FeistyLemur

According to that thread the paddle button seems to use a membrane switch and fit in a housing. But those are really cheap on ebay and linked there. Removing that tiny snap ring on the paddle arm to get the casing apart could be challenging with limited vision. Other than that the button is just two wires which presumably need to be soldered. Maybe there's someone local who can help, or someone from here that lives relatively close who could repair it if you sent it and the parts to them.

Actually never-mind what I said, I might have been thinking of something else. I don't know if that adjuster on the bottom can press the button, don't have the stick in front of me. I think thrustmaster sells replacement buttons. Kind of a pain though.

I enjoy the KA-50 as well, I just found the A-10 more time consuming to learn and harder to remember. I stopped playing for a few months recently and when I came back I was able to remember exactly how to run the Black Shark with no trouble. The A-10 I actually had to read a few things to refresh my memory. When I say hardcore i'm referring to the detail level of and the number of systems involved not really how easy or hard it is to fly the aircraft. By that reasoning I've read the Huey is really challenging to fly, and I've yet to get that module, but most likely will one day. The mig21 for example tends to be heralded as quite an accurate simulation. But it's also a very simple machine which is easy to learn and easy to remember.

I don't how it is in the UK prime time, but in the evening here that's not really a realistic plan. Unless you're keen on sitting alone on a server hoping anyone shows up. I did a sort by players the other night and there were I think about 4 servers populated past 10 people and 1 of them was locked. You either play on the 104th phoenix one or you play on the "open combat" one from what I can see. Unless there is something I'm missing. I've been watching and hoping to find a mig21 vs f5 server with any players on it and I've found one game with another player in it so far, once. And I haven't seen that server on that mission again or with a player on it since. So my only other option is to play mig21 or f5 weed whacker style on the 104th server vs modern fighters and hope to get lucky. I mostly loathe playing the fc3 aircraft but that seems to be the only real choice here.

How do you break your stick with one of Sahaj's extensions? I have one, I'm curious.

Well, it's what? A 1990's F15 vs at best the Mig29S which is still no contest? Reality doesn't have "balance" so it's probably not exactly an attainable goal for multiplayer anyway as long as you want to attach "sim" to the title of your product. If you consider that things are probably working about as well as can be expected. All I was saying is that I think I was seeing the original posters point.

I want to see amazingly realistic sims to the detail level of the A10, with lots of players. But that's probably a pipe dream. I'm just saying I see where the guy is coming from. He wants to get online and have fun without having to do a lot of work or meeting a schedule. Which is pretty much what other games provide. So I can see why he might expect this. As for the FC3 aircraft. I just think they're basically all the same aircraft with slighly tweaked flight models and weapons loadouts. And the one with the best weapons loadout, the F15, wins. All of them have the exact same controls layout. Maybe I focus too much on the simplistic unified controls aspect, but I don't know.

I'm kind of new to things but Wikipedia is misinformed if what you say is true. It lists Black Shark as the initial release, A-10c (which is what I attribute most with DCS), combined arms, and the P-51 coming out before FC3. And and the A-10c module is really what I would consider the benchmark of realism for Military Sims, out of those. Black shark being pretty hardcore, the A-10 being really hardcore, and FC3 being well, what it is. Also according to what I'm reading the Huey came out in 2013, same as FC3. So, how is that their first project? unless what I'm reading is incorrect.

This is made with an open builds CNC isn't it?

Assuming it goes in numerical order. Mine is in the 30000 range.

That's kind of why it's a bit of an oxymoron saying this is a multiplayer game. I love the game, I do. The clicky cockpits, the realism, the learning curve, It's fantastic. Then you have the FC3 aircraft sitting there like an abomination among the Mig-21's and the A-10c's, or the Huey's. So what was the purpose of the FC3 aircraft? To draw in a broader audience and make some money? I can't say. But in the end you have this multiplayer experience that's pretty disjointed, and people coming in with expectations of something that will hold their hand and give them some kind of traditional multiplayer experience, and it's not that. It seems to be completely community based make your own fun, make your own scenarios kind of thing. And that's honestly quite fine, but understand you're going to have a small insular community with this. And for newcomers, probably you're going to adapt and join the community, or leave.

