my profile | register | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
»  COMBATSIM.COM Forum Archive   » Game Discussions (Genre)   » Jets   » Sensitivity of the joystick in USAF demo...

   
Author Topic: Sensitivity of the joystick in USAF demo...
nick moyrand
Member
Member # 214

posted 10-04-1999 05:14 AM     Profile for nick moyrand   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
... doesn't feel correct at all. I find myself in need of applying counter motion to get back to level flight everytime. As such, accurate BFM manoeuveurs are a major gamble to say the least. I mean, trying to nail that perfect Himmelman usually results in a half assed loop, not good at all!.

Trying to do a nice figure of eight for example borders on the impossible due to this unfortunate effect, there is no way that the real F15 behaves in this fashion (I guess as I haven't flown one, but if they do, the USAF guys should get a pay raise!).

I tried fooling with the "dead zone" settings but to no avail, anyone else experiencing the same problem?

Thanks

------------------
Nick Moyrand


Posts: 897 | From: www.lakah-group.com | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Psycho
Member
Member # 455

posted 10-04-1999 06:14 AM     Profile for Psycho   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Yes, I have had that problem too with my joystick. I just go lightly on the stick to fix that problem that you talked about.

Anyway there is a joystick confi program in the USAF directory. Maybe you can try to see if that will work.


Posts: 12 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged
nick moyrand
Member
Member # 214

posted 10-04-1999 06:50 AM     Profile for nick moyrand   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Other problems I have found.

1. The regular speed (X1) seems extremely slow, certainly not the actual speed of the airplane and I found that running it at "X2" (by hitting the C button) yields much more realistic sensations.

2. When going balistic (straight up, as far as the plane will go), the afterburners just shut off and the plane spirals out of control, really wild looking! I guess this stems from the lack of available O2 at High altitude however, the wild contorsions send my pilot into a blackout and I sometimes cannot recuperate the spin.

3. where in the world is the airbase?, not the enemy airbase but ours, I tried the whole friggin' map but could not find it.
I tried landing at the "attacked" airbase but upon landing, I ate an Archer up the tailpipe, needless to say that this didn't help my landing.

4. Flying real low, I ran into a big cactus!, funny (I never hit a big cactus at 600 + knots before, the plane didn't like it)

------------------
Nick Moyrand


Posts: 897 | From: www.lakah-group.com | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
the fly
unregistered

posted 10-04-1999 12:02 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
if ya go to your usaf folder in explorer there is a joystick config utility...not the win98/95 calibration utility, a differentone...kinda like the one in warbirds...setting perameters between 10% and 100% unfortunately I have no idea how to use them .... but i think this might address these problems nick mentioned (i am experiencing them too)
IP: Logged
Michael
unregistered

posted 10-04-1999 12:43 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Nick Moyrand,

What kind of motherboard do you use on your SCSI gaming system,i was reading your post about your system,i was very impressed.One question,why didn't you built a Dual processors SCSI system.


IP: Logged
nick moyrand
Member
Member # 214

posted 10-04-1999 01:36 PM     Profile for nick moyrand   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Thanks for the interest Mike.

I thought with going with a P III 600 Xeon 2 meg cache at first, but my tech guy told me that for strict gaming applications, it would not make any difference whatsoever (I thank him for his advice as my wallet surely appreciates it).
I, of course, thought about a dual processor platform but the downside was the fact that I would have been constrained by NT 4. NT 4 is a great OS system, certainly more stable than Win 98 but it doesn't allow you to use D3D, that's a big impedement as far as I'm concerned. I would not have been able to use any High-res cards with it, thus, negating any benefit.

I wish I was good friends with Bill Gates as I'm sure a final version of NT 5 is available with all the bells and whistles, unfortunately, I am not.

