sk000tch

I don’t see anything specific to C variant... what’s next specific lot? A to C didn’t involve aerodynamic changes; radar, avionics, and armament don’t change oscillations (unless you’re adding heavy armament to wingtips or something). The LEX fences on every Hornet variant are a fix for the stabilizer flutter caused by the LEX vortices. Despite the fences at high AOA and low speed can still be dangerous: MCAS is a questionable example btw, pretty unique scenario. Regardless, all sims break down at edges of envelop. I fly competitive acro and I’ve never flown a sim that even comes close to accurately modeling any maneuvers involving complex or asymmetric stall like basic inside snap roll, and forget any gyroscopic stuff like lomcevaks or any tumbling.

You asked a single question... about flutter, to which I answered with two peer review papers discussing the topic. FWIW, I am not sure we even disagree about trim... I don’t think anybody was advocating using trim in lieu of stick/yoke. The issue was students holding elevator in deflection during, for example, climb, rather than trimming to pitch

"During full-scale development of the F/A-18A/B Hornet, it was discovered that when carrying heavy stores on the outboard wing pylons and AIM-9 missiles on the wing tips, the aircraft experiences an “unacceptable 5.0 - 6.0Hz oscillation at low altitude and high speed”. From "Higher-Order Spectral Analysis of F-18 Flight Flutter Data," Walter A. Silva NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, 23681 Similarly, "Robust Flutter Margins of an F/A-18 AIrcraft from Aeroelastic Flight Data," Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics Vol. 20, No. 3 May-June 1997 includes a discussion of computational methods for predicting flutter, including nominal flight envelop plotting against flutter margin. Many more, I'd post links, but I am on a short leash around here. As to your other question, never know who you're talking to around here but in this case it doesn't take a hornet driver to know that flex is proportional to wing loading. I'm not really trying to get into an argument, if you feel constant elevator is superior to trimming for pitch, then by all means do so. You'd get docked on a checkride, but this is a sim so who cares. I'll leave the sim question alone as well other than to note that the FARs on training device qualification are voluminous and specify every detail down to accuracy of control deflection force and travel, exact placement of gauges, switches, the accuracy of the friggin seats, the sounds, and myriad other criteria, but DCS is probably more accurate :doh: Anyway, who cares. OP isn't around to stick up for anymore, and I'd rather play than argue on forums.

