sk000tch

None of that happens in real time, MSI trackfiles are always estimates (actually, all are). Not because the Hornet’s MC can’t do trig, but rather the frequency of update can vary significantly based on circumstance. MC builds a trackfile as data is provided, but unless you are STT, every contact is aged to some extent. In some cases this is a few seconds, if multiple donors are tracking. If just one donor, perhaps with a 6 bar 140 degree interleaved RWS sweep, it might be a while between updates. . In others cases even if datalink is working perfectly (some lag is modeled, but I think it’s just a fixed amount), awacs takes a full 10-seconds to spin that dome, that’s a lot of time with abc of 1000kts and potentially maneuvering. I don’t remember the exact context but did post some related info earlier in this thread about the topic here

More likely the next version of DCS. We aren't getting big gpu upgrades for another year, yet last I heard they had the DX11 -> vulkan engine was done, and they were on to textures and shaders, likely reexporting objects, etc. We know they are doing a lot of mesh work. I have no idea what micropost is up to, but we can be guaranteed MSFT sim is DX12. Both APIs are in their toddler stage (at best), and MSFT will usrelye have more resources, but there is a reason the sim community is favoring vulkan over dx12 thus far. Its demonstrated much improved efficiently in high object court and/or high light source count renders, both of which flight sims with long view distances create. We don't know about what they are choosing to include from the basket of goodies RTX and Vulkan provide. There are some interesting anecdotes -- Outside of games, ray tracing is already used to simulate radar - particularly imagine radar. RTX ray tracing pipeline though new, evidently works quite well with Vulkan. DCS currently is not very good drawing geometry for distant objects. Don't be surprised if we suddenly see rapid work on hornet Air to Ground radar after 3.0? releases. A few things we do know is that we will be less CPU bound. Vulkan doesn't have the driver overhead, and allows developer control/access to physical cores. People have been asking for better multi core performance for a long time, now they will have it, and dev's won't be petrified to use a few cycles on weather or ATC. We also don't know much turing specific tech they will utilize. RT core provides real time, which is cool. There are more advanced anti aliasing tools available, that do not require the brute force of MSAA. Not just tensor core DLSS stuff, but other tech like variable rate shading is a big deal for sims, where again, millions of objects over long distances are drawn. VRS is also precursor tech to foveated rendering, something we all look forward to in the future. As with everything vulkan we've seen it will come down to implementation by the devs but given 1) we aren't getting more GPU HP for a while, 2) we are at the limit of what we can do in DX11, and 3) DCS probably has a higher percentage of their users on turing vs. pascal than almost any other game, but even under pascal, Vulkan should yield significant VR performance improvement. An update would be nice, it would be a nice xmas gift though that's probably optimistic. 1Q probably isn't, however.

Huh? :confused: I went down to try it out but quickly back to 120hz. I’ve grown accustomed to the smoothness, and also move my head a lot while flying. Not just dogfighting, scanning for traffic and such is hard ha it to break (even if I wanted to) Fortunately I am able to hold 60fps with msaa x2, but I can’t maintain 60 in multi with shadows/water/textures at high, ground shadows flat, and view distance at extreme - much less extreme modified to render objects closer, with SS values at 130 global 120 local (Pd=1). Bit irritating, I’m like 99% of the way there, I just don’t quite have enough machine to draw it that fast...

