Bearfoot

I (now) use the VKB Gunfighter Pro with extension for the stick (previously, TMWH with 20 cm extension), and MFG pedals. I mount the stick using the excellent Monstertech solution, but with custom dimensions to allow for a much greater vertical and horizontal offset: Works like a charm! My chair is a plain old wooden dining chair, with some padding strapped on.

I just use a regular old wooden dining chair with a seat cushion. I have the height of the stick adjusted so that I can rest my arm on my lap and hold the grip comfortably. No problems with full range of motion on any axis. Previously, with the TMWH + extension that I had mounted on a wooden block, it was indeed too low, and this indeed caused issues with forward extension. To the extent that I was considering getting a chair like this to allow for me to seat closer and yet have room for full aft draw: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0002D4QB4/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pd_S_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=29O0QMQ8BLMBG&coliid=I2YO5DMPJMJG4E . Luckily, with the move to the VKB + MonsterTech combo, that was not needed!

Folks, I just posted my first impressions regarding the Monstertech mounts for the VKB over here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3190749&postcount=162 .

So, a while back I ordered a table mount of custom dimensions for my VKB stick. I asked for vertical displacement (as measured from the the table top to the bottom of the VKB Gunfighter base) of 500 mm, and a horizontal displacement (as measured from the front of the vertical post to the front of the VKB base) of 210 mm. This was to accommodate the extension as well as the larger the MCG-Pro grip. I received it a little while back, and thought I would post my impressions. In one word: EXCELLENT. I have to say that the design, workmanship, functioning, and handling are all truly, truly, truly, truly superb! A fitting companion to the VKB. And I was surprised at how much of a difference it made to the handling. I really did not expect that, as my previous base was stable enough (screwed down into a block of wood). I was expecting an advantage in flexibility in terms of height adjustment, but not much else. In fact, I discovered in addition to the flexibility in height, there was something much more natural about the mount play as well as stability: so much nicer in "feel" and, weirdly, it seemed like I had more control (though the latter, in hindsight, is probably attributable to the fine-tuning of height adjustment).

For me, at least, the actual delivery is/was done by USPS. I think DHL hands off the package to them from their regional hub for that final leg to the door. Might be different in different places, I suppose. BTW, in response to your previous request about the timing of the Monstertech order, I ordered mine on May 26, shipped on Jun 27, and received on July 1. HOWEVER, I do not know if this time is very useful to you or generally applicable as this was during the pre-order phase, and, more importantly, I requested some custom dimensions to provide for both a greater vertical as well as a horizontal displacement.

Yep, the "pulling back on stick to take-off" was a very jarring moment for me, too! Put it down to DCS-trained muscle memory saying "NO!!!". Now, I am no expert, but when you have a violent storm system that sinks ships and planes ... what does a helicopter do that makes it your ride of choice for going through said storm?

You guys are all blind. Wake up sheeples! It's obvious! F-16, sure, but that's just a stand in for: "F" = 6th letter of alphabet = 6 So we get 6-16 = -10 Getting excited yet??! Ok, but we are not done yet. So, "Wags" starts with a "W", which is the 23rd letter of the English alphabet, and from this we get 23 - 10 = 13 The 13th letter of the alphabet is "M" .... yes!!!!!! M!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's just too big a coincidence! It's clear that Wags was cryptically telegraphing that we are going to be getting a Mitsubishi A6M Zero!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Remember folks, you heard it here first!

I tried it very briefly, going from 1.0 to 3.0, and could not say I noticed a difference with either the cockpit or landscape (Spit over Normandy). I do have deferred lighting off ... could that be the reason?

I reported this issue on the VKB forums, technical section, over a month ago: http://forum.vkb-sim.pro/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=2662 So far, no response. :( In any case, as I note in the above post, switching to "Expert" mode avoided this problem for me, so try and see if that works for you.

Ah, that makes sense! Thanks for clarifying.

So, bitten by the customization bug, I've been fiddling with the springs etc. Now my current preferred configuration is: #40 (inside) and #20 (outside) on Y-axis; #30 (inside) and #10 (outside) on X-axis. All on 10 cam. Dry clutch to taste. From what I can make out, the number of distinct spring + cam combinations are: (I count the inside/outside track separately because I think it made a difference?) That's a total of 216 possibilities without considering the dry clutch, which, when added, makes things literally infinite! And every combination seems to yield different feel and response. Side note: it seems that with the stronger springs (or maybe it is the double springs) the Y-axis cam has a distinct click as it passes the center position that I did not notice when I just had the single #20 on that axis. Does anyone else notice this?

Thanks, VampireNZ. Your (great) write-up inspired me to add #30 springs to both the roll and pitch axes, joining the default #20 springs. The increased resistance without loss of precision, and not this resistance probably enhances control but feels great!

Thanks!

Just watched a documentary about this ! 'Attacking them when they came into land' came about because the Me-262 engine could not be boosted to full power immediately or even quickly --- it needed to be done very gradually, otherwise bag things would happen -- fire, explosions, badabing badaboom. This meant that after they have slowed down for landing, if attacked they could not re-power up and fly off without definitely exploding into a ball of flame. So they took their chances with the bullets. Talk about a rock and a hard place. Incidentally, the reason for this "feature" of the engine was lack of access to exotic metal alloys out which to build specific parts (e.g. turbine blades, exhaust nozzles?) that could withstand the high temperatures, like chromium (which was only produced by Turkey and was firmly in British hands). The Me-262 was forced to use steel, which needed to be treated very delicately, and even then required complete replacement after 10 flights.

