john4pap

Perhaps I didn't get your problem. Aren't your joystick forces centred regardless the trim? Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk

Well I think that was a long time ago; could be even before the release of the f14. The real question should be when they will resume working on the viggen and address all those little things that keep it in EA state. Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk

Interesting you mention single rocket fire as "training rocket mode". Did you find this in the manual or somewhere else? Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk

It's always been like this. If I'm not mistaken a couple of years ago someone from heatblur replied to another thread that they didn't have any FF joystick so they had not tried to/couldn't make it work. I expect this will be implemented once (and if) this plane makes it out of EA. Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk

Same here. Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk

The only other WW2 plane I have is the bf109 and it's nothing close to the spit. I think I use a curvature of 35ish with 5 dead zone for pitch for that one. Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk

May be a long shot, but could it be a problem with your input curve? That you get too enthusiastic when firing and lose some control? I find the Spitfire's pitch being too sensitive for my desktop joystick and the only way to control it is by adding an extreme custom curve without dead zone. It is something like 2-4-6-8-10-12-14-16-18-33-84 (Chief Instructor's suggestion if I'm not mistaken). Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk

I'm also running at over 1080 resolution and it surely got worse lately, even before the colour of dots was changed to white. What used to be the case for me was that I could see contacts as black dots when completely zooming out, but they would disappear in normal zoom. I wouldn't very much mind having a hard time spotting targets if all users with different resolutions should get equal chances (althought, to be honest, flying over the map of Normandy on a scattered 6vs6 isn't realistic already, so spotting targets even with those unrealistic dots is good for having a good time playing). By the way, the size of a pixel isn't a problem. I have a single dead pixel and it cannot be unseen even on 1440px :) Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk

Right. I see your point of view. I think I will try that to see how it feels. Thanks ;) Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk

I tried the new damage model for both the 109 and the Spit today and I know what you mean. Much better on the 109 but I still can't dogfight on that plane anyway. What you said about dead zone in real planes is interesting. I'm not sure if it's true since to my understanding you could feel the forces from the flight surfaces directly on the stick. If so, I think that there wouldn't be any room for dead zone or no-force zone. I have tried adding a tiny bits of dead zone on different planes but can't say I like it. Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk

Right. Well I do hope that this will gradually translate to more competition for FF joysticks on the market since I will not be able to build one myself. Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk

Ah yes I've seen that one. One of the nicest builds I've ever seen. I've always been wondering about these extensions on msff2 though. There's an annoying lack of forces in the middle of the stick. Doesn't that become too apparent when adding an extension? Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk

Well, in a way FF feels great for some aircraft. On WW2 planes you can feel when you need to trim (or adjust yaw) or when your blade is hit or when there's a problem with a flight surface. But it may get difficult in dogfights when the stick is moved from side to side where the curves are pretty steep. It also feels great for helicopters but one cannot use high curves there resulting to somewhat imprecise handling, especially on the Huey. In FBW aircraft like the mirage, FF has pretty much nothing to offer except for the stick shaker, but I can't remember if that's even implemented on the particular aircraft. I like force feedback and I'm not sure how it is to fly without it, but it looks like there's a long way before we get anything marginally affordable. Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk

I've been flying with Microsoft Force Feedback 2 joystic for almost 20 years and it's been my first and only joystick (and in fact I haven't ever tried any other joystics apart from the non-FF Sidewinder owned by a friend). In the last two years I got a Virpil throttle and MFG pedals and I'm now pondering the idea of getting a new joystick from Virpil. The reason is that I now feel that the precision of MSFF2 is relatively low and I have to resort to some extreme custom curves for some planes (especially for the Spitfire and the BF109). I would looking for a desktop solution so I cannot go for the more precise ones with extensions. Has anyone else here moved from MSFF2 to a desktop Virpil? Obviously one looses FF, but does precision compensate for this loss? How does it feel?

