Finally I can put my MSFFB2 in the cellar! G940 godness...

[mazex]

Originally Posted by fuzzychickens

Tell me, are the X and Y axis distinct from each other? I mean, is it easy to avoid unintended elevator input when you are rolling the plane and vice versa?

Let me guess that you are a CH user? Well, as it is not spring loaded it does not have the ability to do a roll with zero elevator input like a fighterstick, but does a real plane have that? Compared to the MSFFB2 it feels the same, maybe with a feeling that a loop with no aileron deflection is easier than a roll with no elevator... maybe... No problem for me that is used to the MSFFB2 since long, but I remember going from a CH stick to the MSFFB2 way back when that I also noted what you describe...

Regards /Mazex

[fuzzychickens]

Originally Posted by mazex

Let me guess that you are a CH user? Well, as it is not spring loaded it does not have the ability to do a roll with zero elevator input like a fighterstick, but does a real plane have that? Compared to the MSFFB2 it feels the same, maybe with a feeling that a loop with no aileron deflection is easier than a roll with no elevator... maybe... No problem for me that is used to the MSFFB2 since long, but I remember going from a CH stick to the MSFFB2 way back when that I also noted what you describe...

Regards /Mazex

Yes, that is true, but flight sims don't act on your inner ear to make you aware of unintentional control input like real flying does.

Anyways, I wonder if there is a way to sping load the center dead space that occurs before FFB takes over, would that improve gunnery?

[mazex]

Originally Posted by fuzzychickens

Yes, that is true, but flight sims don't act on your inner ear to make you aware of unintentional control input like real flying does.

Anyways, I wonder if there is a way to sping load the center dead space that occurs before FFB takes over, would that improve gunnery?

Not sure if it would be better, maybe it's the opposite...

Regarding the small "dead zone" on this stick and realism it's not that bad actually. I've flown many old aircraft with some "slack" in the aileron connections for example. That gives the same effect... Some millimeters of "no force" and then the air pressure giving the force.

[=815=TooCooL]

Originally Posted by mazex

Not sure if it would be better, maybe it's the opposite...

Regarding the small "dead zone" on this stick and realism it's not that bad actually. I've flown many old aircraft with some "slack" in the aileron connections for example. That gives the same effect... Some millimeters of "no force" and then the air pressure giving the force.

Actually, MSFFB2 also has that slack, dead force zone.
Is there noticeable difference between G940 and MS?

[mazex]

Originally Posted by =815=TooCooL

Actually, MSFFB2 also has that slack, dead force zone.
Is there noticeable difference between G940 and MS?

Yes, that's true - but it's a bit bigger on the G940 I think... I does not bother me and if I hadn't read the review that talked about it I don't think I would have thought of it.

The G940 actually feels very similar to the MS, which is good! It feels like subtle effects are less "edgy" than the MS. The MS rattles a bit when doing the stall buffeting, while the G940 has a bit more analogue feeling to the buffeting. Definately better. At the same time it really gets stiff when trying to pull out you 109 going 750 km/h in a steep dive close to the ground...

When trying an execercise I have for testing the precision it really excels over the MS. My test is to move in a small circle in one of the quadrants of the joystick, kind of a circle in the circle. With the G940 I can do really small sub-circles with no spikes at all...

/Mazex

/Mazex

[JZG_Pedro]

Damn man! Congrats!! G940 must be just awesome!!

Im a RL pilot too, and it's interesting cuz heavier and less self-centering pedals are all I want! Don't you dislike the excessive self-centerig of PC pedals (compared to RL flying) ? I fly small, old single-engined trainers (getting my CPL now), and the rudder reacts in a much heavier and "looser" way..

[Thunderbolt56]

Originally Posted by JZG_Pedro

Damn man! Congrats!! G940 must be just awesome!!

Im a RL pilot too, and it's interesting cuz heavier and less self-centering pedals are all I want! Don't you dislike the excessive self-centerig of PC pedals (compared to RL flying) ? I fly small, old single-engined trainers (getting my CPL now), and the rudder reacts in a much heavier and "looser" way..

Agreed there is a difference, but in my experience the weathervaning effect has a centering quality to the rudder by itself. Only in stall maneuvers does the rudder input slacken to a point that it doesn't self-correct to a point more equivalent to pc pedals.

At least that's been my experience.

[KG26_Alpha]

The difference in speed and trim/yaw dampening on the rudder would affect self centering effect, compare a high speed fighter to a Cessna the low speed slackness especially around stall speeds would feel loose as compared to high speed stiffness through cable inputs although the electrical FW190 system would give a different effect motors and solid rods would induce a different feel on the control surfaces via FFB one would have thought !!

Not sure the differences are that subtle in IL21946 to make any comparisons but across different sims maybe its modelled to have a different feel on the stick between cables and hydro electro systems, I think the biggest asset of FFB sticks has always been the ability to feel stalls coming on and catch them before hand, at this point for me FFB is very important.

[Sokol1]

...especially as it uses expensive Hall sensors and no potentiometers as many of the others use.

The myth that HALL sensor are expensive is due replacement ones sold for HOTAS Cougar, borrowed from automotive industry.

Actually HALL sensors is cheap than good potentiometers.

Type of sensor used in Saitek X-52 cost around 2.00U$ each (X and Y axis).
Type of sensor use in Thrustmaster T.16000M cost around 3.00U$.
Probably are triaxial Melexis sensors, and probably the same is used in G940.
http://www.melexis.com/Sensor_ICs_Ha...90333_648.aspx

Potentiometers (CTS?) used in CH sticks are sold, as spare part at 9,95 U$.

Some purists will say that good pots are as good (or better?) as Hall sensor, but fortunately to us, the joystick manufactures are using XXI century technology, since no one manufacturer in China will use 9,95 U$ pots... Fact!

Some guys stay one steep ahead in sensors use, they are using MaRS (magnetoresistor):
http://www.gametrix.ru/products/category/1

Sokol1

[Sokol1]

My test is to move in a small circle in one of the quadrants of the joystick, kind of a circle in the circle. With the G940 I can do really small sub-circles with no spikes at all...

You can use JoyTester2 and post results for us?

http://www.wikifortio.com/830786/JoyTester2.zip

For test make a spiral with stick. If possible with MS FF2 too.

Sample using CH Fighterstick:



Sokol1