apart the other day and was thinking I better find a replacement one day. Mine still have several years of use, though. The material for the rubber is critical to maintain the proper feel. I think the feel of the Warthog Throttle friction is excellent and that is primarily due to the rubber material used. It is not a common plastic, but a low wear low stiction rubber that does not require grease or oil. And it should not be greased or oiled either - which is tempting if someone replaced the rubber with plastic. Even teflon (which requires no grease) would not provide the same friction feel. It would have stiction. In the past, TM have shipped parts to repair stuff - even switches and buttons that required soldering to replace. Looks like they have changed that policy. It might be due to the difficulty of replacing the friction parts. Re-assembling the friction parts is a PITA due to the springs. And you have to disconnect a lot of wiring which is hot glued in place. It is easy to forget a connection, or hook something up incorrectly. To do the job right, you need to be meticulous, patient, and you really should hot glue the connectors back again as movement of the parts will work them loose. Not difficult for experienced people but if it's the first time you have taken a joystick apart, I would not recommend this as your first repair. But without knowing the rubber used and how to fabricate new pieces, not sure there is any other recourse than to send it in to TM for service.

Re: 1 vs. 2 NVMe drives - consider that each NVMe device you add to the system may affect the number of PCIe lanes going to your graphics card. For most chipsets, adding a single NVMe card takes 4 PCIe lanes. As most motherboards only have 16 lanes, and all 16 are usually used for the graphics card, adding an NVMe card reduces your graphics card to 8 lanes, with 4 lanes for the NVMe, and 4 lanes not used. I think for many systems, adding a 2nd NVMe card does not get 4 lanes that that 2nd card. It might only be 2 lanes, or just 1. So, make sure you understand how this works for your motherboard. Also, your MB may have several M.2 ports, but they may not all be NVMe compatible (some may just be MSATA - which are not compatible with NVMe drives. The MSATA ports aren't really any different than a SATA connector. My point is, if you want 2TB, you are better off getting a single 2TB NVMe instead of 2x 1TB NVMe drives - unless you are setting up some kind of RAID configuration. And yes, the 970 Pro isn't available as 2TB yet. That's why I bought a 970 EVO. For most purposes (gaming and normal business and engineering apps), the EVO models are no different in performance, and save you a lot of money vs. the Pro models. As for SATA vs. NVMe, even if there is less real world benefit of an NVMe than you would like, it is still a better choice for the future vs. buying a SATA, or even M.2 MSATA SSD. The age of PCIe connected storage is here (meaning NVMe). SATA connected SSD's are limited by the SATA port, not the memory speed. If you do buy a SATA SSD, then performance is less of a concern as most new SSD models are SATA port limited. So focus on price, warranty and reliability instead for MSATA drives. Re: the SSD improving FPS. That's barking up the wrong tree. The only thing a faster SSD can do is speed up loading data - a random and uncommon event. So it might reduce some stuttering during data loads, but it will not affect the average FPS. My system has a 1TB Samsung 850 EVO (SATA), and I added a 2TB Samsung 970 EVO (NVMe) earlier this year. Sadly, I haven't had a chance to do significant benchmark tests between them because I dual boot two different Win 10 installs. The 850 has my older Win10 install which includes a lot of background tasks, extra drivers, and it is nearly full. This is my original Win10 install from 3 years ago, upgraded from a Win7 that goes back 5 or 6 years ago. The 970 is a clean install which I use to run DCS now. I haven't finished the transition to the new drive, so I can't wipe the 850 and compare two clean installs side by side. Hence, I don't have any useful benchmarks. I did notice some ways in which the 970 is faster than the 850 in daily work (copying files to/from the 970 is 2X faster than the 850 for example - that's a huge improvement). Not the 6X faster that the benchmarks show, but that's not surprising.

