Brunner Force Feedback Joystick Base

On 3/24/2022 at 5:18 PM, mhe said:

Has anyone ever gotten the opportunity to test the CLS-E vs the CLS-P? And is the latter even available to private individuals?

Someone on a controller discord reported buying one; he said that it is proportionally better. (Which of course, it had better be.)

I was not quite sure what you meant regarding the trim in the read me notes? 

I have made 2 profiles, one for FBW jets I own, primarily the Hornet, as I use a separate force sensing stick and base for the Viper. In this profile, hydraulics are on, which basically overrides any settings in the scale factor boxes under the axis force settings tab, as I understand it. I have hardware trim enabled in this and I have bound the trim functions in CLS2 under the buttons tab ( and NOT in DCS in controls options) . For me, doing this, the trim works perfectly, I get neutral displacment trim ( IE the stick moves to the trimmed position and stays there in both sim and reality) 

The other profile is basically the same but with no hydraulics and trim bound the same way. I have attached my Hornet ( FBW) profile. 

DCS FBW Jets.zcsFor me, this profile has just enough resistance without giving me overheating issues, I usually end up around mid to high thirties......

On 1/1/2023 at 5:23 PM, markturner1960 said:

I was not quite sure what you meant regarding the trim in the read me notes? 

I have made 2 profiles, one for FBW jets I own, primarily the Hornet, as I use a separate force sensing stick and base for the Viper. In this profile, hydraulics are on, which basically overrides any settings in the scale factor boxes under the axis force settings tab, as I understand it. I have hardware trim enabled in this and I have bound the trim functions in CLS2 under the buttons tab ( and NOT in DCS in controls options) . For me, doing this, the trim works perfectly, I get neutral displacment trim ( IE the stick moves to the trimmed position and stays there in both sim and reality) 

The other profile is basically the same but with no hydraulics and trim bound the same way. I have attached my Hornet ( FBW) profile. 

DCS FBW Jets.zcsFor me, this profile has just enough resistance without giving me overheating issues, I usually end up around mid to high thirties......

 

On 1/1/2023 at 2:24 PM, markturner1960 said:

Thanks, you know I did read the read me, but as that was the top line, missed that somehow!!! D'Oh!! 

Would you mind expanding on the profiles for DCS what the rational is behind each and why they vary etc? I am keen to understand ....!

Could you explain how the profile titles relate to the characteristics of each ? I get the "FBW fixed force" is for FBW jets like the Hornet...what does the fixed force mean? 

And whats the fast & slow relate to? 

 

Thanks! 

 

Hi,

Trim movement is not the same as control movement (by principle - it may be in specific aircraft).

Example: In modern Airbus aircraft the trim moves the horizontal stabilizer whereas stick input moves the elevators (that are attached to the horizontal stabilizer).

Imagine an awkward situation where the stabilizer is full nose down and the elevator is full nose up. The stabilizer (trim) has more effectiveness than the elevator and stick input won't overcome stabilizer action, only reduces it.

Because using CLS2Sim does not provide trim interaction with DCS and additionally disables in many modules trim functionality, the use of 'Hardware Trim' in CLS2Sim is only a remedy.

Example: in the F-5 trim setting is critical for take-off. Being one of the modules that lose trim functionality, by using of 'Hardware Trim' you won't be able to know proper trim position for take-off.

The F/A-18 has a Q Feel flight Control System (my best info at this time) and is FBW, so 'Hydraulics' should be disabled. Q Feel artificially varies stick tension with varying airspeed.

Also, the F/A-18 module does not lose trim functionality and in the real jet trim does not move the stick. So, my profile uses scale factor and I have bound trim function in DCS and not in CLS2SSim with 'Hardware Trim'. To sum up, F/A-18 does not have neutral displacement trim. Your profile moves the stick but not the trim (which are not the same depending on aircraft as I explained above).

In my profiles I mostly use a ratio between pitch and roll force of 1.47 to 1.5, being the pitch axis the stronger. This ratio is derived from the F-16 force ratio between pitch up and roll.