That's pretty low, I wonder who has 00001.

Why would he? What other multiplayer game works this way? It's not particularly easy to get into, or lone wolf-able as most other multiplayer experiences teach people to expect. My experience is kind of similar to his. I'm not one to join events, or voice servers. So the multiplayer from that point of view, if you're coming from something like war thunder, or any number of other online games, even Arma, there's the playerbase to just casually jump into games and do your own thing, is pretty unusual. I don't know enough about multiplayer here to offer too much of an opinion, but just jumping on in the evening to play a game, In North America I see one server with anyone on on it, and probably a grand total of about 70 people playing, give or take across all servers. I don't know if I'm doing something wrong, or if there or more people in Europe, as there tends to be. But this isn't the kind of environment that's very easy to understand for people that are used to matchmaking style games where you can just roll matches all night. Or pick from dozens of servers that are too full to get into. Whether that's a good thing or bad, I don't know. That's kind of how I see the way this differs from most other online experiences. The game mechanics herd the cats so to speak into some form of system of expected balanced play. This would appear to be more of a sandbox where there is no such thing as balance, since the F15 pretty much utterly destroys everything else in the sky from 40 miles out. That may be fine, and I'm sure it works well for the people who are used to it. But I can understand the confusion for someone who's not already part of that community. Cause I pretty much don't get it either. I've had a couple fun times in multiplayer but mostly I learn modules, train, and play single player. Probably the most fun I've had in the game is the KA-50 single player. And the single multiplayer Mig-21 v F5 dogfight I managed to find.

Make sure you unbind F11 and F12, this will cause view swapping, also if you are using the numpad keys for push to talk unbind numpad 0 1 2 and 3, and make sure your intercom and cockpit ptt functions are default. \ and RAlt \ usually. When starting mission call "start mission" to start as a habit rather than clicking fly on screen. Often in game you can call "profile reset" if having issues to resync. Caling Nalchik ATC is also broken in all the profiles. See the note on install page about fixing that.

Most things requiring muscle memory only take a week or two to get used to. Using a twist rudder was something I could never take a liking to though.

No Mark were the magic words I was looking for. It's working as expected now. I don't believe that was documented. Only the type with a marking stage was.

Well, it certainly lends to cheap mass production and assembly of the internals by design. So in that respect I guess it's a good design. But I bet they spent a disproportionate amount on the metal handle as opposed to the internals. I have to say the maintenance requirements are a bit much. And the inevitability of that o-ring eventually coming unglued and falling out is pretty awful.

I don't know if it would interfere, but the cost of doing it would probably be prohibitive. I know It was the first thing I asked myself about the warthog, but honestly there's no point spending hundreds of dollars on what is already a pretty poor design. To invest that kind of effort you could come up with a cam gimbal that replaces it for less money probably than trying to get someone to turn that tiny ball on a lathe. And it would still have all the same issues, just in metal instead of plastic. If it's possible to make a 20 - 30 dollar solution that replaces the slide plate, and actually works, that would be more of a benefit to be honest than replacing the center ball. It would at least eliminate that stupid teflon ring scraping the posts dry and starting to hop up and down them after a while. I really don't think the majority of stickiness is even related to the center ball to be honest. Once the grease is souped in there, it tends to stay in there. What seems like it would be ideal would be to add tiny little ball bearings to the inner ball as well and metal pins that slide into the teeny tiny bearings, and preferably even screw in tight to the outer ball for a solid lock up. They do make ball bearings that small as well. I just looked at a linked post and see someone already did metal pins. But no one has tried tiny ball bearings.

I can't remember the exact cost it was somewhere around 40 dollars Canadian with shipping at the time. It came from guillemot right in France if I remember right so I think shipping wasn't the cheapest. But I'm pretty sure the price was 27-ish USD for the actual part. Our dollar is completely useless right now here so there's that.

