Tom Kazansky

that's a valid point! my Virpil WarBRD-D base in the default configuration has a small software deadzone. The Virpil rudders as well. You can see in the VPC Configuration tool, that the raw values still change but the output value stays at 50% while slowly moving over that deadzone. so the DCS Hornet AP issue would also be there for us Virpil users if we turned that off, I assume. It seems to be just a matter of programmed limits in DCS, so why not make those just a little bit larger to suit more users' hardware without forcing them to make a deadzone that kills an important part of the experience? I also assume, that the real Hornet does not have a deadzone, but its AP BALT mode does engage when the other limits are met (and most probably without a warnig tone). Can we all agree in this point?

Same here, but please tell me, with the hand on stick and you press BALT (just once), do you never hear the autopilot warning tone before it finally engages (like I described above, due to a small deflection and a return to center afterwards)? And this "afterwards" can mean seconds, if you are deflecting the stick just 0.5%. This should be looked at with priority, imho.

Checked for wheel chocks in F2 external view? edit: Parking brake? (not available in A-10 thx @Yurgon) Wheel brake axis in control setting inverted or double binding issue with another controller?

Maybe ED works on new Cow'ntermeasures?

You can test that easily by setting a large deadzone temporarily to both axis of your stick (and maybe rudders too), and see if that changes anything.

dito

It does not avoid the pain, but maybe it helps mitigating it. There's another thread where it is stated that your settings could still be there and restorable: Others posted some methods to save control settings in the same thread.

Thanks! Very much appreciated, and longed-for.

Darn cheater!

@Air Joker besten Dank für die ausfühliche Antwort. Das deckt wohl alles ab was ich wissen wollte und macht die Crystal für mich auf jeden Fall zum interessantesten Nachfolger für die Zeit nach der G2 (bis jetzt).

Ich möchte den Thread hier nicht in ne Einstellungsberatung lenken, würde aber doch sehr gerne kurz wissen wie viele Pixel du die G2 und die Crystal rendern hast lassen. Meine G2 war am Anfang auf 100% und damit auf ca. 3000x3000 pro Auge eingestellt und ich konnt einfach nicht mehr mit weniger leben. Nach meiner naiven Meinung könnte das ja dann auch für die Crystal reichen, oder fährt man die auch gern mit 40% mehr pro Achse damit das Ergebnis richtig gut aussieht?

Me neither, and it is still to good to be true. Like many German users here there would be a (small) chance that our home towns are part of this map. I would be too hyped to post my feelings if this came true.

.

I just checked the BALT HOLD behaviour in the Hornet again, and what I find interesting is: 1) If your stick is not totaly centered in pitch (Y-axis) when you press BALT on the UFC, a warnig tone sounds, the BALT does not engage BUT(!) without doing anything else but moving the stick slightly into the center of the pitch (Y) axis, the BALT mode still engages. Again: This happens without another press of the BALT button on the UFC. 2) And this is why no. 1) is helpful: the BALT mode does not disengage by releasing the slightly uncentered stick, because (and that was news for me): The limits in wich the stick must be centered to engage BALT are significantly smaller than those you have to exceed to disengage the BALT mode by deflecting the stick. So as a workaround I recommend to move the stick in the pitch axis as soon as you hear the warning tone (that is heard after a non engaging BALT mode after BALT-button-press) until the BALT mode engages. Btw. If your stick is uncentered in the x-axis, there is no problem at all with the BALT mode. You can even deflect the stick quite a bit to the side, as long as your pitch is centered to engage BALT. EDIT: and now something completely odd: I slightly deflected the stick from the center in pitch axis, pressed BALT, the warning tone sounded and BALT did not engage (as expected), then I waited more than 10 sec before moving the stick to the center and BALT still engages (without pressing BALT on the UFC again). I have no proof from real life, but this seems odd, doesn't it?

+1 Deadzones kill precision in formation flying and air to air refuling. It makes no sense to spend hundreds of bucks for a good stick/base and add deadzones. No offence to the work around here, but the limits in the DCS Hornet seem too narrow to be realistic.

Will we be able to drive e.g. a Humvee right into a CH47? And of course out of it again by ourselves with Combined Arms?

Ich finde es auch komisch, aber tröste mich mit der Aussage, dass die EA-Feature-Liste vor dem EA-release veröffentlicht wird. Es wird mir also die Möglichkeit gegeben vor dem Kauf zu sehen was kommt, wenn ich das wichtig finde. Übrig bleibt nur die Frage ob das dann nur beschreibt was im EA kommt, das heißt, ob das was später kommt auch aufgelistet wird. Das wär schon wichtig. Gerade wenn/weil ich nicht ein total überzeugter CH47 Fan bin, aber mich dafür interessiere.

thanks

Is it by about or to about 70%? Just curious.

40nm turn radius would be quite off, according to the following info: Found some good insights on almost every AAR aspect where it is stated that a RL* pattern is more like max. 20 nm x min. 50 nm https://wiki.ivao.aero/en/home/specialoperations/Documentation/AAR Edit: *the info is from the IVAO website, so I don't know how close it matches RL info.

Ich bin gespannt wie die 3840 x 3840 Pixel pro Auge (mit FovRendering) der "Super" einschlagen werden. Obwohl der Aufpreis natürlich heftig ist, sehne ich mich sehr nach mehr Auflösung. Vielleicht auch weil damit die Qualität der Kantenglättung immer weniger ausschlaggebend wird. Interessant sind aber für mich alle angekündigten Varianten. Auch wenn ich (noch) kein Pimax-Fan bin.

By definition, "Phantom pain" refers to painful sensation perceived in a part that is not present.

... the first plane with an even bigger angle of stabilizers to the outside, that came to my mind was the YF-23 Black Widow II and I found the following interesting behaviour: while taxiing on the ground the YF-23 moves its stabilizers clockwise in a right taxi-turn. correct me if I'm wrong, but this should mean a right rudder press. the control surfaces ot the much more perpendicular (i.e. vertical) stablilizers of the Hornet move "counterclockwise" (or to the right, in this regard) with a right rudder press. This tells me, that if the stabilizers are installed with an higher and higher angle to the outboard sides, the effect I described in my previous post becomes so pronounced, that it is the better solution to invert the stabilizers' movement to get the roll/yaw you want to get. Here is a YT video of the right taxi turn (starting at 34min 50s), you might need to slow the replay speed down to see it better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYLiMYGBE2Q#t=34m50s I admit that's a far excursion, and not a proof by no means, but it helps me understand what could be going on, till proven otherwise.

Couldn't stop thinking about that, so I came to the following: let's assume hypothetically(!) we could increase the angle of both of the vertical stabilizers even more to the outboard sides, and consider them almost like wings: so a (e.g.) left rudder input would look exactly like a right aileron input (if those stabilizers were wings). The right control surface would point upwards and the left surface downwards. The result would be a right roll. You get what I mean? So this would explain why a smaller angle of the stabilizers to the outboard side could induce a smaller (but noticeable) roll to the opposite side of the rudder input. (Does not explain why it is AoA dependent, but ok.)