------------------
Nick Moyrand


Posts: 897 | From: www.lakah-group.com | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Robbster
Member
Member # 376

posted 10-04-1999 01:44 PM     Profile for Robbster   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I too am having the same problems with erratic joystick control. So far, that's my biggest beef with the sim. That joystick config utility should come with a help file because it is certainly not user friendly.
Posts: 227 | From: | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
nick moyrand
Member
Member # 214

posted 10-04-1999 01:46 PM     Profile for nick moyrand   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
sorry about forgeting the motherboard issue, I use a plain Intel 440 BX AGP GA (Gigabyte)-6 BXC.
We fooled around with other boards before settling on this particular model, it seems to yield the best results (sometimes, the most expensive isn't necessarily the best).

------------------
Nick Moyrand


Posts: 897 | From: www.lakah-group.com | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Aaron
unregistered

posted 10-04-1999 09:09 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Well I have a MS Sidewinder FF stick and when I run the USAFJoystick.exe I get an error message that the stick is not connected. Luckily the game sees it.

My take on the aileron roll problem: Remember the 6DOF flight model they bragged about? I think that is the prob. When you start the roll, it affects the whole plane and you can't stop the rolling effect just by centering the stick. Now does this really happen in F-15's? Probably not if it is fly by wire.

Since I rarely get a chance to fly F-15's I have no way of knowing which is correct.


IP: Logged
BEAR 257th
Member
Member # 318

posted 10-04-1999 09:59 PM     Profile for BEAR 257th   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
A properly implemented 6DF flight model will stop rolling when the stick is centered.

The F-15 is not a pure fly-by-wire aircraft but is computer assisted. At any rate it stops rolling when the stick is centered. (the Janes F-15 models this correctly) The F-16 which is fly-by-wire also stops roling when you center the stick as does the SU-27.

They just did not do a good job with this feature in USAF's F-15E.

BEAR


Posts: 31 | From: | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Kurt Plummer
Member
Member # 358

posted 10-05-1999 11:04 AM     Profile for Kurt Plummer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Hey Bear,

The F-15E _is_ digital triplex FBW. With no reversion AFAIK. It has to be to take commands from the LANTIRN navpod for terrain following (it also 'expands' the heavy weight envelope with better over-G onset limiters in all axes).

The A->D models have the electromechanical 'CAS' (Control Augmentation System) which gives you boosted pushrods out to the aileron actuators and FBW to the stabs.

In either case, you're correct, the roll model feels more like an F-4 wherein you must apply backpressure to stop a give roll input.

Especially flying 'outside' (first press on the F4/F5) the aircraft there is NO margin for poor roll control. You'll eat dirt!


Kurt Plummer


Posts: 672 | From: | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
jk
unregistered

posted 10-07-1999 06:05 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
If you are using a MSppro Aviv from Pixel tells you how to fix he sensativity thing over at http://www.wingtech.net/usaf/techforum/treplies.asp?message=3
IP: Logged
Turbo
Member
Member # 209

posted 10-08-1999 08:43 AM     Profile for Turbo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Kurt: You are well informed but I'd like to make couple of comments on your info in regards to the F-15. First, the F-15 A-D all have hydraulic actuated flight control systems (triple redundant). The CAS system merely supplements the flight control hydraulic system albeit "FBW" on the stab actuators and ailerons. You can turn it off with the flick of a switch and it won't hurt performance, but it does enhance performance. With the F-15E, the LANTRIN is not the primary input for the Terrain Following system. The Radar and the INS are. As far as sensitivity goes, the F-15 and F1-6 are extremely sensitive to stick inputs and it takes a steady hand to fly them (I have had a ride in both of them as well as lots of sim time but I am not a pilot). They are very precise flying aircraft, just observe the next time you see 'em flyin'.
Posts: 369 | From: | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
the fly
unregistered

posted 10-08-1999 11:03 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
i have very uncontrollable movements with my combatstick...ugh! i wont play until a fix is found..b/c it just doesnt let me fly hmmm
IP: Logged
Kurt Plummer
Member
Member # 358

posted 10-08-1999 12:53 PM     Profile for Kurt Plummer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Hey Turbo,

/Any/ time you feel like giving us a tale of even a 'check ride' type tourism, I'm sure you'd be welcome to do so. I know I'd like to hear the story.

