TX-EcoDragon

Thanks for the info Light_Nazgul One thing I can tell you from my experience with the LogitechG25 wheel is that with software edits to the FFB logic I was able to reduce the deadzone somewhat, but the problem is that you can only do this so much before the FFB forces start to oscillate and fight each other in a not so realistic feeling way. Note that this was in rFactor config files, as well as the realfeel plugin - I found no way to change any of this in the Logitech software. I spent months tweaking the G25 and in the end I reduced the deadzone perhaps 30%, but increased the fighting I would have to do with the wheel near center as the motors would bounce the wheel off the point where the FFB ramps up.

I agree. In general the detents ruin the precision of the wheels near the detent - especially in more realistic sims. Most real aircraft have a visual indicator of the takeoff position of the trim, and they do NOT have detents. After visually aligning the trim with a marker point subsequent adjustments are all made based on need for proper performance/feel. The reason I never both using my X-45 rotaries for trim in most sims is the detents make realistic trimming impossible near the center point of the knob's rotation. Of course some people are using the rotary as a banded axis where true precise control is not a factor, but for any realistic sim, using a rotary like that of the X-45 pretty much ensures a range of trim positions, and therefore flying speed where the aircraft can not be precisely trimmed. . .so for example, if you're flying IFR procedures that's going to suck etc. Not having a detent does mean that simmers would have to visually check trim wheel position before takeoff. . .which would be a realistic thing to have to do. On the G940 I only had one wheel which required any effort to see, and that the one in front of the throttles. As far as I'm concerned the rotaries on the G940 were something they got right. Of course people will have different views on this so the ideal solution is to have it adjustable so that the detent can be used or disabled without major mods needing to be done. . .there's no reason we should have to go with only one vs the other.

I gave that a try and observed no changes to the previous behaviors. Enabling "Control Surfaces" makes it nearly impossible to fly fixed wing aircraft. I could perhaps turn down the forces and crank up the centering spring and perhaps that could work. . .but at this point I think I'm going to go back to the wait and see camp and put that 325 bucks into a couple Pitts flights. . .talk about great force feedback!! Hopefully I'll hear from other users that these issues don't happen on their sample, and can revisit the stick again later on down the road. It's not the axis - the stick responses are exceptionally precise. . .it's the FFB deadzones that ruins the precision.

Well - the new software didn't change the FFB deadzones in RoF or the problems with FSX. . .though it seems Microsoft is to blame for the FSX issues and perhaps with time the dev team at RoF can tweak things for that sim. It seems like the only way to get FSX to be flyable is to enable the Centering Spring and then go into the FSX controls menu and un-tick "Control Surfaces" in the Forces tab. This does seem to eliminate aerodynamic control surface centering and force changes with speed and surface deflection.

Thanks very much for the feedback Mark - that's good news! I'm working with the devs on Rise of Flight for the most part right now, and there are changes coming regularly for FFB code and joystick scaling, trim etc. Hopefully someone at neoqb has a G940 and if these issues are in fact from that sim not having a G940 profile then they will probably get that sorted soon. One of the people I have been testing RoF with and flying with coms has a prototype/pre-release G940 and he has been happy with his. I'm going to try this in a couple other sims shortly. I realized that perhaps the FFB reversal in FSX might be a software thing. If my searches on the web are any indication MSFS has a long history of reversed FFB or perhaps as you said very laggy FFB and in fact there are payware programs to fix it for other sticks which have the same issues. Basically any input you make will be augmented by the FFB so flying without PIOs is dang near impossible. . .basic aircraft control is out of the question when you've got the forces of this thing cranked up. I have not yet enabled the centering spring as I was under the impression it will force center the stick at the mechanical center point and not aerodynamic center as dictated in the sim so aircraft trimspeeds and handling will be impacted from this. I might be mistaken about that, I'll try it too. I'm going to try the new software right now. Thanks again Mark.

