Berniyh

You mean the Warthog? The Warthog does not trim at all. You can use it with the pseudo-trim function that DCS provides, where you move the joystick to the new trim position and then DCS will remap the axis such that the null position is at the position you selected. Since this happens instantly, you will almost always get a significant wobble in the aircraft, as your input will be changed quickly from out-of-center to center. You can get around it by retrimming very often and only making very small changes, but in the end it's not really a precise system and can be very annoying, especially when resetting the trim. Proper force trim (like you can do with the Brunner) feels much more natural, precise and easier to use. Just level out the aircraft and press trim and your done, the stick will remain at that position.

That's exactly how it works. You don't need FFB for this, it's implemented as hardware trim in the software. You can set two of your joystick buttons to trim set and release and then the software will execute these commands when you press the buttons. The hardware trim will move the null position of the centering forces to the position you're holding at that moment. It is also possible to adjust the trim velocity, meaning how quickly the null position moves to the new location. It can be very smooth (and slow) or it can be more snappy (quick adjustment). I prefer the former, because snappy force changes usually result in position oscillations (because you have to adjust for the change in forces while you're holding the stick), but in the end it's a matter of taste. If you want things like simulation of hydraulic failure, turbulence effects or similar stuff, then you need to wait for DCS FFB support, but for trim, you don't. Edit: should note that DCS does not know that you trimmed, but then that doesn't really matter.

Yeah, I know what you mean, trimming like that feels just weird. And I said that even before ever flying a helicopter with a ffb stick.

That's great news, looking forward to what they will come up with. Their focus seems to be mostly on professional (training) flight simulators, the amateur business seems more like a side thing, tbh. So kind of doubt it that they will be willing to provide discounts. On the plus side, it means they build stuff rather in the durable way (at least that's what it feels like) rather than cheap and unreliable. Oh and it opens some interesting possibilities. Since you can inter-connect multiple FFB units, you can actually create 2-seat setups for pilot and copilot with mirroring sticks or yokes. So in case you happen to have a friend around who is interested in DCS (or other flight sims) as well ... ;)

True, centering (I'd rather continue calling it force trim though) is the one thing you want to have. Fortunately, this is already there, since you can just use the hardware trim functionality, which doesn't require sim support at all. :) tbh, I'm happy with the stick in DCS as is. Sure, it's not perfect, but for me as a helicopter pilot, it's good. @Fusedspine33: the stick gives a good force unless you put a long extension on it (since the force at the end point decreases with increasing handle length for constant torque). For the base + TM grip (without extension), for me the max force is more than I would want to have in a stick for a longer time, meaning it would be tiring. If it is realistic, I can't tell, but that surely depends strongly on the aircraft.

For that you don't really need high forces, I think. 4.2 Nm gives you a good and defined feeling of the forces without requiring you to use immense force to steer the aircraft. As I said, you should be fine, unless you expect to pull on the stick like you're bonkers. ;) The main thing that would be interesting, but is not possible to do with the CLS-E (and I actually checked this with their support) is to simulate a FSSB type stick (e.g. F-16, iirc). With the CLS-P (50 Nm) this is possible, but the CLS-E can't do it or at least not properly. Unfortunately the CLS-P is way too expensive for any home simulator application.

hm, nice work, but is it really worth doing this if there is meant to be support for DCS within this year? Basically you would do this work only to bridge half a year or so. Don't get me wrong, if you enjoy doing this, please proceed. Just want to make sure that you're not wasting your time. ;)

If you want to pull on the stick like you're bonkers (maybe even with both hands, like you see in some action movies), then you won't be happy. But if you just want to fly a helicopter or plane with very high precision, then it is plenty. Since I'm mainly flying helicopters, I've actually set it to even lower forces. Pretty much like people exchange the (often very strong) springs in their joysticks to softer ones to get lower forces and increased precision. And with the Brunner you get really high input precision. In contrast to my previous joysticks I don't even need force trim to properly fly the helicopter, it's more like a nice thing to have that you can actually use force trim to make it more comfortable. With my previous Thrustmaster sticks (ok, these weren't exactly the best, but still …) trimming was not optional, since otherwise I had huge problems, e.g. when trying to land (with the stick being off-center). Personally I also don't feel the need for an extension, it's more like moving the stick with your fingers, like many people actually don't move their mouse with the whole hand and arm, but just move the fingers around to get the movement (I do so as well). And obviously finger movement can be very precise. ;)