Real all round ratios may be closer to 2 and not 1.5.

Then I use, for the variation of forces, a speed value based on the maximum calibrated airspeed not for a specific aircraft but for a family of aircraft. That's why I have 'Slow' and 'Fast'. For propellers slow is 'GA' (general aviation) and 'Fast' is 'Warbirds'. The speed also has a ratio between the pitch and the roll axis. For non airspeed varying stick I force 'Hydraulics' and use the ratio on the 'Hydraulics Force' settings.

'FFB fixed force' is for aircraft that the stick is independent of the airspeed (non Q Feel). Examples: F-16, modern Airbus (A320F and above), Mirage 2000.

When I have better info on a particular aircraft and it does not fit a family of aircraft I use a specific profile. Example: F-16 and Mirage 2000 (only really possible with CLS-P).

General rule: non hydraulic flight control systems are reversible, that means forces from the control surfaces are felt on the stick; hydraulic flight control systems are irreversible, meaning forces on the control surfaces are not felt on the stick.

Finally, FFB and stick mechanics are not the same thing. Example: The F-86 stick works very similarly to the F/A-18, the stick forces vary with varying airspeed (except possibly that the F-86 trim moves the stick - displaced neutral - and the F/A-18 trim does not move the stick), but one is conventional (hydraulically operated) and the other is FBW (also hydraulically operated).

Cheers 

Thanks, thats very interesting and useful.....I have been having a go with your profiles, they seem pretty nice, my only gripe would be that the initial force on the stick is pretty low, I think in the real thing, breakout force is around 4nm, which unfortunately we cant simulate using the Brunner, ( That's its max force and operating it at those values is not really possible) or it would cut out thermally pretty quickly......I increased your values so the perceived resistance in the stick is higher and prefer that.

One question regarding the hydraulics......as I understand ( and could be wrong!) if hydraulics are "On", they overide any force settings so you effectively have to set the force using the hydraulics tab, correct? And what does the Hydraulics failure setting relate to? 

Could you explain why the Harrier, F5, Tomcat & Hornet have both a HW trim profile and a non HW trim profile? From the above I understand that the Hornet is a special case, ( trim does not move the stick etc) so presume it would use a different profile to the other jets? Why have 4 very different jets all using the same profile? ( I am not trying to be difficult here, simply trying to understand what you have done and why - you have a much better understanding of it all than me it seems) 

Thanks, this is a very useful converstaion...when I got my Brunner, I literally spent a week trying to work out the software and how it worked etc....! Like you I am keen to get the most realistic representation I can of the jets we fly, within the limitations of the hardware and software.  

4 hours ago, markturner1960 said:

Thanks, thats very interesting and useful.....I have been having a go with your profiles, they seem pretty nice, my only gripe would be that the initial force on the stick is pretty low, I think in the real thing, breakout force is around 4nm, which unfortunately we cant simulate using the Brunner, ( That's its max force and operating it at those values is not really possible) or it would cut out thermally pretty quickly......I increased your values so the perceived resistance in the stick is higher and prefer that.

One question regarding the hydraulics......as I understand ( and could be wrong!) if hydraulics are "On", they overide any force settings so you effectively have to set the force using the hydraulics tab, correct? And what does the Hydraulics failure setting relate to? 

Could you explain why the Harrier, F5, Tomcat & Hornet have both a HW trim profile and a non HW trim profile? From the above I understand that the Hornet is a special case, ( trim does not move the stick etc) so presume it would use a different profile to the other jets? Why have 4 very different jets all using the same profile? ( I am not trying to be difficult here, simply trying to understand what you have done and why - you have a much better understanding of it all than me it seems) 

Thanks, this is a very useful converstaion...when I got my Brunner, I literally spent a week trying to work out the software and how it worked etc....! Like you I am keen to get the most realistic representation I can of the jets we fly, within the limitations of the hardware and software.  

