Cgjunk2

Before I ordered my stick extension, I would occasionally have the issue of the grip twisting. It wasn't twisting at the threads, but rather the portion of the stick that goes into the gimbal (the same part that holds the screw ring) I could reduce the chances of twisting if I really tightened the grip with the screw ring, to the point I could no longer land the grub screw on the flat area. I installed my stick extension tightly enough, so I thought. But my spastic reaction during a near-miss in form flight loosened it slightly lol. In order to retighten it, I had get a good body position to improve my grip on the screw ring, grabbed the middle screw wring for counterforce, concentrated, stuck my tongue out a little, and tightened. I felt I got a good solid torque on it this time and it's been stable for a while. If it loosens again, I might dump the grub screw (it's just chewing up threads if it keeps slipping) and use the teflon tape idea. Hopefully, the teflon tape would still allow for enough torque to be applied to sufficiently pre-tension the stick nub coming out of the gimbal. That's my theory anyways! EDIT: I forgot to add this. I was playing around with different springs after using the stick extension for a while, and on my second try, I developed a hard center (I use soft center cams) on my aileron axis. It could hear/feel a "thunk" whenever I crossed center when the pitch axis was also centered. It felt horrible and thought it was actually wearing out. I looked around and thought it might have something do with the bearing that rides on the cams and that it somehow lost tension on the cams. I imagined maybe the bearings were on some sort eccentric mount, so I tried adjusting the bearing mount screwto no avail (because there was, in fact, no eccentric adjustment like I was hoping). Then my stick extension loosened up on a flight (that near miss I mentioned above). By total and complete chance, when I properly tightened the stick extension to the stick nub on the gimbal, my hard center completely went away, and it returned to normal quiet movement across the center.

This is my understanding as well. From a purely aerodynamic perspective (meaning no artificial FCS intervention), my understanding is that as dihedral increases, a plane will show increasing tendency to roll back to level when roll input is nulled. So a basic trainer or ultralight plane with high angles of dihedral (wing tips higher than wing roots), will naturally want to return to level when rolling input pressure is relieved. Conversely, when a wing is built with anhedral (wingtips lower than wing roots) it’s the opposite…it will have less tendency to stay where you put it. It will also require less aileron input to roll, as a side benefit, if that’s what you are looking for in the basic aerodynamic traits of the design. First time I flew the F1, I thought it was odd that it wanted to roll level, especially since it has an anhedral wing. I figured maybe the FCS commanded that as an auto-level type thing. But that didnt make sense to me because requiring constant roll input pressure to hold a bank angle means it has to drag a wing spoiler out in the breeze the whole time it’s banked in a turn, which will induce a bunch of drag, and just generally mess up how it cuts through a turn. Anyone that has built paper airplanes, you had to put dihedral into the wings to make it stay level. But if you folded the wing tips lower than the root, it tended to fall off in either direction very easily, leading to a very short flight. Edit: a quick perusal of wiki regarding dihedral effect and roll stability revealed the fact that high mounted wings by themselves produce lots of dihedral effect due to pendulum effect, and anhedral is added to tone down the self leveling to more neutral levels. It also revealed that the self-leveling tendency of dihedral angle result as an effect from sideslip. In other words, even a plane with a high dihedral angle wing, if flown coordinated, will not self level. So if the Mirage F1 FCS keeps the plane coordinated in bank, it would have even less reason to show self-leveling effects on the roll axis

@Art-J Did you notice a reduction in blade flap frequency by reducing the rotor rpm trim? If the sound is linked to the rpm (but correlated incorrectly) then hopefully it would be an easy bug fix. Awesome sleuthing by the way! I had a blast on a relaxing cross country flight today, and absolutely had a blast getting the main and tail rotors to bark. Love it. It’s worth the effort to get it perfectly right (even though my ear didn’t pick up on much difference).