(FYI, below talks a little about the FFB play or FFB deadzone you mentioned in your other topic.) Why is the Microsoft FFB2 better than the G940? It starts with the gimbal. The MS FFB2 gimbal supports the stick on all sides with good stability and little to no slop using a double "U" gimbal design. The G940 gimbal is weaker, and in one axis, only supports one side of the ginbal, not both. This introduces more slop, and slop means a larger gap where you can move the stick without engaging the motors. This is part of the cause of the FFB deadzone - a small amount of movement that is allowed before the motors kick in and hold the stick. Thankfully, this does not affect the pots as they are attached directly to the gimbal rotation points. So there is little to no deadzone for the stick position, but there is mechanical deadzone for the FFB forces. This is worse on the G940 than on the MS FFB2. I have tried to tighten this up by shimming the gimbal pegs, but it just starts to bind due to friction - the stick no longer moves freely. The fundamental design of the G940 gimbal sucks to be honest. If it was made out of metal, it would work much better, but out of plastic, it doesn't work so well due to tolerances, and even plastic flex. That is, in fact, a primary reason why the MS FFB2 is so good. Microsoft set out to design an excellent minimal slop gimbal out of plastic, and they did a good job - by making a gimbal that is bulky and supported on both sides for both axis. It all boils down to the tolerances you get with molded plastic. All FFB stick makers had to deal with this compromise. FYI, most of Logitech's FFB sticks use the same basic gimbal as the G940, though from what I have seen, the G940 is the best of the ones they designed. I have another Logitech FFB stick (a Force 3D or similar) that is absolutely horrid. It is so weak and so sloppy that if the FFB kicks in, you think something broke. Nope, it's just hat loose. The second reason is the MS FFB2 motor and gearing is more smooth (less notchy) than the G940. This is a factor of the motor quality and the motor to gimbal gearing. If I remember correctly, the G940 gear ratio is lower than the FFB2. I don't know what the motor pole count is for each (probably 5 to 8 poles), but a high pole count coupled with a high gear ratio means more smooth. You feel this as you pull the stick against the motor force. You can feel this on both sticks, but it is much more prominent on the G940 as with most other FFB sticks I have tried whereas the MS FFB2 is very smooth. The third reason is I believe the FFB algorithm on the FFB2 is generally better designed. The G940 seems to have a larger FFB deadzone, which is partly due to software, partly due to the loose gimbal and gearing. I have studied the gimbal and gearing and removed the slack and still seen that you have to move the stick a certain amount before the motors will kick in and push back on you. This was horrendous with the old firmware due to the reversal bug (hysteresis). The new v1.42 firmware improved this significantly because it mostly removed the hysteresis. With many FFB sticks, you need a certain amount of FFB deadzone to prevent the stick from going into oscillation. They should deal with this using damping routines, but from what I have seen, that is not the norm. This is also why they all have a sensor that you cover up with your hand to enable the FFB. But most of us tend to cover up that sensor with tape so the stick will always be on and hold it's position when you take your hand away. A non-damped FFB stick with no FFB deadzone would go into oscillation and beat it self to death. With the new firmware, I have to be a little more careful with the G940 because if I accidentally knock it, it will easily go into oscillation. I don't hold that against the G940. But overall, the way the MS FFB2 handles this seems to be better - better feel because the FFB deadzone is smaller. Also, it seems like the G940 has a zone where it applies only a small amount of force, but then it ramps up radically after that point. Not a deadzone, but call it a low force zone. It is enough to hold the stick relatively centered, but it means if you exceed that low force zone, suddenly you feel like you are fighting a force that is way too strong. No amount of playing with the force settings has made this go away. Relax the force too much and the stick won't hold itself where I last left it due to magnetic brake or trim. Strength it up enough to hold itself, and you have to deal with this jump in force. The MS FFB2 does not have any of that. All of these little details added together make a huge difference in FFB quality, and the MS FFB2 is better on all of them. BUT, there is one area where the FFB2 fails. It has a stick position deadzone at stick center. You can see it very clearly if you slowly move the stick through it's center in X or Y. The MS FFB2 software (which does not run under Windows 7 and beyond) allowed adjusting this deadzone, but even when set at the minimum, you cannot get rid of the deadzone. It makes no sense why they added this. If it was added to create a FFB dead zone, then it failed because if the stick is not centered, the deadzone doesn't affect FFB. And adding a deadzone for a FFB stick should only be done at the position where the stick is being held, not the stick mechanical center. If the stick is deflected from center by 10 degrees for example, then the deadzone doesn't do what people want deadzones for in the first place. I believe this is much of why Logitech added the reversal bug (it was a feature). They were trying to add a moving deadzone that would stay with the stick no matter where it was held rather than a deadzone at stick center. Because of the FFB2 deadzone, though, it makes it more difficult to aim a WWII bird (for example) if the stick is anywhere near the center as you have to cross the deadzone to continue moving the aiming point. But if the trim is such that the stick is off center, you suddenly realize much better aiming because you are not dealing with an deadzone. To be clear, this is a position deadzone (what most people thing of when you say deadzone on a joystick), not FFB deadzone which I spoke about earlier And of course, there are the number of buttons and hats, where the G940 wins easily vs. the MS FFB2. Which is why, regardless of the MS FFB2 stick being a better FFB stick by a long shot, for complex aircraft like the Blackshark and most jets, I need the hats and buttons, so I use the G940. Now what is critically wrong with the MS FFB2? Honestly, the positional deadzone on the MS FFB 2 is really bad. If you want a joystick to work as it should, do not add a deadzone period. Deadzones on joysticks are compromises for the unreal characteristic of a sprung joystick - which is not the norm for most real aircraft. People often add a deadzone on sprung (non-FFB) sticks to make the aircraft easier to fly (you don't have to hold the stick constantly). But your goal should be to get rid of that deadzone as soon as possible. It is even more true flying helicopters. Most real aircraft do not have deadzones. The stick always has a little bit of movement regardless of trim and the pilot must always deal with that (unless autopilot modes are turned). But on a FFB stick, the concept of a center deadzone is insane. The stick is designed to self center anywhere in the stick's range of movement, not always at the stick center. Hence a center deadzone on a FFB stick is one of the dumbest things I have seen in FFB stick design. So the deadzone on the FFB2 nearly ruins an almost perfect stick otherwise. I can overlook it for some applications, but it drives me nuts in others. I had been fighting it for years with poor aiming on various aircraft, or difficulty flying certain aircraft like the Gazelle where the deadzone exacerbates how the SAS. Then I realized just how much the deadzone was causing me issues. When I switched to the G940 with the v1.42 firmware (hence no deadzone and no hysteresis/reversal bug), my flying and aiming accuracy got significantly better and with less effort. So in summary the MS FFB2 has the best FFB of any stick, but the lack of buttons and the FFB2's deadzone may disqualify it for many people. Get the G940, though, and the less than ideal FFB will drive you nuts.. Pick your pain I guess. If you can find a G940 for cheap, I would suggest buying one and decide yourself if or why you care. Remember, why do we want FFB sticks in the first place. Because they don't have any center spring or 0 crossing detents. The stick is free floating, held only by the motors, but the motors are kind of a kludge due to all the issues explained above. Also, because the FFB force is adjustable, the stick is also generally free floating which is very important for a helicopter or even a non-jet fixed wing. Some people get this with a normal (non-FFB) stick by removing or significantly reducing the centering spring force or by using 4 counter balanced springs like on the Uber II NXT on the TM Cougar. Or even better is to remove the spring and replace them with dampers that give slight resistance to movement, and will hold the stick position when you let go, but there is no spring return. But even that is a compromise. So we have to pick our pain one way or the other.