For 'GA' and 'Warbirds' the initial force is zero because the real aircraft only start having resistance force on the stick with airflow during take-off. For the 'Jets' I chose a minimal force with 'Minimum Scale factor' setting. With the CLS-E this force (minimum spring force in Q Feel flight control systems) is weak to accommodate the never very strong force at maximum speed (so we, virtual pilots, perceive the build-up in force during speed increase). With CLS-P this initial force is stronger because the max speed force is virtual unlimited (50 Nm).

With 'Hydraulics' we lose varying force with varying airspeed, which is the best setting for flight control systems with hydraulics and no Q Feel - usually most FBW (not all). Hydraulics failure only work with simulators that export that value (not DCS at this time). It than simulates mechanical backup where the forces exerted by the pilot are usually much higher.

Yes, F/A-18 should not be in that list (HW Trim). I am still slowly (very slowly) testing all the aircraft and gathering more info on each one. All that I still don't know many details are in both lists. Most profiles are generic (by type of aircraft regarding flight control system and performance), so the Harrier, F-5 and Tomcat are all high speed with non reversible and with Q Feel flight control systems. With regard to speed I consider low altitude calibrated airspeed (not Mach number). So the 'Jets Slow' are up to 460 KCAS max speed and 'Jets Fast' are the ones that go up to 800 KCAS. For the Warbirds and GA I made a similar rationale of around 460 and 260 KCAS.

When I have detailed info on a specific aircraft or it does not fit a generic profile I make a specific profile for it like the F-16 and the Mirage 2000.

Unfortunately the CLS-E is very limited by the maximum force and the sustained force. With the CLS-P we can even make soft stops (to simulate smaller mechanical travel limits) that make the profiles even better. Example: In most hydraulic operated flight control systems pitch down stick travel is smaller than pitch up stick travel. We can limit this in CLS2Sim but with the CLS-E the force is so weak that it does not feel a stop. With CLS-P the force is so strong that effectively it acts as a mechanical stop. This is the only stick base that can simulate the F-16 stick besides the specific force sensing bases from RealSimulator.

On 3/24/2022 at 10:18 PM, mhe said:

Has anyone ever gotten the opportunity to test the CLS-E vs the CLS-P? And is the latter even available to private individuals?

Yes, they sell CLS-P to private individuals.

CLS-E

Quality - *****

General layout - *****

Precision - ***** PERFECT

Smoothness - *****

Max force - *** (could be a bit higher - 7 Nm)

Sustained force - * (unacceptably low - made for civilian non demanding tasks - got a bit better with newer firmware)

General force behavior - *** (weak force at the very center - should be snugger)

CLS-P

Quality - *****

General layout - **** (connectors are to the side and the cables may interfere with the surroundings and bend too much)

Precision - ***** PERFECT

Smoothness - *** (the motors are heavy with a grainy feeling when not producing torque - maybe could have a function to self alleviate its own weight)

Max force - ***** PERFECT (it can effectively simulate shorter mechanical stops)

Sustained force - ***** PERFECT

General force behavior - *** (weak force at the very center - should be snugger)

Regarding the Hornet specifically, from what I can gather, there is a constant approx 3lbs pressure across all deflections, until you exceed 22 degrees AoA , where the resistance increases. I would like to emulate that in my Hornet profile.

Also, would you mind to explain the rational behind limiting the FFB effect force to 67%? Thanks!

I just set up a version of your profile for the Hornet, witha flat 2nm force across the board , but even that got the stick too hot......I was getting stage 1 cut outs and temps in the 50's. Going to try it at around 1.3..........Also, at that force level, getting an unacceptable amount of oscillation around the centre, how do you counter that? I have tried playing with backlash settings & deadzones but have not been able to find any settings that stop it. Only solution seems to be to turn down the stick forces around the centre......