I still think sounds were ok before, but the new sound interpretation is artfully done. It’s a little less “clinical” now, in a good way. The sounds with the windows open as you start up really lets you know those turbines are sucking air a few feet from your head. You need to close the windows it’s so loud! That’s awesome! The balance of the turbine/transmission sounds are believable. ETL transitions, also different, but seems to match up with videos I’ve seen (although the old sounds could be heard in vids as well). Regarding the blade-slap sound when blade pitch is flattened, I love it. I’ve heard these sounds in some cockpit vids, but they don’t seem to come up often. Maybe because most pilots would rather not unload the disc that much during most flights? But I think it adds so much to the sound experience of this great module. I’m not sure if ED is done tweaking the sounds yet, but I’m enjoying it now that it’s more fleshed out. I judged the first iteration harshly not knowing it was not complete. And while the new sounds are definitely different (and in my opinion did not need changing), they are still believable, and they add to immersion with the raw/loud character it has now. Oh, I almost forgot, but the new tail rotor sounds on external view are spectacular as well! edit: reference 1:46 in vid below for the blade-slap sounds. To my ear, it seems ED have captured the character of the sound. In this video, it can be heard around the 1:00 minute 4:00 minute and 6 minute marks And here starting at 11:00 min mark. Actually, this video also capture the tailrotor sound shortly after the 11 minute mark: The taiorotor sound also seems to be coming through clearly shortly after they land

I noticed too. The blade-slap sound is nice when the rotor is loaded in turns or during quick stops. It sounds dirty and raw, in a nice way lol.

Maybe I’m misinterpreting what ED is trying to do here. Are the dots the beginning of improvements to rendering planes at distance? Or are “improved spotting dots” an overlay dot to improve visibility of what the game renders? I thought the intention was for it to be an overlay, like how the how the dots on the labels work (the smallest label option).

I meant, are people having trouble seeing airplanes at reasonable distance without the dot. If they have a fov that wider than what a person naturaly sees, wouldn’t that result in objects, especially other airplanes, appear much smaller than it would in reality?

I agree there should be no or very little information beyond 10 miles. Then why is there a huge (or any-sized) dot over planes and objects that are beyond visual range? by 5 miles there should be some additional useful, information transmitted to the eye, so why is there a big dot obscuring all or most of that information? Also, the fact the blob is meant to improve spotting, means it will improve the ability to maintain the target in sight with just a glance. In real life, if you lose sight, you have to start looking all over again, and you may not ever see it again if it stays at that distance. Are the people having trouble with flat screens because of field of view issues? Now I recall, When I played flat screen, I made sure my FOV was set in a way that made my screen act as if it were a window into the cockpit, trying to simulate one to one object size in the cockpit as much as the screen would allow, and understood that not having track ir meant I needed to use arrows to look around. Then I got track IR to get around that problem. I got a bigger monitor when I realized the little airplanes in the distance were smaller because the screen was small. But i never thought that it was a “DCS problem” that I couldnt see what others with bigger screen sizes could see. I never thought it was a DCS problem that I couldnt easily see most of the cockpit either.

The VR experience, nascent or not, has been able to produce the most enjoyable and believable visual experience for me in my 30 plus years of simming. Now the default will be to cover up realistic visual representations, with black dot that reduces the amount of information transmitted to the eye. You bet that’s going to get the VR crowd riled up lol. I’m worried about where this is going. In a year or two, will DCS be able to justify modeling anything behind the dot if the majority of discord commenters can’t see anything without dots? I realize statistics on customers are important for businesses, but it’s not as simple as counting up the number of comments in forums or discord. I want them to stay the course with the mission of their product…one that inspires players to spend time, effort, and money (hotas, vr, etc) because they see the tremendous depth of the product, and want to keep experiencing more of it! Black dot overlays are perfectly fine to have, but making them default will set an expectation which will affect and bleed over into development of the sim. People want easy instead of realistic on a realistic flight sim? Say it ain’t so!

