aaron886

Yeah. Getting to be time for VKB to double all their projected dates as a matter of practice.

FOD on the ground just isn't that big of a concern. Not enough to add weight and complexity. Russian jets aren't immune to FOD. At takeoff power, a Sukhoi is just as vulnerable to FOD as an F-15. Nobody fixes a runway without sweeping it.

Perhaps the confusion is why. MCG-TM will use contactless MaRS ministicks, but they will not register as axes... only as buttons. It will be the same piece of hardware as used in the MCG-PRO, but not used to its full potential due to the TM base software limitations.

That’s not going to be available in any readable game files. It’s somewhere in DLL.

To be fair, for people like me, this would be a null result. I have an (somewhat expensive) MonsterTech HW throttle mount that would likely not be compatible with some wild panel attachment like the X-65F. This is just to highlight how much more complicated an issue this is than some people appreciate.

Well, if we’re all just currently making preferences heard... I’d rather the new throttle not match the WH base unless VKB feels that meets their desired performance. I know the TMWH was widely purchased, but it’s not worth emulating. I think VPC made a mistake there.

Most of us have waited decades for high quality flight controls as are available now. Another month is hardly a concern to me. If the purpose is to release a better product, I don't think that's even close to a reason for me to choose the competitor yet. Besides, the MCG offers features I want that Virpil's grips do not have.

This is not true. For example, the raw electrical signal from the Hornet's stick is fed through a nonlinear ramp like this: The roll axis gets a similar treatment. This is done in the Hornet for the same reason you do it to your flight sim controls: there is no natural aerodynamic feedback in the stick. You are attempting to create a favorable force gradient with the curve to reduce workload during precise nose-pointing maneuvers. The real jet's flight controls also feature strong hydraulic artificial feedback and damping that we can't replicate with a desktop joystick, so some curve to achieve something usable is fair. On topic... I bought this burner stop a few months ago and use it whenever I fly in DCS. It's great! If only all DCS airplanes featured a movable afterburner detent in the options menu...

No, it's been off-topic, but you lovers of Russian hardware can't leave the bait alone. And apparently supporters of the F-35 can't help but post unsupported garbage. This thread is only saved when someone posts a news article or photo, it's just page after page of sh*tposting. :doh:

ED needs to just fix the current wingtip vapor first... it's steadily grown worse since first added. There needs to be more control over when it appears, and the geometry it follows.

I don't know, Sokol, some people might want to use the stick for space sims with twist, then disable the twist for flight sims.

It's subtle but effective. It helps reduce natural spring oscillations.

This is awesome news for a huge VKB supporter. If they proceed like they have with MCG and create TM and GF versions, the response will be really great!

Awesome, can't wait! If you find a way to eliminate wobble in the throttle you could start a religion.

After years of lousy toebrakes from CH and Saitek, Slaw's pedals were just absolute joy for me. I never would have guessed how much more solid they can make a setup feel.

Google translate makes that very difficult to understand. Without knowing what you want to do, I see that you typed iCommandPlanelaneHookDown; make sure you spell that correctly. I'm guessing it's iCommandPlaneHookDown.

I think it's often viewed that way because the discussion brings a certain amount of morbid enjoyment for hobbyists, who get to view the (often misunderstood) complexities of a fatal accident as interesting trivia or a chance to show off what they know. I don't think that's the intent, but it is the perception.

5-pin is legacy... that's the old Mamba connector. The new stuff use a 3-pin connector.

The only aircraft I know that had the tall canopy breakers like that pic is the F-14D... is this by choice? Are you building an F-14 or an F/A-18 cockpit? To the point, that's not a very clear image, so it's hard to tell what I'm looking at. A little more looking found this image, which definitely shows two switches. I have to say, I have no idea what the second one is for. The Navy's SJU-17 variants can be found on page 2-3 of this Navy AM study guide. http://navybmr.com/study%20material/NAVEDTRA%2014327.pdf Information provided for the F-14D variants 3/A and 4/A describes seat height switches on the aft right of the seat bucket, which matches the information in F-14D NATOPS (2-244) as can be found through a quick google search. Seriously, I have no idea what's up with those two switches, except that you're looking at one set of pictures of an air show mockup, and it could be modified for display. If you find other pictures confirming it in an airplane, then you've got a real puzzler. Otherwise, I think you'd better build your model with one switch. If you're building a Hornet cockpit, there's no question: one switch.

Was that back when they were made of wood? :smilewink:

You've got one thing right for sure... Saitek pedals are utter shit. :D

Not sure what you might be referring to, you've named both switches on the left side. (Actually the harness lock is more like a knob than a switch.) The seat is referred to as the SJU-17 in US service. Let me know if this image doesn't answer your question, or if you have any others. I should be able to answer them.

Simply put, I can't! I own Slaw's RX Vipers, but I have never used Roman's pedals. However, they seem very well-designed and constructed like all his products. I suggest only that the RX Vipers look better, and have the advantage of adjustable spring tension on every axis. They use smooth cams on the toebrakes, and the pedal base (bar) does not rotate with the brake portion, something I consider to be an advantage. This means that you can rest the balls of your feet on the pedals without concern of accidentally moving a brake, and you can even tap a brake with your toe without shifting your foot position. It's a small compliment, but it really is a nice difference from the all-moving pedal type. Really, I think they're both probably excellent. I can tell Baur makes great products by the design and construction. Slaw's work is just a little bit more somehow, I think because he works solely in the rudder pedal domain. Baur products are very utilitarian, Slaw's products are artistically intricate. Pick the one that draws you more, and I don't think you'll be disappointed. A truly solid set of pedals makes a surprisingly big difference.

Don't knock art. :) Slaw's pedals are made artfully, but are hands-down the sturdiest and most over-engineered pedals you can buy. (And the heaviest.) They are unbelievably precise and reliable. You can flex the material used to make Crosswinds, but you can't get a micrometer of wiggle out of Slaw's pedals. They are seriously aircraft-grade stuff. Don't get me wrong, Crosswinds are enthusiast pedals, but they're built with cost in mind. Slaw's pedals are built with absolute perfection in mind. Can't say enough about the guy or his work.

You can get a lot done by bending the rules. :thumbup: Never heard a Brit who didn't brag about beating Americans, it's a natural/healthy competition.