Regarding the hydraulics for the Hornet, again, as I understand how the jet is in RL and what hydraulics do in CLS2 (https://www.brunner-innovation.swiss/CLS2SimHelp/CLSProfileManager.htm#hydraulic) then it seems to me that enabling hydraulics for the Hornet would give you a similar effect to the real thing, which is a constant force across all axis, unaffected by anything except the AoA going over 22 degrees. What do you think? 

I editted your profile in line with the above, what do you think of how it feels / behaves?

The only other thing I would say regarding your notes is that your recommendation to zero any curves I just cant get on with. I get the principle of why you suggest this, but really, for me, certain aircraft are just too twitchy and without curves, its almost impossible to fly them with the required degree of finesse and accuracy...but thats just me....

Shrimp - DCS - Hornet.zcs

5 hours ago, markturner1960 said:

Regarding the Hornet specifically, from what I can gather, there is a constant approx 3lbs pressure across all deflections, until you exceed 22 degrees AoA , where the resistance increases. I would like to emulate that in my Hornet profile.

Also, would you mind to explain the rational behind limiting the FFB effect force to 67%? Thanks!

I just set up a version of your profile for the Hornet, witha flat 2nm force across the board , but even that got the stick too hot......I was getting stage 1 cut outs and temps in the 50's. Going to try it at around 1.3..........Also, at that force level, getting an unacceptable amount of oscillation around the centre, how do you counter that? I have tried playing with backlash settings & deadzones but have not been able to find any settings that stop it. Only solution seems to be to turn down the stick forces around the centre......

Regarding the hydraulics for the Hornet, again, as I understand how the jet is in RL and what hydraulics do in CLS2 (https://www.brunner-innovation.swiss/CLS2SimHelp/CLSProfileManager.htm#hydraulic) then it seems to me that enabling hydraulics for the Hornet would give you a similar effect to the real thing, which is a constant force across all axis, unaffected by anything except the AoA going over 22 degrees. What do you think? 

I editted your profile in line with the above, what do you think of how it feels / behaves?

The only other thing I would say regarding your notes is that your recommendation to zero any curves I just cant get on with. I get the principle of why you suggest this, but really, for me, certain aircraft are just too twitchy and without curves, its almost impossible to fly them with the required degree of finesse and accuracy...but thats just me....

Shrimp - DCS - Hornet.zcs 40.16 kB · 0 downloads

 

Where did you get that info? In my view those values do not make much sense. As far as I know (I still am not absolutely sure about this) the F/A-18 FCS has a spring that varies its strength according to airspeed (and possibly AOA) but a fixed and low value up to 22º AOA does not seem right to me, nor the same value for pitch and roll.

I think I don't have any profile with 67% FFB effect. I have 50% for CLS-E and 100% for CLS-P because it feels (personal opinion) proportional to the stick forces across the board. With 100% in CLS-E sometimes the buffet effect is too much compared to stick force, unbalanced in my view, so the 50%. The profiles of sticks with no back force (F-16 for example) have the FFB effect value to minimum (1%).

The default values of both the CLS-E and -P have a weak near the center force which may lead to some aircraft being too sensitive near the center (F-5 -> use 'Nonlinear' in 'Options' ' Special'). I have no issues with that. I elected (up to now) not to fiddle with those settings because it is difficult to balance stronger center force with backlash and it seems the very near the center force is impossible to increase.

If and when I find better info on the Hornet FCS I will change the profile accordingly.

Hi mate, i got that information regarding the Hornet here 

  and here

If I open your file in profile manager, the FFB force is definitely set at 67%. This setting only applies to the "effects" forces such as stall buffet and ground rumble etc, is that correct? And not to the resistance forces you set in the force settings tab? If yes, then really, that tab only applies to the modules that have any FFB effects coded into them, which as I understand if the Heatblur F14 ( top of the list for this!) The P51 Mustang and perhaps some of the warbirds. I fly the Harrier, Hornet, F5, F16, Viggen & Tomcat and of those the Tomcat is the only one that I get any rumbles and vibration from through the stick from.......

I did not see an F5 specific profile ? If there are specific settings you recommend for indivual jets then I think it would be better to have individual profiles? 

