Jump to content

Reccomend force feedback stick for DCS


Recommended Posts

Which FFB joystick would you reccomend?

 

Most of all need it for Black Shark.

 

Haven't found much info on this topic. Heard that Microsoft Sidewinder FFB 2 is good. Who used it?

 

What are alternatives?

Извините за внимание

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use both the MS FFB2 and Logitech G940. The FFB2 by far has the better FFB and gimbal feel between the two, but in the Blackshark, there is no question.... You need buttons and hats, and the FFB2 does not provide enough. The G940 is the only decent FFB stick that also has several hats and extra buttons (the only one period I believe).

 

Make sure you upgrade the G940 to the latest firmware (v1.42) to fix the reversal bug. Without the v1.42 firmware, the G940 sucks (both due to the reversal bug, and because the reversal bug screws up the FFB). See here for details: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=222488

 

Forget the G940 throttle, though. Get another throttle like the Warthog Throttle or similar. Due to the reversal bug, the G940 throttle is not appropriate for a helicopter collective. It might be OK for an airplane throttle, though, but not really. The 8 buttons on the throttle base, however, are excellent for the KA-50's autopilot modes. Sadly, the LED's can't be programmed to match the in game button lights. That would require custom programming. Someone did it years ago, but it's not supported anymore. But their layout is a good match to the 5 autopilot buttons on the right console.

 

The G940 rudder pedals, though a nice physical construction, also suffer from the reversal bug. The reversal bug is in the firmware on the stick, so if you run the rudder pedals through a generic 3 axis USB game controller board, you avoid the issue.

 

Most other FFB sticks are the same as or worse than the G940 and aren't worth even trying. I mean, if they had lots of hats and buttons, yes, but otherwise, if you just want the best feeling consumer level FFB stick ever made, its the MS FFB2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which FFB joystick would you reccomend?

 

Most of all need it for Black Shark.

 

Haven't found much info on this topic. Heard that Microsoft Sidewinder FFB 2 is good. Who used it?

 

What are alternatives?

MSFFB2 is a great joystick for the Shark and for all DCS helos actually. It can make you land the shark anywhere you want even on a small space between the trees, maneuvering became easy. I once wondered how the hell Glowing Amraam could land his shark on a moving train in his video, it seem so easy. I think I have the answer after I use MSFFB2 and found out that he also used it.

I use X-52 throttle so the lack of MSFFB2 button not really a problem for me.

I really recommend it.

 

Cheers

Mastering others is strength. Mastering yourself is true power. - Lao Tze

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There aren't any decent sticks on the market at the moment and won't be in any foreseeable future. Your best bet for DCS choppers is, unfortunately, an extended stick.

My controls & seat

 

Main controls: , BRD-N v4 Flightstick (Kreml C5 controller), TM Warthog Throttle (Kreml F3 controller), BRD-F2 Restyling Bf-109 Pedals w. damper, TrackIR5, Gametrix KW-908 (integrated into RAV4 seat)

Stick grips:

Thrustmaster Warthog

Thrustmaster Cougar (x2)

Thrustmaster F-16 FLCS

BRD KG13

 

Standby controls:

BRD-M2 Mi-8 Pedals (Ruddermaster controller)

BRD-N v3 Flightstick w. exch. grip upgrade (Kreml C5 controller)

Thrustmaster Cougar Throttle

Pilot seat

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FFB2 by far has the better FFB and gimbal feel between the two

 

Can you elaborate on what makes the FFB2 feel better than the G940? I have the FFB2, but stopped using it due to the lack of mounting holes, the rather large size of the base, the lack of buttons, and the 'force deadzone' issue which I explain here:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=185028

 

But lately I've been thinking about either picking up a G940 or modding the FFB2 into a new base, doing the resistor mod to double its power, and putting a T-50 stick on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i am using ffb2 for only helicopters and it is almost awesome. looks ugly though

FC3 | UH-1 | Mi-8 | A-10C II | F/A-18 | Ka-50 III | F-14 | F-16 | AH-64 Mi-24 | F-5 | F-15E| F-4| Tornado

Persian Gulf | Nevada | Syria | NS-430 | Supercarrier // Wishlist: CH-53 | UH-60

 

Youtube

MS FFB2 - TM Warthog - CH Pro Pedals - Trackir 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely wouldn't recommend the G940. I used to swear by it once and often stated here how great it was for flying the Ka-50. I had a lot of odd issues, though (same with flying the A-10C on autopilot).

 

These issues turned out to be caused by the G940's FFB - the very thing that made it a great HOTAS was causing some loss of control and various weird flight behaviour.

 

When I tried a Warthog HOTAS, against my expectation I found the control was much better - and with the X56 it was better still (even the old MS Sidewinder Pro was much better for gentle manoeuvres than the G940).

 

After I realised this, I sold the G940, which I had used for 6 years with the Ka-50.