My son has a Logitech G933 Artemis Spectrum. They are wireless (he can walk around much of the house including down stairs and they still keep signal), can take two inputs (the wireless input and the wired input) at the same time, have programmable buttons on the side programmed using the same software used for all current Logitech gaming devices (mice, keyboards, etc.) and cost about $130. So you can program the buttons to do mute, volume, etc. or you can do PTT for Simpleradio Standalone (SRS) for all 3 major radios in a DCS aircraft. I haven't compared the audio quality, but they have tended to be highly rated. I mention this as an example of a full on gaming headset that I would probably buy if I didn't already have what I have. The Logitech isn't the best, but it has some nice features. Regarding aviation headsets...... Respectfully, most of what I said is very correct, but a lot of it depends on why people care. I was talking about most aviation headsets, not all. Of course there are outliers. There are aviation headsets on Amazon for $85, but that doesn't mean you would want to fly with them for real, much the less use them for a flight sim or gaming. Telex isn't a crappy product. But even for $236, you can do a lot better for a reliable gaming headset, and I would not buy them for general aviation in a prop plane. No noise muffling - ear pieces are not cupped over the ear with heavy noise protection. They may work in a commercial jet, but not the aircraft I fly in. Plus that $236 still requires buying an $80 aviation set adapter for the PC. So my original comment still applies. Aviation headsets are over priced for what you get, and push below $200 for a real aviation headset, and you are starting to compromise quality. Regarding the ear cup and bulk. I mentioned the cup as an FYI to people that may not know.... Aviation headsets tend to be bulky on purpose because they are acting as ear protection to cut cockpit noise. So they have excess bulk, and tend to be over the ear. Some will want that kind of sound isolation in their home cockpit, some will not. Over the ear is actually a good thing. For many (most?) people, anything that touches the ear's pinna will cause fatigue and pain on long flights. But don't consider an aviation headset because you think it will somehow be leaps and bounds better than anything else. They aren't. You are paying for FAA certification, liability, and a high level of support (most quality aviation headset makers will repair them decades later). Again, if you intend to fly real aircraft, go for it. Otherwise, there are less expensive options. Another outlier is Clarity Aloft (https://www.clarityaloft.com). These are in the ear type headphones which clip over the ears to hold the mic and keep them stable. Very light, good sound isolation due to blocking the ear canal like earplugs. They are marketed as audiophile quality, but I haven't actually compared them yet. Several of my friends that fly aerobatics use them because of light weight and no bulk. But they aren't cheap (like $500-$800). There are inexpensive variations of this type on Amazon for the $200-$300 range. It boils down to why people care. Most aviation headsets do not match what most people probably want in a gaming headset. For me, the headset should be excellent for music and movies as well as gaming, but I'm not willing to pay ridiculous prices just for a name. I also want a mic that is capable of flying in DCS as well as do high fidelity recordings for a Youtube video. As for the price, I don't see the value even if the aviation headset did match what I wanted. My AKG headphones are just as reliable as any aviation headset I have used. My first set, the AKG 240, lasted me 20 years and cost about $80. They still work 25 years later. My 2nd set (AKG 240 MkII, $130) is 7 years old, and still look and work like brand new. Add a Modmic 5 to that and for < $200 total, you have a set of headphones that nearly match the best headphones out there in audio quality, and includes a removable mic that can do both studio level recordings in onmidirection mode as well as noise canceling (like an aviation set) in unidirectional mode. The key to this setup is the Modmic. Pick any good headphone set you like, but I strongly suggest you consider a Modmic. Not sure why my comments where baffling. It is how they are designed - the mic and the radios. You have to define "FAR superior" relative to why people care. In aviation, far superior means being best at getting the pilot's voice only while canceling extraneous noise. That requires a unidirectional narrow band (voice frequencies) microphone. Aviation headsets should be FAR superior in that regard. But that often makes them inferior for other purposes. Also, in aviation, the radios only transmit a narrow audio spectrum (the range of typical speech). There is no emphasis on making aviation microphones work in a broad spectrum because doing so would not help the goal, and the radio would filter much of that broad spectrum out anyway. So I don't mean that all aviation headsets have a narrow spectrum. Some may be very broad. But I do mean, if you are designing something for aviation, it buys you nothing to use a broad spectrum mic, and in fact, it may even make your product worse. But in gaming comms like Teamspeak or SRS, or talking on Skype or Discord, the software transmits full audio spectrum. There are no audio or radio spectrum bandwidth issues like with an aviation radio, and no issues with radio interference and distance from the airport. So why wouldn't we want full spectrum audio while talking to our friends. Well, the obvious answer is maybe you want to actually sound like you are on a radio in an aircraft. Again, it's a personal choice. You can enable a mode that does that in SRS. Given a choice, I'd prefer to speak in and listen to full spectrum audio. I'm not that much of a purist that I need to hear staticky compressed audio. For the mic, in my case, I wanted a mic that worked well not only as a comms mic (which frankly just about any cheap gaming headset will do that), but also offered studio quality voice recording. My Modmic does that. The new Modmic 5 is even better. It has two microphones selectable by a switch. One is omnidirectional and broad spectrum. It won't cancel noise as well, but in a quite environment, it will provide the best sound quality. The unidirectioal mic is noise canceling - it is pointed at your mouth but by mechanical design, it does not pick up sound from other directions (e.g. the noise canceling is not active using electronics). The noise canceling mic sounds a little bit more tinny, but is better for voice comms. The omnidirectional mic is better for recording a Youtube video if you want that full spectrum sound that you would get from a studio mic. The Modmic guys spent a lot of time understanding these compromises while trying to get a microphone that offered the best compromise for all uses. It was always a compromise. My Modmic is the omnidirectional one which means it picks up keyboard typing noise, or squeaks in my chair really well unfortunately. The Modmic they released after mine was the unidirectional mic which had lower overall quality, but less noise (you can only barely hear the keyboard or squeaky chair). That is why the Modmic 5 now has both uni and omni mics. They finally concluded that you can't get a single type of mic to do well for both situations. But the down side is the Modmic 5 is now $65 whereas I bought my original Modmic for < $40. They sell the Modmic 4 for about $40. It has only the unidirectional mic. They don't sell the one I bought anymore. You have to get the Modmic 5 if you want onmidirectional. Again, there are compromises everywhere. Decide why you care, decide what you are willing to spend, and don't get crazy buying over marketed overpriced stuff you don't need.

