Shrimp

Hi @Minsky, Thank you for your excellent work. May I suggest that the aerodrome lists are divided by country, where applicable, as in the The Channel and Normandy maps? Cheers!!!

Yes, Firstly the newer firmware updates have polished the overall behavior and specially some force variation (kind of cyclic force oscillation near the center and halfway to the center). With the correct settings (changing the force curves - increasing the values as from the center) the center is now snug. Not perfect but pretty good. The aircraft that can best test this is the F-5 because the real aircraft has a fairly stiff stick and is quite responsive, specially in roll.. Aside from the insane price and the lack of a better DCS plugin, this hardware is virtually perfect. The software (DCS plugin) negatives, from the part of Brunner - because the DirectInput mode does not convince me, is the lack of trim interaction - no displaced neutral. The hardware trim is a half baked solution, used only as a last resort. I hope someday Brunner updates the DCS plugin. Maybe some work has to be done from the part of ED, I guess.

And do the AI members of the flight take off at all? Numbers 2, 3 and 4 did no take off and I did the mission alone.

Then a subsection called FFB.

... and Brunner.

The ending of the Open Beta branch was one of the best decisions ED has made recently. Brave move!!! Hope 2025 is the year of Vulkan and GFM, along with hundreds (thousands) of bug fixing, optimizations and module updates (… most modules coming out of Early Access). Also, in the DCS doctrine department, staying away from Frankenstein modules! Just keep the right track. Cheers!!! Oh, what’s that Lightning doing over there?!! …or Mitchell, whatever…

Well, by integrating weapons the A version actually operated. If you so say it is a fictional feature why even think about it?! I am all for new features but only those that exist (or existed) in the real world. That's the scope of DCS. Even if not taken as an absolute, it should be a master guideline. Cheers!!! Cool, I am willing to pay an additional $9.99 for the inclusion of the C variant that can operate those missiles.

Why? "Although this is a fictional feature for the A version, it could be an interesting addition to expand the module's operational capabilities." Why Not? AMRAAM and ASRAAM? Also Why Not? Tie Fighter Lasers?

The answer is in the very first comment. The OPs CPU is 18C/36T.

The OP would like to know if this is still valid: ” Should I enable HT / SMT in my motherboard BIOS? Currently, users with more than 32 threads should disable HT/SMT, but for everyone else we recommend enabling HT/SMT. ”

The real F-16 stick has the following characteristics: Fixed force Trim does not move stick Rotated slightly cw 1/4 inch (0.635 cm) both axis Up = 25 lb Down = 16 lb Roll = 17 lb The RealSimulator FSSB-R3 Lighting: Sensibility control for Pitch in 4 levels 4, 6, 9 and 13 pounds. Sensibility control for Roll in 4 levels. 2.5, 4.5, 6.5 and 13 pounds. Full scale control with 4 levels, 1:1, 3:4, 1:2 & 1:4. Because virtual pilots are not fully physically engaged in flying the virtual aircraft as opposed to real pilots who must endure physical forces as g´s, vibration etc... and more easily apply extreme forces on the flight controls it is, in my view, a balanced compromise for immersion that the virtual flight controls are 2/3 of the total force of the real counterpart. In this view the R3 is on the light side for my taste, needing to have a 17 lb rate on the Pitch axis. It moves very similarly to the real F-16 stick. Please understand that this is my concept on this subject. The RealSimulator FSSB-R3 Lighting is a good device.

Yes, FBW, thanks. Already edited. I have the Brunner CLS-P and the F-16 profile is very realistic. There´s only one small issue that the (CLS-P and E) force near the center has a bit of slack (does not immediately bite) and the travel has to be just a bit bigger than the real F-16 so that it is not too sensitive, leading to overcontrol. Overall the effect is very, very good and in the CLS-P, because the max torque is perfect (50 Nm), the virtual stop is as good as a mechanical stop because it is close to impossible to overcome the torque, even with two hands. A dedicated F-16 base is good for nothing but the F-16. For the sake of versatility, a high torque FFB is the the facto jack of all trades for virtual pilots wanting to fly everything. As a side note I have handled the real F-16 side stick, the RealSimulator FSSB-R3 Lighting and the Brunner CLS-P with a proper F-16 profile (still tweaking it) and the CLS-P has only the above mentioned limitation. The R3 is too soft (low torque) even at max setting of 13 pounds.

Even FBW aircraft benefit from proper FFB implementation. For the stick travel limits (usually nose down travel is smaller than nose up travel) and different forces vs displacement from different FFB aircraft. Examples: F-16 having a very small stick travel; Mirage 2000 having a very steep force increase from 80% to 100% nose up travel. With Brunner CLS2SIM it is possible to do all this. Brunner CLS2Sim DCS Profiles by Shrimp (2024-08-29).zip

With a stronger FFB base (50 Nm Brunner CLS-P) it is possible to make software stops (shorter stick travel). Even an F-16 with very short stick travel is possible. Some (most?) aircraft have a shorter nose down stick travel (push) than pull that can be configured properly with a stronger base. Because of being so strong these software stops are like mechanical stops, for any practical measure. In this view, I think FFBeast may become the best for price/force/quality as it is quite strong (35 Nm) and not prohibitively expensive as the CLS-P. And, if software evolves… CLS-E (now Mk II) is weak and was only good when there was nothing else. Rhino is very good if we don’t want software stops or stronger stick forces, especially with extensions. And has great software. CLS-P is almost perfect hardware wise, but has a ridiculous price tag. In terms of software, Brunner should enhance the DCS plugin to make a proper displaced neutral trim functionality and have the possibility of programming rudder shaker (C-101, F-4) in addition to the stick shaker for the FFB rudder (maybe this last one is possible and I haven’t figured it out yet). The FFB behavior is better in CLS2Sim mode (more progressive, discrete and nuanced) as opposed to DirectInput mode (more zeros and ones, sometimes the effects being way stronger than the natural stick forces - way unrealistic) if not for the trim mess.

In my opinion the zoom function should be replaced by simulated binoculars (correct model for the aircraft timeline) that a real pilot would take onboard. Historically, many aircraft/pilots did carry them for search and ID purposes.