For the Harrier for example, it has a "Q feel" system - would you have a Harrier specific profile because of this and what would you change in teh settings to emulate the real jet? 

I agree, the only way to deal with the oscillations is to compromise the first 2 settings to lower than the rest of the profile. Did you take a look at my profile? 

2 hours ago, markturner1960 said:

Hi mate, i got that information regarding the Hornet here 

  and here

If I open your file in profile manager, the FFB force is definitely set at 67%. This setting only applies to the "effects" forces such as stall buffet and ground rumble etc, is that correct? And not to the resistance forces you set in the force settings tab? If yes, then really, that tab only applies to the modules that have any FFB effects coded into them, which as I understand if the Heatblur F14 ( top of the list for this!) The P51 Mustang and perhaps some of the warbirds. I fly the Harrier, Hornet, F5, F16, Viggen & Tomcat and of those the Tomcat is the only one that I get any rumbles and vibration from through the stick from.......

I did not see an F5 specific profile ? If there are specific settings you recommend for indivual jets then I think it would be better to have individual profiles? 

For the Harrier for example, it has a "Q feel" system - would you have a Harrier specific profile because of this and what would you change in teh settings to emulate the real jet? 

I agree, the only way to deal with the oscillations is to compromise the first 2 settings to lower than the rest of the profile. Did you take a look at my profile? 

 

Nice info. The 3 lbs is the breakout force, then it is 7.4 lbs per inch and not absolute until the 22° AOA. That’s why it did not make sense. This for the pitch axis. The roll axis has lower values as expected.

The behavior at 22° AOA, if I understood correctly, is impossible to replicate without feedback from DCS. I may look further into it.

That graph (force vs displacement and trim) is outdated because the current FCS trim does not move the stick. The info on the forces and the relation between pitch up travel and force vs pitch down travel and force is useful.

It seems that stick force does not vary with airspeed (as I thought). So ‘Hydraulics’ option is to be checked on.

The pitch rate command or g rate command and >22° AOA feedback is made by the FBW system and does not alter stick forces but aircraft behavior at the same stick force in different envelope conditions, as I understand. It may also (if the previous thought is wrong) alter stick forces in pitch or roll but I did not ascertain this fully. Example of what I understood: at 22° AOA the stick does not become heavier but the FBW computer starts reducing AOA and the pilot, to maintain or increase AOA, has to pull further on the stick effectively increasing the force to keep/increase AOA. But the stick travel vs force is fixed. This is my understanding.

Yes, the FFB setting is for effects. I have, as said earlier 50%, 100% or 1%. Maybe something slipped. If 67% feels right to you it is right.

Most (I think all) of the warbirds have buffet and stall effects felt through the stick. In non hydraulically operated FCS the stick naturally shakes due to control surface feedback. Some jets also have it. In reality if the FCS is hydraulically operated there’s no natural feedback unless an artificial one is introduced, like stick shaker or rudder shaker. But there are other near stall warnings like buzzers or the aircraft itself that buffets and therefore no artificial warning is needed.

The F-5 option is to be changed inside DCS. The profile is the ‘Jets Fast’.

The Q Feel system is replicated by not checking ‘Hydraulics’, having ‘Minimum Scale factor’ filled with proper values and using ‘Force Scale Factor’ again with proper values (calibrated airspeed). All ‘Jets’ profiles replicate Q Feel.

As said earlier, when I have proper info that requires an individual profile for a specific aircraft I’ll do it. But I must tell you it is a very slow process due to time constraints. I’ll probably do it for the Hornet, but the info available is too much (weird), because most of it is outdated and the filtering of the current and valuable one is a big task. I’ll try!!!

On 1/4/2023 at 9:29 PM, Shrimp said:

As far as I know (I still am not absolutely sure about this) the F/A-18 FCS has a spring that varies its strength according to airspeed (and possibly AOA) but a fixed and low value up to 22º AOA does not seem right to me, nor the same value for pitch and roll.