Using a G940 stick with the new firmware and a Warthog Throttle has been a reasonably nice setup. But yes, Logitech had a really nice product (stick, throttle and pedals) if they just hadn't screwed it up. The G940 FFB isn't nearly as nice as the MS FFB 2, but since it has extra hats and buttons vs. the FFB2, I use the G940 and put up with the less than perfect FFB. For war birds, though, I go back to the MS FFB2. Even the MS FFB2 is screwed up with a center dead zone that screws up aiming with a war bird and causes some difficulty with helicopters, so frankly, there are no FFB sticks that don't have some fatal flaw. At least with the v1.42 firmware, the G940 now has no noticeable dead zone, or hysteresis as I call it which was due to the reversal bug. An eBay seller has been listing the sticks, throttles, and pedals separately for a Buy It Now of $30 each (free shipping) for a couple months. They are listed as not working. I assume they bought out Logitech's stock of warranty returns. Since many warranty returns were people that got fed up with the reversal bug, there is a good chance many of them are good working units. I bought two of the sticks. Both work fine except one came without the piece that covers the analog joystick HAT (they fall off easily), and the other had a single faulty button (bad tact switch). I have two other complete G940 sets, so I bought these originally as parts to keep my good sets working. But aside from the bad tact switch (easy to replace), I have 4 equally working G940's. That should keep me going for years until something new comes out or I finally just make my own FFB stick. The pedals and throttle on eBay are not worth $30 each, but I have every reason to assume the pedals are good and they just aren't testing them. A good cheap pedal set could be had by buying the G940 pedals and using them with a 3 analog axis to USB converter board to bypass plugging them into a G940 and hence you would avoid the reversal bug on the pedals. The cheapest way to do that is use one of these: Thrustmaster VG TRJ12 USB Adapter for T3PA & T3PA-PRO 3-Pedal http://a.co/d/a4cTOz3 This is the adapter that allows taking a Thrustmaster race car pedal set or rudder pedal set and plugging it into a USB port directly instead of having to plug them into a racing wheel or T16000 HOTAS. You would have to adapt the G940 pedal connector 9 pin connector to the RJ12 connector on the TRJ12. Pinouts are online, or I can post. It is a bonus that the TRJ12 is TARGET compatible. So you could integrate your pedals with a Warthog in TARGET.

