I fly with heavy springs and no center detent. I can confirm it’s awesome. Took me some time to get used to but refueling and carrier landings became way easier.
Thanks! If the T-50CM2 is as good as the WarBRD, you're gonna love it. To me it was like night and day, especially as I had the infamous stickiness problem with the Warthog base. The longer throw you'll get using an extension for the stick should make your input even more precise.
@@CommanderSteinsch I'm not actually planning on using an extension for the CM2, it'll just be mounted to the desk on my existing Monstertech desk clamp. I went between the WarBRD and CM2 deciding on which one to go for and eventually settled with the CM2 as it saves some money in the long run for if/when I do build a flight station. At the moment my gaming/flight station is also my work station, so as I'm using my work laptop I have a joystick reminding me of what I'd prefer to be doing. I know what you mean with regards to the sicking problem though, it's a real detriment to helicopter flying. Often having to push on the Y axis before rolling on the X axis just to get past that sticking.
I'm also using the Virpil WarBRD base with TM Hornet stick. I set up the no center cams right of the box 😇 I'm using the standard spring rather than the heavy because I also fly helicopters. It's a little bit too soft with Hornet stick weight, but I had to make compromise. Coming from a X-55, after the stick I finally bought the CM3 Throttle. And to my surprise, it also made my life easier for refueling, formation flying and carrier landing. The correction are more accurate than my old X-55. All in all, a complete Virpil set up is expensive, but if you are addicted, it does worth it 😇
A shocker :) Most real life controls meant for precise control have no "center bump". You can make a gimball out of a cardboard that's going to perform better than $500 joysticks if you stay away from center snapping and dead zones.
I go between this and also keeping them in. It works well because it keeps you in the higher RPM range which reduces the feedback time when adding or removing throttle.
@@CommanderSteinsch yep, harrier is one of the easiest plane to air refuel. Don't know about the jf17, I don't have it, but the most difficult for me is the mirage, I find its fbw very detrimental to the precision required
@@davidhermosilla6942 the WarBRD ships with two sets of cams. One has a centre detent which means the stick always comes back to exactly the same centre spot but also means you have to use a little bit of force to move away from it. The "no centre" cam has no centre detent. This means you have a more natural feel without the need to use that extra force to move it away from the centre point.
@@theflyingfool Thanks for taking the time to explain this. Ultimately, I feel that that the extra precision on the X and Y axes free brainpower for other things. For AAR, it's gonna be throttle management, for attack runs it's gonna be situation awareness, etc.
only downside is that you'll need to faff around getting it dead center if you want to engage autopilot on some aircraft otherwise is looks like it could be useful
No problem keeping it centered if you use high tension springs. With low tensions springs, I just release hand pressure on the stick and it goes back to center, no issue.
I disagree I have the war Brd Base and the thrust master hornet and warthog the hardest for me to refuel is the tomcat because of its trim is more fussy and the harrier both of with I use the hornet style stick for ( I switch em out based on the aircraft and the look of the real stick that aircraft uses) the harrier because of the angle of the probe being by the pilots cheek/ ears. Anyway my opinion obviously but your aar refueling was smooth as butter.
Yes, I understand. I've had trouble myself with the Tomcat until I was told to use the bomb mode. AAR has become much easier this way. For the Harrier, you may want to check my Harrier AAR tutorial. Visual references provided have helped others to more consistently connect to the tanker.
What I tried to convey was this: I play with a HOTAS, it's now tweaked to my liking, and that seriously increases the pleasure I get from playing the game. Now, is it 100% realistic? Certainly not. But so is using a keyboard or pad. Or an old school stick with pots prone to fail. Or any stick that actually is not connected to a real fighter jet mechanical wiring, or onboard computer. And I certainly wouldn't be able to tell if my new setting is more ore less realistic than before. My stick is set on a desktop. It tires my arm more than it should, it doesn't have a long throw, or doesn't behave like the force sensitive sitck of the Viper. Should I consider myself cheating? I don't. Like many others, I play a game in the simulation genre, and I try to make my life easier where I can so I can dedicate more attention to other facets of the game and enjoy it even more. In DCS, what '"realistic" means is often "realistic enough", and this is something very personal. Ask 100 people and you'll have 100 different answers! 😄
@@CommanderSteinsch I thought about it before I typed the word “cheating”, knowing that it was a strong word. Cheating, in this sense, meant cheating yourself in that you would not know if you had found the right setting to make AAR realistic or easy enough to do AAR. This is a game, and we are all able to adjust settings to the point at which we enjoy it. Enjoy the game.
