Shrimp

Persistent BRAA not visible in map. Lately the BRAA line never appears in the Tactical View. Is this a bug or is there any new wrongly selected setting that I am missing? Thanks!!!

That setting could be scraped altogether in DCS, for the sake of also easing and simplifying development.

Also, some way of finding updated files. Previously any updated file would appear again at the current date (on top). Now the reference date is always the original and we must dig into the whole file list (usually I search the user) to find if any file has been updated.

Latest Release (Stable): all but one Module, all Maps and about one quarter of all Campaigns. => 567 GB

Official tournaments in Open Beta?!!

… of the AB detent in the Special Options.

What is missing in the F-15E is an independent setting for each throttle axis.

Hi, Try to running 'Configure vJoy' and check mark whatever needed to have the effects active, namely 'Enable vJoy', 'Enable Feedback' with all the checkmarks. I personally have all check marks 'On' and total 32 buttons. After that in DCS you may need to 'Load' the vJoy profile again for every module (must browse to proper folder for each module). Normally no button or axis reassign is needed. All this to operate in CLS2Sim mode. Cheers

Probably this.

Brunner in DirectX mode should work fine in all modules. I haven’t tested it thoroughly to give you a definite answer. I haven’t touched any of those settings yet. Some modules (like the F-16, F/A-18 and Mirage 2000) can be used in CLS2Sim mode with a proper profile because the forces on the stick (in the real aircraft) do not change across all the flight envelope and the trim has no effect on the stick but only in the flight controls logic. If the CLS2SIM profile is done correctly (in these cases) my guess is that it outperforms the DirectX mode, but again I haven’t tested it yet mainly because I don’t have time and also because one needs to plug the devices in different ways (I have both the Brunner FFB stick base and the FFB rudder and they must be connected differently in CLS2SIM mode or DirectX mode) and I kind of ran out of USB ports. With CLS-P (extremely expensive - prohibitively expensive) even the F-16 profile almost perfectly mimics the very little movement amplitude of the real F-16 stick with the proper forces and the Mirage 2000 extra (extra heavy) force required in the last 20% pitch up stick deflection that overrides the normal g limiter. It is near perfect. Also in DirectX mode you may have to switch direction of the FFB effect in the axis settings inside DCS for it to work properly. Some modules have better FFB implementation than others. Hopefully in the future all will be up to standard.

Hardware trim is only (partially) useful when the normal trim does not work (normal CLS2SIM use). The real F/A-18 trim does not move the stick (just like the F-16 and Mirage 2000). So, the Brunner DirectX mode is working as intended. … and BrunnerDX is no longer needed, although it is a very fine piece of software nevertheless.

ED should consider updating the Release (stable) branch with the non-MT executable only, if the MT one is taking too long to reach Release status.

Hi @Chuls I'm having an issue with BrunnerDX v2.7.1 that says a new version is available and halts. Is there a later than v2.7.1 version? May I suggest that on future versions the version number appears on the BrunnerDX window? Edit - the program does not halt. Everything works OK except the warning that it is not the latest version. Thks Cheers

I'm retrying BrunnerDX but it says a new version is available although I'm using the last version 2.7.1 and halts. Regarding the trim I guess you either use DCS trim or BrunnerDX trim, not both. With the F-5 use 'Displaced neutral' when using BrunnerDX. I'll try to experiment myself to clarify all these but I need to be able to run BrunnerDX in the first place.

