Rifter

Nice summary. This particular point had great significance far beyond the decision-making processes and political sensitivities of the time: This meant a far-reaching implication practically only made possible by the decision to go with the F-104: it enabled the West German aviation industry to return to world standards, since the F-104G could be built under license. FJS was planning to build a German defense industry so as to no longer be dependent on foreign deliveries in the long term. Until then, a lot of armaments had to be procured from abroad. For the Mirage III, which had been the favoured option for FJS for some time, the French (more precisely de Gaulle) had a clear opinion on licenses or nuclear weapons options. From a longer-term perspective, as cynical as it may sound in view of the many pilots who died in accidents, it almost didn't matter how good or bad the Starfighter was. In the long run, it was a win for the german aerospace industry far beyond the operational period of the "Witwenmacher". It paved the way for Airbus, Tornado and Eurofighter.

General hint for the settings in the MOZA software: Do not use [km/h] for velocity settings, although the unit [km/h] is used in the GUI. Use [m/s] instead since DCS telemetry data is output in [m/s] and MOZA doesn't do a conversion. Regarding the OH-6: Data extraction is done in the same way as in TelemFFB and therefore most likely correct. However, the ground and weapon effects are currently not working in MOZA for the OH-6.

Ok - supplement to the A-4: Yes, the A-4 Skyhawk is often considered a counter-insurgency (COIN) aircraft due to its suitability for close air support and ground attack missions. While originally designed as a light attack bomber for the US Navy and Marine Corps, its relatively small size, maneuverability, and ability to carry a variety of bombs, rockets, and other munitions made it well-suited for COIN operations. It served in various conflicts where COIN tactics were employed, further solidifying its role in this capacity. Source: The almighty google gemini ai

Surprised, it wasn't mentioned yet: The A-4 counts to the light attack aircrafts as well. Edit: Ok - perhaps not a typical COIN aircraft...

Lossless Scaling does not work with VR. For upscaling in VR there is DLSS and FSR. Generation of additional frames in VR is done by the respective compositor reprojection methods.

First of all: The title isn't clickbait, nor is it a criticism of the map. This map has been a small dream come true for me, and so far the implementation is appealing. I'm really looking forward to the further development steps of Ugra Media. My problem now is: every halfway realistic conflict scenario involves massive troop deployments or troop movements. Of course, I can place a few tanks in the landscape and shoot them with a lone A-10 or Su-25. But honestly, that doesn't give me any significant joy. I'm completely overwhelmed by the sheer dimensions of soldiers and equipment required to depict any scenario in which a cold war turns into a hot one on this map. Even if you limit yourself to a small part of a conflict, the amount of work you have to do to make it look real makes my head spin. Unfortunately, generic sandbox scenarios are not my thing. Where is the damn dynamic campaign mode? If a scenario were: The Soviets establish a blockade of West Berlin, how much Soviet material would need to be placed where to be realistic? How many and which NATO aircraft would need to be deployed as blockade runners? When I look at the figures on troop strength during that time period, I feel dizzy. It seems I've gotten so old waiting for this map that I'm now overwhelmed with mission building. I'll start with practice takeoffs and landings on a stretch of Autobahn. That's realistic, and I can just about nail the necessary equipment onto the map. Then I make a few supersonic low-level flights over some sleepy villages...childhood memories! On a map of Rhodesia from the 1970s, one could recreate very realistic scenarios with a meager two-ship flight and a few unguided rockets. Perhaps I'll go back to one of the desert maps. Now I've got it: I will play an F-4 pilot in the German Air Force who's in Nellis for training. Yep – I can just about manage that!

That's not surprising. The VR compositor doesn't care a bit about the Smooth Motion function - it's for the pancake-world.

Well, there's probably a unique combination of fortress and airfield: the fortress ("Veste") Coburg and the runway of the "Brandensteinsebene" next to it. The runway is a bit adventurous (=just right for some fun); practice landings with the C-160 Transall used to take place here.

I haven't been active in DSC for a while. Due to the stuttering problem in VR, I stayed with an older DCS version with the single threaded variant. My old computer configuration (9900K + 3090 + Rift S & Reverb G2) worked without any problems in single threaded. Multi threaded, on the other hand, was always a disaster. Incidentally, there was a performance boost in multi threaded (more FPS headroom), but what use is it if you constantly have micro-stuttering when looking sideways out of the cockpit at the ground? The performance boost is of no use and here I already suspected that the stuttering had nothing to do with settings or performance but of course people could counter me by saying that my cpu was very old. I have now built a new computer (7800X3D + 5090) and, just for fun, copied the old DCS version from the old computer 1 to 1 (including all settings) because I wanted to see how the topic of multi threading behaves with the new CPU and the new GPU in VR (still Rift S & Reverb G2). Result: Single threaded runs smoothly (as in the old computer). With the 3090 settings the 5090 is of course hopelessly under-challenged, but... ...with multi-threaded the old stuttering problem still shows up again. Originally I assumed that the 9900K was simply too old and could therefore no longer do a stitch in multi threaded. But the 7800X3D obviously can't do any better while the 5090 is bored to death with the 3090 graphics settings. This is not a computer problem or a setting problem. This is a problem on the code side of DCS with multi threading. I will now update to the latest DCS version. If the stuttering continues, I'll say goodbye to DCS again and check back in a year.