No the rails would remain as they are now. Just my idea is to print the ring with larger holes and insert linear ball bearings into the holes that match the size and centering of the rails. The holes in the current ring are off center and the teflon disc above is the centered part. So you would have a hard time drilling this out to fit, and it would be destructive, the end of the original part, and no going back. Plus there does not appear to be room for it to fit within the dimensions given the available sizes of linear ball bearings. Basically the outer diameter of a 4mm linear ball bearing is 8mm (and I am assuming the rails are about 4mm as I haven't measured them yet). So this would encroach on the big springs space. However if you replaced the big spring with 4 individual smaller springs it could potentially work. Also I have not researched whether linear ball bearings are even available in the exact size of the factory rails. I haven't got a caliper yet to measure them. But they probably are since they come in all 1mm increments I can see. It's just whether or not the outer diameter is a problem that is in question. I know some people were basically deleting the big spring, and putting the 4 tiny springs on top of the disc instead. So it definitely should be possible to replace the big spring with stronger single springs than the ones under the disk, that will even support extensions. And if all goes as imagined, it should ride very smoothly like a piston on the rails with ball bearings. Laser or plasma cut steel could work in that case too, because if you eliminate the need for the big spring, and basically just spring the ball bearings individually, all you need is a circular plate with 4 sleeves for bearing mounts on the right centering. But of course, I don't have the facilities to cut up steel and make something like that.

I used to use rubber drawer liner to secure pedals to the floor but I didn't like it. It would get dusty and they would slide around anyway. If you have a board that goes from the base of the frame to the baseboard on the wall though, it's going to stop against the wall anyway and you don't need to worry about affixing it. In that case drawer liner rubber would work just fine most likely to add extra tackiness. And all it will cost you is the cost of a single 2x8, can of paint, and some drawer liner. A good chunk of fir 2x8 is nice and heavy too. I should work for thrustmaster. I could call it the slab of frikin' wood pro, and sell it for $99.95

Then basically you can buy a can of flat black spray paint, paint the board black, and it will match your no-zone. That front bar that sits on the ground would be ideal to screw a 2x8 to that runs from the bar to the wall. Or if you don't want to do that, get a couple of big rubber coated circle hooks instead, screw them to the leading edge of the board on either side, and you can slop that right on top of that black leading bar and it will hold the whole apparatus in place.

Basically you could take a 2x8 from the lumber store, saw it off at the length you want, and screw stuff to it and it would be a wooden base. The lumber store will probably cut it for you if you don't own a saw. If you get an eye hook and screw it in the front edge of the board dead center, you would also have a point to clip it in to your chair so you don't roll away from it when working the pedals. Or in your case you could put a couple eye hooks on either edge, and latch it to the frame of your ozone with some kind of adjustable straps, then when you press the pedals that will hold it in place. The strap from a laptop bag would be ideal for that and they even have nice clips on them already. The nice thing about that is it provides a secure and adjustable distance at which you can place the pedals from your chair. This is what I do with the wheelstand pro, an old SKS sling and a carbiner. Of course you don't really need it to be removable as I do, so you could just affix it to the ozone frame some other more permanent way, such as drilling new holes through the bottom pipe and just screwing the board to the steel with long pan head screws.

I ordered an extra articulation sphere from thrustmaster and it was the inner and outer ball as pictured above, with the plastic pins all assembled. And then promptly disassembled and sanded smooth. It was really easy to get them to send it. I called and had a 5 minute phone conversation and said send me an articulation sphere. They took my credit card number and that was that. I kind of have a notion to try to design a 3d printed replacement for the whole slide plate that applies downforce and rides on the 4 metal rails. I was thinking that this is where the vast majority of stickiness comes from in the Warthog. And if one was to have it ride on those 4 metal rails with linear ball bearings, like a 3d printer mechanism, that it should be much smoother than the actual design with the stupid teflon ring that scrapes all the grease off the posts. Assuming it works, it should be really cheap to make too. The 3d printed part would likely be very little, and the linear ball bearings are trivial in cost. The only question is whether there's enough room inside the base to do this. There may not be, at least using the big main spring. It might necessitate replacing that with individual springs over each post. I don't have a good caliper so I bought a nice one and am waiting for it to arrive and then I think I'm going to experiment with this and see if I can design something that works to print on shapeways.

I guess if you stick around long enough it's bound to happen.