Thanks. I did try it again and passed it alright. I'm not sure what went wrong the first time. For sure I landed further away from the helipad than the second time. Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk

While approaching the heliport on one engine I get a second engine failure and crash land a few hundred metres away. I get a mission failure but can't see what I did wrong (it was a quite nice autorotation landing and everyone seems to have survived). Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk

When I hover over the deck of the oil rig where I'm supposed to deliver the cargo I get no voice directions (not helpful for me as I don't speak Russian anyway), the guide box (the green box with the red markings that shows your position in relation to the unloading area) isn't working, and the cargo doesn't unhook automatically. I'm pretty positive that I was on the correct oil rig and that I did everything right, so this may be a bug. I did pass both missions with excellent score but it was pretty difficult having to switch between pilot, engineer and external view while hovering. Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk

Right! Yes, I figured it out eventually and have already completed the first three missions. I think that the word "arrival" confused me. Perhaps you could change it with "return" for morons like me--or whatever. I really enjoyed the first three missions. Thank you!

So, after I start taxing I get an unclear message about going towards the line of red flags (I can't remember the phrasing but it's quite confusing) and joining a parade(!??). Once I park next to the flags nothing happens. What's going on? Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk

According to the instructions given: 1. You have to fly at 3000m with your altimeter set at 760 (if you don't see the indications turn the pressure adjusting knob to the right until you do). 2. After reaching the initial point of the patrol area (at the turn of the river southeast of Kvemo Roka) you are instructed to follow the road to the Roki tunnel (I suppose that is at 42.36.34 44.11.05) and back. This is the patrol path. 3. You have to maintain 3000m of altitude and 150km/h speed during the patrol. 4. You indeed have to listen for the Morse signal. I went up and down the patrol for 45 minutes but nothing happened. Unless I'm missing something obvious, the mission is broken. Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk

Is this mission still working? The only frequency I can sometimes catch on the ARC-UD is on channel 3. Nothing on channel 5.

Just finished the first mission after the third try. I had three issues: The lorry that brings the package at the beginning seems to pass through you and through wolf one (sometimes it does some damage, sometimes not) The cars I was following stopped some half a mile before the bridge and hid themselves in the forest (I didn't cause it by firing at them, the just stopped and hid). I did kill them after letting my gunners shoot through the trees, but this makes no sense. If I'm not mistaken your intention was to have the cars stop near the outpost so that the gunner inspects them after landing on the bridge. I feel that the land - take off - land again sequence on that last bridge was not very clear (perhaps due to the bug (?) I had just encountered with the cars stoping and hiding in the forest?). Well, there will always be bugs, especially for us who run open beta, but it may be worth taking a look on what I pointed out. Ah, and take care of these typos at some point :) Very nice first mission. Long and strict; perfect for the relatively seasoned pilots. Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk

This thread echoes the discussions disputing the Spitfire's realism on take off on the grounds of its difficulty. So, before this escalates into something nasty, as heralded by the first reply to this thread, should smooth-takeoff-disbelievers consider that if some of us can do it, then it is possible? :) What I can add to this is that the statement about opening the throttle gently is a little inaccurate. You have to open it dead slowly so engine torque does not throw you hard to the left before you gain any rudder authority. If you do that, and if you have your tailwheel locked, it's much easier than the spitfire. No toe brakes, no dancing on the pedals. Easy :) Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk

Thanks for your answers. Let me first say that my interest on the subject isn't related to finding a shortcut... rather it is more encyclopedic. I am interested to know how real pilots did it (as part of their training at least) rather than finding a shortcut for more kills :) So let me further explain my question: in the second chapter of the guide, the pilot learns to aim at specific points on his gunsight (virtual circles with the visible circle representing 20 degrees of deflection) in relation to the deflection of the aircraft he is aiming at: In chapter 3, however, which combines what is learnt about range (chapter 1) and deflection (chapter 2), range doesn't seem to play any role at all in the whole process of aiming. In the following picture, taken from chapter 3, range seems to play no role in placing the enemy aircraft at the correct point of the gunsight: Now, I also agree that range should surely be taken into consideration, so I would expect the guide to say something like "what you learnt about deflection works at 200 yards. For 300 yards add 5 degrees" or something... Again, I presume there must be a reason that the pilot could adjust range and base. And, I also presume that adjusting them was related to some method related to aiming (what else?). So I'm wondering what that could be. Or am I missing something else here? .

That's a nice list philstyle, thank you! Well, obviously, I'm not doing calculations while dogfighting, neither do I aspire to be able to do so :D And the point of the aforementioned guide isn't that of making calculations while dogfighting, rather practicing them on paper and applying them instinctively when necessary. So, I'm still interested in finding out an answer to my initial question. I mean there must be a good reason that the pilot could adjust range and base.