It might very well be messed up. . .by all means do your own research and decision making here everyone! If I've got a dud of a stick I'd hate to see people not getting one based on my writing about a single faulty one. That said, I know the deadzone is an issue with the Logitech G25 as well, and it does use the same FFB motors and there's no solution yet for that as far as I know so I'm not sure it's that simple, but if it is - well, maybe I need to replace this one and see. Work is in full swing again so I'll pick another one up in a week or so. As far as reversing forces, I see a newer profiler version out - perhaps it will have the option, or perhaps I'm just not finding it, but the forces tabs do not have an option to reverse them in the profiler, I've looked in the cfg files for FSX, search FLightSim.com forums, and every place I can think of in the profiler and windows game controller menus. . if the option is in another location I've not found it. I've searched the help files with no returns either. I posted on the Logitech blog about FSX and they simply told me the forces work well in FSX so perhaps I need to try that with the month newer software than what came on the CD. I have no software for my MSFFB2, it's just plug and play (I'd really like to boost the FFB strength but finding software that works with this stick has been tough) and the deadzone of the stick is near enough to zero to not be obvious to me.

To answer someone's question about the notchy feel of the MSFFB2: yes the MSFFB2 I have has a little bit of that but it's minimal enough to not impact precision or immersion. . .it's like sand in the mechanism - the G940 is like pebbles. I've only had the MSFFB2 for about a week now (from eBay, it's the model with the silver trigger) and the handle of that stick leaves a lot to be desired IMHO, as does the overall strength of the FFB and the rather short range of motion of the MSFFB 2, but the feel of the FFB itself is smooth and progressive from stop to stop and corner to corner, with a positive but deadzone free centering character which is much like a real aircraft, and that is rare in most PC joysticks in my experience (and I've got quite a collection). As far as if I have a defective one. . .well, I have no idea. . .I've just got this one to look at. I wanted to see a display model but there was none so I just grabbed a box off the shelf. I do have a Logitech G25 wheel which uses the same motors, and it absolutely reminds me of the G940 with respect to the deadzone and the way the FFB ramps up with a slight lag once you hit the point where you're out of the deadzone. Same with the notchy feel. I did't put a protractor up to the stick to measure the deadzone, but I did measure the displacement at the center of the silver hat on the stick at just under an inch moving left to right across the deadzone. In the driving sims the deadzone is not as big an issue to me (though it did bug me and I did spend hours tweaking RealFeel plugins and such to minimize it - which also can cause the FFB to get into an oscillation if the deadzone is too small), neither is the notchy feel - in fact that G25 is really pretty impressive for the price I paid (100 less than the G940) but in an airplane or a helicopter those things just won't cut it. . .at least for joystick snobs like I apparently am. The rudder pedals are simply not well built - the design of the mechanism needs to be reworked IMHO and the plastics used are just too soft and sloppy. I applaud Logitech for being the first to bring us an FFB HOTAS - and really don't want to "bash" a product that caters to serious simmers. . .I'm just telling it like I see it. I think the next version they make could be absolutely awesome with only subtle changes to the stick FFB and if they use some more solid materials in the rudder pedals (yes I'd like to be able to adjust the spacing of the pedals too - but that's probably just a fantasy). Oh and I haven't tried it in BlackShark yet. I did try it in FSX and was dismayed to find the FFB forces are backwards! This seems to be an FSX issue though. The Logitech software really should include some sort of FFB reversal tick box in the profiler (if it does I've not found it yet).

+1 I've got a few copies on the way. . .if we don't support the very few flight sims that come out, especially those that have some real soul, we all lose.

based on the reportedly poor performance of the GTX 260/280 series cards in FSX I have kept my 8800GTS which does well in most applications I run. I've been beta testing a new flight sim and wanted to see how the new video cards would handle so I picked one up. I also did a quick test in BlackShark. Here are the results. Using my previous benchmark settings, but swapping to the GTX 285SC and 185.85 Drivers I see the following performance data ********8800GTS (512) vs GTX 285 SC (1024)******** Windows7 (64) core 0+1 E8400 @ 3.960GHz 2x2Gigs of PC8500 RAM at 1100MHz, 8800GTS (G92) at stock clocks 178.24 drivers vSynch OFF Avg: 58.823 - Min: 32 - Max: 93 Windows7 (64) core 0+1 E8400 @ 3.960GHz 2x2Gigs of PC8500 RAM at 1100MHz GTX 285SC 675 MHz core, 1548 shader clocks, 2538 memory 185.85 WHQL drivers. Avg: 51.018 - Min: 22 - Max: 93 Unfortunately it seems that the GTX 285 is much slower at these settings than even a lowly 880GTS 512 in BlackShark. I lost 7.805 fps average, and worse yet, my minimum fps dropped by 10! The New drivers are supposedly very fast in most modern applications, however they may partially to blame here, but saw similar loses in FSX when running the "faster" card. OK, so it's slower at those settings, but how does the 285 handle when Driver level settings are maxxed out? Windows7 (64) core 0+1 E8400 @ 3.960GHz 2x2Gigs of PC8500 RAM at 1100MHz 16xAA 16xAF, High Quality, no optimizations, GTX 285SC 675 MHz core, 1548 shader clocks, 2538 memory 185.85 WHQL drivers. Avg: 50.796 - Min: 22 - Max: 85 If there is any good news here, it is that turning cranking up the driver level quality to the maximum, and setting AF and AA at 16X has next to no impact on performance. Were it not for the large loss of performance when running the GTX 285 at the lower settings I would possibly conclude that Black Shark is simply CPU limited at 3.96GHz and the video card doesn't matter, but it does as the old 8800 shines at 8XAF/2XAA!

If you are seeing the same fps in XP and Vista/Win7 with multiple cores enable, then something isn't right. I'd guess that you aren't enabling both cores late enough. If you go to the taskmanager while the mission is still loading, even though you will see DCS in the taskmanager, and can enable both cores, it will revert to one core when the mission actually loads. There is a very tangible gain in vista/win7 with both cores enabled. . .in XP it makes nearly no difference at all if you have one core or multiples enabled.

Yes, we all observed this issue in that mission.

Yeah, and the ability to zoom in to the texture level, as in the IL-2 mission builder. As it is the "cartoon" looking map texture coupled with big boxes to represent the object being placed makes it tough to place small objects with any real accuracy without repeatedly test flying the mission to verify placement.

Thanks for the tip, I hadn't noticed that before, but there it is!

You should first just try the "Windows 7 Basic" theme. That said, BlackShark runs fine on my machine with Aero enabled, I wonder if those that can't are running a driver other than the WDDM1.1 nVidia driver that nVidia provided for use in Win 7. FSX will switch the theme to Windows 7 Basic when I launch the sim, and restores Aero when I shut down. I'm assuming that this is since FSX doesn't run in full screen mode until you actually hit fly. . . normally when a 3D application loads in full screen mode, Aero is turned off in the background.

Thanks for posting that. On my machine, Win 7, same settings as my previous 3.6GHz run, I got the following: 2009-01-14 01:42:35 - dcs Avg: 85.027 - Min: 29 - Max: 201 For some reason view control stopped being controlled properly within the recording so I stopped the benchmark at that point. Not sure what that was about. Is it intentional to have the map screen included during playback? Seems strange, that must be where the 201 fps came from. [edit] Oh and Maximus, I can't recall where I read it, but it was a source I thought I could trust who stated that the smoke of the flares was tweaked between the Russian and English release such that it didn't impact the frame rate in the English version nearly as much as the Russian release did. That might not be accurate though!

Post #40 updated with basic XP vs 7 results for FSX: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=615409&postcount=40

I hear ya. . .but I don't have Vista, and when the 7 beta came out, well, I decided I'd pass on buying Vista just for BlackShark! I'm not planning on doing FS9, but I did some testing in FSX, nothing real scientific yet, but overall it plays similarly to how it did on my XP install (so certainly no showstopping performance loss). There is a slight fps boost running the DX10 preview vs not, but it would take a real benchmark to get absolute answers. Certainly it's a lot better than Vista SP1 was, but might not be much/any better than SP2. It also loads much much faster in 7, though I have more addon aircraft and scenery in my xp install. [Edit]: Preliminary XP vs 7 benchmark results in FSX: http://www.txsquadron.com/forum/index.php?topic=2674.0 As far as IL-2, now that I have done. Since we are in the Black Shark Forums I won't post all of that here, but you can see those results here: http://www.txsquadron.com/forum/index.php?topic=2673.msg13688#msg13688 Compare that to the SimHQ OS shootout between Vista and XP - nothing much has changed there: http://www.simhq.com/_technology2/technology_110c.html