However; the following from _F-15 In Action_ (Lou Drendel) and _McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle_ (JP Stevenson) and lastly _F-15 Eagle_ (MJ Gething) tend to disagree with you in some areas:

On page 16 of the first title-
"I could not find anything in the F-15's flight controls to criticize. The aircraft uses a system of hydromechanical linkage and a dual channel Control Augmentation System (CAS) for roll, pitch, and yaw control. The ailerons are controlled by mechanical linkage only. CAS roll inputes are provided through the differential stabilator and the rudder".

ALL aircraft have powered controls these days. The last I can think of being fully man-leveraged (through bellcranks and what not) was the A-4 Scooter. That's why I said pushrods (or cables) out to the aileron -actuator-.

And in the second book, page 39-
"The Automatic Flight Control System (AFCS) has two major jobs within the flight control arena: provide the Control Augmentation System (CAS) and the functions normally associated an autopilot. The CAS senses the pitch, roll and yaw rates; vertical and lateral acceleration; angle of attack, and provides the proper inputs for the particular speed and g forces. This function relieves the pilot of a fatigue problem which he might otherwise face by having to constantly compensate for increases and decreases in control surface pressure."

And in the last, page 81.
"The first problem discussed related to the stick for per g value. As a result of simulator experience prior to the first flight, it was thought that the aircraft might not be as nimble as expected, simply because of the stick forces. As deisnged, it was thought that these stick forces would be comfortable for manoeuvering, while not being so low as to suggest the chance of a pilot-induced oscillation or aggravate high g sensitivity. There are two sets of controls: a conventional hydromechanical system, and a Control Augmentation System (CAS). Both are capable of flying the aircraft, though the former was considered a back-up system in the even of the CAS failing.

The hydromechanical system determines the basic control deflections while the CAS operates over the hydromechanical system and modifies control surface deflections which provided aircraft response in line with the stick position. In the mechanical longitudinal system, a spring cartridge provided the linear force gradient. There was much debate as to what was the optimum setting for the cartridge, but as the evidence was based on simulator experience only there was some reluctance to make changes. Besides, it was thought unwise to lighten the stick forces too much in case the aircraft was accidentally overstressed. Thus with a stick force (ie the pressure required to be applied to the control column in order to move the control surfaces) of 3.75lbs (1.7kg) per g, manoeuvers in excess of 6.5g required some 25lb (11.3kg) of stick force to initiate a response to control demand. In such high g situations this meant tsome considerable strain on the pilot.

Early flight testing confirmed the initial simulation findings. With the CAS off the manoeuvering forces were too heavy for a fighter with the inherent capability of the F-15. With the CAS on these forces were more comfortable, but there was room for improvement."

blah blah blah (copyright) blah talking about fixes involving a new spring cartridge and a change to the CAS pitch computer overlay between the hydromech and the FBW...

"Flight testing of thesee fixes confirmed their suitability, and were incorporated in production aircraft. Forces around the neutral position are considered 'comfortable' at all speeds within the flight envelope, and there was no excessive longitudinal sensitivity or trend towards oscillation."

It then talks about the second problem with lateral sensitivity.

"Normal, smooth manoeuvering was highly responsive, but comfortable. However, any sudden small lateral movements of the stick, such as migh be expected during formation flying, gun tracking or air-to-air refuleing, (me: OR MISSILE EVASION! caused an undesirable jerkiness resulting in a possible pilot-induced oscillation. While not as simple to correct as was the longitudinal system, a two-point solution was arrived at. A dual-gradient force system coupled with a higher setting on the CAS transducer prevented the CAS from augmenting roll commands at small stick deflections was the first fix; the second involved a modification to the CAS in order to negate some of the roll rate demanded by small sharp deflection of the stick."

All of which means /diddly/ to the _triplex digital FBW_ F-15E which has 10,000lbs of gas alone about 8 feet to each side of the centerline optimum and who knows what dangling under the wings and HRL's.

