sydost

I found out about the event from facebook and thought I'd quickly check what it is about. I ended up watching the whole thing. Very entertaining to watch. Thanks all! I just wish I had more time to play DCS. Question about the upcoming Viggen module. On the Rb04 thread it is mentioned that there is a switch panel on the missile for programming. Will these settings be adjustable by player?

1. Fishbed win 43:22 2. Tiger win 38:33

Don't know how swedes did it but at least in Finland ATC (military and civilian) did the conversions. So military pilots just used whatever units they had on the instruments for speed / altitude or height when communicating with ATC.

ABBA? :smilewink:

I'm just wondering did anyone notice the problem I described at post #27 or should I have started a new bug thread about it so it would be noted and maybe corrected eventually. I understand that it is not high priority.

Too bad. I was hoping a way to fix it. Now I think the question is how does the forum work for others? Are our expectations too high ;)? Well, shouldn't be as the forum used to work like forums usually do. Can any of the moderators or admins shed a little light what has happened and how to fix this?

Lange did you solve this problem. I have it too. I remember that the behavior of the forum on this matter changed quite a long time ago (maybe about 1 year ago). Before that everything posted after my previous visit was shown unread which was very good. Now it is difficult to follow the forums if I have a longer than two days since my last visit.

They have changed it in DCS World. It used to be like that but now the latest versions require that at least one axis is bound to a FFB device in DCS. When you have one axis bound to an FFB device then DCS sends FFB data to all controllers. So if the other joystick is FFB stick then it should work fine. Or if no FFB stick available bind one axis to FFB steering wheel for example.

Nice. I think the benefit is that then you can use the stick in other flight sims too with full potential. Also maybe get a slightly more refined FFB as there probably is some alignment mismatch between the top and bottom units. I have also been thinking about doing a mod to convert the boards to master and slave boards so I would only plug the master to the computer and then supply the slave board with the master's FFB control data. Well, honestly I cannot do it but my electronic engineer friend has an idea how to do it.

In short the answer is yes. Check the last page of the dual MSFFB2 thread https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=83814&page=27 .

Here is the thread about the PeterP's frankenstick. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1366037#post1366037 The idea is that there is two MSFFB2 sticks linked mechanically to each other so they provide double the force to support a longer stick. I have also made this DIY FFB stick and in addition I have doubled the power of both MSFFB2 modules so now I have four times the power which unfortunately is still not enough to feel the trim forces when the stick is at center. I too have been dreaming of a OSW style system for flightsticks. Though I think that directdrive is not the way to go. Directdrive servo motors are quite heavy, big and expensive. In my dreams I would like to build a real size stick which would have even nearly real life forces (like forces met in P-51 for example). I think that best way to achieve that would be to use for example windshield wiper motor with a proper gearing or belt drive. In a flightstick it is not very important to have very rapid and accurate changes which on the other hand is important in racing games which supports the idea of directdrive there. I can build simple mechanics and solder but the software stuff is way beyond my skills. Those of you who understand something about it have you stumbled upon vJoy? vJoy added force feedback support to its drivers about a year ago so I think using vJoy would be one way of getting the FF data out of the game and via vJoy it could be sent to the controller. http://vjoystick.sourceforge.net/site/ I am also worried about the FFB support possibly dying away from flightsims as there is no more commercial sticks made. At the moment DCS FFB support is quite okay but it is not great. There would be so much more potential in FFB than what is in use now. For example in Su27 we could have the stick pusher function modelled like it works in the real aircraft. You'd feel the additional force kick in but if needed you could still pull through the pusher to get the kill. Or in the warbirds we could have a similar system as racing sims now have the soft lock to simulate the reduced control movement in high speeds flight. Well, I'm getting a bit ahead of myself but I think a lot of really cool things would be possible if proper FFB sticks would show up even if those were DIY sticks.

Hi! Not sure are you still waiting for answer on this one as it has been quite a while. I think there will be no problems using different models for the project as the two mechanisms will be only mechanically linked so if the mechanisms seem compatible it should work fine. I'd use the better red trigger model as the top mechanism.

Hi! I do also have a different problem with this same FFB logic change in the game. My version is 2.0.3.56503. I have a so called PeterP style frankenstick which uses two MSFFB2 joysticks to provide FFB for one stick. See this thread to get an idea of what this DIY stick is like https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1366037#post1366037 . As the MSFFB2 has a deadzone at the center of travel I have used Leo Bodnar BU0836X device for sending the stick position data to DCS World so I have bound my pitch and roll axis to the Bodnar device and the MSFFB2 devices are there only to provide the force feedback (benefit is to get rid of the irritating deadzone and get a better resolution out of the stick). Previously DCS World sent FFB commands to all plugged in FFB devices even no axis were bound to any of the FFB devices and so my DIY device was based on that gimmick but unfortunately it does not work that way anymore. Not a big problem since DCS needs at least one axis bound to one FFB controller for it to send FFB data to all plugged in FFB devices so I can live with it but I was thinking maybe this problem could also be solved . My suggestion is to add FFB on / off toggle to the controls menu's FF tune menu. This way user could toggle on / off FFB devices per module and even select which FFB devices receive the FFB signals. This would give very good control to the user about the FFB and would allow us who prefer the old way to continue to use our DIY devices like we designed those to work. The users who prefer to use FFB on some modules and not on others could also easily do the required selections without the need to unplug the FFB device.

