amazingme

From the first touch of it I knew I hit the jackpot with this well designed throttle. Time will tell if it's also resilient to the tough virtual combats. The switches and buttons are very 'clicky' and the n-way switches are very precise. The gas throttles are sturdy and not wobbling in any way and the default friction feels just right. The differences between the previous throttle, Saitek X55, and the T50 are like night and day. Definitely a good choice.

The beauty has arrived!!! :)

Probably typo, but, if you move the CoG forward then the stability increases and when moving aft then the stability decreases. Right between them is the neutral point, where the center of gravity of the aircraft is neutrally stable.

Thanks for taking the time to investigate! We really appreciate the time and effort spent all these years! :thumbup:

Documents have been showed, not by me, but by others, and those documents refuted the soviet ones. Someone says we're all wrong, that's it. Do you notice the double standard here??

That's the world's first problem.. instead of questioning the underlying problems, people are using ad hominem to try to discredit pertinent judgement. How do you prove that the documents used by ED are valid? Ask yourselves this question then try to answer it by using scientific methods. Then tell us what is YOUR answer to that question so we can have a pertinent discussion. Sorry for the off topic, but I've been challenged to answer to it.

My hunches are better than the soviet G-2 documents that were used to create the K-4 FM. There are a lot of extrapolations done which are prone to errors. If you blindly trust those, then it's your problem and only yours. There are some of us who like to question things before taking them for granted. I recommend you all do this.. with everything..

In the end.. yes, as the surface remains the same, but the gears do matter and the trim tabs would definitely change the diving behavior at different speeds and CoGs.. And I wouldn't trust too much the soviet data.

Unfortunately, you're darn right.. Unless DCS would become a MMORPG game, we stand no chance in getting a proper FFB at an affordable price from any producer.

I recommend you to use a headtrack device such as TrackIR. It'll boost the immersion considerably. You can even create your own device if you're minitechnicus ;)

Will do.

We need at least 3 or even 4. Because the interceptors don't fly long ranges, the logic behind low ATA cruising fails. You don't fly @ cruise speed when you want to intercept incoming enemies.

With ground adjustable tabs we wouldn't have this conversation. ;)

What I don't understand is the constant pushing of the stick even with maximum (2) nose down trim set with the cockpit wheel...

I can do that, using pulleys.. the same force is affecting all airplanes. You're saying that the stick column is directly attached to the ailerons??

Sry.. elevator trims not ailerons.

Edit: You completely misunderstood him. The plane HAD ground adjustable elevator trim tabs which are missing in the game.

+1 on the MP Datalink missing feature

You know we're fighting windmills here..

My order got shipped yesterday. Thanks Virpil!

If the majority of pilots who flew the 109 said it was perfectly flyable @450-500km/h and only after 700km/h the stick would stiffen, who do you think I should trust more, them or ED? Then we can take this into deeper analysis.

That's why it's called SNAP view and not TRANSITION view ;)

I know all of that, but in the 109 you can have 2m long stick and that would not make any difference because the 'software' limits the actual stick throw.. I highly doubt that IRL the stick stiffens at ~ 450km/h or less as it's depicted in this simulation. The stiffness should appear above 700km/h IAS and not @ 450km/h. And we're not even talking about 1 hand pull vs 2 hands pull on the stick which obviously cannot be simulated.

Yes, indeed, but I do prefer that the limitations should be hardware related and not software related.. if you know what I mean. ;)

I couldn't agree more with you. But, these are two distinct topics.. the FM and how ED implemented, for example, the stick forces and so on. Unless you flew the airplane yourself you cannot but guess HOW you should set up your joystick to be as close as the real deal. So, what I'm saying is that the purpose of 'flying' a simulation is defeated by not knowing how you should properly set up the virtual joystick. Am I making any sense to you?