So, I received my base today. Content: base, PSU, USB cable and quick start guide If you just want to use it as a joystick, it's pretty much plug&play. Directly available as a normal HID joystick with a medium force profile. There is no noticable stepping effect, it's very smooth, especially around the center. That already is a big upgrade from the (unmodified) Warthog due to the well known problems the Warthog has. The buttons on the stick (Warthog grip in my case) are passed through in the same order as for the Warthog, afaics. I did some initial setting up, but this was only very quick work (maybe 10min in total), so there is a lot of optimization possible. From the default profile, I reduced the overall force a bit (force factor 25 from 10 standard where higher means lower force), reduced hydralics centering from 400 (%?) to 200 on both axis. Also reduced the trim speed, so it doesn't happen so instantaneously. Select hardware trim (since we don't have a connection to the sim) and set one button as trim release (to set the trim) and one as trim reset. Works quite nicely. In DCS I did a short flight in the Huey and while I still have to get used to the (now) lower forces and especially lower resistance, it felt much much better immediately. I felt that I was much more in control of the helicopter and could actually give the (micro) input I want to give. In many cases it's not really like you're really moving the stick but rather that you "think" that you move it in a direction. From what I've read and heard about helicopters, this is pretty much how it's done IRL. I still have to practice, because from the Warthog I got used to do exaggerated movements and corrections (due to the missing smoothness and the relatively high forces required), so I'm overshooting sometimes still, but even in the few minutes I did fly the Huey earlier on, I was improving rapidly. Especially the transition from forward flight to hover seems more natural and easier. So … for the moment I'm a very happy (and proud) owner of the brunner FFB base. Much testing ahead, both in DCS and in XP11. Looking forward to the weekend. :joystick: Edit: the only thing I don't like so far is that the leather covering of the base makes some kind of creaking noise when moved to the right and then forward/backward. Thankfully when concentrating on flying, it's unlikely that you'll notice and at least in a helicopter that kind of movement is uncommon.

The warthog is what I have right now, so it's just the easy choice. Personally, I'm not a big button user. I only use four buttons on the stick anyway (thumb for trim, trigger for radio, pinky for brake (Mi-8R) or sling (Huey) and button right forward for trim reset). Don't really need any of the coolies tbh, I get along just fine. I'm also using the warthog throttle as a collective (in reverse) even though I plan on getting a proper collective from microhelis, but I'm not in a hurry there, since the warthog throttle does a fine job. But again, I only use very few buttons on that throttle, but rather use the clickables in the cockpit where I can. Also, if I asign functions to buttons, I tend to use my Arcaze button box, because I can manipulate the button behavior there, which I can't (at least not without Target, which personally I hate) on the warthog. So … what I wanted to say is that I thought about getting that VPC grip, but since I already have the warthog I'm not in a hurry there. Still can always go in that direction if I want to later on. ;) Sure will. If everything goes according to plan, I will receive it next week. I might have to do the first experiments with very low force though since I have yet to built the mount. Can't use the MonsterTech one because my rig has a different layout and it wouldn't work.

Depends on the extension, I'd say. It won't be able to support a 30-50 cm extension or the forces would be rather low. They also told me that the drives might overheat (might prevent that by setting the max torque a bit lower, e.g. 4 Nm) and that the stick might start shaking (might be able to fix that with a different force profile). If it's just a 10 cm extension, I wouldn't worry too much, since they specifically support the T-50, which is already a quite a bit taller than the Warthog. Personally, I think I will use it as a side-mount base and my Warthog grip, maybe with a 5-10 cm extension, not sure yet. Already ordered the stick, will go on its tour on the 14th. Need to design a mount first, though. ^^

Doubt it. Their yoke isn't much cheaper than that of Brunner.

Yeah, their focus is definitely on professional aviation training. But since I don't have the time to realize the DIY FFB Joystick and an aciant MS FFB stick isn't an option for me, this is the best I could get, even though for DCS it's currently quite limited. The Iris Dynamics looks very interesting as well, but I doubt it will be cheaper, comparing the prices of the corresponding yokes of the two companies. Maybe within 5 years time things will change, we'll see. If I get it (and currently I'm 90% certain that I will), I will of course report back. ;) You might be right about TBS, but I'm a bit sceptical that they can really get many customers for that. Edit: btw, the CSL-P Cyclic looks reeeeeeaaallly sweet. But the price … ouch …

hm, reading this, it seems to me as if trim functionality in DCS should still be available when using "Hardware Trim" together with USB HID functionality. It still won't be a proper FFB stick, but having force trim would still be a major step forward. https://cls2sim.brunner-innovation.swiss/VirtualJoystick.htm https://cls2sim.brunner-innovation.swiss/TrimFunctionality.htm

So I'm thinking about actually getting this base (the CLS-E version. CLS-P is way too expensive) to pair it up with my Warthog stick. Since obviously it doesn't work in FFB mode for DCS yet … can someone say something about using it in plain spring-simulated mode? How about precision around the center (most important thing for Helos)? I plan do to a lot of flying in XP11, so at least there I can then use the FFB of the stick properly and I'd hope that DCS support isn't years away, but we'll see.