A good wired option is to use normal headphones that you like (good for music and comfortable as well as good for gaming) and get a Modmic from Antlion Audio to attach to the side. https://antlionaudio.com The Modmic attaches to almost any headphone set using a magnetic doc that you attach to your headphones and has sound quality that equals most prosumer studio mics (you can use it for Youtube videos and sound as good as the pros). They have noise canceling or onmidirectional capabilities, and work with your computer's mic input, or they sell a kit with a USB adapter and different wiring options. An excellent and inexpensive ($100-$130) headphone is the AKG 240 MkII. They are as good or better than headphones sold for 3X as much. Fit over the hears which means hours of comfort. Comes with coiled or straight cords. Why so cheap? They have been sold to recording studios for decades where comfort, function, and audio quality are what matter, not snazzy marketing. The 240 MkII is an open ear cup - you can hear what is happening around you. AKG also sells closed cup headsets. You can buy the AKG 240 (not MkII) for about $70. Same setup and quality but without the detachable cord. I would not suggest using a real aviation headset unless you are a real pilot. They are way over priced, often heavy and uncomfortable, but inferior regarding the kinds of things you care about for computer and gaming use. They are not designed to play music, and their mics have a narrow frequency range for voice comms over radio. Such compromises are not needed for gaming audio programs like Discord, Simple Radio, or Teamseak. FYI, aviation headsets are always closed cup (they block external sound). They are more like wearing ear protection at a job site. Hence why they are heavy and bulky. You can buy aviation headsets with excellent audio quality for music (like the Bose sets for >> $1000), but why? If you aren't a pilot, you would be wasting your money. My aviation headset cost $800 new, but I have no desire to use them for gaming even if I didn't have to buy a $80 adapter.