I'm assuming by the question you aren't looking for the complicated answer or a bunch of acronyms; but fyi f-pole is unrelated, To answer your question a little radar theory is necessary, I am simplifying this so just realize there's more to it. The AA radar we use exploit the fact that intercept targets are generally traveling at a high rate of speed. If the emitter is above you (thus the picture of you it takes has a background with ground rather than air), the radar must filter out ground clutter. The simple explanation for this is that objects moving within a certain band (there are angular variations and myriad complexities but again, simple), defined by the speed of the emitter/bandit, is filtered out. So if the bandit is doing 500 kts, the ground is moving at 500 kts relative to the radar right? Unfortunately, fighter combat is all geometry, so there's a couple concepts that are unavoidably methy. You're going to hear/read different ways to describe the relative position of aircraft. Target Aspect is particularly important, and is defined as the position of your aircraft in degrees from the bandits tail. Head on its 180, if you're on his six its zeo. Angle Off or Angle Of Tail is similar, but more useful for weapons employment. AOT is the angular position of your fuselage to the bandits tail (usually in a pursuit scenario where you are hot). The difference is that if you turn, aspect doesn't change, but AOT does. AOT directly affects whether the bandit is within your weapons envelope. There are a couple dozen terms to describe geometry, many of which are confusing; but bandit bearing is the simplest of all. It is the bearing to the bandit if you look up and out the window. It is independent of your heading or the bandit's heading, just what what directly do you have to look to see him. So if you are head on and turn 90 degrees, bandit bearing with move from 12 o'clock to 3/9. You're now beaming. Note that Target Aspect hasn't changed, just your heading relative to the bandits position. You were hot (11-1), and you turned to beam (3/9). If you continued that turn to put the bandit aft of your 4 or 8 o'clock, now your dragging. The area between hot and beam is flanking, but more on that later. Beaming a radar is a defensive maneuver used to evade radar lock. If you are told to jump in his notch, turn to beam. The idea is to hide in the doppler clutter notch. Note that vertical separation is important here, this won't work well if you're at 40k and attacker is at 25k (remember the background). (Vertical separation is another concept that matters). Cranking is different. Cranking minimizes the bandit's weapon envelope and slows closure. It is turning to flank after employment, putting your radar at or near its gimbal limit. It's a simple concept 1v1, just shoot and turn. In section BVR with follow on groups it gets a lot more interesting. But again, 1v1, all we are talking about is shooting then turning to gimbal limit to slow closure and manage enemy WEZ. After you crank is the more challenging part. It is not always easy to tell if you are winning or losing. A good hint is whether you're locked up or not (if in a flight and your wingman is 10kft below you headed in the opposite direction that is also a bad sign). Conversely, if the bandit is dragging you and causing you to turn hot to maintain lock, its a pretty good sign you are winning... just watch for the SAM trap.

Having argued this topic extensively (with Aurelius) I agree wholeheartedly with Aurelius.

What are your full settings wicked? We have nearly identical hardware and while I am happy with my setting, I run 60fps for 120hz, and as a result less supersampling. I'd like to compare.

Indeed, very nice panel

Ya, you guys with painstakingly built pits have a different dlema than someone starting from scratch. I don’t feel too bad for ya though!

Viper is going to get everything faster, hornet has lots of first time tech for any module, systems are so similar that Viper will benefit greatly in shorter development. Fcls in public domain doesn't hurt either Bold prediction: neither has usable DBS/SAR (and perhaps other AG radar functions) until after vulkan

