Saitek Rudder

[Coligny]

Just bought the X52 pro... and... feel light an idiot not to have bought it earlier because of its appearance. It's a little marvel and the softare is spot on.
The same business minded hard+soft combo that the thrustmaster mac edishiun was.

So bye bye to that junk of cougar and it's fanatic community (misery loves a company it seems).

But for the rudder, how does the saitek feels ? is there any midpoint stickiness ? are they fragile ?

[Number11]

There is nothing wrong with Saitek rudder pedals. They are a little wider than CH Products and rugged. The return spring to neutral is adjustable, just like the X52 Pro stick.

A faulty design on CH rudders causes the the wire of the toe brakes to break. Most people just rest their toes on either model instead of actually placing their foot on the pedal.

Yes, Cougars always seemed over-hyped to me too. Fan boys would always point out that it's modeled on the actual F-16 stick. That's fine, except most people have it sitting on a desk and not at the same position and angle as where a real F-16 stick is located in relation to the pilot.

Enjoy your X-52 Pro! I have one also after switching from using CH sticks and throttles for years and years.

[Ketou]

Although the Saitek rudders are the first I have used and don't have anything to compare them against....I have had no problems with them at all.

The construction seems sturdy enough with no sticky points or deadzones.
They have a dial in the middle where you can adjust the tension which is convenient.
The only cons for me are the pedals can make a bit of plastic creak when you are just resting your feet on them. Also the pedals have a molded ridge pattern on them which gives me sore feet. (seems like they were designed for use with shoes..)
I think I mention this in another thread...the cheapest place I found was Faith

[Behan]

This sounds like it would be a very realistic game (or simulator?).

[Ketou]

Yea..the flight sims try to model the physics as close as possible to the real world. I use mine for IL2 and WWIIOL. Still a noob though..

[Coligny]

Thanks for the answer and the URL.

Yea..the flight sims try to model the physics as close as possible to the real world. I use mine for IL2 and WWIIOL. Still a noob though..

For extreme realism (and somewhat boredom) try XPlane (there is a time limited demo version). It's a fluid/aerodynamic simulator that was adapted to be more focused on flight simulation. It's a good tool for prototyping on the cheap manned light aircraft or big drone/RC plane. Won't use it for something too small though since micro effect don't scale well at all (read: if you breed a fly as big as a 747, it won't fly at all, in the other direction there can also be bad surprises.)

If you don't mind over the top DRM, Flaming Cliffs (Lock ON) for aircrafts, and BlackShark (need a powerfull computer) for helo do good. It's Russian software. There is also the older Falcon 4 and variants.

There are few immense drawback in fly sims communities:
First one is political. Some mix a crapload of pro-military ideology/propaganda with their use of flight sim. Forgetting they are not putting their life on the line to save the widow and orphans but just gamers in a somewhat more realistic field. It get old really fast... And get worse with the lack of new sim release. People are still 'in this field' but soft get boring, so only the political mindfrac stays... I love aircraft carriers since I wuz born... that don't make me a republican, or anything else... Just a guy who love big boats with a flat deck were you can crash planes on purpose.

Second, the woodworking channel syndrome. People that are excellent woodworkers, that make cockpit as a hobby, but barely ever fly. (f16 pit, 737Ng and so on) The problem with those guys are that they have way too much influence on the 3rd party products that are released for flying pits. They also ignore the fact that control ergonomy for a flight sim is quite different from a real plane. (Thus the Thrustmaster Hotas Cougar fiasco).

These 2 kind take usually themselve excessively seriously... But with the time It take them to make a halfway decent pit, usually the software supposed to be used (and in fact the only one that can be used since they don't try to make any control generic) is no longer supported, don't run on the os anymore and the list go on...

It's extremely hard to find a community that is at the same time focused and lighthearted. That's why I ask those questions here and not in the flight sim forums. I don't want to start another war / crusade with people that are complete fanatics. The only comunity I found is unfortunately race-car minded, the folks at the way i play do some fine woodworking... but race like madmen while the paint i dry getting high on the fumes...

[Kanchou]

Falcon 4.0 for the win.

[Coligny]

Dood:

[(1VB)freels]

I have the X-52. It is awesome when I am playing BF2. The thing about it is you have to calibrate it just right. As for the rudders? I don't think that you need them. But To each thier own!!

[Coligny]

I have the X-52. It is awesome when I am playing BF2. The thing about it is you have to calibrate it just right. As for the rudders? I don't think that you need them. But To each thier own!!

In fact with the twist stick of the X52... rudder are a luxury... I just tweaked my old Thrustmaster RCS with a Leo Bodnar 0836 Card (a waste of such a great piece of kit for just one axis...) And especially for helo where rudder-antitorque is mandatory. Like... you can't even take off without... It's much more intuitive to twist the wrist than push a pedal... (http://leobodnar.com/products/BU0836/)

(and I wasted sum muney in aluminum stock to try to fix the awefull spring return of the cougar... but i don't think I will spend any minit with this... now... i'd rather fly than waste time on the milling machine)

[Tsuru]

I have a pair of homemade rudders but I stopped using them after I got a twist-stick. Great for BF2, BFH and the range of PC flightsims that I have.