I use both the MS FFB2 and Logitech G940. The FFB2 by far has the better FFB and gimbal feel between the two, but in the Blackshark, there is no question.... You need buttons and hats, and the FFB2 does not provide enough. The G940 is the only decent FFB stick that also has several hats and extra buttons (the only one period I believe). Make sure you upgrade the G940 to the latest firmware (v1.42) to fix the reversal bug. Without the v1.42 firmware, the G940 sucks (both due to the reversal bug, and because the reversal bug screws up the FFB). See here for details: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=222488 Forget the G940 throttle, though. Get another throttle like the Warthog Throttle or similar. Due to the reversal bug, the G940 throttle is not appropriate for a helicopter collective. It might be OK for an airplane throttle, though, but not really. The 8 buttons on the throttle base, however, are excellent for the KA-50's autopilot modes. Sadly, the LED's can't be programmed to match the in game button lights. That would require custom programming. Someone did it years ago, but it's not supported anymore. But their layout is a good match to the 5 autopilot buttons on the right console. The G940 rudder pedals, though a nice physical construction, also suffer from the reversal bug. The reversal bug is in the firmware on the stick, so if you run the rudder pedals through a generic 3 axis USB game controller board, you avoid the issue. Most other FFB sticks are the same as or worse than the G940 and aren't worth even trying. I mean, if they had lots of hats and buttons, yes, but otherwise, if you just want the best feeling consumer level FFB stick ever made, its the MS FFB2.

Speedstick, sometimes, something will happen that causes DCS to no longer control the FFB. For example, I have gotten DirectX game controller resets (the messages in the upper right corner of the screen saying all your controllers disconnected and then reconnected - but that's another conversation). Anyway, when that happens, the stick will default to some config not controlled by DCS (or rather probably controlled by the Logitech software, or random???). In my case, the stick just goes limp. I have spring force turned OFF in the Logitech software and depend on DCS to drive the spring force completely, so the stick goes limp. BTW, that is how you should use a G940 with DCS - turn spring force off in the Logitech software. Anyway, if I then do something that would affect FFB (e.g. tap the magnetic brake button on the cyclic in the Gazelle or do a trim change in most aircraft), then DCS takes over the FFB effects again, and all is determined by the settings in DCS (the stick goes back to normal). Not sure if that is what you are seeing, but something to consider. The Logitech Profile software also has the ability to control non-spring effects like friction and hydraulic feel. This would cause the stick to feel sluggish when moving it, but not spring it back to center if you also have the centering spring turned off. But I'm not sure if these effects are active, or if DCS overrides them. I haven't thought about it in a while. I used to use simFFB with my Microsoft FFB2 stick, to create these effects or to give FFB function to any aircraft that didn't have FFB, or where it was implemented incorrectly. There are some features of simFFB that may help you diagnose the issue here. But otherwise, the Logitech software more or less does the same thing. Search on simFFB and you'll find several forum topics about it and where to get it if you are curious.