Hi again, Because I now use CLS-P I don't have the thermal cut out and I'm not testing the profiles with CLS-E anymore. Anyway the forces of the CLS-E profiles were all previously tested. Personal preference may warrant modifications to the profiles to compensate this huge CLS-E drawback (sustained force). My interpretation to the F-5 special options is, because the real F-5 has huge amounts of roll rate and normal joysticks don't have enough spring tension to mimic the real F-5 stick forces and become extremely sensitive and difficult to fine control, the following: - For heavy spring force joysticks use 'Linear' - For low spring force joysticks use 'Non-liner' - For FFB (DirectInput) use 'Displaced neutral' Because with CLS-E or P and CLS2Sim we actually cannot use 'Displaced neutral' (not DirectInput compatible) and the force near the center is weak I use 'Non-liner' to be less sensitive. Regarding BrunnerDX vs CLS2Sim: BrunnerDX is excellent for FFB DirectInput compatibility. I tested it but, because I also use CLS-E Mk II Rudder with Toe Brakes, I lose FFB in the rudder axis because BrunnerDX (I think it is a DCS issue) lacks rudder axis FFB effects. The big PRO for BrunnerDX is full trim functionality. It is also quite simple and straightforward and almost plug&play. It just works. Pity for the lack of rudder axis functionality. CLS2Sim is quite powerful but due to the still missing trim feedback in the DCS plugin we lose trim functionality. Maybe the external mode should allow to choose which axis goes to external mode and which don't. Than I'd use the pitch and roll axis with external mode to BrunnerDX and the rudder axis directly via CLS2Sim. For both to become superb BrunnerDX must have rudder axis FFB functionality and CLS2Sim trim feedback functionality via the DCS plugin, possibility to choose which axis go to external mode, DirectInput compatibility and an hybrid mode DirectInput and CLS2Sim combined features. My guess is that the ball for the most important missing features is on the ED's DCS side and possibly also on the dated DirectInput API.

Thanks for the clarification. It wouldn't make sense, from an engineering perspective, to have a FBW system and then introduce complexity to the spring box. Almost correct (but with a big difference): a profile with a constant force vs displacement gradient of 7.4 lb/inch on the pitch axis; 3.7 lb/inch on the roll axis (a curve that is in fact a straight line in the force vs stick displacement graph) with a center breakout force, as per the info above. This breakout force is difficult to implement due to backlash. The rest is correct: "... does not vary with speed or g. Also with no HW trim." In light of this, for the F/A-18 I recommend the 'Shrimp - DCS - FBW Fixed Force' profile for CLS-E and the 'Shrimp - DCS P - FBW Fixed Force' for the CLS-P. Later I will do a specific Hornet profile. I still have to think out the best relation between real stick forces vs simulated (at a desk) stick forces. Because in reality the pilot is physically involved in the whole flight experience the real forces are too heavy for desk usage, where only a fraction of the experience (especially the physical part) is felt. This is especially true with high performance aircraft as is the core of DCS. Example: if we use the real F-16 stick at a desk simulator we would quickly become physically (hand, wrist, arm) uncomfortable as there is no balance with the rest of the body stress (no g's, no accelerations, no radial accelerations/movement, no heat, no cold, etc...). This only applies to the CLS-P because the CLS-E doesn't output such (real aircraft) forces.

Nice info. The 3 lbs is the breakout force, then it is 7.4 lbs per inch and not absolute until the 22° AOA. That’s why it did not make sense. This for the pitch axis. The roll axis has lower values as expected. The behavior at 22° AOA, if I understood correctly, is impossible to replicate without feedback from DCS. I may look further into it. That graph (force vs displacement and trim) is outdated because the current FCS trim does not move the stick. The info on the forces and the relation between pitch up travel and force vs pitch down travel and force is useful. It seems that stick force does not vary with airspeed (as I thought). So ‘Hydraulics’ option is to be checked on. The pitch rate command or g rate command and >22° AOA feedback is made by the FBW system and does not alter stick forces but aircraft behavior at the same stick force in different envelope conditions, as I understand. It may also (if the previous thought is wrong) alter stick forces in pitch or roll but I did not ascertain this fully. Example of what I understood: at 22° AOA the stick does not become heavier but the FBW computer starts reducing AOA and the pilot, to maintain or increase AOA, has to pull further on the stick effectively increasing the force to keep/increase AOA. But the stick travel vs force is fixed. This is my understanding. Yes, the FFB setting is for effects. I have, as said earlier 50%, 100% or 1%. Maybe something slipped. If 67% feels right to you it is right. Most (I think all) of the warbirds have buffet and stall effects felt through the stick. In non hydraulically operated FCS the stick naturally shakes due to control surface feedback. Some jets also have it. In reality if the FCS is hydraulically operated there’s no natural feedback unless an artificial one is introduced, like stick shaker or rudder shaker. But there are other near stall warnings like buzzers or the aircraft itself that buffets and therefore no artificial warning is needed. The F-5 option is to be changed inside DCS. The profile is the ‘Jets Fast’. The Q Feel system is replicated by not checking ‘Hydraulics’, having ‘Minimum Scale factor’ filled with proper values and using ‘Force Scale Factor’ again with proper values (calibrated airspeed). All ‘Jets’ profiles replicate Q Feel. As said earlier, when I have proper info that requires an individual profile for a specific aircraft I’ll do it. But I must tell you it is a very slow process due to time constraints. I’ll probably do it for the Hornet, but the info available is too much (weird), because most of it is outdated and the filtering of the current and valuable one is a big task. I’ll try!!!