I thought what was being discussed was lowering the resolution below native as a cheat. Regardless, I think most players that care about recreating the experience of flying and “how” you see in the air do not feel sad if it’s harder to spot after upgrading resolution. In fact, it was the opposite for me. When I got my G2, I was excited to finally be able to see other planes in the air like I did in real life. Working for that visual contact is fun in VR without the spotting dots. I assumed most of the player base would want to avoid anything that creates an impression of artificiality, even if it makes something easier to do. That’s why I never expected that something like the dots would be such a hot topic. Again, I’m not opposed at all to developing good accessibility options to allow the game to be fun for anyone (it’s a sim! Lol). But I only play MP, which obviously means playing with others, and having some semblance of shared reality. By making this the default, the “it’s a sim, not a game” crowd now has to wonder if their favorite servers will eventually relegate them to be the only ones that have to fight for visual contact. After some time, there will be less servers available to the “realism” crowd just due to the fact that spotting dots have been “deemed” to be so necessary that they should be defaulted to on. It’s for DCS to decide what to do here, I just never expected default spotting dots to be a debate in a game that has been so focused on modeling realism for so long.

If somebody wants to run at low resolutions just to have an unfair advantage, let them! How many people actually do that? The ones that do will eventually get bored and move on to War Thunder or space in invaders, or watching somebody fly on twitch. Maybe I’m overthinking this, but I think the biggest problem here is that the goal of making spotting fair/balanced across systems, displays, or player visual acuity is actually the goal! Why is this a goal? This is not a goal consistent with the reality of what DCS simulates! Making this type change to the default settings of the game marks a fundamental change in philosophy regarding what DCS intends to simulate, and that’s what bothers me at the end of the day. Having a core philosophy here is important. If the goal is “balance” across all hardware, skill, and, visual acuity levels, it makes DCS spend their time and talent on how to make the dots a consistent experience for everyone. I’d rather they spend their time figuring out schemes for how to best visually simulate what the eye sees in real life, which given the complexities of human perception, is challenging enough. That said, on my G2 headset, it already looked plenty good before forced dots as game default. If balanced experience for all is the goal, then DCS should logically apply it to anything in the game that benefits from better hardware, peripherals, or skills. I have VR, and following a nearby airplane across my field of view is naturally easier than flat screen. Should we have the default setting be padlock nearest target so everyone has a balanced experience? After decades of simming on an old sidewinder stick with twist axis and throttle slider, I finally bought a good hotas and rudders recently that make flying formation and aerobatics way easier. Should the default for warbirds be auto rudder to make sure everyone has a balanced experience even if flying on a mouse or xbox controller? Or some sort of external autothrottle layer to make station keeping in formation more balanced across a range of peripherals? Someone might argue that this shouldn’t matter because you can turn the default to “hard”. I would counter with the following: How could DCS continue to justify the the hard work of developing high fidelity products and techniques to simulate reality, if their philosophy has shifted to making consistent experiences for all players? Well, they can’t… because doing so would literally be counterproductive!

I was very happy to see this, unfortunately turning the dots off had no effect. I can still see airplanes and ground units as big black dots all over the place. I guess I don’t understand why such a prominent visual aid is “on” by default. This aid makes it impossible to lose sight of an aircraft that should be extremely difficult to see. If hardware or a person’s vision makes the sim unenjoyable, then having this as an accessibility options is great. But I enjoy looking for and trying to maintain sight of others as a core part of this whole flight simming thing, even as my eyes age. Air combat simulation , especially within normal visual range, should primarily be about training the eye to acquire and maintain sight. If feels odd that it’s no longer part of the DCS experience by default. Just because something is within visual range does not mean it will be easy to see, and that you can’t easily lose sight of it when you do. Right now, the default setting makes losing sight impossible, or at least turns it into a trivial problem.

I’m having the same problem. I selected off under “improved spotting dot” and I still have the large black dots all over the place. I’m on a G2 headset if that matters.

The apu, turbine, and transmission sounds seem to have been stripped of mid and high frequencies as heard inside the cockpit. The apu is nearly inaudible, and the turbine sounds are very quiet. I can hear the transmission loudly, but the character has changed into something else without the full spectrum of frequencies. The “hear like in helmet” option was verified to be off.

I was about to put in a bug report regarding the sounds. This is definitely not an improvement. It essentially sounds like there was a high pass filter put over the sounds. So much so, I had to double check that the “hear like in helmet” option wasn’t flipped on. Unfortunately that wasn't the case. The APU sound sounds as if all high and mid frequencies were completely removed, similarly on the two turbines and transmission sounds. The sticky thread regarding the Mi8 module’s sound design explains the length ED went through to capture the sounds of this helicopter as authentically as possible. It was already reference level material, and needed no improvements as it was. I’m hoping it gets returned to normal quickly!