It therefore has -software- controlled dampers as part of it's FBW system that sense all coupling of axes and physically remove the pilot-stick throws from the loop if need be (yaw rake! yaw rake! .

Purely as a function of inertial dampening via this system the Mudhen should not be so 'twitchy' laterally nor tend to mush-up nose-wander at low speeds (I've never yet started above 320 knots, damn Warthogs) with all the crap it's carrying in the demo.

The FBW should instead limit both 'sensed' throw and max-alpha to keep you from departing the jet (which has some /notoriously/ well known slow, high-AOA, controls linkage problems)

BOTH jets however should roll-stop on a dime.

In the CAS-15 the mods mentioned should prevent any large-surface 'differential' rate accelerations variables between ailerons (which only work at low speed anyway) and stabs UNLESS having the CAS off 'overrides' the FBW stabilator linking.

Which is -exactly- why I said it was both wrong and stupid to have a CAS-off emulation in a 'digital' FBW jet carrying enough mud-thud ordnance to sink the Sahara Desert.

Where Pixel likely screwed the pooch was in not emulating the aforementioned cancellation function properly as the stick recenters.

You cannot get a 'heavy' control sense in the way your joystick operates (or at least mine, which ain't no force feedback hunk of junk)

But you damn well sure can get a long-throw, for the authority demand on the stabs, which is actually what I prefer as it tends to give me more 'center margin' for smaller deflections in guns or ground junk delivery.

IMO, the 'jitters' come from having the roll not damp out automatically as the stick recenters, requiring another jerky-quick deflection to cancel out the first throw which only ends up sending you 'barreling' off the other damn way.

Again, the F-4 required such monumental deflections (and departed often if you did it wrong) but the F-15 shouldn't and the game, with it's external viewpoint (F4/F5) and frequently no horizon line to even know 'which way is up', is criminally insane for doing it to us.

Lastly, even if perG stick throws are 'manageable' after the above mentioned mod I personally do not think an F-15 could be fought effectively at high speed without CAS due to the lack of coordination between surfaces. Here G-for-lift curves and smooth input rule who will put the nose one first and the computer coordinates the controls better than most pilots sweating their eyeballs outside the cockpit.

At low speed having it off it may allow you to exceed certain AOA limits from say 19-20 up to about 25-27 units for say the famous '150 knot loop' entrance that the IDFAF first pioneered.

Whoopee. Many Russian platforms and AFAIK, every new Euro-Canard can routinely hold 30` or more /before/ exceeding the pitch limiter softstop. With HOBA missiles 'on the side'.

As for LANTIRN, I hope you don't mean the APG-70 when you say 'radar'.

The 'radar' is one of the later APQ series (I wanna say 148 but that's the one in the F-111 AMP I think) and together with the naviFLIR is located in the _LANTIRN AAQ-13_ systems pod hanging under the right side of the jet.
The TFR may talk to the INS as a function of sensed accelerations /before/ sending commands through the FBW, but it's the latter's infinitely soft-variable authority flex and speed which makes an 80,000lb jet lugging immense amounts of gopher killer gear run along the dirt rather than into it.

Now the TFR channel may not /work/ all that well (the APG-70 will see things it misses, which scares the shiite out of the pilots on occasion) but again, AFAIK, the hognose doesn't even have T/A backup and doesn't rule the flight control system at all unless it's perhaps beacon track conversion through the autopilot to a tanker.


Kurt Plummer


Posts: 672 | From: | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Turbo
Member
Member # 209

