MudMoverGSH

It's F-15.

And on the hardware side, there is the Active Inceptor System as well (active stick and throttle). Per the 2008 ppt("F35 AIS Krumenacker SAE 081016PPT"): Hope some FFB support can be included, at least for the primary mode (the active mode), i.e. high AOA feedback, breakout force, range limiter/travel stop, stick force differences btwn each direction, auto throttle etc. And later, support for the HOTAS characteristic of STOVL, CV if those variants are released in the future. A lot of manufacturers are now developing FFB devices, including VPForce, Winwing, Moza, and FliteSim. Viripil and VKB might also join the battle as well by the time the F-35 is released(Virpil officially says they are working on it but still need quite a while). Additionally, Winwing is working on motorized throttles.

This is not about asking for the Japanese or Israeli version, this is about adding the AG modes that DO exist on the US version, especially since this is meant to be a "full fidelity" module. NO ONE doesn't know that the Charlie is an air superiority fighter. That's not the point. For sure it doesn’t need to be a priority, but I really hope it can be added in the future.. Yes, there is already an E model for bombing, but that E model can pretty much do the AA mission as well. So by the same logic, if I say "why even bother making a C model?", this would make no sense, right? And not to mention the ongoing issues btwn its developer and ED and tbh it doesn't look optimistic. Sure, the USAF doesn't hook bombs on their C (not sure whether their Eagle drivers ever do any AG training tho). But then again, the USAF also doesn’t paint their aircraft in Japanese, Israeli, or Saudi Arabian liveries. So is that a valid excuse to omit those liveries? In a way, it's similar to the reasoning behind implementing features like circuit breakers, failures, backup control system, or even detailed engine/radar/etc physic simulations. Adding AG modes would complete the "full fidelity" promise and create opportunities for more gameplay, like recreating Israeli bombing missions.

And they'll also be the carrier of JASSM iirc, right? Yes, ED, please add AG modes as they exist. After all, this is a "full fidelity" module, right?

IMO, aircraft like this should be introduced as part of a new series and it's welcomed, something like "FC pro", otherwise..

(I created this thread on behalf of my desperate friend whose forum account is still in 24hrs new-user-quarantine thus can't post a thread properly. He'll join in once he's out) Greetings, My quest2 can't launch openxr in MT&ST, my DCS is OB 2.8.8.43704(in release version 2.87.42718, it can't launch openxr in MT&ST either) . When i use" --force_enable_VR --force_OpenXR" with dcs MT shortcut command line. The log said: 2023-08-24 14:24:19.374 ERROR VISUALIZER (Main): OpenXR exception: runtime is not available Source: Projects\Visualizer\Source\OpenXR\openxr_program.cpp:322 But if I use" --force_enable_VR --force_oculus_VR" with MT,dcs can launch in Oculus VR runtime correctly, the log said: 2023-08-24 14:30:47.589 INFO VISUALIZER (Main): LAUNCH IN VR OculusRift: OculusRift: Oculus Rift S I also tried" --force_enable_VR--force_steam_VR" with ST, dcs can launch inOpen VR correctly, the log said: 2023-08-26 02:31:53.535 INFO VISUALIZER (Main): LAUNCH IN VR OpenVR: OpenVR : I also tried in DCS steam verion,it has the same issue. I tried WARTHUNDER,which natively supports openxr, and it can launch in openxr correctly. I think there is something wrong with my openxr setup. Hope you guys have some recommendations, I am out of ideas. My Oculus App Version is 56.0.0.109.155,and already set openxr as active runtime. Openxr tookit v1.3.2 is active. Opencomposite set to openxr. Thanks！ (settings and logs are attached) dcs MT openxr.log dcs MT oculus_VR.log dcs ST steam_VR.log

hmmm,but from a video showing how the real one operates, it seems that it should work just like the one on the 16. https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1Vq4y1m7h1?t=309.9 Also the "POH"(TO 1F-15E-1 1993) doesn't show any "center" position of the wheel, in contrast with the real 18(E)'s manual. (I'm not sure if it's appropriate to post clips of the manuals here so I'd rather not do).