Glad to be of service! :thumbup: I am hoping to get a bigger display area too but need to first upgrade the computer.

Nope, I think you got it wrong. To me it seems that DCS works like it should and that effect you are describing is simply how high field of view looks like on a single monitor. Check this video from around 4:50 forward. Does it look like what DCS looks like to you? At 4:50 the aircraft is around 1,4NM from the threshold and the runway looks more like you were 6NM out in real world. At 5:16 the aircraft is over approach lights which are 900m long and the runway still looks tiny. As you probably well know the height of the aircraft is around 200 feet at that point. The FOV of the GoPro which it was filmed with is quite similar to what DCS normally uses. So I think there is no trickery used in DCS as the same effect is present on a real world video filmed with high FOV lens. [ame] [/ame] In SimRacing (especially in iRacing) world this is actually talked about quite a lot. There it is important to drive using the proper FOV so that everything looks the same while you are driving in your real car. When all the FOV is correct it is easier for your brains to understand. the upcoming corners, braking points, distances to other vehicles etc. Hence many simracers buy triple screens to see more to the sides while having the proper FOV and triple screens is usually the first thing more experienced persons suggest as a hardware upgrade for newcomers as it is such an important matter. I think the same thing is equally important in flight simming too so that the three degree glidepath actually looks the same as the three degree glidepath when you are flying for real.

If there is no generic spring effect or proper force feedback effects programmed at the state of the beta release I think we should be able to use the force test program to do the spring effect ourselves. The program can be found from this page http://www.fs-force.com/support.htm . Link at the bottom to forcetest.exe . Very good that the force effects are coming eventually. :thumbup:

You adjust turn radius by adjusting bank angle. Lower bank angle = larger radius.

I have done all that (dual motors, resistor mod + counterweight) with a Cougar grip which is also full-metal and I would still like to have more force. So I think it is a good idea to use plastic grip or limit the length of the extension. Very nice work there Milopapa :thumbup: .

You are not far off since this kind of system is actually used in the DC-9 series and on some other aircrafts of the same period. http://www.airlinepilotchatter.com/2013/02/why-are-md80-elevators-split.html

MC-15 Cri Cri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colomban_Cri-cri

I haven't flown huey for a while but basically swapping the axis does the same thing for all modules. It changes the trimming forces to correct axis when using MSFFB2 stick. Just swap the axis for every aircraft/helicopter and then the FFB trimming works like it should. I think there isn't a thread started yet. Maybe should start one to "input and output" section and ask it to be stickied as this peculiarity causes problems quite often. Good job for getting the problem fixed :thumbup: . Ain't the su27 great with proper FFB trimming.

Sure. No controller software needed and there really isn't any available. Go to dcs options and then the controller menu. Select your MSFFB2. At the bottom of the menu there should be a "ff menu" button. Click that and there is an option to swap the channels. I am fairly certain this will fix your problems. What it does now as you have the swap option unchecked is that the pitch channel ffb effects go to roll and vice versa. If your mission uses air start the elevator is already trimmed for the higher speed at the beginning of the mission and thus gives you immediate roll. My advice is to always use the swap option with every aircraft when using MSFFB2 stick to get the trimming forces to work properly. I think that on one module I have also inverted the pitch channel to get it working.

About the wheels I think Thrustmaster T300 wheels are quite good. A slightly newer force feedback technology than T500 and quite a bit cheaper too. Biggest drawback is that it has only a two pedal system so if you want clutch you need to buy separate pedals.

Maybe a stupid question but have you swapped the force feedback channels in DCS from the controller's force feedback menu? For me the trimming with MSFFB2 works very well in su27 even with force feedback enabled.

[quote=159th_Falcon;2470923Better option might be a big 4K monitor, sadly enough there is only one around that i know off. Then again, it's pretty good and certainly good enough for DCS; Phillips BDM4065UC, love it. http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/6179/17/17-ultra-hd-monitors-review-pixel-explosion-philips-bdm4065uc 40 Inches of goodness for 550 pounds, or around 700 euro. I'd prefer to go for a proper monitor but then again I'd also like to go bigger than 40 inch. The Phillips is also quite a bit cheaper so I'll definitely need to consider that option as well. Thanks for the help. At the moment I'm building up my knowledge on the subject so I can make an informed decision when the time is right.