Cgjunk2

Maybe I updated my thoughts regarding the sounds on another thread, but obviously not this one. Current sounds seem to be much better on the whole, and more environmentally immersive given the addition of the blade slap sounds. It’s really hard to hear any differences between the current sounds and real Mi-8 videos during startup or flying operations. I’m not sure if the sounds remain WIP, but after getting used to the differences compared to the previous sounds (which I also liked a lot), I think the current sounds are excellent. Again, I was perfectly happy with the previous sounds, but the new sounds seem more accurate and broader. After listening to several vids, I think even the apu sounds are accurate (if a little quiet). Somebody had mentioned a while back that the blade slap frequency was slightly off. I’m not sure that was ever resolved.

Internal cargo finally works! Awesome addition to the Hip!!!

Ah, you were only speaking about trim moving the control surface when the airplane is at zero airspeed. Thank you for the clarification!!! I misunderstood your previous post to mean that we should not expect the stick to move its “zero force” position when trimming in flight. It’s a great relief to me that its not the case. I still don’t own a FFB stick, but am really looking forward to experiencing the Corsair when I finally buy one (holding out hope for the Winwing FFB option when it releases).

As an airplane increases or decreases speed, the amount of lift generated will also change. This requires that you move *and hold * the control stick forward (nose down) or backwards (nose up) to maintain any give altitude. This is true of any airplane where the control stick is physically connected to the elevator surfaces. For example, if you increase speed by adding power, your airplane naturally wants to climb from the additional lift. That means you must push forward/move control surfaces downward, *and hold* to counteract the lift of the wings if you want to maintain your current altitude. With sufficient speed, this will mean the elevator surface will be visibly deflected in order to cause the nose to lower. The stick in the cockpit will also be in a new position because it’s directly connected to the elevator. If you are continually accelerating, the force needed to move the elevator further nose down to maintain altitude continues to increase greatly, to a point that the pilot would not have enough strength to continue pushing any further forward. At that point, the plane would simply continue to climb, until you reduce your power. Trim is necessary because it relieves the heavy forces necessary to hold the control surfaces at that new position. This means that after you trim the airplane for a new airspeed, the control stick no longer requires force to stay in that new position necessary to maintain altitude. But critically, as a natural consequence of the stick being physically linked to the control surface, the stick *MUST* be in a new position if you go “hands off”. So, in other words, the stick will be in a new position after trimming. There is simply no way around this for planes that use cables, push-pull rods, and bell cranks to connect the stick to the control surfaces. My apologies for being so wordy. The way trimming works is harder to understand when it’s being explained in words. Once you fly an airplane and viscerally feel the control pressures and movements needed to maintain level flight as airspeed changes, it becomes much easier to understand how it works, and what it looks like when it’s used. Force feedback joysticks were created solely to simulate these forces. Edit to add: these forces are obviously not present when the airplane is sitting still on the ground. While it's true that you can cause the elevator and stick to move without touching the control stick solely by using trim, this is cannot occur when the plane is still. The trim tab affects the elevator surface only through aerodynamic forces. And by the way, to all budding pilots out there, it's is very bad practice to "fly the plane" using trim only. Best practice is to manipulate the stick to where it needs to be to maintain altitude, then use the trim to relieve the forces on the control stick. Then you can remove your hand from the stick and see that the plane now roughly maintains altitude all by itself.

The brakes seem plenty powerful to me. And regardless, in a real plane, if you were moving at running pace, it only takes a little bit of differential brake for the tail to swing to the side, after which it would continue due to momentum without any braking. The issue seems to arise from friction. It acts as if it has a wooden skid instead of a tailwheel… Or as if the tail wheel is not castering and only turns if you can get the tail tire to skid a across the the pavement by using excessive power and differential braking. (As an aside, I don’t think the rudder is playing a part in the turning problem being discussed here. At slow speeds, with zero wind, and with no prop blast, the rudder doesn’t contribute much to initiating or stopping a swinging turn. The video of the corsair turning with the engine off shows the rudder turned, but it’s not because it was necessary for the turn. It turned because the differential braking is accomplished by pushing the top of the rudder pedal, which is easier to do with the rudder pedal bottomed out) That's interesting, but it makes sense. If the tailwheel is in reality a stick that touches the ground, do you think that it’s possible to solve this by simply changing the “friction value” of the stick? I would imagine it would have one friction value (near zero) when unlocked, and a higher value with the tailwheel locked. It might need some tuning to find a believable friction value that simulates the rolling resistance of the tail wheel and main tires, but maybe this could be an easy solution to all this?