I am not complaining. I think I was pretty clear about that. I was defending OP for asking an innocent question. ED makes design decisions that depart from absolute realism all the time, for a variety of reasons. I tried to give examples that correspond to a few different reasons; e.g. feasibility, ITAR, fun, to emphasize why its not an insult to the devs bbrz i don't know how much time you have in level D sims, or what you mean by "less sophisticated than they should be." Even older ones have 1:1 cockpits and very accurate flight/systems modeling. Ground textures, buildings, and trees might not be rendered with high poly counts but that's not really the point. Modern professional aviation is a lot of things but I have never once thought geeze I could really use some more training. D Sims are very good for getting up to speed on a new type or ongoing emergency/failure training, something we don't concern ourselves much with in DCS. DCS servers a very different purpose. I don't really want to argue point by point but, fwiw, the F18 does have aerodynamic flutter. Its well controlled, but has arisen several times during, for example, testing new weapon systems. Under normal circumstances it will only occur at the edge of the envelop or outside %MAC limits and high AoA, nothing like the F16, but my point was more general regardless. I realize everybody thinks they're a fighter pilot but there is a whole lot involved in actually being a pilot that DCS does not attempt to simulate. That's not a bad thing, some of its not very fun. It would be nearly impossible, or at least create a huge barrier to entry, if DCS modules required the same level of proficiency as their real-world counterparts. My SAM point is a prime example. And yes, deano, DCS models winds aloft, but does so as constant, and while they added the occasional bump and more recently a very artificial (but welcome) wingtip vortice effect, and a graphical effect that mimics wing flex, but they are far from accurate representations of real phenomenon. I flew A LOT this morning/afternoon, mostly aerobatic practice for Apple Turnover and playing around w/ formation flight, so I spent a lot of time staring at a wing (for formation of course, but we utilize sighting devices to judge attitude relative to horizon). We have a moderate cold front moving into warm and humid air today, which produced gusty winds down load w/ moderate low level mechanical turbulence and a temp inversion ripe for sheer (very active air). We made the decision to not use our usual box, as its near foothills and as we could see cap clouds on several mountains. We evaluated the conditions and made the no-go call, as low level acro was higher than necessary risk, diverted to a practice area with higher minimums but safer given conditions. My point is that the atmosphere is alive, its why every pilot is nearly a meteorologist... yet when was the last time you studied a METAR and made a go/no-go decision in DCS? DCS doesn't try to simulate that, and that's absolutely NOT a criticism. I'd rather they focus on the "C" in DCS than atmospheric modelling personally. We've only got so much dev time and CPU cycles. But, while we like to call it a study sim, and it certainly does offer a lot to learn, it is much different than a training simulator, and certainly doesn't purport to be an accurate representation of the real world. Again, that's not a criticism - I don't wan to do CG/weight & balance calcs (or do any preflight for that matter) to determine my AoA and %MAC limits everytime stations 2, 3, 7 or 8 are loadaed when I fly the Hornet. I'm glad it lets me ripple a single 2,000lb bomb from station 2 or 8, rather than having to release simultaneously to prent violating assym load limit. I'm glad it doesn't model the limitations of the negative G baffles, or enforce prohibited maneuvers like zero G for no more than 5 seconds, no neg G below 10k, no aileron rolls more than 360°, that are prohibited in the real jet. And frankly while I chuckle a little bit every time I scream across a blue water boundary at 500kts and 80ft, I'm glad I still have the fillings in my teeth and don't die from a bird strike after spending 45 minutes of my limited free time getting to that point. I admittedly didn't write a textbook but what, exactly, did you disagree with? I didn't really give advice, but rather set expectations. The F16 isn't the F18. The F16 is intentionally designed to have negative static stability for improved maneuverability. If you pitch up from equilibrium position then let go it's not going to return to its original attitude like most planes, its specifically designed to not do so. What exactly it will do depends on a number of various (CG, AoA, etc), the F16 FBW system is very good, it exhibits almost no adverse yaw, the coupling/ARI systems will convert AoA to beta if you roll knife edge and hold it with rudder, producing the very cool and energy conserving effect of allowing the F16 to roll about its velocity vector rather than fuselage center. Beyond that however its primarily a limiter, preventing the pilot from killing themselves by limiting elevator authority under high AoA, automatic spin/stall prevention, etc. If you really want to nerd out on this I suggest reading NASA Technical Paper 1538 "Simulator Study of Stall/post-Stall Characteristics of a Fighter AIrplane with Relaxed Longitudinal Static Stability." I'd provide a link but, well, the rules don't allow it. If you want to understand the 16's FWB system its a good place to sart.

A/G radar much moreso than atflir, though we are up against the object render hardcap with litening. Given that almost all the tech in the A/G system doesn't exist in any other module (except MAP/Real beam), I suspect we might not see it until there are some engine changes (hopefully still on track for early next year). I don't think the current pipeline can draw geometry 80nm away/has issues with object size, etc. That's rumor mill stuff so could be way off, but makes sense

They haven't been very specific but there's no data cartridge per se. You've likely seen the MUMI page placeholder, when complete that page provides functionality to transfer data from fA18 DSUs to hornet MCs, including PB target data, jdam QRM, obviously waypoints, radio presents, link-16/jtids and the like. Other things as well not relevant to the sim or discussion. They also mentioned being able to edit default search parameters. This would apply when first entering A/A mode, but also to bump and RTS commands presumably. However, this is where I"m a little confused, as usually this is done via the SET sublevel on radar, but apparently they are building something where we can set these in options and they will not have to be updated each time. WHatever the case, it's a welcome addition. What would be particularly cool is if they added a pre-mission planning interface similar to TAMPS. I don't want to get in trouble as i've got some red in my ledger with 9line, but the bulk of the navy fleet use ordinary PCs loaded with TAMPS (and its various modules for indiviidual aircraft/weapons) to plan missions, load mission data onto transport medium (DSU for hornet), and load into aircraft systems. This is the case for f18s, but also KC-130s, AH-1s, Uh-1s, P-3Cs etc., and individual weapons or systems like HARM, JSOW, JDAM, SLAM, JTIDS/Link-16 (crypto related info omitted intentionally) would barely be useable, or require a half hour of data entry preflight. TAMPS will even print out kneeboard pages for the mission. Hopefully they have something like that in the hopper, as it would have awesome functionality for multiplayer as well.