I'd like to add to the wish list a version of the Mi8 with the dolphin nose (or whatever it's called) and the ramp door at the rear. It seems like these have been customer options for both domestic Mi8 and export Mi17s, and not necessarily tied to any particular variant of Mi8. So hopefully it could be a visual update to the model, not necessarily requiring any other changes to the variant that we have. Internal cockpit differences might be minimal. Instrument panels could remain as is, as real life mi8s with the nose seem to have simple top cover to span the gap between the two instrument pods. Other than that, blanking out the lower greenhouse windows or covering them with a panel might be all that's needed! I'd even buy a extra mi8 if this came to reality I'd be willing to bet this could give sales a second life as well. So, how about it DCS??? Pretty please??? null edit: new pics for inspiration (and to replace broken links)

Super excited that multicrew finally came out! The other day a group of 4 of us were just cruising around, enjoying the view, flipping switches, trading on pilot flying, walking around the rear cargo cabin in VR etc. But I noticed that in VR, whenever I went in the back gunner seat, my position was in the middle of the cabin (next to where the slingload hatch would be). Whereas my buddies on flat screen would get a position next to the front side door. Is this a bug worth reporting, or is it some sort of VR limitation? I guess I don't mind walking over to the side the door if need be lol. Just need to clear the room so I dont fall on my face haha!

Just posting to update that my Wingwing throttle replacement arrived a few days ago. I was told it took a while because some changes were made to it, as they determined it needed some more electrostatic resistance. Which is interesting, because in the middle of winter, when the air was driest, I do remember getting a couple of electro-static shocks from the throttle as I sat down in my simchair. I hope these changes take care of whatever they thought the problem was. It's apparent they've at least revised the pivots on the throttle levers. Instead of a solid cast metal box, the metal box is now open to the sides, where the the pivot area is. In the open area now appears to reside a new plastic pivot system with plastic friction adjuster clamp. My guess is that this was done specifically for isolation of any external static electricity. The cables that attach to the throttle handles also appear to be part of the revision, as the cable end is now plastic right below the metal screw collar. The cable end has subtle winwing branding on it too. It looks very nice. And the encoder/axis levers on the right side now feel extremely smooth and light to move, with a softer middle detent. I preferred the feel of the previous levers with the audible center click, but no big deal. The feel of the throttles as they pivot feels absolutely sublime at the current time. And I say that having been completely satisfied as the feel of my previous unit. They now feel as if they are hydraulicly damped, probably nyogelled I imagine. The friction adjustment feels a little harder to turn, but it still allows for finer changes to friction. I've used it the last three evenings, and it is an honest pleasure to move those levers around. Oh, and the revisions included different looking knobs, including the wing-fold knob. At first I thought they were kinda cheap looking, but then I realized they are exact replicas of the knobs in the F18 cockpit lol. Nicely done Wingwing. Hoping for the best regarding the longevity of this unit.

I'm not sure what voltage they use. All the troubleshooting and testing I did was using Winwings Simmap pro software. I determined the cables and the hall sensors were good in my case, because both sensors/cables were being read by the simapp pro software when they were plugged into one of the motherboard sockets, but not when I swapped them to the other socket.

Keep us updated on how it goes. Hopefully they will send one out quickly.

Have you been able to contact winwing directly through their chat support? Even though the process of troubleshooting itself can take a while, they usually have responded to me pretty quickly with the steps they want you take. It will probably be way faster than responses through the forum.

