SinusoidDelta

That's certainly one way to get the job done. Has anyone considered directly replacing the gimbal springs with a spring/damper rod? I had my stick apart yesterday and measure the length with some dial calipers. At center position the gap is 27mm and 33mm at full stroke. I haven't been able to locate any dampers that small. Side question. Could someone explain how to enable dual rate?

You can count me in as a Guinea pig:thumbup: Are there any details on the feature being added to the gunfighter? Perhaps we should start a different thread to discuss some methods of control loading. I think there are many ways it could be accomplished through rotary or linear dampers.

I somehow missed reading this before. Those are perfect. The question is how to get your hands on them..... I looked up the supplier. Looks like they're an aerospace manufacturer / contractor specializing in control loading. That's wonderful! Did you contact them personally? They have no catalog.

I think it's a matter of opinion. I've complained about it more than once due to the F-15 having an aileron rudder interconnect. As the stick is moved aft, the ARI supplies an increasing amount of rudder deflection when roll is applied. An easy way to see the issue is to perform a control surface check on the ground while looking at the rudder. Pull the stick pure aft and watch the rudder. The rudder should not move. If it does move you are adding roll unintentionally. Up in the air that rudder deflection induces a roll when attempting to maneuver only in the vertical. The harder you pull back on the stick, the large the induced roll becomes. When I had the warthog I had the controls indicator up 95% of the time trying to keep the dot on the cross.

If possible, try disabling xHCI mode in your bios settings.

Not sure if this has been posted. I haven't had a chance to read it yet: https://www.dropbox.com/s/w2hfx90ttk1iz5e/BergenMark1975.pdf?dl=0

I would pay no mind to that review. It's a typical piece of webzine hack journalism. It's as if she wrote the entire review without ever using any joystick. She apparently enjoys switching out the cams but doesn't say much else. The price is expensive according to her....but only in comparison to the previous model. What about the price of the competition? She also seems to hate rudder pedals. No matter the complexity and quality of the mechanics, all sticks must have twist just like a Logitech 3D Pro. :crash:

Is there a crosswind when you fly 1.5? That will certainly cause the jet to veer left or right while taking off and even taxiing. Just in case, if you have split throttles make sure they a sync'd up. Hit rctrl+enter to display the controls indicator and verify throttles are sync'd and everything is centered.

Here's my Mamba with the Warthog stick. With and without extension: Without extension: With Extension: Without Extension: With Extension: It's a real beauty Edit to add: I would guess the Warthog grip weighs ~3 lbs (~1.5 kg?). So, you can imagine how large of a moment results with a 7 inch (180cm) extension...around a 25 N*m moment force on compact gimbal assembly. And that's just due to weight. The extension feels great with the light plastic stick provided. The action is just way too light and under damped with the warthog+extension. This is a shame because it provides so much more displacement for precision. I hope I can figure something out to make it more usable.

I mads the switch from the Warthog to the VKB Vintage Mamba. I'm now using the Warthog grip on the VKB stick with the adaptor. The difference is night and day. You'll get several different sets of springs and cams so you can tune the amount of stick force you prefer. Stick input is extremely smooth all the way to the axis limits. The required input force increases at a predictable rate. You'll appreciate this greatly if you're aware of 'stiction' problem on the TM warthog. There is no unintended cross talk between pitch/roll axes and their mechanisms are loaded independently. In contrast, adding aft stick on the TM warthog loads the same springs used by the roll axis. So as you pull the warthog aft the response becomes unpredictable in the roll axis making it frustratingly hard to maneuver with any precision. When your hands are off the VKB stick it returns to the exact same center position, something my warthog was unable to do after normal wear and tear. I also purchased the extension for the VKB stick. I used it with the stock VKB plastic grip but the Warthog grip is just too heavy for the larger moment unless you have a very light touch. This was the only real disappointment. There's no way I could go back to the TM Warthog now. There are probably a few things I'm forgetting but that's what the VKB stick did once I used it. I forgot all about the Warthog. Hope that helps!