Last thing I want is to revive this, but i'm not sure what you're referring to. I said relative value (as opposed to absolute), which in this case means viewing the attractiveness of an asset by comparing to similar assets. In this specific case, the absolute vs. relative distinction however was based on value in the sense of an asset that provides a lot of utility for the cost. As I said, I understand when someone has the opinion that Index doesn't not provide enough additional utility for the additional cost, that's their personal value judgment. Where we went astray was your repeated statements that on an absolute basis (disregarding any value calculation), that Rift S was better. E.g., that if the M5 and Honda were the same price, the Honda was superior. I would never disparage someone's value judgment, we all have different resources, responsibilities and preferences. I'm not a (street) car guy, so I would not agree with your friend's choice. But god damn I have some vices of my own. It started with Warbirds, a simple Stearman, business was good so then it was a T-6, then a P-40, then a bunch of TF-51 time to trying to earn a type rating for P-51. I love taildraggers with big radials, so much so that I eventually bought one. A few years later I met a guy, he liked Russian planes too... so we made a little trade. That was my first exposure to the Albatros, and a month later I flew down to spend a week earning my type cert. Jesus, the gas alone... but what a blast. That buzz wore off though, so then what? Mig-15? meh... F-4? Too rich for my blood. Currently considering the F-104, but you can't earn a rating and your on a tight leash... but it's an F-104. I'm also drooling over a 330SC and getting serious about unlimited comp, but I don't really want to give up the 2nd seat. Kids are definitely against that choice, they want a bigger wakeboard boat that will wakesurf. Really need a new dock though, mine's a little long in the tooth. My point isn't to tell my life story here, people can choose to do what they want with their time and money so long as they aren't hurting anyone else. A lot of people (my ex-wife included) would view the amount of money I've spent on aviation adventures as absurd, but it's one of the things I like. Your buddy likes BMWs. It's not really anyone's business how someone else chooses to spend their resources. Yet that really seems to be the poorly hidden thrux of your argument. Yesterday went from making a list proclaim rift S as "the best headset," then this thread that started w/ the same, and has slowly backtracked into "only slightly better," and variations on "not better enough to justify the cost." Those are value judgments, and while you might like BMWs about as much as my ex-wife likes warbirds, it's not really your call. "I tried both side by side, and to me the improved visual clarity/uniformity of clarity/refresh rate/tracking quality/FOV/Controllers/audio/comfort weren't worth the $600" would be a fair statement. But instead we get grandma rules, and unsubstantiated statistics of how nobody puts on an index and is like OMG this is so much better than rift. Which is really weird, because that's what I did, and what most people seem to do. I linked to several similar statements and video in my previous post. Another fair argument is that DCS levels the playing field a bit for certain hardware scenarios, but that proper tuning usually addresses that. I suppose your "it just works" is sorta the redneck nephew of that argument, it does take a little more learning and knowledge to get the most out of Index, such is the cost of options and customizability. VKB is more difficult to setup than a warthog, etc. You were also correct in that steam doesn't come with a manual, lots of users have no idea what advanced settings or fpsVR are. And those are 3rd party, couple days ago one guy was complaining about LH noise when he was working. Learning about 1 checkbox in settings turned him from "I'm returning this POS" to OMG THANKS BEST EVER. There are a lot of users with setup issues for sure, especially in DCS. Anyway, I should have left your question alone. I really didn't want to rekindle this, but didn't want to leave it hanging. I'm going to go burn some avgas and come back, pay my penance by helping people get their settings right. Have fun w/ the rest of your crusade

You posted this while I was responding, but you've argued the point more effectively than I ever could. Funny how a single comment can clear the fog of war, and shed so much light on the otherwise obscured personality on the opposite side of an internet argument. Whereas most here would suggest a test drive, see what OP prefers. You passionately argue, mostly by fallacy, that the Accord is better on an absolute (not value relative) basis in all but the smallest of circumstances. My question is why? Every single post you've made (slight exaggeration) in the last several months is rift s/index stuff. Do you fly too or just go door to door spreading the rift gospel?

