u/Sactownkingstacotwo

Context:
I primarily play PCVR using a Quest 2. I built a custom mechanical virtual flightstick rig—essentially a gutted old joystick with a Quest controller grip glued in, allowing me to slide the controller in and out. It retains the physical pivot and mechanical resistance of the old stick but relies entirely on the Quest controller for in-game tracking. I place it freely to match the in-game stick for immersion.
To give an equitable comparison: in Warplanes: Battles over the Pacific, I have used both control methods. When using a physical stick—both my old Logitech Extreme 3D Pro and my newly purchased Turtle Beach VelocityOne—I am barely competent. When I switch to my virtual rig, I am highly competitive in multiplayer. The difference in my aim is staggering. I am also extremely capable in VTOL VR using this setup.
(For context: I am actually even worse at flight combat if I try to use a pure, free-floating virtual stick without the mechanical resistance of my custom rig).

The Problem:

When I am forced to use a physical stick for games without virtual support (like IL-2 Sturmovik or Star Wars: Squadrons), I am completely incompetent. I can’t line up computer targets on easy, let alone play multiplayer.
I initially blamed my cheap Extreme 3D Pro, which is why I recently bought the VelocityOne expecting a major upgrade. However, as tested in Warplanes, the target tracking feels exactly the same. I also booted up Aces of Thunder (which has virtual stick support, but I wanted to test the new hardware). Even with the $100+ upgrade, I couldn't hit anything. The tracking is too sensitive near the center, and when I try to compensate, it overcorrects and jumps. I haven't tried my virtual rig in Aces yet, though I fully expect it will instantly fix my aim.
(Note: I have larger hands from a background in sports, so ergonomics and minute finger/wrist adjustments are always a factor).

My Questions:

1. Hardware & Settings: Are there specific settings, response curves, or tweaks (like Joystick Gremlin) I should run for the VelocityOne? Or is this over-correction issue a fundamental flaw of the gimbals in this price range? I have a 60-day return window—do I need to jump up another $100 (e.g., a VKB Gladiator) to actually get smooth center-tracking?

2. The Debate: Why does my DIY rig feel so much better for aiming? Since my virtual rig still uses the physical resistance and center-spring of an old joystick, the mechanical feel is similar. Why does the Quest 2's spatial tracking outperform the actual internal sensors of the Extreme 3D Pro or VelocityOne? Is it a sensor resolution issue, or a difference in how deadzones are processed?

Context:
I primarily play PCVR using a Quest 2. I built a custom mechanical virtual flightstick rig—essentially a gutted old joystick with a Quest controller grip glued in, allowing me to slide the controller in and out. It retains the physical pivot and mechanical resistance of the old stick but relies entirely on the Quest controller for in-game tracking. I place it freely to match the in-game stick for immersion.
To give an equitable comparison: in Warplanes: Battles over the Pacific, I have used both control methods. When using a physical stick—both my old Logitech Extreme 3D Pro and my newly purchased Turtle Beach VelocityOne—I am barely competent. When I switch to my virtual rig, I am highly competitive in multiplayer. The difference in my aim is staggering. I am also extremely capable in VTOL VR using this setup.
(For context: I am actually even worse at flight combat if I try to use a pure, free-floating virtual stick without the mechanical resistance of my custom rig).

The Problem:
When I am forced to use a physical stick for games without virtual support (like IL-2 Sturmovik or Star Wars: Squadrons), I am completely incompetent. I can’t line up computer targets on easy, let alone play multiplayer.
I initially blamed my cheap Extreme 3D Pro, which is why I recently bought the VelocityOne expecting a major upgrade. However, as tested in Warplanes, the target tracking feels exactly the same. I also booted up Aces of Thunder (which has virtual stick support, but I wanted to test the new hardware). Even with the $100+ upgrade, I couldn't hit anything. The tracking is too sensitive near the center, and when I try to compensate, it overcorrects and jumps. I haven't tried my virtual rig in Aces yet, though I fully expect it will instantly fix my aim.
(Note: I have larger hands from a background in sports, so ergonomics and minute finger/wrist adjustments are always a factor).

My Questions:

1. Hardware & Settings: Are there specific settings, response curves, or tweaks (like Joystick Gremlin) I should run for the VelocityOne? Or is this over-correction issue a fundamental flaw of the gimbals in this price range? I have a 60-day return window—do I need to jump up another $100 (e.g., a VKB Gladiator) to actually get smooth center-tracking?

2. The Debate: Why does my DIY rig feel so much better for aiming? Since my virtual rig still uses the physical resistance and center-spring of an old joystick, the mechanical feel is similar. Why does the Quest 2's spatial tracking outperform the actual internal sensors of the Extreme 3D Pro or VelocityOne? Is it a sensor resolution issue, or a difference in how deadzones are processed?