Hi Alpha. Oh yeah, indeed, usually in flight, the manual trim is for "holding" the stick, not necessarily moving it, since in that case the stick is already moved by the pilot's hand to hold a position away from the "absolute center" of the travel in order to maintain a certain attitude. I only have experience IRL on GA planes but it sounds to me that the manual trimming behavior of the stick for the non-full-FBW jets is in a sense similar to the GA one. (IIRC the 18 is different in "normal" mode where there is no trim actuator to hold/move the stick but the trim actuator will kick in once in "backup" mode and it'll behave in the "traditional" way.) And in other words, if you move the trim switch on the ground where the stick force is zero, it will actually move the stick, right? Good point on the trimming vs AP. Never thought about it that way. I think it might be the reason why the engineer usually connects the AP actuator to the stick/yoke while letting the trim actuator move the feel and centering device. I forgot to mention the jetpad/buttkicker in the earlier post. Totally agree with your point on it, as the vibration is from the airframe, not the aerodynamic effects relayed by the stick. Stick with stick shaker on it or buttkicker under it is a more natural way to replicate it. And I think it's better to not only make the stick shaking, but also have the butt kicked via buttkicker and/or jetpad, otherwise it would be very odd.

Quote from TO 1F-15E-1: Longitudinal Trim/Feel System ...The manual trim actuator changes the neutral position of the longitudinal feel spring cartridge to reposition neutral stick position and thus neutral stabilator position. When airborne the flight control system automatically trims the stabilator without affecting stick position to compensate for changes in trim caused by such things as changing speed, operating flaps or speed brake, or store separations... So my understanding is, since the spring is always trying to centering the stick, moving the neutral position will result in moving the stick position? For manual trim of course.

Although as mentioned by others above that the sticks of the Eagles are not like the "conventional" plane such as C172/Warbirds, where the stick force is affected by the changing of airspeed etc, I still think an FFB-base is superior to the spring-base even in this use case for the following reasons: 1. asymmetric stick travel could be easily achieved via the configuration software. Most(?) aircraft have asymmetric travel btwn pitch and roll and even btwn push and pull. You can't emulate that for a spring-base without physically modding it. 2. Although the consumer FFB-bases are as weak as the best spring-bases in terms of stick force, some half-DIY kits can use much stronger motors to provide better if not true-to-life forces. Of course you can buff up springs with mods for the spring-bases but... 3. Of course, you'll need the FFB to simulate the manual trim and T/O Trim etc where the trim actuator moves the stick(or as a result, hold the stick against the unwanted stick force that keeps trying to center it). 4. FFB bases might provide better damper simulation. Some dampening solutions for the spring-bases might introduce unwanted stiction, play and other unwanted side effects, and might require fine-tuning, especially when using heavier springs. 5. For spring-bases, "curves" are determined by the shape of the cams which are almost impossible to change and I believe those currently available are not 100% ideal for simulating the real thing; whereas for FFB-bases, curves/profiles can be easily reprogrammed via software to suit the model you fly. This is especially helpful when you have multiple different types of models to fly, such as FBWer/Warbirds/Helo; swapping btwn them when using a spring-base is a headache. That said, I'm all against ditching HOTAS for old FFBs like those from MS or Logitech when flying modern aircraft. HOTAS is even more important for a realistic experience IMO, especially when lots of "modern" jets themselves mainly rely on spring&cam plus dampers to provide physical feedback. And there are the stick extensions that the old FFBs can't use. Then modern FFBs that can use "HOTAS grips" are the ways to go. But I've heard the Brunner has an aggressive cooling strategy that could ruin the experience of dog fighting, and it's way expensive and IMO overpriced. I'd suggest looking for something like VPForce (Rhino base or DIY motors&PCB kits), LaserWing, or DIY out of some opensource solutions. PS: IIRC, I've read somewhere(either the manual or a book of flight control system) that the contemporary F-14 also features a feel system that only consists of springs, cams, dampers and bobweights; and the hydraulic(hydromechanical?) control system is only 1-way, i.e. doesn't provide any physical feedback from the control surface to the control stick(&rudder pedals).