This sort of thing takes next to no bandwidth at all, since you only need to send something over the network if something on either side changes, which quite frankly is not very often (in comparison to everything you noted). The only thing that could be bandwidth-heavy are the actual axis controls (since those change their state permanently), but that was not what was discussed in the post that I quoted. And actually sync between the axis controls only makes sence for axis with force feedback, otherwise you have to separate them anyway (and switch on command). FFB is a valid use case, but I think most people would be ok with the first version not implementing control sync via FFB. What are you trying to accomplish? Just silence the discussion? Of course I can't write it myself, because I don't have the current code at my hands. But that's not the point. I was quoting a post by shagrat that didn't talk about code specifics (most likely because he hasn't seen it either) and just was commenting on that in general that it should not be an issue. shagrat talks about this as if DCS were the first game that allows people to play things on the internet, which … well we all know that it's not. Don't get me wrong. Multiplayer over the internet is a huge task and there are significant challenges, some of which are unique to flight sims. But syncing buttons is not a huge task. Even for 500 buttons, we're talking about a few kB/s at maximum if you do it in the very unefficient way to send everything all the time. If you do it efficiently (event based, so only an event for a specific button if the state changed) it's less and non-continuous. If there are setbacks on this topic (which seems to be the case), I seriously doubt they are related to this, but rather that there are other signiificant issues.

All of which has absolutely nothing to do with the problem at hands.

Quite honestly, this can't be that big of a deal. We're racing close to each other in racing sims with only centimeters between the cars online and it is working out. Flipping switches in a flight sim just can't be that big of a deal. The only (and main) issue is what happens if you have opposing inputs on the same function, but that can be circumvented e.g. by defining master controls and slave controls (possibly differently for different parts in the cockpit) + corresponding notification if a mismatch occurs.

I asked them about this and they told me that it is planned to support DCS and also HID FFB. However, their priority is on their professional products, so it's unclear when this is going to happen. Unfortunately, there isn't much news from Iris Dynamics as well, so it's either this one or none, it seems.

That's just not true. graphics is only one part, there is much more to it than that. Vulkan would be a first step, but that's about it. Also, with custom engines it's a major pain in the a**, since you have to take into account many of the things that previously the driver was doing for you. (Same for DX12 btw) 3rd party engines like Unreal engine can do that work for you, but iirc ED use a custom engine.

well … just don't buy a video card from Nvidia. Problem solved. ;)

Yeah, there is. But it's not conclusive either, because it only tells you about the share of Linux (desktop) installations while what you want to know is the number of potential gamers. Not really, I just made a small correction. I totally support your statement that (real) Linux support really should be very very low on the ED TODO list at present. (which given the extensive length of the TODO list is practically the same as to not put it on there at all) All I'm hoping for is that they don't introduce hurdles that make it harder to run the game using wine/Proton and if possible remove those that might be present.

@Micha: I don't think that a virtual machine is the best solution for games, even if you pass through the graphics card. Well yes, but as I said the number is misleading for the reasons I've given. The number of users that want to use Linux for gaming is higher. If you look at Linux on Desktops, you'll commonly find numbers in the 1.x% range. (sometimes higher, depending on the evaluated country etc.) Still low, I know, but higher than 0.5%. ;)

Yes, there's some truth to that. However, it might be a good idea to not introduce barriers and if possible remove old ones. Additional DRM often is a barrier (don't know the situation with the DCS Starforce modules there). Many of the older games work quite fine, if you remove the copy protections, which often make very low-level and weird use of windows functions that are not (and maybe never will be) implemented in wine. Something like Securom or the old Starforce (oh that was soooooo painful …) will never work under wine. Steam DRM should be enough, IMO. (Well, I'd vote for no DRM at all, but I don't think the devs would consider that.) Edit: I should add a note to your claim about the 0.59%. While I'm certain that the number of Linux desktop users is low, it won't be that low. You have to remember what is measured here: It's the number of Steam users using a certain OS. I'm a happy Linux user since 2005 or 2006 on my desktop and I haven't missed Windows a bit since then. However, I'm using Windows to play games, just because the games I want to play (like DCS for instance) don't work or only very badly using Wine. Also, if I'd make use of that it would mean installing Steam using Wine as well and then Steam does not recognize this as a Linux machine but rather Windows (can't tell which version though, might depend on the settings). This changed now with the Proton layer they introduced, because now Steam itself is doing all (or at least most) of the Wine work, so numbers should increase to a more realistic range (maybe around 1-2%, so still low). I'm currently installing Linux on my gaming PC and will test this stuff out and then run everything that runs under Steam/Linux using that and only keep the Windows installation for those games that just won't run. But even the latter is just borrowed time, because this will only work as long as Windows 7 is working for games, because for me Windows is going to stop after that. I won't install Windows 10 on my gaming PC, I just won't (yeah, we can have a lengthy debate about this topic, but I'd rather not …). So don't get me wrong. You're right saying that Linux installations are on low numbers, just not that low. ;)

While I see it the same way as you, just wanted to note that we said exactly the same about Assetto Corsa on the respective forum … until they actually came up with a console version. Thanks, good to know. Since there are more and more hardware driver issues with Windows 7 on newer hardware I will have to move my gaming PC to Linux sooner or later (Windows 10 is not an option) when I perform the next hardware upgrade. As soon as that happens DCS will either run using Wine or it's "Bye Bye DCS" (which would be very unfortunate :(). (My desktop is running Linux since over a decade now, actually without any reinstallation. :))