Aurelius I was merely observing the wide variety of opinions, and suggesting OP consider that variance when reading people's (often oddly passionate and biased) opinions. Ironically I am an engineer as well. Well technically at least, I’ve never actually worked as an one, much less been a professor such as yourself, but my undergad was Aero/Astro E. (I like planes ;) ). While I’m not a practicing engineer, I’ve run companies with lots of them, and your requirement that "30 or so average intelligent grandmothers (IQ 95 to 105) who are 60 to 75 years and who don't have dementia... must be able to read, set up and understand in 30 minutes" rule of yours sounds like advice I’d give to a junior college technical writing class, it is absolutely the last thing I would ever say to a development team tasked with innovating new and emerging technologies like VR. I gave you the benefit of the doubt before to illustrate the subjective quality of VR experiences, to suggest OP make up his own mind. Increasingly, however, you seem biased. You seem to show up wherever rift s is discussed, making the same strawman argument. Valve was transparent that Index was not a mass market device. They made no apologies for the price, and built the best device they could (within reason). Whether you like the Index or not you should be glad they did. When Iribe left FB stating he wasn't interested in a race to to the bottom, with HTC lost in the fog and MS still herding cats, it looked like VR was destined to stagnate. Even if I didn't own an Index I'd be glad that at least one company is driving innovation and fostering an open platform. Your "it just works" argument is nonsense, this isn't about iPhones. Rift S doesn't just work if I put my hands at my side. It doesn't work if next time I want to buy a WMR device but can't play my games. It doesn't work if I'm a developer and I don't want to co-develop for Quest. More importantly, you can't lose a race you aren't running. That wasn't valve's design criteria. RoadToVR summed it up nicely:, "The Valve Index headset is more expensive and less user-friendly than its nearest competitor, the Oculus Rift S, but the experience it offers is the clear choice for VR enthusiasts..." Most grandmothers with IQs 95 to 105 who are 60 to 75 years and who don't have dementia aren't VR enthusiast. I'm sure there are exceptions, but fair to say they are targeting a different market. Speaking of iphones though, last week my dad hit the emergency function on his iphone and I got alerts all day long every day he moved 20 ft updating his position. I called him repeatedly but he didn't answer. The phone works fine, but he's retired and the kids don't call enough, so he's not used to it ringing so always leaving it in the car, muted, etc. Grandpa is in the late majority. He doesn't see any value in upgrading his iPhone 8, his wifi network name is Xfinity11454, and while he thinks its pretty cool when I showed him, he sure as heck isn't buying a HMD. If he does it will be a black friday $99 WMR to disappoint one of my spoiled kids. And, for what its worth, he's had that iphone 8 for like 6-years and still doesn't understand it. So much for the grandma rule... Evaluating Index against that same criteria is asinine. If you are going to be biased, at least formulate something more persuasive than the grandma test. Fortunately, despite being around product development, aerospace, and other technology my whole life I have never heard of your "grandma rule." For that I am glad, as I can't imagine how different the world would be. I wouldn’t have a custom loop 9900k stable at 5.3 or a 2080ti that I had to disassemble, with no real directions, to install a HC block. I wouldn’t have a hotas that requires removing cams, changing springs and adjusting damping. I wouldn't have modified it to my preference or built botton boxes to provide additional tactile controls for VR. I wouldn’t have a beta access or any early access modules for that matter, as they certainly don't "just work." And that's just DCS... in RL I wouldn't even know where to begin, but I probably wouldn’t have pants without elastic or shoes without velcro, much less a plane certified to +/-12G. Even more fundamentally your premise is based that Oculus "just works" and Steam does not fails. It's almost as if we have never seen a closed ecosystem before, where a dominant company with disparate resources invests capital to develop proprietary titles to strengthen network effects, locking in customers and stifling innovation. It's almost like FB didn't acquire Oculus to compete apples to apples in an open market. VR is subjective, on that we agree. Your opinion that Rift s' single 1440p 80z panel, small FOV, lack of IPD adjustment is superior to canted dual displays at 1600p, 144hz, superior build quality, tracking, audio, controllers is not consistent with mine, nor the myriad reviews proclaiming Index as "Next Level VR," "The Enthusiasts Choice," "The New Bar for VR Headsets," or "the DLSR to the Oculus Rift S Point and Shoot," But, I have seen enough people express that hey are happy with their Rifts that I encourage everyone who asks to try the devices and see what they like, just as I urged OP to conduct his own analysis. That saida, every time I've ever demo'd Index to someone, their opinion was . I do it because despite the proliferation of DSLRs and camera phones, there is still a market for point and shoot cameras. Not because they take better pictures... but rather, as you say, so that "average intelligent grandmothers (IQ 95 to 105) who are 60 to 75 years and who don't have dementia" don't go around sending emergency alerts all day.

I agree with this completely. I bought a rift S while I waited on Index to ship and thought it was a downgrade for flight sims from modded O+, and was furious with FB for pulling a 180 on direction of the company I completely disagree with this, i've had all three, and vastly prefer the index. But you shouldn't listen to me, or anyone else, if you can help it. Here's the thing... VR is completely subjective. Specifications provide some insight into what you're getting, but if you can, you've really got to find someone and try it out. I have a borrowed reverb here right now along with my index, and prefer the index by a significant margin. I could go on about why, but it doesnt' really matter (check post history if curious). I frankly have no idea how Aurelius could have his opinion but he does, I used to think people that liked rift S didn't have the $ or the GPU to run a reverb/index, but as i've seen more and more opinions that echo similar thoughts, from people with good hardware, that's clearly not the case. Other people i'm sure will warn you about ipd, build quality, walled gardens and the rest, as a 2,000hr pilot who competes and teaches aerobatics I'm a huge fan of peripheral vision, constantly pounding students to keep their head up outside the cockpit and not fixate on instruments (or reverb's little sweet spot). I don't even know what to say about rift S. Tiny FOV, poor resolution, less hz, feels like a kids' toy... I was pissed. I kickstarted and wanted half dome, ended up with something that feels like those cheap plastic deals you put your phone in, but friggin jokes on me b/c Aurelius and greasy taco are stoked for $600 less. Maybe best example is support. Reddit has story after story of "Unbelievable customer support," Valve going way above and beyond, but taco guy obviously had a very different experience. I mean, Valve vs. facebook is an easy call for me but others very clearly feel differently. I don't know what is is, different IPDs,different settings, different head shapes, different intra cranial corneal synapse latency...on paper it doesn't make sense at all, reviews say the same thing, but there's ample anecdotal evidence of people with completely valid contrary opinions (there's plenty of ridiculous as well, e.g. complaining about the 30 seconds it takes to set up LH vs the significant tracking difference). At the end of the day, the only reasonable conclusion is that you really need to try before you buy if its at all possible. Ask your friends, post on FB, offer $20 on craigslist or something. You're welcome to try mine, i'll even throw in an acro lesson. But for god sakes, don't' spend a grand based on a forum recommendation.