Yes, in XP it really only uses one core, not so in Vista/7. As far as differences, well, are you running the Russian version or the English version? Mine is Russian, and I've heard that the English version has different flares and smoke that are much easier on the system. Are you running your machine on XP? Clearly we can't compare 7 or Vista with both cores running to XP. I only did one session of testing at resolutions other than 1920*1200, and while there was not much difference, the averages of course go up at lower resolutions. What about vSynch (most of my runs are with vSynch on which keeps maximum fps from going above ~60, and will also lower overall performance)? Certainly we can be sure that BS scales well with CPU clock speeds so your 4.2 is certainly going to be a bit faster, especially if you reach that magic point where the CPU stops being the bottleneck. At that point, the difference between our video cards will matter! Either way, you can't really compare performance without running the same benchmark. The data from that track is pretty darn different than usual in game performance given the number of objects in the area being so high. I haven't found this "original stress test track" so I used the one I posted, and recorded during the periods I previously mentioned. And no, there is only one track file in that download I linked to, it's called battlebenchmark.trk if you see something else, that's not my link. Just follow that link, enter the 3 letter code that it shows you, wait the 45 or whatever seconds, press "free download" and then the track should download. I don't know how much the video card will change things in BlackShark - I know that in my other sims, anything more than my card doesn't do much for performance, and in FSX, oddly, my card is much faster than the latest cards. Also interesting is that in FSX, adding higher AA settings may actually raise fps in some cases - strange but true. Who knows where BS fits into things.

Did I leave that out??? I'll edit it - mirrors were on for all runs but one (which I probably didn't post) I didn't see any real fps change with them on vs off on my machine, at least when running XP. Also, keep in mind that I'm not comparing 7 to Vista - Vista to 7 gains might be minimal, though from what I've read, it does seem that 7 is much less resource consuming than Vista was.

Great info, thanks for posting!! I have this same issue when running Black Shark in Windows XP using DirectX 9.0c. I'll see if the problem is there in my Windows 7 install using "DX11".

Yes, I have alt tabbed out (in Windows 7 mind you - never tried Vista) while mission loading screens were displayed, and set DCS.exe to all cores, only to have it reset once I'm in the paused cockpit view. I need to aalt tab out once I'm at the pause screen.

Yes, I know I didn't organize everything really well, but I try to specify when vsynch is on or off for each section that is different from the generic settings posted at the start of post 24. Of course if the max fps are 60-62 then chances are it was on. I tried to do runs at most settings with vSynch both on and Off. In sims tearing can be really obvious when looking out through cockpit bars, so I usually keep it on, as do most simmers I know, and yet almost all benchmarking review site don't use it - I understand why they don't, but that does largelly invalidate their testing from an actual gameplay perspective. Flight sims tend to have wild fluctuations in frame rate simply by looking up at the sky above you where they might hit triple digits, or looking at the ground where they might hit 10. The mathematics of this means that the average frame rate may get increased beyond what the user would actually see most of the time (ie it's higher than average) by turning off vynch. Black Shark doesn't seem to do this, but in many sims,I'll get 300 fps looking at the sky. Something like Crysis doesn't do that as much - the user spends most all of the time surrounded by similar scenery, and looking out at a level attitude, and in close proximity to all the 3D objects. . .none of this applies to a flight sim. While the 10 fps will lead to an obvious performance hit, the triple digit fps are transparent to users, and since vSynch can lower the minimum fps on many titles, and not just the max, I think real world testing should have vSynch on. I don't care how many max fps I get, I care about the average, and the minimums. vSynch will decrease performance further than just limiting max fps, so if there are big changes in min fps or much lower average fps then I want to show that. It is based on those numbers that I will set my graphics and system performance, not the max, and ultimately, I did all this testing only for myself to figure out how I want to run Black Shark. I figure that you know that - and were just sharing info with me, which I appreciate. . .but I guess it prompted me to want to explain my reasoning!

OK, I've updated my last post to include the results at 3.96 GHz with Windows 7! I can upload the track I used if you would like to compare to my data. Keep in mind this is just how *I* benchmarked - anyone else's data is from something different. To compare to my data, use FRAPS (etc) to generate benchmark data between the instant the switch is flipped to turn on the helmet mounted sight, and then stop capturing 8:00 minutes later. All settings were posted back in Post 24 for driver level settings and in game settings unless specified changed for an individual run. Here is the trackfile I used: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=VRED889L

I just posted my Windows 7 preliminary benchmark comparisons in the Benchmark thread: It's quite impressive, and worth a look! http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=614161&postcount=28 For details on what settings I was running, see post 24 in that thread.