Hard to tell from that vid, pilot is actively maneuvering throughout, so it wouldn’t i’m Not sure you could tell either way. That said, it will require more trimming than the Hornet as it’s fundamentally different (used to be referred to as limiter system). Fortunately the vipers flcs and the early 2000s nasa studies are all published, so to the extent the DCS engine doesn’t impose some limitations ED should nail the flight model. Contrast with the hornet, or HBs f14, which seem to have required much more trial and error. Lol What? insulting to the developers? I don’t think you realize how simplified the flight models are. Some are better than others, but it’s still a simulation and will always be off to some extent. I love the 18, but its energy management and acceleration modeling under different drag configurations, the simplified drag models themselves, aerodynamic coupling especially at high AOA or skid turns, simplified buffeting/lack of fluttter, lack of atmospheric phenomenon like wind, wind gusts, mechanical turbulence at low agl, convective turbulence, microbursts, mountain waves are all noticeably wrong or completely missing...to name a few. No apparent longitudinal center of gravity modeling, idiot proof engines with infallible fuel feed systems, weird lack of inertia particularly on pitch axis (that is unaffected by gross weight), no wing flex, indestructible landing gear; And that’s just flight model... of one of the better modules! Relative to real world (sometimes intentionally) many of the systems, weapons, and myriad other aspects of the simulation are. That’s not a criticism of DCS, it does a very good job replicating feel and focusing on the “fun stuff,” but it’s not meant to be a level D sim. It’s a game, with a lot of simplifications, so the guy’s question IMO was entirely reasonable. Much of the simplification is intentional, or due to practical or legal issues, others for gameplay. The 18 doesn’t model AOA feedback or G based deflection force due to feasibility/lack of FFB sticks, RWR/ECM are intentionally not accurately reproduced due to ITARS, jdam cryptokeys and terminal trajectory effect on air bust fragmentation patterns for a combination of reasons most likely, link-16/mids implementation more simplified than a FC3 modul... I mean, I could list a few dozen more but air defense is a great example - SAM lethality is horrendously gimped, but DCS players don’t study threat briefs, memorize SAM speeds or learn to estimate intercept times, evasion tactics, fly disciplined section formations and follow lead/wingman responsibilities, etc., so an accurate “recreation” of integrated air defenses would not be fun at all (it’s a game after all). But anyway... Because almost all airplanes require frequent trimming. FBW systems like on the fa18 that will auto trim pitch to 1g (approximately) are the exception not the norm. Planes that don’t have FBW systems, even if engineered for good stability and manners, require constant trimming. I’ve trained a lot of pilots and drill into their heads to trim after every throttle/attitude change starting first flight, as most pilots instinct is to correct with stick pressure rather than trim (bad habit) It’s worthwhile to understand lift vs gravity and drag vs thrust, how those forces must be in balance for straight and level flight, how they effect each other (e.g increasing lift —> increase in drag). I won’t dive into it here, but its worth reading up as it will help your flying, as understanding basic BFM requires a good understanding of aerodynamics. Increasing thrust accelerates the plane, thus increasing lift that must be trimmed. Even with no control changes all aircraft require periodic trimming as fuel is burned, decreasing weight (and drag due to decreased lift required), shifting center of gravity. Asymmetric loads are a different animal. The aerodynamics are similar (but in reverse) to engine out, where asymmetric thrust throws everything out of balance. Asym loads do the same, though generally not as strong but often greater distance from COG so still quite pronounced. If that doesn’t make sense that’s ok, the take away is that an extra 1000lb on an outer pylon will shift lateral center of gravity off centerline, which will require aileron trim, increasing induced drag as the aileron extending downward changes the cord line of the wing, that in turn creates adverse yaw. Depending on the characteristics of the plane it may be significant enough for a click or two of rudder and usually a bit of elevator. That’s all 3 axis... everything affects each other. Fly the f14 a bit and try to keep your VSI at 0 while accelerating or through a 6G turn for a taste of how pitch sensitive non-FBW airplanes are. The 14 will give you some lessons on induced drag, adverse yaw and control reversal as well

You’re right, my comment was imprecise. I’d just commented in the radar thread and was referencing ranked trackfiles, but MSI tracks is a broader term. In my defense, jhcms has changed a lot, particularly following feedback from pilots and studies assessing what’s too much/too little, symbology, etc. You are right that it will display closest friendly and TUC, it’s not a question of capability, rather usability.... at one point I believe it showed all TNs and friendliest and had range filter of some sort, and would display ground tracks (e.g. mids CAS mission would display target location AND nearest ground friendly if included with message). This is a bit after my time so I am not really sure tbh

JHMCS does not display MSI trackfiles, it will show L&S and DT2, or STT target of course, but it won't display radar contracts or ranked trackfiles, MSI or otherwise, unless designated.