Kneeboard Guides

Rig: Asus B650-GAMING PLUS; Ryzen 7800X3D ; 64GB DDR5 5600; RTX 4080; VPC T50 CM2 HOTAS; SN-1 Pedals; VR = Pico 4 over VD Wireless + Index; Point Control v2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems its better for me to stick with my Logitech 3dpro than to buy expensive, yet not so effective device.

 

Thank you!

 

 

Unfortunately the Logitech 3D pro has a sort of dead spot programmed into it as well, it's probably not so bad for the BS 2 but it certainly can be a problem for the light and responsive Gazelle.

 

I expect most (if not all) the joysticks will have some form of dead spot built in to supplement the mechanical center detent although I have not gone and tested all joysticks.

 

I also started with a 3D pro but as I progressed I kinda found it somewhat limiting so I modified it, a lot. :D Using the Leo Bodnar USB interface go rid of the pesky center dead spot.

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=176078&stc=1&d=1515814564

 

Here is my V-Sim Pit it's a WIP

 

I pretty much only fly heli's and it feels pretty good as far as cyclic control input goes at least for a light heli like the Gazelle but I really do not need to use trim, actually I don't use trim.

 

Commercial alternatives are out there but because of the limited market they tend to be hand crafted or very small operation and of course that makes them expensive or there are controls aimed at actual pilot training which also makes them expensive. :P

 

If you don't already have get a set of pedals again for some reason they also have a mechanical center detent but really help a lot.

 

If I were to look at commercially available probable VPRIL or TM Warthog

Control is an illusion which usually shatters at the least expected moment.

Gazelle Mini-gun version is endorphins with rotors. See above.

 

Currently rolling with a Asus Z390 Prime, 9600K, 32GB RAM, SSD, 2080Ti and Windows 10Pro, Rift CV1. bu0836x and Scratch Built Pedals, Collective and Cyclic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you elaborate on what makes the FFB2 feel better than the G940? I have the FFB2, but stopped using it due to the lack of mounting holes, the rather large size of the base, the lack of buttons, and the 'force deadzone' issue which I explain here:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=185028

 

But lately I've been thinking about either picking up a G940 or modding the FFB2 into a new base, doing the resistor mod to double its power, and putting a T-50 stick on it.

 

(FYI, below talks a little about the FFB play or FFB deadzone you mentioned in your other topic.)

 

Why is the Microsoft FFB2 better than the G940?

 

It starts with the gimbal. The MS FFB2 gimbal supports the stick on all sides with good stability and little to no slop using a double "U" gimbal design. The G940 gimbal is weaker, and in one axis, only supports one side of the ginbal, not both. This introduces more slop, and slop means a larger gap where you can move the stick without engaging the motors. This is part of the cause of the FFB deadzone - a small amount of movement that is allowed before the motors kick in and hold the stick. Thankfully, this does not affect the pots as they are attached directly to the gimbal rotation points. So there is little to no deadzone for the stick position, but there is mechanical deadzone for the FFB forces. This is worse on the G940 than on the MS FFB2.

 

I have tried to tighten this up by shimming the gimbal pegs, but it just starts to bind due to friction - the stick no longer moves freely. The fundamental design of the G940 gimbal sucks to be honest. If it was made out of metal, it would work much better, but out of plastic, it doesn't work so well due to tolerances, and even plastic flex. That is, in fact, a primary reason why the MS FFB2 is so good. Microsoft set out to design an excellent minimal slop gimbal out of plastic, and they did a good job - by making a gimbal that is bulky and supported on both sides for both axis. It all boils down to the tolerances you get with molded plastic. All FFB stick makers had to deal with this compromise. FYI, most of Logitech's FFB sticks use the same basic gimbal as the G940, though from what I have seen, the G940 is the best of the ones they designed. I have another Logitech FFB stick (a Force 3D or similar) that is absolutely horrid. It is so weak and so sloppy that if the FFB kicks in, you think something broke. Nope, it's just hat loose.

 

The second reason is the MS FFB2 motor and gearing is more smooth (less notchy) than the G940. This is a factor of the motor quality and the motor to gimbal gearing. If I remember correctly, the G940 gear ratio is lower than the FFB2. I don't know what the motor pole count is for each (probably 5 to 8 poles), but a high pole count coupled with a high gear ratio means more smooth. You feel this as you pull the stick against the motor force. You can feel this on both sticks, but it is much more prominent on the G940 as with most other FFB sticks I have tried whereas the MS FFB2 is very smooth.

 

The third reason is I believe the FFB algorithm on the FFB2 is generally better designed. The G940 seems to have a larger FFB deadzone, which is partly due to software, partly due to the loose gimbal and gearing. I have studied the gimbal and gearing and removed the slack and still seen that you have to move the stick a certain amount before the motors will kick in and push back on you. This was horrendous with the old firmware due to the reversal bug (hysteresis). The new v1.42 firmware improved this significantly because it mostly removed the hysteresis.