posted 10-09-1999 03:49 AM     Profile for Turbo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
What do you want me to say? You are apparently so into yourself and your books that you can't see the light of day, it's useless to argue with a person like you. You can go ahead and call me a liar, I've been called worse, but the fact remains that I have my experiences and knowledge of the F-15, first hand, and not from a store bought book. If you want to quote books, try this one from one of my CDCs (Career Development Course is a course taken when you are upgrading skill levels. This is in addition to your normal formal training/education received during the course of your Air Force career). I hate typing so I'll just do the opening paragraph for the flight control system (F-15 ABCD)titled Integrated Avionics Flight Control System and Instrumentation Systems Specialist (F-15) Volume 1: "The control surfaces are operated by hydraulic actuators that operate by converting hydraulic pressure into mechanical force. Moving the control surfaces of a modern, high-speed aircraft requires a considerable amount of force to overcome air resistance. The force generated by the 3,000 psi hydraulic pressure of the F-15 is much greater than the force that the pilot can put forth unassisted. In effect, this is equivalent to power steering in an automobile. Inputs to the actuators are from hydraulically boosted cables and push-pull tubes and are electrically aided by the control augmentation system (CAS). Trim is provided by actuators changing the neutral positions of the rudders and stabilators." Whew! I hate typing, especially stuff from books! Anyway, as far as modifications to the CAS goes, don't even mention it. That brings back memories of looooooong nights and days working to get those grounded aircraft back into the air. I can still see it in my mind, rows of F-15s (Luke AFB with more than 130 F-15s!) with drooping stabilators (they didn't have any stab actuators). As far as those spring cartridges are concerned, they only serve two purposes: to provide artificial feel to the stick, otherwise he won't feel anything with 3,000 psi assistance. Second, they allow stick movement in the event of linkage jamming. Whoever said that the F-15 didn't have hydraulic activated ailerons, has never changed one before. As far as the Fire Control system (radar, HUD, INS, LANTRIN etc...)goes don't say a word about it, I'll have you for breakfast. I know that system inside and out but I'm not about to go into detail (read:type) on those systems, in fact I've said enough. If you want to know more, I'd be happy to e-mail you. In fact, I'm looking at a diagram of an F-15 flight control system, want a copy? BTW, if you're gonna type a mile long reply, be sure to include a table of contents so I can cut through the garbage. That wasn't nice of me to say, but you started the insults.
Posts: 369 | From: | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Michael
unregistered

posted 10-09-1999 12:31 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Kurt Plummer,

I was just wondering about your expertise on these modern military aircrafts,do you have first hand knowledge or are you just getting all these informations out of books and magazines.I don't mean it as an insult,but i was just curious.I read some of your VERY LONGGG posts ,and i just assume that you know these thing by experience.


IP: Logged
some dude
unregistered

posted 10-10-1999 05:35 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
the dude is probably a fifteen year old nerd that reads too many aviation books and thinks that he is a pilot LOL!
IP: Logged
Kurt Plummer
Member
Member # 358

posted 10-10-1999 06:29 PM     Profile for Kurt Plummer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Turbo,

I respect that you work on the flight controls of the Eagle. I understand that you probably cannot talk about the radar aspects online (though how this applies to the LANTIRN -not- providing TFR, I'm still at a loss to understand).

I'm not terribly thrilled when you repeat what I said and /then/ tell me I can use some added info. Furthermore, it's outright strange that you should choose to do so only after I put up equivalent data.

Others: If I've walked a little too deep on the wild side of acronumbology for your tastes, forgive please.

I don't write that stuff to piss you off or put you down but to give folks like Aviv a chance to see what the white world has available in the way of UCLAS documented systems ex-plane-ation to allow him some detailed reasoning and/or options-to-fix justification when I complain about some element of the game or other that I disagree with.

Whether he agrees with or chooses to act on my ideas is his/Pixel's business but he deserves a more reasoned argument than just 'It's Too twitchy'.

Ignore or Read as you feel the mood but understand that it's NOT supposed to bore _you_. The aimed CEP isn't even within a 1000mil radius.


KP


Turbo, if you've got problems, you write to ME at [email protected] .

I've got nothing to justify to you but I'd hate to see my presence cause this forum break down into a RAM-like mudfest. 'Shake Hands' and agree to disagree?


Posts: 672 | From: | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Andy Bush
Member
Member # 12

posted 10-10-1999 08:25 PM     Profile for Andy Bush   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
KP

'Acronumbology'...what is that?

God only knows where you get all this stuff from, but let me refer to an earlier post of yours where you were defining some terms...a correction is in order.