The spring force is a constant 7.0 lbs/inch per NASA TM 107601 (or 7.4 per ADA256522 as Curly posted).

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19920024293/downloads/19920024293.pdf

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA256522.pdf

On 1/5/2023 at 12:48 AM, Shrimp said:

The pitch rate command or g rate command and >22° AOA feedback is made by the FBW system and does not alter stick forces but aircraft behavior at the same stick force in different envelope conditions, as I understand. It may also (if the previous thought is wrong) alter stick forces in pitch or roll but I did not ascertain this fully. Example of what I understood: at 22° AOA the stick does not become heavier but the FBW computer starts reducing AOA and the pilot, to maintain or increase AOA, has to pull further on the stick effectively increasing the force to keep/increase AOA. But the stick travel vs force is fixed. This is my understanding.

 

This is correct. Stick travel vs force is fixed.

So in light of that, the most realistic way to simulate the real Hornet with the Brunner, would be to set the highest possible force the stick can reasonably maintain that remains the same whatever the displacement, and does not vary with speed or G. Also with no hardware trim. Do you agree Shrimp? 

9 hours ago, DummyCatz said:

The spring force is a constant 7.0 lbs/inch per NASA TM 107601 (or 7.4 per ADA256522 as Curly posted).

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19920024293/downloads/19920024293.pdf

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA256522.pdf

This is correct. Stick travel vs force is fixed.

 

Thanks for the clarification.

It wouldn't make sense, from an engineering perspective, to have a FBW system and then introduce complexity to the spring box.

8 hours ago, markturner1960 said:

So in light of that, the most realistic way to simulate the real Hornet with the Brunner, would be to set the highest possible force the stick can reasonably maintain that remains the same whatever the displacement, and does not vary with speed or G. Also with no hardware trim. Do you agree Shrimp? 

Almost correct (but with a big difference): a profile with a constant force vs displacement gradient of 7.4 lb/inch on the pitch axis; 3.7 lb/inch on the roll axis (a curve that is in fact a straight line in the force vs stick displacement graph) with a center breakout force, as per the info above. This breakout force is difficult to implement due to backlash.

The rest is correct: "... does not vary with speed or g. Also with no HW trim." 

In light of this, for the F/A-18 I recommend the 'Shrimp - DCS - FBW Fixed Force' profile for CLS-E and the 'Shrimp - DCS P - FBW Fixed Force' for the CLS-P.

Later I will do a specific Hornet profile. I still have to think out the best relation between real stick forces vs simulated (at a desk) stick forces. Because in reality the pilot is physically involved in the whole flight experience the real forces are too heavy for desk usage, where only a fraction of the experience (especially the physical part) is felt. This is especially true with high performance aircraft as is the core of DCS. Example: if we use the real F-16 stick at a desk simulator we would quickly become physically (hand, wrist, arm) uncomfortable as there is no balance with the rest of the body stress (no g's, no accelerations, no radial accelerations/movement, no heat, no cold, etc...). This only applies to the CLS-P because the CLS-E doesn't output such (real aircraft) forces.

I just spent some time with the recommended profile for the Hornet and I like it, although I may need to tweak the forces so they dont go so high to avoid thermal cut out.

In regard to the F5, you recommend using jets fast profile? Yes? Did you know there are 3 joystick options available within DCS in the specials menu, for the F5 including one for displaced neutral FFB. The ohers are linear and non linear. I have posted asking DCS what these are for and how they work, but they have not replied yet...( This was in November as well, so I am a bit pissed off they have not bothered to answer yet...) Do you know? Have you explored how each work with your recommended profile for the F5?

It would be good to get a fix on how adjusting trim in the various jets modelled in DCS affects actual stick position, so we can accurately replicate this

Guys - have you had a look into this thread?

I haven´t been happy with CLS2SIM for various reasons and must admit, the solution described here is cheap (only Arduino controller needed), installation is very easy and the result just perfect. It took a while for me to understand how trim works, but at the end it is not the hardware trim of CSL2SIM giving input to DCS, now I trim via DCS and my Joysticks receives stick position from DCS (so the other way around). 