I'm confused by the purpose of your responses. Are you saying the tailwheel on the corsair is working normally? Or are you saying it's possible to make it turn by doing various things that aren't necessary in real life? Or that it shouldn't be considered a bug because you can figure out a hack to make it turn?

I'm not sure if your response is addressing the tail wheel behavior or wind behavior. I was wondering if it's possible to make the tail wheel behave like it's fully castering? Currently, it needs unrealistic amounts of power and too much differential braking to get it to swing around. It currently behaves (and visually appears) to drag the tailwheel across the tarmac when it's turning. In reality, a plane with a fully castering tailwheel (unlocked), should need some initial braking momentarily to initiate the turn, maybe a touch of throttle (certainly not half throttle), and afterwords the tail should swing around freely, all by itself, and without further braking or even rudder input from the pilot. And if you were to do it slightly too fast, the swing out could be rather violent (ground loop) and hard to stop. For example, the P47 demonstrates the normal physics of a fully castering tail wheel quiet well. Is it possible to fix the tailwheel behavior, or is it considered correct at this point?

Hello all, I don't own the CH-47, but my graphics card is often its victim in MP servers (sorry, couldn't resist). I use VR. One of the problems I've been having is being subjected to excessively sized and overly-luminous light bloom orbs from the nav, beacon, and position lights. This happens in severe clear weather, so there is no reason to have any atmospheric light scattering effect. Also, besides being excessively sized, the relative size and luminosity of the orbs do not change to match increasing distance from the light source. Basically, the light remains the same absolute size and brightness on the screen regardless of distance. When you are 7 or 8 miles away, the red flashing beacon lights on the CH-47 look like a 2000lb GBU flash-bang grenades going off every second. The nav lights create a orb/bloom capable of hiding multiple Ch-47s behind it. These excessive light orb blooms have been a problem forever on DCS. However, It does not seem to be an impossible problem to solve, because the F18 had huge light orb blooms for years until they fixed them about a year or two ago. The carrier landing approach lights also had excessive light bloom which made the meatball unreadable. I think they made the IFOLS overlay to address the fact that the light orbs made reading the lights impossible. Regardless, they fixed the carrier lights for a short time and they became much more realistic, and perfectly usable. Unfortunately, they broke the IFOLS lighting again on a subsequent build, so it's back to being a completely unreadable bloomy orbs that obscure the landing area once you're initially turning into the groove. Now that I think of it...while I say these light-orbs are a problem...I suspect they actually are more of a rendering decision instead of an actual technical bug. I recall that these light-orbs were actually considered and defended as "correct as is" on the F18 for years before they actually fixed them, but I'm not sure if the developers were seeing what I was seeing through VR. In any case, the current orbs on the CH-47 are as bad as they ever were on the F18 back in the old days.

These excessive light orb blooms have been a problem forever. However, It does not seem to be an impossible problems to solve, because the F18 had huge light orb blooms for years until they fixed them about a year or two ago. The carrier landing approach lights also had excessive light bloom which made the meatball unreadable. I think they made the IFOLS overlay to address the fact that the light orbs made reading the lights impossible. Regardless, they fixed the carrier lights for a short time and they became much more realistic, and completely usable. Unfortunately, they broke the IFOLS lighting again, so it's back to being a completely unreadable bloomy orbs that obscure the landing area once you're initially turning into the groove. The problem with the light-orb bloom effect is that the size of the orb remains the same absolute size on the screen, regardless of how far away you are from the light source...it does not scale down relative to the apparent size of plane/ship. Currently the worst offender is the CH-47. When you are 7 or 8 miles away, the red flashing beacon lights look light a 2000lb GBU flash-bang grenade. The nav lights create a orb/bloom capable of hiding multiple Ch-47s behind it. I'm not saying that the fix should be to properly scale the hazy light-orb with distance...the real answer is to get rid of the light-orb bloom completely. It's not realistic for most atmospheric conditions, and even when the human eye would see a hazy light blooming around a nav light (for example in foggy conditions), their luminosity would be attenuated by the the fog as distance increases. As far as blooms around the IFOLS lighting, perhaps if the ship is in a marine fog layer, maybe I could imagine the light blooming as badly as they do right now in clear atmospheric conditions in-game. But I don't think that's enough of a reason to keep the light bloom effect, when it makes absolutely everything else very unrealistic. It's horrible. Is this only a problem with VR?