Ahh sorry, I apologize to every danish person I wrongfully accused/credited/associated, it was in fact a Dutch f-16. As a less than average ignorant American I promise to determine the difference today as well

To be fair that's a pretty big difference,, 68's are itty bitty next to a 63/70. A Danish f-16 had a mig-29 kill with a slammer I think that same day,and once the BUFFs were cleared in a US 16 got one of their last 29s with a 120, which was right around the same time of that infamous 16 SAM hit. No idea if either were TWS

Ya... my issue is changing boards. In addition to the pain in the butt, you've got the added expense. And to do it right, you'd need side panels, as that's really where the majority of switches and rotaries are. I'm still contemplating, before I got sidetracked with some work I started to make a spreadsheet with controls I'd want for each module, assigning them to four zones (left, left front panel, right front panel, right), to see how much overlap there is. Once you get past a certain point how much utility per $ and time are you getting vs. something like a realsimulator FSSB for the upcoming viper? Or a custom throttletech w/ hall sensors and a force sensing slew? Or a collective (as a helo pilot, throttle as collective drives me nuts) So, speaking from person experience, you get a few hundred hours in type and you are not looking down at switches.

This is my plan as well, the idea being a common universal module, so to speak, utilizing 3 cougar MFDs in the f/a18 orientation, a 24 key programmable keypad in the middle of the top two to simulate UFCs, then two button boxes on either side of the lower of the lower with a TBD layout of 2 & 3-ways, rotaries and momentary/push buttons, for common functions like gear, radios, tailhook, antiskid, lights, engine controls, fuel mgmt, probe, jettison, etc. I have a small no-num pad keyboard and a 10" monitor I intend to have on a vesa arm when I need to back out to windows or other various tasks without having to get out of the pit. It is definitely not the same level of "immersion," but what breaks immersion more than anything for me is frustratingly not remembering some random keybind and feeling around my keyboard. I admire the painstaking detail people here put into their pits but that's not me, I fly a lot IRL, I don't need the 1:1, I just want precise controls and the ability to quickly perform whatever function I am trying to do without taking the HMD off or feeling around for keys. My hope is that, as you say, muscle memory will kick in and I won't get confused by conflicting visual reference of what I'm seeing and where the actual switch is. I feel like well reasoned design is the key here, I like to fly a lot of modules so deciding on a layout that works for the Ka50, f18, a-10, etc, is easier said than done. There aren't THAT many things that need independent switches after the MFDs, UFC/Numpad and Hotas controls; but while it would be easy enough to come up with a common layout for Viper and Hornet, perhpas Hog, start throwing the ka-50, F-14, harrier, etc in there the overlap gets smaller and smaller.