Also forces are much better, because from my point of view DCS gives different outputs (e.g. fly by wire is different to ww2) and now my Joystick is doing exactly (in terms of forces and vibrations) what DCS ist telling him and not artificial simulated by CLS2SIM.

Last but not least my center position is way more accurate, I have no oscillation problems any more and helicopter flying is on another level (e.g. deactivation force trim in the Huey Works like in real life).

If interested, you should give it a try - the Arduino ist only 20 Euros invest.

On 1/10/2023 at 1:42 PM, markturner1960 said:

I just spent some time with the recommended profile for the Hornet and I like it, although I may need to tweak the forces so they dont go so high to avoid thermal cut out.

In regard to the F5, you recommend using jets fast profile? Yes? Did you know there are 3 joystick options available within DCS in the specials menu, for the F5 including one for displaced neutral FFB. The ohers are linear and non linear. I have posted asking DCS what these are for and how they work, but they have not replied yet...( This was in November as well, so I am a bit pissed off they have not bothered to answer yet...) Do you know? Have you explored how each work with your recommended profile for the F5?

It would be good to get a fix on how adjusting trim in the various jets modelled in DCS affects actual stick position, so we can accurately replicate this

 

Hi again,

Because I now use CLS-P I don't have the thermal cut out and I'm not testing the profiles with CLS-E anymore. Anyway the forces of the CLS-E profiles were all previously tested. Personal preference may warrant modifications to the profiles to compensate this huge CLS-E drawback (sustained force).

My interpretation to the F-5 special options is, because the real F-5 has huge amounts of roll rate and normal joysticks don't have enough spring tension to mimic the real F-5 stick forces and become extremely sensitive and difficult to fine control, the following:

- For heavy spring force joysticks use 'Linear'

- For low spring force joysticks use 'Non-liner'

- For FFB (DirectInput) use  'Displaced neutral'

Because with CLS-E or P and CLS2Sim we actually cannot use 'Displaced neutral' (not DirectInput compatible) and the force near the center is weak I use 'Non-liner' to be less sensitive.

Regarding BrunnerDX vs CLS2Sim:

BrunnerDX is excellent for FFB DirectInput compatibility. I tested it but, because I also use CLS-E Mk II Rudder with Toe Brakes, I lose FFB in the rudder axis because BrunnerDX (I think it is a DCS issue) lacks rudder axis FFB effects. The big PRO for BrunnerDX is full trim functionality. It is also quite simple and straightforward and almost plug&play. It just works. Pity for the lack of rudder axis functionality.

CLS2Sim is quite powerful but due to the still missing trim feedback in the DCS plugin we lose trim functionality. Maybe the external mode should allow to choose which axis goes to external mode and which don't. Than I'd use the pitch and roll axis with external mode to BrunnerDX and the rudder axis directly via CLS2Sim.

For both to become superb BrunnerDX must have rudder axis FFB functionality and CLS2Sim trim feedback functionality via the DCS plugin, possibility to choose which axis go to external mode, DirectInput compatibility and an hybrid mode DirectInput and CLS2Sim combined features. My guess is that the ball for the most important missing features is on the ED's DCS side and possibly also on the dated DirectInput API.

Thanks Shrimp, I am using BrunnerDX currently and am quite pleased so far. How much was the CLS P joystick if you dont mind? 

When I tried "displaced neutral" in the F5, with trim bound both in DCS and to the buttons in Brunner DX, I found that in the free flight F5 mission, I could not trim the jet to fly level - at full deflection and trim it still wanted to go nose up. I tried Linear and non linear - both worked well, trim worked as it should and jet behaved well.....could detect zero difference between the options....

Re F5 joystick options, so from what you say, one is as the name suggests, linear and does nothing apart from give linear input, one is doing the same as playing with curves and saturation and the third, I dont see what displaced neutral is trying to achieve.....? As you can very easily get that behaviour in the sim by simply mapping the trim as I have done.....all it seems to do is displace the nuetral position forwards, which I cannot see any reason for? 