Harker - I am confused by a few things in your post... Sounds like you are running into some WIP/placeholder stuff. The behavior in 2 is wrong. TDC press should: If over a brick or trackfile - designate L&S if L&S does not exist, else DT2 If over L&S, command STT If over empty space, enter manual scan center if in TWS, spotlight if in RWS/VS. I might be forgetting something above but in any case it should not go from raw hit to STT if LTWS is enabled. Regarding 3, you've surmised right. The MC radar can display up to 16 trackfiles but should only display 8 hafu ranked files, the remainder as low priority tracks (LPT) with just a + symbol. I don't recall recently having that many tracks on the radar so can't confirm whether this is in yet, or if its not yet implemented, so we are getting bricks in the interim. Designating another trackfile L&S will change priority of all others dynamically, as will adding a DT2. I suspect cyclng trackfiles by undesignate will be in soon, which is very useful. Essentially allows you to cycle L&S designation through ranked trackfiles by TDC depress, or two swap L&S and DT2.

I don’t think they’ve explicitly stated what’s next, but recent updates provide clues. Walleyes look close, and SLAMs use the same interface as jdam, so reasonable to expect those soon. They’ve put a ton of work into trackfiles last couple months, so we should start to see functions that use mc ranked tracks mature. Seemingly small but big quality of life stuff like undesignate to cycle ranked trackfiles, or to swap l&s and d2t. Bump acquisition. The next really big jump in hornet capability will be TWS. Not sure if ax/el is required for TWS to work, but once those are in they can finish up the a/a suite (VS, spot, raid, exp, set search params, RTS). Who knows on the rest. A/G radar is the elephant in the room, which they mentioned real beam initial work was working in house, so that’s the very, very tip of the A/G radar iceberg. There’s what, 5-6 modes, bunch of submodes, some of which will be very technically challenging (MAP DBS and SAR submodes in particular), 2 tracking modes and all the integration work? That’s a massive project. Beyond that who knows? Almost nothing is 100% complete so there’s a ton of incremental work individual weapon modes of course but lots, of convenience features like additional hotas functions that made sense to wait until more systems were in (swapping SA/HSI, attack format/ax el, bring up stores page), or set default radar search, mumi, lots of work on tpod to do, jhmcs cueing, etc. Once you start getting into finer detail the list gets long fast

401 speed - Sorry, been out of town and missed out on discussion. Just to clarify a few things: SCS direction to activate bump acquisition depends on what mode your bumping. You mentioned SCS forward, which is correct from BST. But if you entered STT via fast acq., or SCS right (if atk radar format on right DDI), SCS right will bump. Think of it as bumping whatever designation was used to enter STT. This includes ACM modes, so down for VAQC, WAQC/GAQC dependant on DDI attack format is on. Note that the RTS time varies on mode as well, 2 second bump in BST vs 10 second AACQ. Similarly, the oscillating azimuth line we currently have isn't spotlight. Spotlight will display SPOT above the bottom center azimuth mark and the cursor will change to a X. More importantly it creates a slewable space stabilized fast update scan volume of about 20 degrees, centered on the X. You're correct that TDC depress on empty space will enter spotlight eventually, but its not in game yet. I don't know whether the hafu's and bricks is as intended or not. I suspect so as it is accurate depending on why. If no surv or c3 donors for example, as other fighters donate limited information (e.g. one trackfile if they are in STT). All of this is why we are encouraging ya'll to use L&S with fast and auto acquisition modes and build SA as you close (for now just ID bricks, narrow azimuth scan, adjust altitude and modulation). Trying to guess position on a MSI trackfile is bad news. AWACS dome takes about 10 seconds for 1 revolution, and datalink track updates can be several seconds old, and often missed. Targets maneuver, but even straight and level target will move laterally due to distortion from the azimuth/range projection. If you don't know what I'm talking about google B-Scan distortion or projection, something like that. I don't want to post a link and get in trouble but look for images showing the J L pattern an offset reciprocal heading track will move for explanation. Oh and thanks, I was not aware WAQC was slewable yet. Look forward to checking that out.