Ya, try the release version since it allows you to get a fresh install without having to uninstall/reinstall the OpenBeta. The current release and open beta are basically the same code base right now, so it is almost a apples to apples comparison if the release doesn't have the problem, but the open beta does.

Have you run the command to disable the EnhancedPowerManagementEnabled in the registry? It could be Windows is powering down the panels. See these posts for details: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3573978&postcount=824 https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3574082&postcount=825 https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3575546&postcount=832 ArturDCS added this to one of the menus in DCSFlightpanels which effectively runs the script I linked in the above post. I forget which menu it is in, but it should be labeled something like "Disable Windows Enhanced USB Power Management." MP sometimes draws more resources than SP, and I have seen more issues with USB devices in those cases. So it could be the power management thing (which causes no end of issues with DCS). Or, if not that, it could be a general issue with DCS being overloaded at rare moments. Like when first entering a MP server, I have often had USB controller issues though not specifically with DCSFlightPanels. So to confirm, I have not seen issues like you describe. Just offering some ideas. As for a sequence to start the "right way", run DCSFlightpanels first, load your profile. Load DCS and it should work. But even if you load DCS first and then load DCSFlightpanels second, it should still work. It is agnostic regarding order of operations it seems.

OK, that's the kind of confirmation I was looking for. So it is a DCS issue unrelated to TARGET, correct? Or let me say that differently. It sounds like you are saying that DCS has troubles seeing keyboard presses sometimes. So narrow it down to that. Try flying without TARGET, and using the joystick/throttle just as DirectX devices as a test, or even fly just using the keyboard with your game controllers disconnected. See if the keyboard keys stop working. I suggest this only to confirm that the TARGET keyboard emulator or the game controllers aren't causing any issues. If you still see keyboard issues, then you might need to get more drastic like resetting all keyboard controls back to default, or maybe removing and re-installing DCS. In all cases, keep the TARGET event tester running in the background. You can create an icon on your desktop just for the TARGET Event Tester and run it without running TARGET. When ever the keyboard seems to stop working (whether it is due to the TARGET script pressing keys, or the keyboard), immediately go to the event tester and see if it shows the key presses. If it does, but DCS isn't recognizing the key presses, then yes, that seems to be proof that it is entirely a DCS issue. But regardless, it is an uncommon issue as I've heard nobody have anything of the sort occur. DCS recently messed with the default controller configs which caused issues for people. The issue you are seeing doesn't seem related, but maybe in some obscure way, it is. Sorry, I don't think I'm offering much help here.

What happens when you go to the Windows Control panel for the G940. When you press buttons on the stick, it should exercise the FFB effects. This should happen regardless of whether the profile software is loaded or not.

This was solved 3 Beta and 2 Stable updates ago. Beta Update: DCS 2.5.3.22176 https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3636114&postcount=29 I believe this is the way they described the fix, which matches what people found in this thread (and other threads): Scale UI does not scale properly to UIMainView if not the Same Resolution as DCS Resolution - fixed. Stable Update: DCS 2.5.3.22176 https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3638932&postcount=8 Double check you are running the most recent update. I have not tested the stable version as I only run the Open Beta, but the latest Stable release supposedly brought the Stable version up to match the Beta. There may be a corner case where it still happens, but I haven't seen it. Which monitor (LUA) config are you using? There is still another issue where drop down menus show up on the left monitor (for me on a 3 monitor config using the default 3 monitor LUA file). This is not directly related to the original problem discussed here, but I mention it because multi-monitor stuff is often broken in new releases. I don't think the ED team does much testing with multi-monitors, so if you have done anything uncommon with 3 monitors (like a custom monitors LUA script), it is possible you have found another variation of the issue.