Where did you get that info? In my view those values do not make much sense. As far as I know (I still am not absolutely sure about this) the F/A-18 FCS has a spring that varies its strength according to airspeed (and possibly AOA) but a fixed and low value up to 22º AOA does not seem right to me, nor the same value for pitch and roll. I think I don't have any profile with 67% FFB effect. I have 50% for CLS-E and 100% for CLS-P because it feels (personal opinion) proportional to the stick forces across the board. With 100% in CLS-E sometimes the buffet effect is too much compared to stick force, unbalanced in my view, so the 50%. The profiles of sticks with no back force (F-16 for example) have the FFB effect value to minimum (1%). The default values of both the CLS-E and -P have a weak near the center force which may lead to some aircraft being too sensitive near the center (F-5 -> use 'Nonlinear' in 'Options' ' Special'). I have no issues with that. I elected (up to now) not to fiddle with those settings because it is difficult to balance stronger center force with backlash and it seems the very near the center force is impossible to increase. If and when I find better info on the Hornet FCS I will change the profile accordingly.

Yes, they sell CLS-P to private individuals. CLS-E Quality - ***** General layout - ***** Precision - ***** PERFECT Smoothness - ***** Max force - *** (could be a bit higher - 7 Nm) Sustained force - * (unacceptably low - made for civilian non demanding tasks - got a bit better with newer firmware) General force behavior - *** (weak force at the very center - should be snugger) CLS-P Quality - ***** General layout - **** (connectors are to the side and the cables may interfere with the surroundings and bend too much) Precision - ***** PERFECT Smoothness - *** (the motors are heavy with a grainy feeling when not producing torque - maybe could have a function to self alleviate its own weight) Max force - ***** PERFECT (it can effectively simulate shorter mechanical stops) Sustained force - ***** PERFECT General force behavior - *** (weak force at the very center - should be snugger)

For 'GA' and 'Warbirds' the initial force is zero because the real aircraft only start having resistance force on the stick with airflow during take-off. For the 'Jets' I chose a minimal force with 'Minimum Scale factor' setting. With the CLS-E this force (minimum spring force in Q Feel flight control systems) is weak to accommodate the never very strong force at maximum speed (so we, virtual pilots, perceive the build-up in force during speed increase). With CLS-P this initial force is stronger because the max speed force is virtual unlimited (50 Nm). With 'Hydraulics' we lose varying force with varying airspeed, which is the best setting for flight control systems with hydraulics and no Q Feel - usually most FBW (not all). Hydraulics failure only work with simulators that export that value (not DCS at this time). It than simulates mechanical backup where the forces exerted by the pilot are usually much higher. Yes, F/A-18 should not be in that list (HW Trim). I am still slowly (very slowly) testing all the aircraft and gathering more info on each one. All that I still don't know many details are in both lists. Most profiles are generic (by type of aircraft regarding flight control system and performance), so the Harrier, F-5 and Tomcat are all high speed with non reversible and with Q Feel flight control systems. With regard to speed I consider low altitude calibrated airspeed (not Mach number). So the 'Jets Slow' are up to 460 KCAS max speed and 'Jets Fast' are the ones that go up to 800 KCAS. For the Warbirds and GA I made a similar rationale of around 460 and 260 KCAS. When I have detailed info on a specific aircraft or it does not fit a generic profile I make a specific profile for it like the F-16 and the Mirage 2000. Unfortunately the CLS-E is very limited by the maximum force and the sustained force. With the CLS-P we can even make soft stops (to simulate smaller mechanical travel limits) that make the profiles even better. Example: In most hydraulic operated flight control systems pitch down stick travel is smaller than pitch up stick travel. We can limit this in CLS2Sim but with the CLS-E the force is so weak that it does not feel a stop. With CLS-P the force is so strong that effectively it acts as a mechanical stop. This is the only stick base that can simulate the F-16 stick besides the specific force sensing bases from RealSimulator.