Ok that's a separate issue For purposes of zeroing out potential variables/errors and avoid getting into search settings, without touching anything else, start with LTWS off and when you acquire raw hits, give it a few sweeps and turn LTWS on. Do they disappear? vice versa? If the mission has awacs or other d/l donors, with MSI and LTWS enabled, do you see hafu symbols on the radar or AOT in the dugout? What about SA Page? Lastly, if you press SCS right, verify TDC is assigned to radar then press SCS right again when you would expect to be within STT range. Does anything happen? If you do the above and have bricks disappearing when you enable LTWS you should probably save a track and submit as a bug

Preendog- There's three designation modes, auto, fast, and bump. There is no "designate button." I assume by designate button you're talking about TDC depress. TDC will command STT if the cursor is over L&S target, but it's specifically advised against. You should not have to guess or lead, if you find yourself doing so take a moment and consider what you are trying to do. TDC depress can perform several functions depending on radar state (LTWS enabled/disabled) and whether the cursor is over a trackfile. In addition to playing havoc with your designation/acquisition, it can command spotlight mode, manually adjust scan centering, etc. The biggest problem is related to closely spaced contacts. TDC depress over the current L&S target will enter STT, but TDC depress over another trackfile will designate it as L&S. Bricks can be close together, aged, and the mechanical action of TDC depress can inadvertently cause the cursor to move - all problematic. If you find yourself "mashing designate," instead of fighting the system in manual acquisition, try using SCS right (w/ TDC assigned to radar on right DDI) to enter AACQ. It's obviously a work in progress, bump acq not in yet, and any given release may break something; but generally speaking using TDC depress over L&S to enter STT is a habit you'll want to break. to each their own though...

What question? The discussion of acquisition modes by no.401 Speed is as plain English as it can be made. It’s useful to be precise with terms, as that is the terminology the documentation uses. Recent updates to the manual are quite good. So, plain English - You can command the radar to attempt Single Target Track (STT) by three methods: 1 – With LTWS disabled, TDC depress with cursor over brick 2 – With LTWS enabled, Sensor Control Switch right (if radar is on right DDI) with raw contact or trackfile (MSI included) under the cursor 3 - Enabling Automatic Acquisition (AACQ), which will command the radar will attempt STT on L&S if one exists, or, if no L&S then highest priority MSI trackfile You will not get MSI trackfiles but you can disable LTWS and the radar should behave identically as before (#1 above). You can still go direct to STT by #2 above, or, better yet, use #3 by depressing TDC with cursor over brick or MSI track to create launch and steer trackfile (L&S). You then have information to assess IFF status, relative altitudes, range, closure rate, aspect, and decide whether to intercept and whether you should climb/turn/accel without locking target. It’s a good idea to adjust radar azimuth/bars/PRF, though not necessary it will decrease aging and its good prep for TWS. On positive NCTR step station/size/cross section if desired. When you are ready, with TDC assigned to radar, you can “hard lock” by just pressing Sensor Control Switch in direction of radar display to enter STT via AACQ. If you adjusted radar to decrease aging it should be instantaneousA. Then just center dot and pull trigger…

I think you will find that working with LTWS and the different acquisition modes, using L&S designation, AAQC vs. faste acq., return to search and the like will create better habits and SA for when more advanced features are added. There's really no reason to turn ltws off except perhaps to declutter. This post describes a good process under the current implementation (there's been some additions since this was posted, but they have not fundamentally changed the process): https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3961122#post3961122