Uninstalling TARGET doesn't affect the Warthog Drivers. That is a different installer. I'm not sure if the Warthog drivers can be uninstalled with add/remove programs (they are drivers, not an application). But if you disconnect the Warthog throttle and stick, reboot, then re-install the latest drivers, it should overwrite what ever is on your machine. Follow the install instructions for re-connecting your devices. Or just install the drivers again, reboot, and then reconnect your devices after reboot if you want to be sure. This isn't necessary in Windows 10, but never hurts. For re-installing TARGET, it is just an application. But it does install a Windows Service (background process). So if you really want to make sure your TARGET install is clean, uninstall, reboot, then re-install. This should make sure the TARGET service is shut down and gone when you re-install. Again this shouldn't be necessary, but won't hurt. As for the original issue of some buttons losing their binding, next time it happens, leave DCS running (pause or not doesn't matter), and alt-tab out to the TARGET Scripting app. Then use the tester programs (the keyboard tester, and the game controller tester loaded by clicking on the icons at the top of the TARGET scripting window) to see if your target script has failed overall, or if it is just in DCS. I would be really curious to see if the buttons that lost their binding are still working when viewed using the TARGET testing programs. And, a question... Are the buttons that lost their binding programmed to press keyboard keys, or are they programmed as DirectX buttons? If you are using both, but only DX buttons, or keyboard buttons lose their bindings, that is telling of course. I have seen that happen on occasion. Not lately, though. Keep it in mind to see if this happening coincides with the lost bindings, but otherwise, I wouldn't worry about. Well, except that if you see both the Thrustmaster Combined and the stand alone Warthog Throttle and Joystick at the same time in DCS, just make sure the stand alone devices are not assigned to anything in DCS. Click on any item in the column for the Warthog Throttle, for example, and select "clear category" (or what ever the clear button is) at the top if the screen for setting up controllers. Do the same for the Joystick. That will remove all the bindings for the stand alone device. Then even if both stand alone and Thrustmaster Combined show up, the stand alone devices won't mess things up. While you are at it, make sure none of your other devices are inappropriately configured to share controls. For example, if you have a Saitek Throttle Quadrant, do the "clear category" thing on it as well to make sure none of its axes are assigned to something you are using the Thrustmaster for. Then assign the Saitek as needed manually. But to be clear, I don't think any of the above comments on both devices showing up is directly the cause of your troubles. Just good practice to reduce the variables. And of course, if the trouble started when you changed your pedals, absolutely change back to the old pedals first to see if the problem goes away.

The NS430 is supported as a pop up window in all aircraft (a key combo makes it come up), but supported as an in dash device on the Mi8 and L39. How that affects your software, I don't know, but hopefully it is the same either way. I'll try the new update as soon as I can. Thanks!

What other buttons show up? I assume you are just mapping directly in DCS, not using TARGET, right? Make sure your switches are set to a neutral position (no red dots show up in the Windows Game Control panel for the Warthog). For example, a 3 position toggle switch must be in the center position. Otherwise, in DCS, when you try to assign the Coolie, the toggle switch will also show up because it is being "pressed". If you are using TARGET, make sure you didn't run a TARGET config that is actually activating those other buttons. Like having a toggle switch set in a position where it continuously holds an assigned key down. This would normally cause issues in Windows as well, but some keys can be programmed and held down and you may not notice the key is held down even in Windows or other apps.

Is it the same for using the stand alone NS430? Say with the Gazelle where it isn't integrated?

Ya, if you aren't seeing the game controller messages in the upper right corner (disconnects and reconnects) then this is a new one to me. twells555, are you seeing the messages, or is your situation more like SGT_Coyle's situation?

I haven't tried the NS430 yet, but I am a little confused how I can use the NS430 and the module for my aircraft at the same time. I.e. I can't run two profiles at the same time, and the NS430 seems to be listed as if it is a stand alone aircraft profile. Do I just run two instances of DCSFlightPanels? One for my aircraft configured for the radio panel, and one for the NS430 configured for the Multi-Panel, for example? What simple answer am I missing? Sorry if this was explained earlier. I'm sure I am missing some simple answer here.