 

With many FFB sticks, you need a certain amount of FFB deadzone to prevent the stick from going into oscillation. They should deal with this using damping routines, but from what I have seen, that is not the norm. This is also why they all have a sensor that you cover up with your hand to enable the FFB. But most of us tend to cover up that sensor with tape so the stick will always be on and hold it's position when you take your hand away. A non-damped FFB stick with no FFB deadzone would go into oscillation and beat it self to death. With the new firmware, I have to be a little more careful with the G940 because if I accidentally knock it, it will easily go into oscillation. I don't hold that against the G940. But overall, the way the MS FFB2 handles this seems to be better - better feel because the FFB deadzone is smaller.

 

Also, it seems like the G940 has a zone where it applies only a small amount of force, but then it ramps up radically after that point. Not a deadzone, but call it a low force zone. It is enough to hold the stick relatively centered, but it means if you exceed that low force zone, suddenly you feel like you are fighting a force that is way too strong. No amount of playing with the force settings has made this go away. Relax the force too much and the stick won't hold itself where I last left it due to magnetic brake or trim. Strength it up enough to hold itself, and you have to deal with this jump in force. The MS FFB2 does not have any of that.

 

All of these little details added together make a huge difference in FFB quality, and the MS FFB2 is better on all of them. BUT, there is one area where the FFB2 fails. It has a stick position deadzone at stick center. You can see it very clearly if you slowly move the stick through it's center in X or Y. The MS FFB2 software (which does not run under Windows 7 and beyond) allowed adjusting this deadzone, but even when set at the minimum, you cannot get rid of the deadzone.

 

It makes no sense why they added this. If it was added to create a FFB dead zone, then it failed because if the stick is not centered, the deadzone doesn't affect FFB. And adding a deadzone for a FFB stick should only be done at the position where the stick is being held, not the stick mechanical center. If the stick is deflected from center by 10 degrees for example, then the deadzone doesn't do what people want deadzones for in the first place. I believe this is much of why Logitech added the reversal bug (it was a feature). They were trying to add a moving deadzone that would stay with the stick no matter where it was held rather than a deadzone at stick center.

 

Because of the FFB2 deadzone, though, it makes it more difficult to aim a WWII bird (for example) if the stick is anywhere near the center as you have to cross the deadzone to continue moving the aiming point. But if the trim is such that the stick is off center, you suddenly realize much better aiming because you are not dealing with an deadzone. To be clear, this is a position deadzone (what most people thing of when you say deadzone on a joystick), not FFB deadzone which I spoke about earlier

 

And of course, there are the number of buttons and hats, where the G940 wins easily vs. the MS FFB2. Which is why, regardless of the MS FFB2 stick being a better FFB stick by a long shot, for complex aircraft like the Blackshark and most jets, I need the hats and buttons, so I use the G940.

 

Now what is critically wrong with the MS FFB2? Honestly, the positional deadzone on the MS FFB 2 is really bad. If you want a joystick to work as it should, do not add a deadzone period. Deadzones on joysticks are compromises for the unreal characteristic of a sprung joystick - which is not the norm for most real aircraft. People often add a deadzone on sprung (non-FFB) sticks to make the aircraft easier to fly (you don't have to hold the stick constantly). But your goal should be to get rid of that deadzone as soon as possible. It is even more true flying helicopters. Most real aircraft do not have deadzones. The stick always has a little bit of movement regardless of trim and the pilot must always deal with that (unless autopilot modes are turned). But on a FFB stick, the concept of a center deadzone is insane. The stick is designed to self center anywhere in the stick's range of movement, not always at the stick center. Hence a center deadzone on a FFB stick is one of the dumbest things I have seen in FFB stick design.

 

So the deadzone on the FFB2 nearly ruins an almost perfect stick otherwise. I can overlook it for some applications, but it drives me nuts in others. I had been fighting it for years with poor aiming on various aircraft, or difficulty flying certain aircraft like the Gazelle where the deadzone exacerbates how the SAS. Then I realized just how much the deadzone was causing me issues. When I switched to the G940 with the v1.42 firmware (hence no deadzone and no hysteresis/reversal bug), my flying and aiming accuracy got significantly better and with less effort.

 

So in summary the MS FFB2 has the best FFB of any stick, but the lack of buttons and the FFB2's deadzone may disqualify it for many people. Get the G940, though, and the less than ideal FFB will drive you nuts.. Pick your pain I guess. If you can find a G940 for cheap, I would suggest buying one and decide yourself if or why you care.

 

Remember, why do we want FFB sticks in the first place. Because they don't have any center spring or 0 crossing detents. The stick is free floating, held only by the motors, but the motors are kind of a kludge due to all the issues explained above. Also, because the FFB force is adjustable, the stick is also generally free floating which is very important for a helicopter or even a non-jet fixed wing. Some people get this with a normal (non-FFB) stick by removing or significantly reducing the centering spring force or by using 4 counter balanced springs like on the Uber II NXT on the TM Cougar. Or even better is to remove the spring and replace them with dampers that give slight resistance to movement, and will hold the stick position when you let go, but there is no spring return. But even that is a compromise. So we have to pick our pain one way or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...