Raven (Elysian Angel)

Yes it’s still superb fun, and if you’re interested in helicopters there’s plenty of time before DCS 3.0 (the time were issues could arise) to get your money’s worth. The only bug that’s in your face right now is also a very minor one: the calculation for endurance doesn’t display decimal numbers but I for one display the remaining fuel amount all the time (rocker down twice) so that’s not really a problem.

Or open the refuel probe before requesting the refuelling: that depressurises the tanks allowing external tanks to get fuel too. This is still not perfect, as the amount of fuel the external tanks will get greatly depends on how much fuel remains in the internal tanks, but apart from dropping the tanks before landing it’s the best solution - until ED implements a separate slider for external fuel in the rearm/refuel window.

Someone on YouTube cut off a part of the mounting plate to get the pivot point of the Rhino closer: it’s one of the downsides that the Rhino is a bit too far away by default, and the reason I use that Z-extension. The chair is a Monstertech MFC-1, the first iteration so perhaps later versions fixed some of the issues. Also, I checked their website and they seem to have a newer version of the Rhino mounting plate too which allows for some adjustments.

If Microsoft pushes Window 12 in the direction some people seem to think it does, there's going to be an even larger push for Linux in the not-too-distant future. I for one would love to make the switch too, but there are so many other variables than simply 'will my games run at decent framerates' so there's a lot of work to be done to make that a reality.

It's the only DCS module with this behaviour, is it not? I for one always apply brakes gradually (my pedals are brilliant for this) and still have problems staying on centreline even without crosswind.

Same as you - see signature The perceived actual forces are equal in all directions for me too, the way I currently have my profile set up and considering the physical location of my grip and base. I'm not saying it's an issue - just personal preference: I prefer roll forces to be lower than pitch. Originally I had set up my physical hardware similar to where they are in the real cockpit: with the grip further up: that's when you really notice and the relatively high roll forces become annoying. But I regularly tinker with both the physical location of my controls and with software settings, and the changes I made since the module released makes this far less of a bother than it originally was. But I'd still like the roll forces to be a bit lower, especially if it's also like that in the real aircraft. So the request of this thread stands *edit* As a bit of a side note, I'd like to add that I'm really happy we have displaced neutral by default, without the need for a special option (such as the one the F-5 has). I wish more modules had this feature, even those who don't have FFB support (looking at you, Hornet!).

No, my forces are not inverted - but there is indeed a suspicious lack of follow-up posts by other people and I doubt I’m the only one who flies MiG-29 with a FFB base. The issue can be mitigated (not eliminated) by using a dedicated profile just for this one module, but this is generally something I’d like to avoid doing.

Ok, my mistake then…

I don’t remember ever seeing that in the FC version before FF started development

I have my Rhino mounted using the default centre-mount from MonsterTech. That being said, the base is indeed heavy so for a while I used a simple and small but sturdy cardboard box (about 10cm x 10cm x 15cm) as support between the base and the floor. It is completely unnecessary however, as the Monstertech mount by itself is more than sturdy enough and it rests on the floor on the height-adjustable part:

It’s also why a FF and FC level modelling of the very same aircraft can still feel very different even though they both use PFM: the impact of FF system modelling is not to be underestimated

I had to make a different profile especially for MiG-29 as this behaviour would rip the stick out of my hands: it is that violent. So I see the exact same thing you do (as per your video above) even though my physical stick and the virtual stick are indeed connected. I had always heard the real MiG-29 has very strong stick forces so it's not a surprise that my Rhino needed some toning down, or the overheat-protection would turn on even while doing simple free flights and landing practice

Go to external view while it is happening, and you can see why

That only works if both grip and base are VPC. My VPC grip is mounted on a Rhino base and thus the VPC software doesn’t recognise it.

Or read the forum, that works too.

Yes you can tell why they turned it into a carrier capable aircraft: it would be extremely easy to land on a boat, even without HUD

Splendid work!

Yup I’ve been flying MiG-29 with full Russian cockpit as well. The cockpit is easy enough to understand even for people who know nothing about Cyrillic writing.

Perhaps I’m missing something, but which “AP/AJ switch” would that be? The AJ/CAJ switch, which according to the manual provides the same function in the current implementation?

The thread below yours has that information:

Illumination flares

I for one am glad they’re not in the sim: nuclear weapons are pure evil, and far more destructive than conventional knowledge would let you believe: nuclear explosions rip holes in the very fabric of reality… it’s utter madness… I wouldn’t want to see them represented in any video game. I’m very happy we as a society learned enough to move past the dangers they represent Anyway, that’s far beyond the scope of this thread. ED seems to leave to door ajar on this system anyway, as per Wags’ latest video: he said several times Nike Hercules “is not in DCS currently”…

https://forum.dcs.world/forum/63-military-and-aviation/

The Soviets are, as it’s the reason SPO-15 was specifically configured to detect it in the first place