Maybe using the word "feel" wasn't the best word choice. What I meant to say is that the tail wheel does not free-wheel caster, which then requires that the airplane be operated in a manner that is not at all what you would experience in planes that have fully castering tailwheels. Of course, there is no way to model actual feel, but I think it's important that the airplane steers in a way conceptually consistent with what is physically expected on taildraggers with free-wheeling castering tailwheels. The corsair module has been in development for over a decade...the amount of details in the visual modeling is jaw-dropping, and it's obvious much love was put into this so far. I'm not expecting "zero bugs" at release. I'm sure the developer wants to address the issues/bugs that will come up, as nobody that has crafted something like this module would be content to leave it in EA. I just don't think people should be content with accepting this bug just because they can manage to turn it by blasting a few hundred horsepower through the prop, or because simming ground handing is hard. Just the opposite, I hope this bug is prioritized because it's directly affects the operation of the plane on a basic level.

You mentioned that trim on the german models is caused by moving the entire (fixed) portion of the horizontal stabilizer. Interesting...I never studied how those work, so I'm not sure how that would translate to changes in the stick position as the airplane is trimmed to hold different speeds. The other airplanes that have trim tabs, however, should end up in a different position after trimming. It would end up in the position that you were holding to maintain level flight...except after trimming, you wouldn't feel the forces needed to maintain level flight (and you would be able to go "hands off" for short periods of time without the plane immediately changing altitude. Regarding your FFB stick... do you actually have to return the stick to "center" after trimming? Because if the position isn't in a different place after trimming, as you say...then that means it would have to go back to some sort of preset center position, which is exactly what happens on a regular non-FFB stick. That would be very odd. But...maybe it is actually changing position on your FFB, but you don't actually notice it? Ironically, if you are trimming using "correct" technique, you should be using the stick to hold level altitude, and then trim button to "relieve forces" at that new position. So maybe you are trimming correctly, so you're not seeing the stick move per se...just feeling the relieved pressure otherwise needed hold it in position. You should be able to verify it's working correctly in flight by just using the trim, if you just use the trim without putting pressure on the stick. As it trims to a new position, you should see your stick move without needing to touch the stick itself (besides the trim hat if you use that for trim). Hopefully it actually works on your other planes...since 100 percent of the true purpose of FFB is precisely to simulate trimming forces/stick forces. By the way, if stopped on the ground, the stick just falls forward...if the the elevator is heavy enough to droop from gravity. Once you have a little prop blast or airspeed, the air picks it up, which moves the stick along with it (since it's mechanically directly linked via cable/pulleys, or pushrods). The only planes where it might not fall forward is on planes that have balanced "stabilators" (like Piper Archers, Arrows, etc), where the entire horizontal stabilizer rotates around one axis in order make pitch changes on the airplane.

Would be neat to see if anybody would start making "cottage industry" FFB sticks here in the US. Maybe the guy making the Rhino would sell licenses for somebody interested in making them in the US.... If I were younger and more tolerant of business failure, I think it would be kinda fun to try to hire a few people and make a go at it.

I'm not sure if this was already noted elsewhere, but I noticed that the position of the visual stick in the cockpit doesn't change in relation to trim either. The stick position should change based on the trim on all of those. In real life, the stick cannot remain in the center, because that means the control surface is also "centered". If the control surface were to remain centered all the time, it could only fly one speed without increasing or decreasing in altitude. The faster the plane goes, the more lift it makes, requiring forward stick pressure to maintain altitude at the new higher speed (and vice-versa). In real life, trim is used to relieve those pressures, so the stick can stay in that new position without you having to push to keep it in the required position.

I've never verified this in-game, but doesn't world slider affect the overall volume of everything in game, all at once? I don't think DCS has any settings that allow a user to individually alter the volume levels relative to other planes (individual sound levels per module).