Sorry didn't see this. So I have tinkered to no end, and am relatively happy with where I have things. Its biased toward jets but soft enough for helos. The one thing I don't particularly like, which is common among all gimbals unless you dial in more damping, is that if I let go the stick it will wobble back and forth. That's a very unrealistic behavior but in practice its not an issue as I don't let go the stick very often. Like I said I fly a center stick almost daily in RL so I am OCD about this topic. It's a pretty heavy throw that requires fast/delibate inputs, so I like my VKB to be as close as possible. I almost worry that I will break my gunfighter at times, but thus far its held up. I have the long curved extension, 10 cam (no center), with, iirc, 50+40 springs on pitch and 50+20 roll, with just a smidge of damping (basically just where it engages). At one point I had the 30 cams on pitch but didn't like it. I also tried to dampen out the oscillation but I don't like the tradeoff in feel. One thing that did help was that I polished the cam surfaces with an very fine polish/high RPM and applied a silicone lubricant. It was fine as it there was just a little rough spot from the chrome plating process I could feel. fwiw, getting your cams/springs the way you like is important, but the one thing I see people mess up in their setups is position of the grip. I think it's more important than VKB vs. Virpil decision honestly, as both are high quality. Most people have their grips up way too high, even in some sig rigs. If you can set it up where you are not supporting your arm out in front of your body with your shoulder so that you are able to rest your forearm on your thigh for formation/refuel or long cruise, it will improve your flying. If you have to modify your grip slightly to drop your elbow that's fine. Full deflection should have your upper arm about parallel with your torso. We don't push much in fighters so its less important, but you shouldn't have to reach. Besides preventing fatigue it provides more precise control while formation flying/refueling, or even just holding bank. Your leg stabilizes your arm, and in turn your hand. My stick is a little different and I can lower my hand position on the grip and just use my fingertips for precise inputs, with my arm stabilized by my leg. It’s analogous to being precise with a long pole vs your fingers with you palm supported on a table. A lot of pilots will touch side of cockpit with a finger or two on throttle hand, its sort of like a reference point for how much you're moving the control. Your leg is the same for stick. I am in the process still of building my rig but I picked up a poly race seat and used a jig saw to make a cutout for stick. Local tailor who does my suits said she could modify the vinyl and put a velco fabric cover like in the linked pic for $50. Note the pic there's a bit of an optical illusion re stick height because the weight of ailerons has it full forward pic: https://imgur.com/SxMGeS2

I'm not sure what he's referring to as "break lock" isn't very precise (does he mean exit STT or clear L&s?), but DCS Hornet is in a very weird WIP state. It's not representative of how it will work, particularly the undesignate button. There's a thread in f-18 forums where I explained much of it (air to air radar or similar title). But, while Return To Search is a single button press, and will back out of STT, AACQ, ACM, and expanded or special modes like flood, spotlight, it won't clear target designations. If you have a l&s target undesignate will step l&s through ranked track files. To actually clear all designations you do have to go hands off. You can do it with hotas different ways but does probably require 4-5 button presses- maybe that's what he was referring to? Was wondering the same but I was already sounding like a dick :)

Not to nitpick but it does actually mean that thrust > weight at sea level, but you are correct in that it does not consider drag. And given the rate at which thrust decreases with density, the party wouldn't last long. That's interesting, I don't personally know anyone that has flow both but have several friends that have one or the other. The consensus seems to be f/a-18 in a fight, f-16 for fun. Performance is fun, but avionics + HOBS/nose authority make things blow up. Don't shoot the messenger, i'll be flying both - but in this case I am just regurgitating hanger BS.

Apologies if I wasn't clear on that, as Santi871 said, bump acq is not in game yet. Neither, for that matter, is most of the functionality associated with the undesignate button. I think its close given the addition of ranked trackfiles, but its not here yet. Those functions are why I am stressing the formal process I am. The undesignate button controls L&S targeting functions, or at least it will, reducing the frequency of slew + TDC depress. Once implemented, if no L&S exist, undesignate button will make the highest ranked MSI Trackfile the L&S target; if L&S exists but no DT2 exists, undesignate will step L&S through ranked trackfiles; and if both L&S and DT2 exist, undesignate will swap the two. When you add in the acquisition modes we've been discussing, you can start to see how effective the systems are in terms of quickly acquiring and engaging targets without ever touching slew (which is quite slow). The other big thing that I imagine will be added soon are the hotas functions for changing DDI screens without dealing with the SUPT/TAC PB tree, scan centering, mode changes, etc. When that is all added (including TWS), she will be a very different beast.

