dot

Hello Cuesta Brothers, Thank you for creating this mod. I'd like to try the Rafale pack since it's going to be in Croatian air forces soon, unfortunately the mediafire download is not working well. Please can you upload it to a more reliable server? Than you in advance, and keep up the good work!

Another interesting review:

They were all rgb as far as i can remember(so there are no pentile holes), also when you look at monitor you are viewing it at 10-15 degree angle, and when you stretch it to 100 deg fov, pixels get much more visible (same as looking at monitor from 3cm away)

some thoughts from reddit (mainly comparing with Vive):

FYI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmDObrN_DzA

Hi Spectre1986, Thanks for your review! This sounds promising, DCS support should only get better, it's great that it's working at all now. I returned my CV1 quickly after the purchase (I didn't like the screen), and I'm currently building a simulator with triple monitors. Maybe I won't have to wait for CV2 and get myself a new VR for Christmas :) Do you have any pictures of lens close up, ideally when playing DCS?

MSFF2 on ebay https://tinyurl.com/yav4gwes ED thread for diy FF stick: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=172964 Magnetic FF stick in development: Also, feel free to email your favorite joystick manufacturer and express your interest in Force Feedback flight stick

Thanks I've also learned from this research, for example, the stick forces in X and Y axis are not the same, so in conclusion, no spring joystick can accurately simulate the feel of F18 aircraft. Table I CONTROL STICK CHARACTERISTICS (from above PDF)

it helps if you say that this is your opinion, what is frustrating is that you are stating that spring joystick is realistic in a thread asking to implement force feedback. We have internet, reports of actual pilots, and manuals from people who build the aircraft: FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEM DESCRIPTION The FCS in the F/A-18 airplane employs a digital, full authority, high gain CAS as its primary flight control system mode. The CAS mode is AOA and air data scheduled with feedbacks taken from three axis angular rate, two axis linear acceleration, AOA, and air data sensors. Three cross-axis interconnects enhance the flying qualities of the airplane: rolling surface to rudder interconnect to provide better roll coordination, rudder pedal to rolling surfaces interconnect to provide better roll coordination at high angles of attack, and an aileron to collective stabilator interconnect to compensate for an uncommanded pitching moment in the power approach configuration with ailerons drooped. A speedbrake to stabilator interconnect minimizes g transients during speedbrake operation. A departure warning tone (yaw rate and AOA) is available when the flap switch is in the AUTO position. The tone initiates at 25 deg/sec yaw rate and increases in beep frequency up to 45 deglsec. Above 35 deg AOA and below -7 deg AOA, the tone initiates at a constant frequency and yaw rate warning is no longer available. Above 22 deg AOA, angle of attack feedback is introduced to generate a proportional nose down command which provides an effective increase in stick force cues during low speed and high AOA maneuvering. Inertial decoupling feedback to the stabilator consisting of the product of roll and yaw rate scheduled with air data is incorporated when the flap switch is in the AUTO position. This feedback offsets the pitching moment generated by inertial coupling at high roll rates. Inertia coupling compensation is also used in the yaw axis using the product of pitch and roll rate to command the rudders to counter yaw inertia coupling. Additionally, a SRM is provided and is described below ***** The longitudinal and lateral mechanical components of the FCS are comprised of the following: cockpit control stick, longitudinal and lateral feel springs, longitudinal trim actuator, linkage and cables between the control stick and stabilator servo actuators, and an electromechanical ratio changer which adjusts the stick to stabilator gearing while in the mechanical backup mode. Longitudinal and lateral spring cartridges provide control stick forces to the pilot. A counter weight is provided in the longitudinal axis to counter control stick inertial forces encountered during a catapult launch. An eddy current damper is provided to add an additional lateral stick force increment as a function of lateral stick rate. The control stick is duplicated in the aft cockpit of the two-place airplane and is connected to the forward stick via mechanical control linkages. The mechanical linkage allows the control stick position sensors to sense pilot stick commands from either cockpit. Longitudinal and lateral control stick movement in either cockpit will move the control stick in the other cockpit. Linkages and cables connect the pilot's control stick and stabilators while in the mechanical mode. Design longitudinal and lateral breakout plus friction and stick force gradients are presented in table L http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a256522.pdf I can find more if needed.

That would be an accurate description of spring joystick, like the one you probably have. Designers of F -18 are not that silly, stick force increase proportional to G forces in flight. I have showed you F 18 manual and F 18 pilot report, not sure how else we can progress this discussion if we don't agree on those.

Thanks, I'm glad we can agree.

I still can't get over what you said earlier: "Essentially the control force simulation works in a Hornet precisely the same way they work in a simulator when flying with non-FFB stick." This is realistic in the same way a broken clock is correct twice a day. Maybe flying through checkpoints in airbus fashion (when most people use autopilot), and maybe on the ground. In every other aspect of the flight the spring joystick is not realistic. (spring does not know what is G)

Trouble is, many people don't know what actual fighter jet feels like to fly (shame because there is a lot of material on the internet, even reports from actual pilots): "I was invited to fly the aircraft into a high alpha regime. I pulled off the power at Dave's instruction and applied aft stick to bleed off airspeed while holding altitude. At about 30 degrees alpha a distinct rumbling sound developed, as the airflow over the aircraft began to break up into turbulent flow, yet the handling did not perceptibly change. Stick force however did increase noticeably, as I approached 3/4 aft stick deflection I needed both hands to comfortably pull the stick back further. Holding 90 KIAS I pulled the aircraft gradually back to 48 degrees alpha, while Dave worked the throttles. The aircraft was very stable throughout entry and the progressive increase in AoA, there was no perceptible rolling sensitivity in lateral stick inputs, the knife edge balance preceding a wing drop which one would intuitively expect as a result of the aircraft's speed and angle of attack was absent. From the pilot's perspective, the feel is very solid and smooth. Small lateral stick inputs yielded a proportionate response, there was no perceptible reduction in control input sensitivity in this regime. To exit from the manoeuvre, I released the aft stick pressure, and as the aircraft unloaded Dave pulled back the power." http://www.ausairpower.net/SuperBug.html Please can we stop arguing over this?

The irony is, even if you are right (and you're not) this would be much better simulated on a force feedback stick. :megalol: The truth is that pilots might break their neck if they could pull a 7G turn with same amount of force as for a 1G turn...

I call this syndrome "spring denial" :D