I’m a vendor working with a government agency, and like a lot of other vendors (all from different companies, different tenants, different environments), we all meet in a single semi‑public Microsoft Teams channel the agency runs.

This channel has basically become the de facto source of truth for filing procedures. It’s where the agency answers non‑proprietary, binary questions like:

• What documents go with what filing
• Do’s and don’ts
• Deadlines and turnaround times
• Fees
• Simple “if X then Y” rules

Nothing sensitive, nothing judgment‑based — just procedural guidance that everyone needs.

Because multiple vendors from multiple tenants are all asking the same questions, the channel is extremely active. It’s also the only place where the answers are consistently updated. There’s no SharePoint site, no KB, no wiki — just this one shared Teams space.

What I’d love to do is create a Copilot agent that can answer questions by searching the history of that channel. Something like:

>

The challenge:
Since this is a multi‑tenant shared channel, and the info only exists in message history, I’m not sure what the cleanest way is to make Copilot reliably retrieve it — especially without manually copying thousands of messages into a document.

So I’m wondering:

Has anyone successfully used Copilot to pull from a Teams channel that includes multiple external organizations?

If so:

• Did you mirror the channel into SharePoint somehow?
• Use tagging, message pinning, or structured posts?
• Build a lightweight KB that Copilot can reference?
• Or did you find a way to make Copilot search the channel directly in a consistent way?

I can’t be the only vendor trying to turn a very active, multi‑tenant Teams channel into something more searchable and less repetitive. Curious how others are handling this.

I’m curious how many of you are in the same boat I’m in. I work in a large organization where the only AI we’re allowed to use for anything work‑related is Microsoft Copilot — and not the paid version, not the Pro add‑on, not the enterprise upgrade. Just Copilot Basic, the default one.

Here’s the problem:
When you try to build an agent for real work, you immediately hit two walls:

1. No document uploads during agent creation Which means you can’t feed it your SOPs, workflows, templates, or reference docs directly.
2. The “Information” box is capped at 8,000 characters That’s barely enough for a single process description, let alone a full workflow.

And in a big org, getting a license for anything — even a $20/month upgrade — takes an act of Congress. So we’re stuck trying to build useful agents with the equivalent of a sticky note’s worth of context.

I can’t be the only one feeling this.
So I’m wondering:

How are people getting creative with Copilot Basic?
What hacks, workarounds, or clever patterns are you using to get around the character limits and lack of document ingestion?

My first hurdle is the character limit, but I’m sure there are others I haven’t hit yet. I’d love to hear what others are doing to make Basic actually useful in a real workflow.

I’m curious how many of you are in the same boat I’m in. I work in a large organization where the only llm we’re allowed to use for anything work‑related is Copilot — and not the paid version, not the Pro add‑on, not the enterprise upgrade. Just Copilot Basic, the default one.

Here’s the problem:
When you try to build an agent for real work, you immediately hit two walls:

1. No document uploads during agent creation Which means you can’t feed it your SOPs, workflows, templates, or reference docs directly.
2. The “Information” box is capped at 8,000 characters That’s barely enough for a single process description, let alone a full workflow.

And in a big org, getting a license for anything — even a $20/month upgrade — takes an act of Congress. So we’re stuck trying to build useful agents with the equivalent of a sticky note’s worth of context.

I can’t be the only one feeling this.
So I’m wondering:

How are people getting creative with Copilot Basic?
What hacks, workarounds, or clever patterns are you using to get around the character limits and lack of document ingestion?

My first hurdle is the character limit, but I’m sure there are others I haven’t hit yet. I’d love to hear what others are doing to make Basic actually useful in a real workflow.

I’m curious how many of you are in the same boat I’m in. I work in a large organization where the only AI we’re allowed to use for anything work‑related is Microsoft Copilot — and not the paid version, not the Pro add‑on, not the enterprise upgrade. Just Copilot Basic, the default one.

Here’s the problem:
When you try to build an agent for real work, you immediately hit two walls:

1. No document uploads during agent creation Which means you can’t feed it your SOPs, workflows, templates, or reference docs directly.
2. The “Information” box is capped at 8,000 characters That’s barely enough for a single process description, let alone a full workflow.

And in a big org, getting a license for anything — even a $20/month upgrade — takes an act of Congress. So we’re stuck trying to build useful agents with the equivalent of a sticky note’s worth of context.

I can’t be the only one feeling this.
So I’m wondering:

How are people getting creative with Copilot Basic?
What hacks, workarounds, or clever patterns are you using to get around the character limits and lack of document ingestion?

My first hurdle is the character limit, but I’m sure there are others I haven’t hit yet. I’d love to hear what others are doing to make Basic actually useful in a real workflow.