I haven’t played with joystick sensitivity leaving it on default settings. But following the posts here I decided to try the suggested settings on my Warthog with joystick extension. It feels much better and more precise now.
I’ve not adjusted my rudder sensitivity yet, is that also recommend?
collimation is not necessary in the sim because the images on the screen are on the same plane. The purpose of the Collmination is to focus the HUD to infinity.
This is one reason the Cat D Simulators with HUDs cause headaches to the pilots. The Video screen is only a few feet in front of the pilot but the hud is “focused” to infinity. The eyes have an issue with this mixed focus and it causes headaches.
2 Likes
It still makes a difference when you move your head with TrackIR. And it probably makes even more of a difference when you see the cockpit in actual 3D with VR.
1 Like
that would require some form of parallax adjustment but collmination is a completely separate thing as far as HUD operation goes.
IRL the hud visuals disappear if you move your head up down or side to side. you head has to be in the correct position to view the HUD it does not follow your head or eyes.
1 Like
If anyone has problems working the buttons and slider on the GPS, a workaround is to use the right-alt click popout. The buttons on the right appear with the popout and they work correctly there. Also the slider for the way points in the Flight plan also works correctly there. Don’t know why, but sometimes the popout is unresponsive… but if you click on any of the top 3 buttons on the GPS itself, the popout becomes responsive.
The reason the bottom three buttons and Flight plan slider are not working… is because when you place the cursor over the button, it is engaging the rotary knob under the GPS not allowing the button to be pressed.
agreed, even a simple “crosshair” is odd when stuck in front of one directly on glass rather than focussed on infinity.
and yes, troubling in VR.
This is unfortunately a losing battle… but good on you for trying 
All over the flight sim community, including from some devs themselves, a “collimated hud” has been taken to mean parallax free. Whenever someone on here is asking for the ability to have collimated HUDS what they actually almost always mean is parallax free… collimation simply isn’t an issue and won’t be perhaps until we have varifocal HMDs some time in the future and then we need to start thinking about focal planes.
Unfortunately the error confuses the issue, for example the subject of “collimated HUDS” came up on the recent dev Q&A and Seb looked confused. Either He didn’t know what collimated meant at all (which would be understandable given english isn’t his native language) or he was confused why someone would be talking about the act of making light rays parallel in a sim.
But anyway yes… apparently currently MSFS lacks the ability to make a true parallax free HUD. The Corsair does a decent job by putting the texture far out infront of the aircraft which creates a perfectly acceptable parallax free effect, but unfortunately there is seemingly as yet no way to clip the image outside of the HUD glass so you can see it even when you shouldn’t be able to.
1 Like
My guess is that people mean to say “have the in-sim HUD behave/look as a RL collimated HUD”. Sticking a texture on the HUD glassplate is not exactly achieving that 
Collimation itself is indeed not an issue if you are looking at a flat screen.
Well, this conversation that was about the Hawk took a huge left turn into what collimation means or doesn’t mean, since the Hawk doesn’t even have a HUD, just a gunsight on some options. Let me know when you want to talk about the aircraft again.
4 Likes
It is relevant, as the gun sight is a “HUD” and should be parallax free too but it isn’t due to sim limitations, hence why the conversation started.
Sorry this particular discussion about the hawk wasn’t to your specific liking.
1 Like
Relevant maybe but pretty boring as most of us are here to appreciate how fantastic this plane is and not to nitpick at a subject which is of no interest to 99% of the user base
2 Likes
And how boring and low effort simply repeating how fantastic it is would be too! I suggest Learning to scroll past posts that don’t interest is a useful skill on any forum. Anyway, this is now actually getting off topic and my last post on the matter - what is interesting or not to any particular individual indeed has nothing to do with the hawk.
Back to some semblance of relevance - do we have an ETA for the v1.1 update? I’m looking forward to the quality of life tweaks.
1 Like
It’s REALLY good!
I’ve only had time for an on-the-ground orientation and a short flight… after that, work ate my Monday… but that’s enough for me to say confidently that it’s one of the best add-ons I’ve ever flown. Not confining that to MSFS. The combination of sounds, textures, systems, flight characteristics and overall look-and-feel adds to a very rewarding experience.
Most of my enthusiasm is about the product but some of it is about the mission profile. I’m an airliner fan and I’m extremely devoted to the PMDG DC-6. But my life at the moment is such that I don’t have much time to plan and fly in the disciplined way that that aircraft requires. The Hawk is very much about the flying experience. You can get off the ground quickly and have a blast in very little time. But the quality is similar. It’s quite possible that PMDG offers more, maybe much more, in terms of system depth and complex failures (not sure - I may be selling the Hawk short in that regard). But in terms of overall, whole-is-more-than-the-sum-of-its-parts excellence, they’re very close.
I’m surprised to be coming out this way, not because I doubt Just Flight’s development chops (I don’t, they’re great) but because it wasn’t the kind of airplane I’d thought of buying. But I’m glad I did.
A detail note - I set my controls to straight linear curves, as advised by the developer. With that setup, it flies beautifully. Have not had the same results with any other MSFS add-on. The FDE is very carefully built and genuinely delivers.
So, a rave. I don’t do that often. But this one deserves it.
Hope this helps.
5 Likes
I am looking forward to those drop tanks. See LOW FUEL below… lol
Any chance the outside air temp can be added to the EFB? I believe the arrows have this. Would be helpful.
2 Likes
Nice livery 
1 Like
just ‘icing’ on the cake. Though didn’t seem to affect aircraft performance at all. Oh, and apparently yes, even the same angle on the shot, just ‘slightly’ different conditions.
I am hanging out down south, where the weather is warm for the winter
I bought the Eufofighter when it first came out and initially had a blast flying low and fast around the Mach Loop. I knew it had it had its shortcomings but I ignored them as I was having fun. I then got into DCS and started flying the magnificent Heatblur F14 and never loaded the Eurofighter again. The difference in quality was vast, graphics, sounds, feel, flight model, the fact the f14 didn’t have a Garmin ripped from a civilian aircraft and integrated unrealistically into the main console, the list goes on.
After watching some previews on the Hawk I bought it first day and do not one bit regret my decision. Quality wise is up there with the DCS F14, obviously minus the weapons systems. But the feeling is the same, the immersion. I fly exclusively in VR and this aircraft is the best in MSFD for that.
Whilst this Hawk does have an optional GPS (I believe the real Hawks also fly with them sometimes) I’ve started to do more navigation purely by instrument and am having a great time doing so. There’s more than just going for a blast around Wales, I often fly from Valley to other RAF camps to partake in made up exercises as a visiting aircraft.
I’ve started to fly other nations Hawks also along with the RAF one from their real life bases. So RAAF from Williamstown and flying low in the area NW of Sydney, RCAF doing low level out of Goose Bay after a transit from Moose Jaw. I’ve even flown from Emmen around the Swiss alps which is obviously a blast. If anyone knows of low fly areas in Australia or Canada, maybe an equivalent of the Mach Loop I’d love to know and have a go at it.
3 Likes
It does, thank you for taking the time, Alan, good to have the review of somebody who I know is somewhat like-minded as far as flight simulation is concerned.
I already have the G-91 that I like but the product has some irritating shortcomings, the fuel load screen is non operational, the pitch trim is unrealistically (my opinion) difficult to set and the old nav system albeit certainly realistic, is a pain in the behind…
I am impressed by the JF Hawk manual. So when the update is release I think I will go for it.
1 Like