I forgot to update this thread, but customer support responded to me regarding the testing results. Apparently they forwarded the concerns to an engineer and I was told they would be sending me a new one! Based on when they told me, it hopefully will be sent out soon. I’ll update the thread once I get it and put a bit of time on it. Can’t wait to fire up the Su27 and start doing some cobras with differential thrust at the top lol. I was just starting to get good at throwing that airplane around when I got relegated to single axis by the failures. Thanks for the heads up! I’ve removed and installed those honeycomb adapters at least 6 different times in my troubleshooting efforts (they need to come off to open the base). They seem to have held up just fine (knock wood). I have seen the pics of the ones that have snapped. I don’t bang the throttle around, since I tend to have a fair bit of mechanical sympathy. I developed that sympathy when I was a kid by breaking things…on purpose just to see how things broke . All that has paid off as an adult, because it’s given me a good sense of material limits haha. I think these are pretty cool looking parts, it took me a while to determine they were even plastic. It’s very precicely manufactured, I’m not even sure how it’s made…the surface finish, and the fine webbing for strengthening really quite nice. Apparently though, like you’ve warned, they also appear to have some brittleness. It’s also worth being quite gentle with the final torquing of the mounting screws.

I don’t understand why they told you 14 days. They have a warranty. Did you remind them of when you bought it? They should have access to when you bought it, but it wouldn't hurt to forward your receipt e-mail as a reminder. Granted, the warranty is just their word of honor, since there is no legal recourse other than local Chines courts. But, I’m sure that they understand not keeping their word hurts them. Maybe I’m naive, but Winwing appears to me to be designed by people who are also enthusiasts, and would ultimately care enough to keep their word. https://www.winwing.cn/en/terms_of_service?language=en Of course, the other problem might be the intermittent nature of the problem you are experiencing. I could imagine the language barriers could preclude a more complete and gentle explanation, leading to a statement that seems dismissive (for efficiency’s sake, saying 14 days might end the discourse). So if you do have remaining warranty, I’d recommend just doing the troubleshooting steps as stated, and reporting your results. I think that’s just a gating step in their process to ensure the problems aren’t easily solveable. Once support has the info ruling out simple problems, I would imagine they would escalate to more complex possibilities. Good luck! Edit: it doesn’t mean your conclusion is wrong. I’ve had three axes fail on two different Orion2 throttle bases, and my suspicions were correct that it wasn’t cables or sensors. But until I could report back the results of their troubleshooting steps, it seems they would not move forward. Using the base without the stick…could you unplug it and still thread it back on? I cant imagine, unless you got really lucky, catching a disconnect event on video. Perhaps, just fly it until it happens with it disconnected, and keep a log to report every event when it does happen.

Stuff happens for sure. Even though there is the issues I've had, you'd be forgiven for thinking they are aircraft quality. I think the construction of the stick strikes a fine balance between manufacturability (nothing is perfectly polished, but good castings and bearing surfaces), the feeling/look of substantial heft, and a solid overal design. The throttle almost matches the physical feel, if not for the plastic case. That said, I wouldn't necessarily say a plastic case is bad, especially mounted. The actual mechanical aspect of the throttle is pretty cool to look at as well. The f18 grips are solid feeling as well, just like the stick. The first thing I thought was that these are great for serviceability if anything ever went wrong with switches or small boards... It just sucks that what's breaking on my throttles is the main motherboard itself, which the largest piece and hardest to replace if it I ever had to replace only that in the future. The die is cast, no use worrying about it. Hopefully my issues don't represent a larger problem in their manufacture of the Orion2 throttle base itself. Like I said, if you have to pony up for shipping once, you're still ahead of the game.

It's been mentioned by others that nothing is perfect, and these types of peripherals can have their issues, no matter the brand. Not only that, but the low volume nature of the products, and price competition, result in a DIY support model. As far as I understand, even Thrustmaster is like this with regard to support. I recognized that going in, and I generally don't mind taking things apart, but was hoping for better luck. It's the multiple failures, in a similar fashion that led to me wondering if this is a larger problem. And of course, the fact we are talking about the axes is a big deal because I bought them primarily because I wanted "throttle" two things at once...using axes . So assuming that Winwing offers to replace it if I pay for shipping my defective unit back, that means I would be around 240 dollars above my original 520 out the door price. That's mighty close to paying for a product with an importer (now I understand an importers role in this whole deal lol). As far as I understand, there's only one high-end peripheral importer in the US. I'm sure they are not perfect either, but accepting a 30 dollar return shipping fee is much more palatable lol. For competition's and customer's sake, I wish the US had more options in this area.