Spotlight is different, that is essentially looking closer at a particular area. I think OP is referring to scan centering, which indeed the 18 has on all three search modes. As with all things f18 related the behavior depends on search mode and whether a L&S designation exists. In RWS the center of the sweep can be slewed left and right to the extent the sweep is less than maximum. E.g. a small azimuth scan setting of 20 degrees can be biased 60 degrees to either side, but 70 degree scan cannot be biased. In TWS there are Auto, manual, and bias settings, which the radar will automatically change between based on pilot inputs. There is a lot to this, but like most things hornet related it is based on whether a L&S (and DT2) exist, and allows pilot to quickly cycle trackfiles and bias scan to either side of current track, allowing pilot to scan for additional threats while not increasing scan volume, or fully manual via az/el like RWS. VS and ACM include slewable functions as well, most notably WAQC (box can be slewed with TDC). Pure speculation - There are three 'big' missing elements to A/A functionality (somewhat arbitrary grouping here, but i'm considering sublevel options, EXP modes, RAID, spotlight as enhancement of these) -- With the recent addition of ranked trackfiles I suspect focus on controls/logic for designating trackfiles - e.g. cycling L&S though ranked trackfiles, bump acq., etc. I have nothing to back that up, it's just good bang for the buck. If i remember prior wags statements correctly, he has made statements to the effect that TWS is a priority. That would leave Az/El as the next logical step, which will provide the ability to slew scan centering cross by TDC. Again, this is just my guess

Just wanted to add that the throttle you had put together is awesome. i don't get hung up on 1:1 authenticity (obvious per prior discussion), i get the realistici sim-pit thing but am more of a form over function type (especially given the need to suite multiple modules). That said, your throttle is excellent. I've probably said it a few dozen times on this forum but if someone would just manufacture a solid realistic travel throttle, preferably adjustable detents, proper force sensing slew (doesn't have to be mil-spec, but similar performance), the rest can be regular consumer grade so long as its repairable... I would throw money at them. Its nuts how it doesn't exist given the amount of flight stick, or even collective/cyclic options we have. re the hornet grip, i explained elsewhere but really not into the TM. The base/gimbal is what matters to me anyway, a grip with flexibility in buttons that won't break and im good. Slew matters, whether on throttle or stick (the VKB slew vs delta sim, for example, when viewed in joytester the difference is obvious (not knocking delta, good product and guy)). My competition ride is a su-29 w/ heavy controls that i fly 2-handed, but can jump in a twitchy R22 right afterwards with minimal adjustment. While they are completely different... they're both precise, don't oscillate, allow very fine control inputs, etc. No idea what you paid for that throttle, just wish we didn't have to go to those lengths to get one of similar quality and function.

Sorry, didn't realize the date, this forum moves a little slow And fwiw, it's sort of a preference of the imperfect. if we had a long travel throttle with fingerprints and force sensing slew, I'd prefer a proper composite A10/F16 style grip with depress on the hats. We don't have those, so we are left to make things fit. In that case, where we are trying to accommodate a wide range of modules with a single hotas, imo more options are better My post did come across a bit snooty and that wasn't my intent.

Silly? I Have a WH grip and MCG pro and prefer the MCG when flying the A-10, if that tells you anything. Part of that is the gunfighter gimbal, but my WH is on a WarBRD - so it's no slouch. The WH is heavy, and people equate that to quality. Ironically lighter is better, as the gimbal requires less damping to prevent oscillations (which is actually silly, as no real plane stick oscillates from spring). The MCG can be set to perform identically as their software is great. TMS location is an analogue slew, which is a bit odd at first but i've got mine set to create an additional button press at 50% deviation. Short press, long press, doesn't matter. And you get two additional buttons right of the face, the master mode is a 5-way hat (all are 5-way actually), POV has a press as well (great for VR center), or can be used to switch between a POV and relativer axis, functioning as an actual trim to the X-Y Axis. Otherwise everything is in the same place, it's just massively higher quality with extra buttons. I don't fly anything eastern except occasional KA-50, but the f-18 is such as simple grip I don't know why I'd "downgrade" my available keybinds, especially in VR where hunting for keyboard sucks. In the hornet, for example, i can slew with my throttle (delta sim mod) or grip, whichever I feel like. The true analogue is much, much smoother viewed on joytester, so much so that I am kicking around ways to use it in the a-10 as slew. Realsimulators f-16 grip is a different beast, particularly with f-16 coming. Gunfighter might end up as dedicated f-14/helo... not sure. Unfortunately I think you guys are going to be disappointed if you're hoping for TECS in Q3. F-14 grip in Q3, but TECS is a ways off yet. I wish it weren't, but fast VKB is not.