Windows 7 preliminary testing Windows 7 Preliminary testing in BlackShark has some very interesting results! Remember the run I posted above for 3.06 GHz? Well, no need to go look up there for it. . .here it is: Windows XP E8400 @ 3.06 GHz (speedstep enabled) DX9.0c 2x1Gigs of PC8000 RAM at 850Mhz, 8800GTS (G92) at stock clocks 178.24 drivers Frames: 16232 - Time: 480193ms - Avg: 33.803 - Min: 5 - Max: 61 The following is the same run, but in Windows 7 (64 bit), with DirectX11, all other settings the same ( more than 2 gigs of RAM doesn't appear to make a difference in BS): Windows7 core 0 E8400 @ 3.06 GHz (speedstep enable) D11 2x2gigs PC8500 at 850Mhz, 8800GTS (G92) at stock clocks 178.24 drivers Frames: 13802 - Time: 480225ms - Avg: 28.740 - Min: 7 - Max: 60 So that's not so great. . .at this point it's not looking very good for Windows 7. . .but it's supposed to run like a better version of Vista, which supposedly is strong in Black Shark. . .so what gives? Ahhh, the CPU affinity trick you say?? Well, lets see if that makes up the lost performance! For this run, settings are the same, only I enable both CPU cores in the taskmanager: Windows7 core 0+1 core E8400 @ 3.06 GHz (speedstep enabled) DX11 2x2gigs PC8500 at 850Mhz, 8800GTS (G92) at stock clocks 178.24 drivers Frames: 21729 - Time: 480340ms - Avg: 45.236 - Min: 23 - Max: 62 So umm. . . can you say AWESOME?!??!!!?! Not only did I get the lost performance back, but I set something of a record for this benchmark on my machine! If you take a look at my previously posted Windows XP run at the same settings the best I managed was - Avg: 42.185 - Min: 10 - Max: 62 and that was overclocked to 3.9 GHz!!!!!! Even my runs at 3.960GHz with 2x2Gigs of PC8500 RAM at 1100MHz, only averaged: 44.439fps in XP. . .so simply running Windows 7, and using both CPU cores gave me .8 avg fps better performance at a stock 3.06 Ghz than at nearly 4.0 GHz in 32 bit Windows XP!! I can't wait to see what it does at 3.96 GHz!!! Well, yeah I can, I need to sleep now that it's 6:30 am!!!! :music_whistling: [Edit to add the results from the 3.96 GHz runs] Windows XP 32 E8400 @ 3.960GHz 2x2Gigs of PC8500 RAM at 1100MHz, 8800GTS (G92) at stock clocks vSynch and triple buff on on 178.24 drivers Frames: 21281 - Time: 480107ms - Avg: 44.439 - Min: 10 - Max: 63 Windows7 (64) core 0+1 E8400 @ 3.960GHz 2x2Gigs of PC8500 RAM at 1100MHz, 8800GTS (G92) at stock clocks 178.24 drivers vSynch ON Frames: 26647 - Time: 480074ms - Avg: 55.506 - Min: 27 - Max: 62 Windows7 (64) core 0+1 E8400 @ 3.960GHz 2x2Gigs of PC8500 RAM at 1100MHz, 8800GTS (G92) at stock clocks 178.24 drivers vSynch OFF Frames: 28235 - Time: 479994ms - Avg: 58.823 - Min: 32 - Max: 93 Impressive results no? Under the same conditions I had an increase of 11.1 frames per second better on average when overclocked to 3.96 1100MHz DDR2, and 14.4 frames per second better when vSynch and triple buffering are forced off in the driver control panel (the normal way in which benchmarks are run). Perhaps most impressive is the minimum fps. . .they are almost as good as the average fps at stock clocks!!!! My track really killed the fps in a flew places on XP, but with 7, and both CPU cores, that's gone!!!!! Also, I am using drivers that are not technically compatible with WIndows 7 in the interest of running the same driver as I'd used previously. Next I'll try the driver MS suggests, and perhaps the 185 series beta that shows big gains in many titles.