I've seen this same thing happen with other warbirds in DSC...not sure if that has been fixed in any of them. The reason I know is because I quite enjoy purposefully tumbling them on landing to check out the damage modeling. Other than the double empennages and some floating tail structure after it breaks off, the Corsair has a pretty sweet damage model.

If we have to have visual effects for the sake of visual effects, then you might as well add some function to it, like flutter during a slide slip. Makes perfect sense to expect some fluttering in that condition, although don't know if it lines up with reality.

I agree with your sentiments, but personally I do feel it should be among the highest priority items. The flight starts on the ground, and ground handling should, at the very least, feel as if it lines up with physical realities. If it feels completely wrong the second you start your taxi, it's very off-putting.

The few times that I've landed on the carrier, I've been able to catch a wire for the most part. But I have noticed that it takes full pitch input with nearly full nose up trim to get nose angle high enough for a three point arrival on the deck. Seems to fly like a very nose-heavy aircraft with full nose-up trim.

The instantaneous acceleration when they are using the cat shot seems pretty intense. I get a headache just watching it lol.

Yeah...maybe that's the case. This whole situation is gonna suck. I hold very little hope anyone would think it makes sense to be making FS peripherals here in the US. Besides maybe guys in sheds making them like the guy that does the Rhino FFB stick. As it stands, home-building one of his kits may be the only way to get a decent FFB. I was looking forward to Wingwings offering, but unless Tuesday brings tacos and good news, I doubt it will be worth buying it with tariffs added on to the price.

Seeing a 55 percent tax would make a customer freak out just the same. I just wonder if it's legal to claim they are collecting a tax that is not actually directly payable by the customer to begin with. Again, I'm not saying wingwing wouldn't increase the price by just as much across the board to cover the tariff they already payed to import it, because I'd expect they would.

You could argue that the market is so small for high-end Flight Sim peripherals, that even Winwing's business case was already marginal in pre-tarrif conditions. I'm not going to hold my breath for any US made products within this niche market. And if there were to be any, I'd have to imagine it would be using nearly 100 percent imported components. And on that note, it wouldn't surprise me if it's more likely for winwing to look into hiring a few people to do final assembly of the peripherals in the US in order to get the "Made in US" sticker. I doubt it would change the pricing much, since I imagine the taxes on importing their components will still add up.

If this is due to the tarriffs, would they actually be listing it under taxes on the customer's bill? I would think if winwing is paying the tarrif tax upon importing the inventory, they would increase the sale price of the product to compensate....not seperate it out as a tax owed by the customer. I'm not saying the price would be any different, but I find it odd that they would itemize the tarrif under "taxes due by the customer"

I’m fine with rumble effects, even on a FFB joystick. The problem is that there seem to be more and more folks that think rumble effects are FFB. Unfortunately I recall seeing this with “influencer” review videos when the Moza FFB stick came out. Slick professional “hey guys” videos by people who had no idea what FFB was supposed to be modeling as it relates to airplanes. I saw reviews that basically seemed like they were unaware of what they should be feeling, skipped commentary on FFB, and instead worried that the gunfire effects werent very strong, and “geez it’s big, probably cant use on on a desk” comments. I’d hate for Moza or other FFB manufacturers to feel pressure to appeal to influencers or other gamers that don’t understand airplanes and how to model forces. But I feel like I’m taking this off topic. Wouldn’t want to turn into an old man yelling at clouds with my ranting lol.

I agree about the need for tuning. How they work their magic to tune I;m not sure, but hopefully it will be made a bit less "touchy". As an aspirational force feedback stick and rudder owner (dang that stuff is expensive!), I really hope that the FM gets properly done with regard to force feedback. The lack of trimming/stick position changes is disappointing. Hopefully it's not an oversight, but just something they haven't gotten to yet. As far as the amount the displacement forces as a function of speed, I guess I'd have to research more on the Corsair's handling. Even heavy planes could theoretically have very light forces at all speeds based on the mechanical and aerodynamic design of control surfaces. Regardless, I hope that just as much research goes into figuring out a good force feedback profile as the FM itself. Force feedback is the largest untapped flight simulation advantage there is to increase realism, and I really hope that developers get serious about it soon. If they don't, the ship may sail and there will be nobody left interested in simming with old airplanes that have aerodynamic forces. I fear that time is already near given how many people think force feedback is about feeling the gun make the stick vibrate... sigh. lol