This is what I did in my testing. But I have to admit honestly that I don't have the nerve to spend an hour circling the F-16 around just to determine the temperature rise. At the moment there is no possibility to readout temperatures for the Moza base. Also temperature limits within the settings menu are related to the case temperature (upper limit is 40° Celsius). My conclusion until now: Single player use cases (small self build scenarios, campaigns, training missions, etc.) will most probably not be able to bring the Moza base to a critical temperature level, since players will always have a mixture of normal flight operations and selectively combat flying with high G forces. Highly competitive multi player scenarios need prolonged sessions with practically non-stop excessive high G dogfight manoeuvres to heat up the base. I took a screenshot from a Youtube video of the opened base and I am not even sure, if the pitch axis motor is attached to the base plate in a way that it can fully utilise the aluminum material as heatsink. But my scientific ultra-objective fingertip test tells me, that at least some heat transfer is taking place...

Die Achsen funktionieren noch nicht für alle Virpil-Griffe, werden z.T. nur als Tasten erkannt. Wird aber laut MOZA bald vollständig unterstützt. Die Taster-Funktionen gehen ohne Einschränkungen. Ansonsten ist das Teil eine industrialisierte Version vom Rhino und mit seinem Alu-Gimbal und Alu-Gehäuse eine recht solide Angelegenheit.

Repeated 5 minutes rate fight sessions with short interruptions with the F-16 setting (simulated force sensitive stick and therefore maxed out forces) does not create enough heat up effects to reach the thermal limits for force reduction on my side. You need prolonged periods of playtime to continuously heat up the whole system. First thing which warms up is the base plate because the pitch axis motor is mounted there. The roll axis motor is surrounded by air (therefore heat isolated) and will probably be the one to face overheating first. Then again the roll axis should be set to around one half of the force level of the pitch axis anyway if realism is the goal. Perhaps Hiob can show us a typical usage of his Rhino in which he reaches the temperature limits so we can use this as a good reference to replicate it on the Moza since it was him who so emphatically (and correctly) pointed out the thermal challenges of the underlying technical concept.

With 'dedicated dogfighters' or 'Cold Warriors' you probably mean competitive game play? At the moment the only FFB stick with reasonably realistic force levels is the FFBeast. You can create the 20 pound per G gradient of a Cessna 172 with that (yes, you've read right, a CESSNA ONE SEVEN TWO!). So flying aerobatics in that 'monster' of an aircraft in a sim will demand at least around 40 pounds stick force when entering a loop. I would love to meet a GA simmer doing that and I would even be more keen to meet a DCS simmer who is doing dogfighting with that force level in a competitive game play. Someone doing that will probably lose every fight due to massive self-handicapping against any opponent using a conventional flight stick base. Of course you can heat up the MOZA base through excessive high-g maneuvers with maximum adjusted force on the pitch axis in a 5 or 6 minutes lasting rate fight. But despite the significantly lower forces compared to the FFBeast: Is that permanent maximum force level really desirable in competitive gaming? But than again, there are sim racers doing their regular upper arm work out on their 25Nm FFB wheels...world is full of crazy people.

You may have fallen victim to the latest DCS version's MT-only approach. Certain (individual) hardware configurations have problems with MT along with ASW. And that has absolutely nothing to do with the performance of your hardware (or your settings). It has to do with the fact that ED's MT approach leads to negative side effects due to synchronization mechanisms (principle-related), which unfortunately only become visible in very specific configurations. There is no solution. ED will not make any effort because of a few percent of affected users. I have the same problem. Therefore, I stayed on the last ST version until I decided which VR system I want to continue with in the future.

As I understand MOZA on their Discord channel they are working on a solution for that. Profiles for modules without explicit FFB support are ideally handled with the option 'Telemetry FFB'. But for that you need information about the force curves respectively force gradients of the real aircraft. Those force gradients are hard to come by. From those few I am aware of, it looks like there is sometimes a breakout force to create a defined centre for the flight stick and to prevent unintentional stick movements. Further more there is usually no symmetry between the roll and pitch axis. Roughly seen the roll axis is just one half or even less of the force level of the pitch axis. But then again in landing configuration the force curve of the roll axis is artificially increased to prevent unwanted roll movements during landing caused by excessive control inputs. This is also true for many (if not all) civilian jets. This cannot be reproduced at the moment with the possibilities of the MOZA software. I think Heatblur reproduced this behaviour for the Tomcat with the built-in FFB. Soooo... ...bring us the flight control force gradients of our DCS jets and the profile development can begin!

Please don't take my comment seriously. By the way, my favorite cockpit outfit variant looks like this...

I'm a little disappointed with your PJ pants - I was expecting a slightly flashier fabric pattern...

Since I don't have any Virpil equipment: The grip can (apparently) be rotated 90 degree to match the rotated base connector?

Due to content and gameplay, Raid over Moscow was banned in Germany at that time. That alone was reason enough to own the game...and it was awesome!

To be honest, I would never have thought of using simFFB for the MOZA base. But since no idea is too far-fetched for me, I immediately tried it out (thanks for the inspiration!). And... ...it actually works! When you keep off the MOZA software at the same time, of course. But: There is nothing you can do with simFFB, which cannot be done much better within the MOZA software.

I actually stumbled upon a software conflict caused by the lua-scripting of the AB9 FFB base: My motion platform no longer worked together with the base. I could solve it by changing the order of the entries in the export.lua file. MOZA appends its necessary entries to the end of the export.lua. I had to put it at the beginning of the file to solve the conflict. Now I have sensory-gasm: Buttkicker, strong flight stick FFB, motion platform and VR. To recover from it I have to play F15 Strike Eagle on the C64 every now and then...

null

Loopings and barrel rolls create constant/varying positive normal force on the pilot. If a full range motion rig would temporarily turn you upside-down for that kind of maneuvers, the force perception would be wrong! It is exactly 64990€. How I know that?

I just love those mods, which create a huge step forward with the simplest hardware addition to an already existing input device.

Wait... 1. 1980s 2. Nordschleife 3. BMW Let me see... ...I remember something... ...oh yes, here we are: