Real World F/A-18 Pilot Will Test DCS F/18 If Donations for Hurricane Victims Met

[msalama]

Thank you Lex. A great post shedding light on what I've been thinking myself / have tried to explain occasionally. So how could we overcome this man-machine interface problem here?

[Skwinty]

Spend more money. Lots of money.

You will not be able to replicate completely until you buy and fly the real thing.

[Lex Talionis]

Spend more money. Lots of money.

You will not be able to replicate completely until you buy and fly the real thing.

 

 

 

 

... this is what i am discovering. I thought i could get things "close enough", but every time i try and recreate what i have done in the past, it always comes down to "this isn't in the right place, this doesn't feel right ... " I often find myself just turning the thing off and look back at the hardware at a loss.

 

 

 

Understand, this is a very unique problem to me. You all have a bit of an advantage in that, however you set things up personally, that becomes your "habit". Only someone who has been doing it one way for years will be beating their heads against the wall.

 

 

 

The pendulum peddles made a huge improvement as those swivel guys are nothing familiar to me. The throttle is a bit easier to over look as it only really has one "flight" function and that function is simple enough to recreate. The stick, this is where i am tearing my hair out. I have literally gone through all the various gimbal brands out there. What seams to be working for me now is the FSSB R3 with a 3 inch extension. But where it really becomes apparent that my old-school habits are causing problems is in very precise movements during formation flying. The stick needs to be at a very specific height relative to my thigh as i rest my forearm on it, flying with curves does not work for various reasons so the deflection needs to be correct, so these table top designs inherently don't work, so you get an extension and put it on the floor but now you need to throw the stick through your legs because the deflection is much to great, pitch trim actually moves the stick in aircraft with trim hats so that feels completely off, in the jet the aileron deflection is on a different geometrical plane than the pitch, that makes everything different .... the rabbit whole is quite deep.

 

 

 

I am trying to make a stick in my shop that will recreate all of this. If this is not successful i think that will be the end of my "chasing the whale" and i will just play the game with whatever over the counter stuff is out. But i am hopeful.

 

 

 

I finally got around to starting a social group and will be posting updates. Its still a few months down the road however as i am currently moving but the effort is coming along.

Edited November 24, 2018 by Lex Talionis

[victorlima01]

New user and I'll try to keep it short. Hopefully this outsider's view will give you some perspective. Disclaimer: haven't seen his video, but I don't need to in order to reach the conclusions I've come to. I'm talking pretty much about one post specifically and those who supported it.

 

I am disappointed, or should I say appalled, at some of the replies I have read here. Like someone else said, Mover and Lex's viewpoints of the game (it is a game) are obviously worlds apart from the viewpoints of those who will never get to fly a military jet, but would use DCS to fulfill that fantasy. Nothing wrong with that, heck, I do it all the time. But you have to know how to differentiate reality from enjoying a desktop simulation.

 

You might've found the way Mover handled the video disrespecful to the community. But I personally find that post disrespectful to two servicemen who have put their necks on the line for years and were gracious enough to come here and mingle with us and answer our questions.

 

What's more I found the tone intriguing. Not sure such things would be said in that tone upfront to Mover if you were sitting at a table over a beer. Sure, they weren't openly disrespectful, but to say the least there was a lack of tact. I don't mean you'd be afraid of saying such things man-to-man. I just mean if you did, you wouldn't look well.

 

And what I just can't get is this: the forum finally get what it desperately craves - a real-world guy to validate our countless sim hours for us. And just because it hasn't been done according to certain expectations we find it in our right to reply in such a manner as to drive him away from the community? Doesn't add up. We'd just be ostracizing ourselves from men and women who could teach us much, even if their legitimate feeling is that this is just a game. The truth will only bother you if you fail to perceive it as such.

 

Mover, needless to say, needs no defending - much less from me. So this rant is just to remind some in the community to behave in a gentlemanly way. And I'm sure Wags and ED guys have pretty thick skin and are extremely proud (as they should be) of what they've accomplished, so I'm positive whatever's on that video would in no way diminishes them or their work, as previously suggested.

 

I'm extremely excited about DCS and learning what little is available to civilians about combat flying and USN ops. I'll take whatever I can from guys who've seen actual combat but still find the time to come here and play with us. And I'd do well to remind myself to thank them for their service at the end of the post.

 

I'm sorry if this post offends anyone, I tried to speak honestly about things that might upset some. I look forward to making friends in these forums and learning from the experienced simmers and RL pilots alike (although I suspect I'm not off to a great start).

 

Yours truly,

Victor Lima (this is my actual name and last name)

[Mule]

From all the videos and podcasts I have heard with real life fighter pilots flying this sim they all talk about the auto throttle straight away. This must be a heavily used part of the system.

[Lex Talionis]

From all the videos and podcasts I have heard with real life fighter pilots flying this sim they all talk about the auto throttle straight away. This must be a heavily used part of the system.

 

 

 

 

... only time I ever used the auto-throttles was to find a throttle position that would give me X desired airspeed (set a fuel flow), then it was turned off. And that was typically on long navigational flights and/or as a section lead. Not at the boat, not in formation as -2, not refueling (basically formation flying) etc. In the jet, the function actually moved the throttle handles, they didn't just hold an airspeed regardless of throttle position (you can see how much of a head scratch this could be) Given I typically used it momentarily, and technical it was considered a "crutch", it wasn't something that is really that big of a deal for me in this game.

 

 

 

(I am going to move this over to another thread so i don't monopolize this one, cheers)

[Kev2go]

When I think of flight simulator, I think of the official training sims pilots use.

 

 

When I think of game, I think of Crimson Sky, or what have you.

 

 

DCS occupies a strange middle area where it can be approached both ways, and doesn't represent the poster child of either extreme. It does lean much more towards sim when it comes to the cockpit.

 

 

A professional sim, of course duplicates all the physical controls as well. Without that, DCS slides more towards game. As a professional pilot, I'm sure that becomes more exaggerated, as has been expressed above.

 

 

Still, most of us who use this software approach it as a sim and love to hear the opinion of subject matter experts regarding accuracy. Thanks Lex and Mover for sharing what you can.

 

i Think its becuase of Budget time and effort.

 

For those who are the most passionate,e and at the same tame have the know how and more importantly the $$$ to do so, they may go out and build themselves a replica cockpit pit.

 

Coupled with the above fact, there are Flight Sticks with force feedback out there so It is possible for a consumer to have cockpit build near comparable to professional military sim to use with DCS.

 

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=200124

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 24, 2018 by Kev2go

[Mule]

... only time I ever used the auto-throttles was to find a throttle position that would give me X desired airspeed (set a fuel flow), then it was turned off. And that was typically on long navigational flights and/or as a section lead. Not at the boat, not in formation as -2, not refueling (basically formation flying) etc. In the jet, the function actually moved the throttle handles, they didn't just hold an airspeed regardless of throttle position (you can see how much of a head scratch this could be) Given I typically used it momentarily, and technical it was considered a "crutch", it wasn't something that is really that big of a deal for me in this game.

 

 

 

(I am going to move this over to another thread so i don't monopolize this one, cheers)

 

:thumbup:

[Lex Talionis]

... nice set up, even then i would have a hard time with it. I have mounted the stick in exactly the location you have with the same components, and even then. The way the stick actually articulates is just not right. The force feed back is also not what you would expect and more of a novelty than anything else.

 

 

 

Lots of time invested in that. Is that you sitting there in the second picture, and if so , are you in a flight suit ?

Edited November 24, 2018 by Lex Talionis

[Kev2go]

... nice set up, even then i would have a hard time with it. I have mounted the stick in exactly the location you have with the same components, and even then. The way the stick actually articulates is just not right. The force feed back is also not what you would expect and more of a novelty than anything else.

 

 

 

Lots of time invested in that. Is that you sitting there in the second picture, and if so , are you in a flight suit ?

 

disclaimer: not my setups.

 

 

Just pictures i found on the Eagle Dynamics forums and in the internet in general, that i posted to show examples for the point made.

 

Upper one is an F/A18 replica ( found in ED forums), lower 2 would be Viper replica pits.

Edited November 24, 2018 by Kev2go

[VirusAM]

If i may give some perspective ...

 

 

A "SIM" models the actual hardware as closely as it does a flight model.

 

 

Whats more, It is not enough that just the hardware be accurately represented (and this is the single most important point), it is that the way the pilot interacts with that hardware be as identical as interacting with the real piece of machinery your trying to represent. "Close enough" does not work. This is what makes a "Simulator"; it simulates in every respect what you intend to ultimately operate in the way you intend to operate it, while removing the consequences for error.

 

 

Personally I call this the "operator-machine interface" and it is something that is literally taught on fam-0 before students even strap in. This is why you can have FAA approved sims without any visuals at all. It is as important that a simulator model correctly the way the pilot interacts with the airframe, then just about anything else.

 

 

 

I (we probably) can perfectly understand your point...but to recreate that interface ED does only the software side here, i don’t think they could do it better then they do (well, they should optimize the performance but that is another story). The hardware side is on our end and it varies much from they money time and diy skills. Personally i think that a big problem here is the lack of a force feedback stick (while for the f16 there are good force sensing side sticks available) that could help understanding what is happening, for example in landing mode and probably this is most evident for real hornet pilots...but i suspect that for them only a real replica cockpit and real replica controls with 1:1 proportion would really work...I think that only then we could have a realistic judgment on the software that ED is doing..

[oldcrusty]

Lex wrote:

"I am trying to make a stick in my shop that will recreate all of this. If this is not successful i think that will be the end of my "chasing the whale" and i will just play the game with whatever over the counter stuff is out. But i am hopeful. "

 

Lex... when you achieve what you're after... how about starting a little production line:D

I'm buying bulk!!! … for my entire "herd" or just publish plans :smartass:

[hansangb]

--snippage--Yours truly,

Victor Lima (this is my actual name and last name)

 

Well hell, with a name like that, how could you *NOT* make friends on this forum. It's not like your name is Lima Delta. *that* would have been embarrassing! :D:joystick: Welcome aboard

[hansangb]

... nice set up, even then i would have a hard time with it. I have mounted the stick in exactly the location you have with the same components, and even then. The way the stick actually articulates is just not right. The force feed back is also not what you would expect and more of a novelty than anything else.

 

 

 

Lots of time invested in that. Is that you sitting there in the second picture, and if so , are you in a flight suit ?

 

 

Honestly, we're about 2 years away from a beautiful VR, with haptic feedback gloves. It would solve most of the problems with the exception of force feedback joysticks. I don't know if haptic feedback gloves will be advanced enough in two years!

[Tinkickef]

If i may give some perspective ...

 

 

A "SIM" models the actual hardware as closely as it does a flight model.

 

 

Whats more, It is not enough that just the hardware be accurately represented (and this is the single most important point), it is that the way the pilot interacts with that hardware be as identical as interacting with the real piece of machinery your trying to represent. "Close enough" does not work. This is what makes a "Simulator"; it simulates in every respect what you intend to ultimately operate in the way you intend to operate it, while removing the consequences for error.

 

 

Personally I call this the "operator-machine interface" and it is something that is literally taught on fam-0 before students even strap in. This is why you can have FAA approved sims without any visuals at all. It is as important that a simulator model correctly the way the pilot interacts with the airframe, then just about anything else.

 

 

Exactly the point I have been labouring over. I use VR exclusively in DCS, I cannot ever go back to flat screen again despite the resolution. I have the real world depth of vision, I have the real world scaling and when sat in the cockpit looking around. I am visually on a ramp, on an airbase, not in my room.

 

I built a home cockpit for the Hog, way before the Hornet came along. It looks like crap because it does not need to look good, it is a placeholder for the physical controls, nothing more.

The stick is at the correct height between the knees, the buttons on my TM Warthog stick and throttle are mapped as stock as far as I am aware, and I have several button / switch boxes made up with the correct physical configurations as seen in VR and set out in the correct locations. Even have a genuine aircraft landing gear lever.

 

Every control location corresponds to what is seen visually, look for a switch and all you do is reach out and it falls to hand. I have all the switches and buttons to pretty much cold start the Hog, stick and console wise, with the exception of the avionics suite that would take more modelling than I am prepared to commit to.

 

The stick also works for the Hornet, happily it and the throttles are in the correct locations as far as visual and hand coordination go, and the stick buttons that are the closest approximation to the Hornets mapped to the correct function. And that is as far as it goes.

 

I cannot start the Hornet using switches as nothing falls to hand and there is nothing to base muscle memory on.

 

Sure I use switches for testing the fire channels, the FCS test consent switch and engine crank, but I have to peer under my headset to seek them out. It is not the fluid experience I had with the Hog start up as eye hand coordination cannot exist. It is far easier to use a mouse click...

 

Unconscious muscle memory is every bit as important as conscious thinking for efficiency.

 

This includes control feedback as much as everything else. Hell, I bet even if a control knob were changed for a different one in the real aircraft and instead of rotating and locking with a fluid motion and a soft click, it was stiff and locked with a really noisy and harsh action it would really grate on the nerves.

 

I am pleased with the way my Hog pit worked and it all feels very realistic to me, but a real Hog pilot would hate it, everything would look the same, but feel completely wrong.

 

The best we can say is that we can operate a complex approximation of an aircraft using the best setup we are committed to making. How efficient would it be for a real life pilot to have to grab a mouse and move a cursor to click a switch....he'd be dead pretty quick in a real fight.

 

It is unrealistic to expect someone who flies the real thing to come along and be impressed with it.

 

Maybe if a Hornet guy built a Hog pit and learned to fly the Hog on that he would be much happier with stock controllers as he has no preconception as to how things should be, although I doubt it.

 

I once had a try of a control yoke and throttle set up. Was not happy with it, it bore no relationship with a Cessna 172 yoke as far as feel and weighting went, it did not tighten up as airspeed climbed and did not fight back in pitch or roll.

The owner was happy with it however, he had no preconception of just how much force is required to pitch up the nose of a 172 over 100kts.

Edited November 25, 2018 by Tinkickef

[Nealius]

I have to say, it is extremely fascinating to read about how home sims compare to their real counterparts, and how the real pilots interact with them.

[Blue73]

This is what I'm doing by building a 3d printed cockpit for the Hornet. I play in VR so it just needs semi-accurate locations and the rest is muscle memory. The various shaped buttons help navigate where you are. I've made mine modular so I can switch it out for other aircraft. The tactile feel enhances immersion even more when in VR.

 

[RightStuff]

Blue is a too nice guy to promote his own thread for the parts of his VR-Pit.

And that's the part were I gladly support:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=219982

 

Back to topic:

One of the most intresting part of Mover's video was to see the comms with his wingman - and his expected role (Written by memory. So don't count the letters):

• "Wingman does not talk to departure!"
  
• "Oh? #2 is trying to lead? OK... Activate WP 0. You're cleared off!".
  

:D

 

Jep, surely it was with the blink of an eye. Not. ;)

[Mover]

Blue is a too nice guy to promote his own thread for the parts of his VR-Pit.

And that's the part were I gladly support:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=219982

 

Back to topic:

One of the most intresting part of Mover's video was to see the comms with his wingman - and his expected role (Written by memory. So don't count the letters):

• "Wingman does not talk to departure!"
  
• "Oh? #2 is trying to lead? OK... Activate WP 0. You're cleared off!".
  

:D

 

Jep, surely it was with the blink of an eye. Not. ;)

 

As Gonky was quick to point out to me after watching these videos, those might be more Air Force-centric than Navy. Although, typically the wingman doesn't talk to departure or take the lead from -1 in the Navy either, Air Force training is much more of a stickler for wingman discipline.... e.g. - clearing the wingman to a position vs Navy, they're just expected to go there on their own.

 

The BFM comms that you'll see tomorrow are from the Navy (AF would be 1's ready, 2's ready, etc.).

[Ala12Rv-watermanpc]

As Gonky was quick to point out to me after watching these videos, those might be more Air Force-centric than Navy. Although, typically the wingman doesn't talk to departure or take the lead from -1 in the Navy either, Air Force training is much more of a stickler for wingman discipline.... e.g. - clearing the wingman to a position vs Navy, they're just expected to go there on their own.

 

The BFM comms that you'll see tomorrow are from the Navy (AF would be 1's ready, 2's ready, etc.).

 

May I ask why?,the specific reason I mean, Im curious.

 

thanks!, and thanks for your great videos!!:)

[Mover]

May I ask why?,the specific reason I mean, Im curious.

 

thanks!, and thanks for your great videos!!:)

 

Because the flight lead (section lead in Navy speak) does all the comm for the formation to outside agencies.

[Ala12Rv-watermanpc]

Because the flight lead (section lead in Navy speak) does all the comm for the formation to outside agencies.

 

Great to know, many thanks!!:thumbup:

 

Keep up the great work and please, do more DCS Hornet videos if you can.:)

[Alpenwolf]

Ok, my turn now...

[Alpenwolf]

@ Mover, Lex and their fanboys:

 

Well, where do I start...

 

Anything you play, fly, simulate, etc. on your computer is not the real deal and I know quite a lot of veterans and even newcomers in the DCS community, and NO one has ever claimed the opposite.

We have some damn good virtual pilots, very skilled and quick with their hands and eyes, who would almost every time win an air battle against almost anyone or do things in their planes/helicopters that not everyone here can. And still, you never hear any of them caliming to be able to do the like or anywheres close to that in real life. It's never been an issue and no one ever speculates on how good they would be in real life. Simply because it'd obviously be childish and utterly stupid. This is not some hallo kitty shitty type of a game where daydreaming boys hiding in momy's basement meet. DCS is not the type to attract such customers. And don't ask me what hallo kitty shitty type of games is, because I don't know what the **** hallo kitty shitty means, but you get the point.

 

The F-18 module is simply the result of years and years of hard work by ED. I can only imagine the complexity of scripting behind this project, because my imagination is much more capable than my skills when it comes to such a high level of writing a software of such sophistication. No doubt, ED were proud to introduce this module to us like maybe never before. And no doubt many of us were just as proud to be able to get their hands on a product of such a high level of fidelty. The hard work is so much appreciated there. Months before that DCS 2.5 was released and boy that blew us away. So again, we appreciate the work and effort ED pours into their passion which is our passion too.

 

Now, let me speculate here a bit. I think ED wanted to add something over the top by asking an expert; a former F-18 pilot (Mover) to share his thoughts about the module. Bringing in the expert to sort of have an official confirmation for how good this module turned out to be. I don't think any of us needs an expert for that matter, because we're very appreciative regardless, as you can read that in many comments across the ED forums, but I get it if ED were excited and proud of what they have accomplished and they damn should be. Then this expert is invited by a DCS community member over to his house to use his computer to even make it easier for the expert to just fly DCS and share his thoughts. You don't need to buy a joystick and all that, Sir, just bless us, please. See how DCS and the community behind it care about their virtual world?

 

Mover steps in, and for the first time he's gonna fly the DCS F-18 module or maybe DCS at all...

Even in our virtual world, a wingman never takes over a flight. But he did that. And he did it to only help our lost guest there who's flying in the virtual world of DCS for the first time. A nice gesture, one could say, because the whole thing was a first impression and merely sharing thoughts only. Mover's response was maybe funny to some and obviousley not to others. Ok, no big deal. But when almost every second or third remark you make is nothing but a joke or some whining critic, then you can surely understand the shitstorm you received there.

 

The F-18 marks all the hard work of ED, as I've mentioned earlier. The level of excitement on their behalf and ours as customers was immense. If we needed a parody, then by all means.

 

Moaning about G-forces? What, we're not aware of that?! It's 2D and not 3D like in real life, you say? Thanks for that thought, a well thought one. The stick and the throttle don't feel right? Maybe the chair and the lights in the room too? The list is long as you can see, and if any of us was interested in a feedback regarding Bananimal's set up, we would've told you. In fact, some wish they had half the things he's got.

Your approach to this whole thing was very misplaced. The lack of respect for ED (and I'm not speaking for ED here, it's just so obvious to me and obviously obvious to others too) and the way you handled the situation was not even close to professionalism. You're not the first real pilot of any ED or third party modules we've ever had, but surely the first to disappoint like that. Others, and I know two of them myself, were more respectful and appreciative for being asked to share their thoughts with us. So they looked up the manuals, flew for hours, played with the systems onboad a bit and only then, like an expert should be, shared their thoughts and helped upgrade/modify/change/replace some features they found incorrect to some degree. They simply did it to help. Kudos to you, boys!

 

Many of us own many airplanes and helicopters here in DCS while using the same set up of hardware. No collective, no pedals, no nothing else for most of us. We read the manuals and learn by heart what is necessary. We do our checklists and write them down. We bind almost everything to our switches and buttons and keyboards. At any time we can fly any airplane, and if we're in a mood for a helicopter, we simply grab one. In a matter of seconds your brain will have to adjust to a new module and remember all the keys and all the procedures and of course the careful touch of the joystick and throttle. Every module is different and still we manage to handle them all pretty damn well. Some have old and messed up hardware, others have better stuff. No one ever complained and used any of that as an excuse for any of his mistakes. We've had thousands and thousands of different war scenarios and pushed our modules endless amount of times to the extreme. Still we don't bang about or even consider it close to the real deal. And if any of us should ever have the chance to fly a real plane with an instructor, I can hardly imagine anyone moaning about the stick being different or the real world is in 3D and not 2D, or the G-forces are in fact a real thing and all that. We'd shut the hell up, or maybe throw up, watch, learn, cry out of joy and be appreciative.

 

The expectations were very high, and on top of that you had some donations going on, so no doubt the frustration was that big. As to your fanboys here... well, I run a server myself and it's very successful and lots of people enjoy it plus I design the helicopters' events. That's my way of supporting ED. So I'd hate ED to have a word with me over them boys.

 

I talk/write the way I think. No double standards, no second thoughts, no political correctness, no nothing. So if anyone is offended, well, try to chill out by playing some hallo kitty shitty type of a game.

 

S!

[Mover]

 

Now, let me speculate here a bit. I think ED wanted to add something over the top by asking an expert; a former F-18 pilot (Mover) to share his thoughts about the module. Bringing in the expert to sort of have an official confirmation for how good this module turned out to be. I don't think any of us needs an expert for that matter, because we're very appreciative regardless, as you can read that in many comments across the ED forums, but I get it if ED were excited and proud of what they have accomplished and they damn should be

 

False. I had zero contact with Wags or Eagle Dynamics before offering to play the game. I had seen hundreds of comments asking me to play. So, I made a deal with the fans of my channel.

 

Wags saw that and offered to help, and he did by posting the video. That's as far as his involvement went. He had no official position in this.

 

. Then this expert is invited by a DCS community member over to his house to use his computer to even make it easier for the expert to just fly DCS and share his thoughts. You don't need to buy a joystick and all that, Sir, just bless us, please. See how DCS and the community behind it care about their virtual world?

 

Bananimal was incredibly generous in opening up his home to allow me to fly his setup.

 

 

Mover steps in, and for the first time he's gonna fly the DCS F-18 module or maybe DCS at all...

 

Yes, it was my first time playing DCS.

 

Even in our virtual world, a wingman never takes over a flight. But he did that. And he did it to only help our lost guest there who's flying in the virtual world of DCS for the first time. A nice gesture, one could say, because the whole thing was a first impression and merely sharing thoughts only. Mover's response was maybe funny to some and obviousley not to others. Ok, no big deal. But when almost every second or third remark you make is nothing but a joke or some whining critic, then you can surely understand the shitstorm you received there.

 

Perspective is important, and it's my fault for choosing to show the most entertaining part of the 6+ hours of testing we did. I'll take the hit on that.

 

By the time we got to multiplayer with Carl, I had already flown the sim quite a bit with TrackIR and tried out various parts of the sim. I didn't even know we were going to do multiplayer because I had mentioned that I just wanted to test it out in basic flying. The multiplayer was a pleasant bonus.

 

Carl was a GREAT sport. He's a good dude and that's what made it fun and funny.

 

 

The F-18 marks all the hard work of ED, as I've mentioned earlier. The level of excitement on their behalf and ours as customers was immense. If we needed a parody, then by all means.

 

Moaning about G-forces? What, we're not aware of that?! It's 2D and not 3D like in real life, you say? Thanks for that thought, a well thought one. The stick and the throttle don't feel right? Maybe the chair and the lights in the room too? The list is long as you can see, and if any of us was interested in a feedback regarding Bananimal's set up, we would've told you. In fact, some wish they had half the things he's got.

 

 

This was not a parody. It was lighthearted and fun.

 

Your approach to this whole thing was very misplaced. The lack of respect for ED (and I'm not speaking for ED here, it's just so obvious to me and obviously obvious to others too) and the way you handled the situation was not even close to professionalism.

 

I'm sorry you feel that way.

 

You're not the first real pilot of any ED or third party modules we've ever had, but surely the first to disappoint like that. Others, and I know two of them myself, were more respectful and appreciative for being asked to share their thoughts with us. So they looked up the manuals, flew for hours, played with the systems onboad a bit and only then, like an expert should be, shared their thoughts and helped upgrade/modify/change/replace some features they found incorrect to some degree. They simply did it to help. Kudos to you, boys!

 

If only it were clear that this is a two part video...