I have. T50, warBRD and gunfighter mk ii w/ mcg right here, all are good bits of kit, but they are suitable to different purposes. FWIW I don’t have the new cm2, and have heard good things. WarBRD vs gunfighter - this isn’t a competition in quality or feel. Gunfighter blows it away. WarBRD is very good for non extended desktop solutions however. It’s angular deflection is much, much higher than either of the others. If doesn’t take extensions well. If you intend to use an extension, this is the last one I would recommend (I’d even recommend a WH over WarBRD) The warBDD is fantastic as a WH upgrade for deskmount/desktop applications (no extension). For extended center mounts is much prefer the VKB. Overall build quality is better, objectively speaking just the way things are construction,.little things like PCB attachment, solder quality, materials like plating process for cams, the range of tuning options. Again, I haven’t tried the cm2, I have heards Virgil has improved it. I am hyper anal about stick feel. I fly a center stick IRL daily, and I really dislike the artificial feel of springs. I want progressive deflection forces (ideally this would vary with speed/G, but neither can do this), a discernible but not hard center, a stick that barely self centers roll axis (certainly that doesn’t oscillate back and forth if let go), with stronger centering force on pitch to wherever it’s trimmed to. VKB can do most of this, and has the added benefit of a curved extension, making it much more suitable for center/floor mount without requiring seat cutout. Software is another consideration where VKB clearly wins. For example, it is no problem to configure the analogue stick on the mcg grip to work both as a mini stick (that is much more precise than delta sim upgraded WH), but also to trigger a virtual button press when pushed 50% (or whatever you choose) in any direction. So for some modules it’s a slew, others it is TMS (a-19), with a no changes required. Brake level is the same way. It’s an analogue axis on mcg pro, AOA it’s wheel brakes on ka-50, or, if pulled 75%, AP disconnect/oride in f18. Again, I haven’t tried the Cm2, so I will defer to others. But if you want floor mount extension having tried/owning almost all options discussed here the VKB is superior by a wide margin in my opinion. My only caution would be that as you get into higher level gear, VKB even more so, realize it’s not a thrustmaster plug and play device. You need to be somewhat comfortable taking things apart, tinkering, etc

Hard to read your chart, might just be formatting. iirc peak is around 33k lbf range, whereas the hornet is a bit under 20k, but has two, so is putting out maybe 20-25% more. More importantly, in fighter escort config the 16 is under 30k lbs gw (10,000 less than hornet), will do Mach 2 and pull 9G, blowing the hornet away in acceleration and top speed, while achieving better range — she’s slippery, and those dainty little legs don’t hurt.” I think that’s basically what mvgas said just hard to read the formatting. What matters much more than peak is thrust vs fuel flows @ different altitudes, I have at home if curious

I’m just a pilot/engineer, not a dev, so I probably have no idea what I am talking about. I did come across this while looking for some info to answer your question: In a paper/post discussing the flight model of a popular f-16 simulator, the dev stated “I will try to explain you as simply as possible what were the challenges of the F-16 development, and the way the real engineers (and consequently BMS) have developed and improved the FLCS ... Please note that this is mostly based on the NASA Technical Paper 1538 (TP 1538) Simulator Study of Stall / Post Stall Characteristics of a Fighter Airplane with Relaxed Longitudinal Static Stability”

No kidding on the off topic.... To answer your question though that paper came out right after f-16 came into service, and is frequently cited by every academic paper that follows. It’s old, but while avionics have changed significantly, aerodynamics are the same now as they were then (our understanding of control laws have improved, largely due to this type of work, but the physics are the same). The paper is hundreds of pages of analysis and data re of FLCS. Between that and subsequent papers, detailed equations and matrices that govern the multi-input -> multi-output FBW details (down to specific control surface angle as a function of stick pressure and AOA), where coupling and limiters are activated, are all publicly available. Later articles get into detail about thrust, which is often difficult to model as the thrust generated at various throttle positions/fuel flow/inlet temps and different altitudes is hard to come by. Drag is the same way, you can find tables of ram drag values for the turbine... that kind of info isn’t available for other planes (even the a-10). Again I don’t k ow if it’s because of the novelty of a low longitudinal stability FBW design (in 1976 at least), the widespread adoption/number produced or just its age, but the result is a ton of very detailed information in the public domain. That takes a lot of the guess work out of the modeling process for ED, ensures we should get a high fidelity simulation, and avoids the problem of utilizing documents that are available online but really shouldn’t be when creating the module.