2 hours ago, markturner1960 said:

Thanks Shrimp, I am using BrunnerDX currently and am quite pleased so far. How much was the CLS P joystick if you dont mind? 

When I tried "displaced neutral" in the F5, with trim bound both in DCS and to the buttons in Brunner DX, I found that in the free flight F5 mission, I could not trim the jet to fly level - at full deflection and trim it still wanted to go nose up. I tried Linear and non linear - both worked well, trim worked as it should and jet behaved well.....could detect zero difference between the options....

 

 

Hey Mark, please check if your joystick trim of BrunnerDX was centered before the flight. I once had the same problem in the F18 and I think the reason was improper joystick centering (DCS centered, BrunnerDX not centered) before the flight started. It's just a guess....

Hey Monty, as far as I know it was, as when using Brunner DX, as soon as you leave the mission, the sticks basically goes limp and any deflections are lost. This is NOT the case in the CLS2 software though. Whats your experience of trying the displaced neutral option?

Hey Mark,

unfortunately, I can not quite understand what happened to me. In a flight with the F18, I had the center of the joystick relatively far back and could then hardly pull any G in DCS. I suspect that when using the autopilot there was an offset between DCS and BrunnerDX. Maybe I accidentally used the trim in flight or changed the center point with the autopilot activated , in any case the stick in DCS and in my cockpit were no longer in sync. But this happened only once - hence my assumption that something similar may have happened to you.

On 1/12/2023 at 10:18 AM, markturner1960 said:

Thanks Shrimp, I am using BrunnerDX currently and am quite pleased so far. How much was the CLS P joystick if you dont mind? 

When I tried "displaced neutral" in the F5, with trim bound both in DCS and to the buttons in Brunner DX, I found that in the free flight F5 mission, I could not trim the jet to fly level - at full deflection and trim it still wanted to go nose up. I tried Linear and non linear - both worked well, trim worked as it should and jet behaved well.....could detect zero difference between the options....

 

Re F5 joystick options, so from what you say, one is as the name suggests, linear and does nothing apart from give linear input, one is doing the same as playing with curves and saturation and the third, I dont see what displaced neutral is trying to achieve.....? As you can very easily get that behaviour in the sim by simply mapping the trim as I have done.....all it seems to do is displace the nuetral position forwards, which I cannot see any reason for? 

 

I'm retrying BrunnerDX but it says a new version is available although I'm using the last version 2.7.1 and halts.

Regarding the trim I guess you either use DCS trim or BrunnerDX trim, not both.

With the F-5 use 'Displaced neutral' when using BrunnerDX.

I'll try to experiment myself to clarify all these but I need to be able to run BrunnerDX in the first place.

Mine runs  - have you uninstalled and re installed? I am back to CLS2 at the moment as did not like what happened using the Tomcat.....with the profiles I am using currentlyt, I have carefully balanced forces against temperature and can now use the joystick continuously without getting any cutouts.....you can do this of course in CLS2, as you have massive control over the forces - by using BrunnerDX, you are stuck with whatever DCS is outputting, with now way of even seeing what that is and have only the choice of turning down the forces across the board. Having said that, had I not encountered the cut out issue using BrunnerDX in the Tomcat, I would probably still be using it, but I want to understand what was happening and why before I go back.......I had no issue with any other jets I might add......

On 1/1/2023 at 5:16 PM, cordite said:

Someone on a controller discord reported buying one; he said that it is proportionally better. (Which of course, it had better be.)

And perhaps proportionally bigger as well.

It's a tough call, though, because the CLS-E is already really damn good.

At the time he said it was about $10k USD. Apparently now it's more like $12k USD.

2 minutes ago, cordite said:

At the time he said it was about $10k USD. Apparently now it's more like $12k USD.

+VAT, so it's even more than that (depends on your country/region, of course).