Many reasons the sparrow Pk is so low. I don't think it's at all misleading to say missile performance is an order of magnitude better than it was 30 years ago. I see that "Promise and Reality: Beyond Visual Range" paper referenced quite often. I'm not trying to bad mouth the author but it's very short sighted to treat gulf war 1 as some kind of weapons development end game. I'm not sure what the implied alternative to BVR is supposed to be. Thankfully there has never been a true large scale conflict from which we could derive a useful Pk.

Same with mine. The only complaint I have is how underdamped it is with the warthog grip due to its mass. If anyone has any ideas on where to find and how to implement a small viscous damper, I'm all ears!

Just wanted to say thank you. This is a massive improvement and has actually made DCS playable again.

Unfortunately there is not in 1.5. You can fly with the trim hat, I don't advise that though. It's very important to "cage" the tanker visually and be certain of your LOS rate before trying to hook up.

The cam marked "W" is for use with the Warthog grip which is veryyyyy heavy....heavier than it needs to be. The springs with the black dot on the bag provide the most resistance. Depending on what kind of response you prefer, I'd recommend only putting the W cam and black spring on the pitch axis at first. I'm not sure what you mean about the connector being switched. I can only speak for the Vintage Mamba but after quickly glancing at both links I don't see a difference.

Be very careful :thumbup: If you haven't seen, Stratojet has a good how-to video on their site. It's very easy to pinch wires when you reassemble the two halves of the grip.

The OWS takes all engineering factors into account (gross weight, roll, asymmetric stores, etc.) then computes and displays the max (and minimum) available load factor (G) at that configuration. When OWS is recalled on the VSD, a severity code is displayed along with percentage of load limit factor reached by each control surface and what action should be taken. This is to ease the burden on maintenence so they don't have to inspect every nut and bolt when a percentage of overload condition is reached. The severity codes are ordered 0 - 6 in proportion with the design limit load, 0=80%-100%, 1=100% and so on, 6 being 140%. Keep in mind the OWS along with the Aircraft Structural Integrity Program (ASIP) (and like most things on the Eagle) has been significantly revised since introduction.

"How many a dispute could have been deflated into a single paragraph if the disputants had just dared to define their terms." Too many threads that go on endlessly like this. Thanks for the AIM-7 SMC Scat. Despite it being antiquated, it's the only post in the thread with technical information. Is it purely the drag coefficient causing such poor missile performance? If you correct the Cd, what happens to the missile guidance?

That's from the older -1. Here's the latest and greatest (available to John Q Public at least)

There is no structural limit chart per say. An aircraft is developed and engineered to be operated within a guaranteed envelope. Once outside of that envelope there is no longer a guarantee.

I stumbled across a detailed account of a tragic mishap. In 1985 a 1st Lieutenant piloting an F-15A literally ripped the wings off his jet carrying a full internal load of fuel, 4x Aim-7's, 4x Aim-9's and 3 drop tanks. It was the result of an abrupt wings level pull up following low altitude high speed pass (over Elmendorf) at 550-600 knots. No official accident investigation report is available. I understand the F-15C had many structural enhancements compared to the A....but it is not indestructible.

According to the -1 you should maintain the crab until touchdown. My concern is almost entirely in regards to taxi and take off though. Is there a difference in weather effects from SP to MP? Such as dynamic weather?

Yes sir, thats where the constants are stored for the landing gear model. The only equation commented out is for force. I think it's some kind of simplified oleo strut compression equation. Regardless, us end-user's simply don't have enough information about the nuts and bolts of the FM to understand how ground reaction forces are being generated.

I've tried modifying the landing gear model lua under the suspicion that insufficient spring force was causing the left/right main gear to compress unequally inucing a yawing moment on the nose gear. I don't really understand the variables though and it had no benefit when tested in a crosswind.

Another previous thread here http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=162079 My understanding is that any flight model issues should be posted in this sub. That being said I haven't seen responses (aside from GG) from the developers/testers team confirming issues or indications that they will be addressed. I have a feeling correcting these somewhat minor FM issues such as ATT Hold, ALT hold, engine low idle thrust, ARI deactivation on wheel spin up, takeoff trim, and 0 AOA performance are very low on the priority list for the ED team. Edit: @Gamerman972 Thank you for posting your track!