Agree, that's bad advice. Its ok to turn off but not in isolation. Telling someone to turn it off with no further instruction is borderline negligent. Fortunately it won't hurt anything, but it will decrease single core performance, which will hurt DCS significantly. I have mine off (enhanced multicore, speed step, several C/P-states among others off as well), but I run 5.1 all cores and thus don't use turboboost. Threads still migrate cores for thermal reasons, but not to allow a temporary multiplier boost like they do with turboboost. It took a lot of tinkering and knowledge, lots of blue screens, and enough radiators to dissipate almost 600 watts to do though. I would not encourage anyone to mess with those setting without a solid understanding of their board's bios, and definitely don't disable turbo boost unless you can maintain a high multiplier. Learn before you mess with those settings. If you don't know exactly what a setting does and how it interacts with other settings, don't change it. Those settings are all useful, as modern boards provide amazing flexibility, but you need to educate yourself first. Different boards tend to have different preferred forums, but most of the high end enthusiast boards have a home. If you've got an aorus master overclock.net has a great thread, otherwise find the one for your board. I don't discourage overclocking by any means, the 9900k is begging for it, but each chip is different, so often times you can't just copy someone's settings. Also, make sure you can cool it and know what you're doing. Don't expect to cool a 9900k drawing 300w with a corsair AIO.

I hear you but perhaps it didn't come across that I am not proficient by any means. I'm much better with a table saw/wood. I have machine/metal tools it's more of a chore for me, leftovers from racing days or odds and ends I've picked up. Our dock can get beat up in fall/winter storms so it's nice to be able to fix/fabricate brackets and such, but more often than not the sharpening kitchen knives is the most common task on that side of the shop. There's an aesthetic aspect as well due to where I plan on setting this up. I think I am going to run a long DP/USB/3.1mm to the office (still figuring how long I can run this without issues), put the pc chassis in the adjacent movie/game/sports room. It's an odd shape but big at 22x15ft, but currently has an set of four movie recliners that form a sort of semi circle and a big tv all down at the far end. That leaves about 10, maybe 12' 15' of unused space that would be perfect for simpit + roomscale area (without all the shelves and breakable stuff in the office). Originally was slated for a pool table, but 86'd that idea. The problem is you can see it from the front door, as its right off the foyer. I believe non-bachelors would refer to it as a "living room." I think a clean black anodized 80-20 build would look pretty sick with the recliners/sports bar vice i've got going there.

60k/day is an awful lot, like Skadden Arps high stakes patent trial per day fees high. I'm a lawyer so the cost analysis is different; for something like this it's just opportunity costs. Realistically I never seriously considered it but it was the principle of the matter that bothered me. Their refusal to respond appropriately despite clear fault and my name being first on the letterhead, so to speak, was surprising. Made me wonder how other customers with a less concerning bark, or where a manufacturing defect was less hilariously obvious, would fare. In the end my time was more important than principles and I just acquired a few "rentals" while they took their time fixing it. By that point all my principles could muster was a pithy letter citing the high cost of returns/reverse supply chain costs. To their credit, the US support was great, would have kept a customer had the overseas people not gotten involved. We are way off topic though, but ya, hard pass on their hornet grip - rather spend 2x at realsim/VKB/Virp

Thanks for info. And ya, I know about the TM grip. I won't vent here but i have issues with TM. They got me so pissed I almost named Claude, Michel, Yves, Gerard and the whole family in a consumer protection suit. In the end I decided not to waste my time but I'm not interested in further business. Besides, I have a WH grip, don't really see the point of the F18 other than no depressible SS. An upgraded quality A-10/f-16 layout though... that's interesting. But that's $900 + shipping in joystick w/ FSSB. Oh, and Randma - its not the price. Plenty of people on here with $500 sticks. VKB's come out at $500, and I think Virpil's is about the same. And neither is exactly easy to get. For some reason realsim just isn't well known. If we could just get them to make a proper throttle with a force sensing slew and long realistic travel.

Might be worth a try, in certain modules its really nice to not have to mouse over buttons (f18 in particular), and you can position them such that they are about where you'd expect in VR, and the tactile feel of them is enough to find the right button. ftfy I'm sticking with 8020 on this as its easier to make things adjustable for other people and easier to reconfigure later on as I get different peripherals. Found some cool fittings that will allow center stick to fold forward and away (similar to Goblin's side panels) when using sidestick, and I still have a dual mode flight/race concept in my head that I might implement. Frankly with flight, its not much material. Just the frame, seat base, hotas mounts and lightweight Crossbeam for keyboard/MFDs. No monitor mount on this for me, not needed.