An 'element' is not a single aircraft. It is a flight of two aircraft and is a USAF term. The USN equivalent is the term 'section'. A USAF two ship can be an element or it can be a flight...more on this in a second.

The leader of the USN section is the section lead. Now does this mean the lead of the USAF element is the element lead? Yes and no. If it's a USAF two ship, the lead is a 'flight lead'. OK so far, but what is the lead of a USAF four ship called? The answer...'flight lead', of course. So, when does the USAF ever have an element lead? When he is the number three man in a four ship, that's when.

Now the USN does section takeoffs, but the USAF does not do element takeoffs...nope, we do formation takeoffs led by the flight or element lead, or wingman if so briefed.

When the USN puts four fighters up in the same formation, they call it a 'division'. The USAF doesn't...they call it a 'four ship' of all things. The USN calls the division lead the 'division lead', while the USAF calls its four ship lead, just the 'lead'. Guess what the USAF calls the number three man in a four ship? The 'element lead'. Pretty nifty, eh?

Well, so much for my acronumbology lessons for today. In my day, anyone making basic screw ups like this would have been laughed out of the squadron. As for your other acro-whatever, I don't have a clue...and neither does anyone else on this forum.

Speaking of the other readers...my advice to all of you is that you get your info from someone who can talk in language that (1) you can understand, and (2) that is relevant to the sims you are flying.

Human beings have two orifices from which they can emit noise. Make sure you know which is which.

Andy


Posts: 595 | From: St Louis, Mo | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
mbaxter
Member
Member # 191

posted 10-10-1999 09:28 PM     Profile for mbaxter   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
There's so much anal stuff going on in some of these threads, it's no wonder no one wants to make flightsims anymore. Seriously, developers and people involved in these flightsim projects do check out these message boards. Aviv from Pixel has posted here and there on the USAF forum, and Carl Norman keeps up on the F2 forum. Gilman Louie used to frequent the F4 forums.

With all this petty stuff going on (people on another thread complaining that USAF didn't accurately model the engine startup procedures, for example) how are the developers supposed to sort out the wheat from the chaff, so to speak? These developers are just going to learn to ignore all input from the flightsim community if all they hear is nitpicking.

Why don't we stick to the basics, like:
-Graphics issues
-Wingmen
-Mission builder
-Basic flight model
-Weapons realism

There's plenty to talk about in those categories.


Posts: 1687 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
mbaxter
Member
Member # 191

posted 10-10-1999 09:31 PM     Profile for mbaxter   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Andy, the above post was not directed at you, BTW.
Posts: 1687 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Andy Bush
Member
Member # 12

posted 10-10-1999 09:42 PM     Profile for Andy Bush   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
mbaxter

Not to worry!!

I could not agree more. That is precisely what I try to do with my articles over at SimHQ. I figure if the reader cannot use the info in his sim, then it's not worth his time to read the thing in the first place. The only exception to this is when the writer states clearly and up front that the info about to be read may not be applicable to current sims. My latest articles on A2G basics are a case in point. The info in these articles is presented as a simplistic explanation of how dive bombing is done for real. The concepts cannot be used in any existing sim simply because sims don't replicate manual bombing. SimHQ tends to favor a 'hard core' readership...and I sometimes, but not always, aim my material at this segment of our hobby.

I appreciate your disclaimer tho!!

Best,

Andy


Posts: 595 | From: St Louis, Mo | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Turbo
Member
Member # 209

posted 10-12-1999 08:50 AM     Profile for Turbo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
OK Kurt, shake hands and drop the whole thing. I was simply sharing my experience about how the real F-15 has a very sensitive stick, more so than this game, USAF. I've heard that some of the programmers over at Pixel used to fly the F-15 and I was wondering if that's why it's sensitive. I don't really mind, it's just a matter of practice.
Posts: 369 | From: | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged

All times are MST (US)  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | COMBATSIM.COM Home

COMBATSIM.COM, INC. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
Ultimate Bulletin Board 6.04b

Sponsor
2014 COMBATSIM.COM - All Rights Reserved