Hi, Trim movement is not the same as control movement (by principle - it may be in specific aircraft). Example: In modern Airbus aircraft the trim moves the horizontal stabilizer whereas stick input moves the elevators (that are attached to the horizontal stabilizer). Imagine an awkward situation where the stabilizer is full nose down and the elevator is full nose up. The stabilizer (trim) has more effectiveness than the elevator and stick input won't overcome stabilizer action, only reduces it. Because using CLS2Sim does not provide trim interaction with DCS and additionally disables in many modules trim functionality, the use of 'Hardware Trim' in CLS2Sim is only a remedy. Example: in the F-5 trim setting is critical for take-off. Being one of the modules that lose trim functionality, by using of 'Hardware Trim' you won't be able to know proper trim position for take-off. The F/A-18 has a Q Feel flight Control System (my best info at this time) and is FBW, so 'Hydraulics' should be disabled. Q Feel artificially varies stick tension with varying airspeed. Also, the F/A-18 module does not lose trim functionality and in the real jet trim does not move the stick. So, my profile uses scale factor and I have bound trim function in DCS and not in CLS2SSim with 'Hardware Trim'. To sum up, F/A-18 does not have neutral displacement trim. Your profile moves the stick but not the trim (which are not the same depending on aircraft as I explained above). In my profiles I mostly use a ratio between pitch and roll force of 1.47 to 1.5, being the pitch axis the stronger. This ratio is derived from the F-16 force ratio between pitch up and roll. Real all round ratios may be closer to 2 and not 1.5. Then I use, for the variation of forces, a speed value based on the maximum calibrated airspeed not for a specific aircraft but for a family of aircraft. That's why I have 'Slow' and 'Fast'. For propellers slow is 'GA' (general aviation) and 'Fast' is 'Warbirds'. The speed also has a ratio between the pitch and the roll axis. For non airspeed varying stick I force 'Hydraulics' and use the ratio on the 'Hydraulics Force' settings. 'FFB fixed force' is for aircraft that the stick is independent of the airspeed (non Q Feel). Examples: F-16, modern Airbus (A320F and above), Mirage 2000. When I have better info on a particular aircraft and it does not fit a family of aircraft I use a specific profile. Example: F-16 and Mirage 2000 (only really possible with CLS-P). General rule: non hydraulic flight control systems are reversible, that means forces from the control surfaces are felt on the stick; hydraulic flight control systems are irreversible, meaning forces on the control surfaces are not felt on the stick. Finally, FFB and stick mechanics are not the same thing. Example: The F-86 stick works very similarly to the F/A-18, the stick forces vary with varying airspeed (except possibly that the F-86 trim moves the stick - displaced neutral - and the F/A-18 trim does not move the stick), but one is conventional (hydraulically operated) and the other is FBW (also hydraulically operated). Cheers

Schwalbe

It is explained in the read me txt. It shows the default installation folder, so you may have to change the path in case you have CLS2Sim installed differently.

Brunner CLS2Sim DCS Profiles by Shrimp (2022-12-24) https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3328095/

With BrunnerDX you retain trim interaction with DCS (displaced neutral) that you lose with CLS2SIM and that is not fully compensated by ‘Hardware trim’. Additionally, lots of DCS modules lose trim functionality completely, being the only makeshift solution the ‘Hardware trim’ option.