I fly in VR, so I imagine I am at the bottom end of resolution spectrum, and I have to deal with the screen door effect on top of that. I find spotting on Burning Skies fine. I find ID'ing very, very, very, very difficult. As I said in the other post: I accept that that's the cost of doing business. If anyone has any tips on ID'ing, that would be great! With IL2, the distinct wing shapes of Axis vs Allies at a distance helps, plus I think the distance renders are done better --- that is, the distance silhouettes have more detail --- so that I can generally ID. At least, I seem to find it a lot easier. Not saying one is more realistic than the other, or one is better than the other ...

Personally, for me, flying in VR, I think spotting is less of an issue than ID'ing. That's not to say spotting is easy. Just that I generally tend to spot the "dots" satisfactorily enough "for government work", but have to make some really close tracking passes before I can figure out what they are. And then after figuring out they are I: (a) realize I've spent a good 5-10 minutes tracking a good guy or (b) found the bad guy and now am in a terrible position to engage, not to mention there's somebody else shooting at me.

What folks are trying to tell you is that you can do exactly this with (the fantastic) Simple Radio.

Great review! The guy's name is Joe Hudson. You can find a link to many of his review here: https://www.helisimmer.com/author/joe-hudson/ . He has got a written review of the DCS Huey here: https://www.helisimmer.com/reviews/review-belsimtec-uh-1h-for-dcs/ . In the written review, he states: Seems like a really experienced, sharp, and all-round nice guy who not only knows his stuff really well, but also loves it and is great at communicating it! I think we should invite him to join the DCS forums!

And dynamic weight change when loading/unloading troops or cargo (in MP and SP)

Nice. What are your graphics settings to get the sea looking like that?

Sorry you didn't get the memo. But that does not mean it was not there. It was. IIRC the strongest hint was given by a (DCS) press release indicating some sort of add-on stick to tie-in with the DCS F-18 demo at E3, and this came out some two weeks before the event. The reddit group hoggit was all a-flutter about it for a while after that. EDIT: Here you go: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3152953 and /r/hoggit going wild with joy at the inference of the possibility of an F-18 stick addon: Now, you may dispute the parsing of the press release to indicate an F-18 stick was going to be revealed and thus not take it as a hint (I was skeptical, too), but: (a) other people took it as a hint, anyway; and (b) they were right and you would be as wrong as I was. :)

Actually, there were several official hints, clues, suggestions, rumors, "pre-hype" that made many if not most folks think this was coming ...

As I said, you may be right about the this being AI rather than a module. And, yes, you are right about there being delays in updates to RAZBAM's (and other devs) modules (as all effort --- as in all hands on deck, drop everything and do this -- was specifically diverted to preparing for E3). But your assertion that work on a new module will necessarily result in delays in existing modules is ... ... Well, why bother with this line of discussion, right? I mean, sure the developers themselves have said otherwise, describing how their work organization actually makes it more efficient to work on multiple modules simultaneously without one adversely affecting the other. But apart that first-hand evidence from people actually working on the product, I guess it makes more sense to go with what your gut tells you.

Bigger realities: you do not develop flight sims. You may understand the general principles of division of labor, schedules and development pipelines etc. etc. etc., but you have no clue how it works in a third-party shop developing for ED. None at all. I actually develop software myself. Guess what? I'll freely admit that would I too would be totally off base have on how ED or their third-party partners organize dtheir work if I were to extrapolate on my personal experience. But guess what? If you make an effort to actually LISTEN to what they say (or READ what they write), you would realize that your speculation that work on a helo module would result in slow downs on other modules is fundamentally wrong. That, my friend, is the most bigly reality for you :) EDIT: as for "much being built on top of avionics and FM", as the community A4 project, the Tu-22 project, Upuat's Bell 47 etc. all demonstrate, you can go pretty far with just the SFM and off the shelf components. Sure, once all that is done and time comes for the FM, that bottleneck may be an issue. But hey, that's 1,2,5? years down the road? And by that time, the bottleneck may not be a bottleneck anymore. Or all the current active aircraft have cleared that hurdle so it's now this guy's turn? See, no delay ...

.... says some random guy on the internet who really has NO idea, not a smidgen of a clue, of the work, workload, division of labor, organization of said labor, development pipelines OR schedules of the task. "Naaah, you're wrong. They'll be able to do it if they want", says some other random guy (me) on the internet who really has NO idea, not a smidgen of a clue, of the work, workload, division of labor, organization of said labor, development pipelines OR schedules of the task. EDIT: you may be right about those components being stumbling block ... but that does not mean they are going say, "oh, a bottleneck in the pipeline! dammit, we can't do a helicopter" are they? They may still get the low-hanging fruit first to keep their, e.g., 3D model people busy while other aircraft have the FM/avionics worked on, and just cross that bridge when they come to it, even if that bridge is 4-5 years down the line. EDIT2: and again, I am not saying you wrong about the AI thing. Just that the argument you are trotting out is a tired old one that has been explicitly discredited by developers who actually work on these things.