Goblin

The baseplate for the MT-50 transfers the load from the gimbal to the case and case screws. IMO the U bracket is the better option for mounting the base as it is directly connected to the gimbal. If you have some simple tools, you could make your own floor to U bracket mount.

Here’s how I make my ON-ON-ON switches. I think it’s in the other thread as well. https://www.dropbox.com/s/gq6qeck3yijvxxi/DIY%20ON-ON-ON%20Switch.pdf?dl=0

It’s the TM base that is the limiting factor. It can’t be programmed like the VPC bases can.

You sure there are no double commands mapped to the brakes? Did you try setting some deadzones in the axis adjustment, in DCS?

Here’s my review. https://www.mudspike.com/vpc-mt-50cm2-warbrd-review/

Ha! True... I have a saying that perfection is not a state, it’s a path... ;) I didn’t fly for a couple of months, while I built my . But now I’m just taking breaks to add or change stuff and get to fly regularly.

Works just fine! And, if you want, you can reprogram these switches to just send a “pulse”, like pressing and releasing a button. But it’s not needed.

Yes, I got that. Different joysticks, different centering force. But what’s your point in the post? Do you think the WH is too hard, or the MT-50 too soft..? :dunno:

So... Where are you going with this? Is there a point, that I have missed, in your post..?

Exactly. I thought TARGET converted it in to the TM code and stored it onboard, like Foxy did. But I only used TARGET briefly. When I got the Warthog, all sims had their own ability to store control input. But I get that it is interesting to be able to use TARGET for VPC controllers, if they are using Cougar MFD’s and such.

Well, I’ll be darned... A short google turned up some answers. Seems like it is possible. But that must mean that the TARGET code isn’t stored onboard the stick. I thought it was... Haven’t used TARGET in many years.

Sure, but I have to make it first...

Using Thrustmaster TARGET software with a VPC controller? I thought you need the Thrustmaster controller electronics for that.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here, but... It’s totally possible to be +1g and inverted. Which is why relying on your vestibular system can be dangerous. But that’s not what we’re talking about here. This is about physical ques that will aid your immersion in a flightsim. For this, you don’t need full g-force simulation. Harness restrainers, seat pushers, vibrators, etc, will fill in some of the blanks when flying a flightsim.

Yes and no... :) When flying on instruments you must disregard your vestibular system and rely on instruments as your senses can play tricks on your mind. But when maneuvering visually, and flying close to the performance limits of the aircraft, you do rely on physical feedback from the aircraft. Pulling G or buffeting close to a stall, for instance. These are factors that are largely missing in flightsims. I make my living as a commercial airline pilot and I have an aerobatic license. As a commercial pilot I have to practice and check my skills twice a year in full size full motion flightsimulators. Even these airliner simulators have motion that simulates acceleration, deceleration and G forces to a certain degree. They won’t throw me up-side-down or anything, but the motion really adds to the feeling of beeing there. So, you don’t need full on 100% realistic force feedback and 360° motion to trick your brain into believing you are flying.

He’s working for Pimax.

I tried a fixed base flightsimulator that had pneumatic bellows in the seat pan and lower back rest. When accelerating the lower back rest pushed forward onto my lower back and when I pulled g the seat pushed upwards. This did add a lot to the tactile feedback of flying. It wasn’t nearly as pronounced as in real life flying, but it was enough to trick the senses. Especially when unloading in a high g maneuver, I felt a brief sense of falling. This should be possible to replicate fairly easy...

Are you sure it’s not the entire grip that is rotating on the base? Try tightening the base nut.

Thanks! Yes, it could absolutely have been built with cheaper materials. But I wanted it to look like furniture, when stowed away. I keep it in the guest bedroom, after all... :) Well, that depends on the budget... ;) But yeah, the SimBox probably cost as much as the PC does.

Thanks, folks! I do have some plans, but the design changed during the course of the build, somewhat. I need to find time to update and clean up the plans. That goes for a parts list as well. About cost, without the PC and flight controllers, it depends on the availability of extruded aluminium frame parts in your area and the local price.

About comparison to real aircraft pedals. Some aircraft have hanging pedals, like the TPR. Some have the parallelogram configuration of the Crosswind and Slaws and some are just a pin on a pivot :) There are many variations. As for center play and position, this can also be quite prominent in real aircraft. The one I fly has a very noticable center position and wiggle a bit in the middle. Slaw, BRD, MFG, TPR... All very good pedals. If I would give one advice it would be to add a damper. It helps a lot with the precision as your legs are quite strong and perhaps not used to do precision work ;)

i thought so too, but it’s not bad at all. For a caliper type centering mechanism it’s surprisingly smooth. I did add a damper to my TPRs and that made them feel just as good as my earlier Slaw RX and BRD F2 pedals. I like the pendulum movement of the TPR. The brakes are a bit on the light side, so I added a spring. Thinking of adding RC car dampers to the brakes, but I’m not sure about the best way to do that. Here’s a thread you might find interesting.

What cams are you using? I felt that the space sim cams were smoother than the aviation sim cams, which produced something like what you are describing.

Thanks! I enjoyed making it. :)