Hempstead

I tried the new OpenXR NIS solution a couple of days ago. No go. Neither DCS nor Elite Dangerous uses OpenXR. It does work for MSFS 2020 though.

In case you are too lazy to go do what I mentioned earlier. I always have a VM up with Solidworks running. It's 6.6428" x 2.

Nope... those are two different things. One is "Asynchronous" Space Warp, the other is "Application" Space Warp. What's in Oculus Debug Tool is Asynchronous Space Warp. Application Space Warp requires the application to explicitly provide the motion vectors for it to compute more accurate additional frames than Asynchronous ones could "guess" from previous frames. So, DCS must code it in for Application Space Warp. I would love DCS to code this feature in.

https://www.hempstick.org/The_Official_Hempstick_Site/F16_Model_A_Center_Console.html Go Download this on GitHub, load it up to a compatible CAD program, Solidworks, Fusion360, or OnShape, and measure centerline of the whole thing to centerline of the store mgmt panel, multiply by 2 and you get centerline to centerline of the MFDs. Sure, this is model A without MFDs, not model C, but I am pretty sure it’s the same. I also have a real model C left console frame too. I put it on top of the model A console, they match exactly. I must warn you if you use OnShape to open it. OnShape no longer allows private projects for free accounts. You must not save the document without attaching a Creative Common Non-Commercial International license these files are published in. Otherwise, you might have re-published the files you don’t have rights to grant additional rights. It’s a mess best avoided. If you must use OnShape free accounts, the easiest way to avoid all these license nonsense is to open it, measure whatever you want, quit, and don’t ever save.

Totally Off… That was the idea - I set the Q2 to max resolution, which will tax the gfx card to render at higher resolution (what the GPU does best), then Q2’s hardware will reproject to its curved surface according to its optics. Oculus mirror even has a command line option to “flatten” out the framebuffer. Then, Q2 has to either downscale and/or crop it to native resolution of its LCDs. That’s the “theory” anyway. There is only one way to find out. Moreover, one of my CPUs is pegged at 100%, CPU bound. And my GPU utilization was at about 60%. By rendering at higher resolution, I bumped up my GPU utilization to about 80%. Even though I set Q2 to 120Hz, I am never expecting I could get that. I am only hoping when ASW kicks in, I get either 30, and perhaps shoot for 60 (dream on), instead half of 72, which comes to about 35. Difference between 30 and 35 fps is barely perceptible as long as they are smooth. So, what I am doing is basically supersampling split in two parts — render at higher resolution by the GPU, and downscaling by Q2. GPU no longer does the downscaling… I hope. Therefore, I can skip the in game SS, as I found the in game SS no longer improved my perceived rendered quality. And, BTW, my cloud quality is set to Ultra. I can probably squeeze out a few fps turning that down.

I have the Q2 maxed out on resolution with the experimental 120 Hz refresh rate, ASW=Auto (set in Oculus Debug Tool). But I have an RTX3080 Ultra (EVGA factory over clocked, basically). So I went with the brute force approach. This lets me turn down AA settings. If DCS supports nVidia’s DLSS, and in VR, I might give it a try instead of the brute force approach with higher resolution. With MSAA off, I get some annoying shimmering, but not too bad. Quite ok actually. And I get about 45fps at 1,500 ft agl overhead landing pattern at Nellis. Turing on MSAA 2x, I lose about 5fps, i,e. 40 fps, even on the runway. So, now I know where to get that extra 5fps, if I need it. At altitude, it's even higher fps, but never over 60fps. And, I have the expensive Quest Link optical cable. I get about 1.7Gb/sec. I don’t use OTT at all.

That should work. I didn’t know that function exist!

You’d have write your own USB firmware, or figure out another way to masquerade as one of TM’s USB controller. It’s a widely known “secret” for over 10 years.

So, you agree in mission editor setting steer point using agl is buggy? Why else would I need to avoid using agl and switch to msl instead?

Well, every time I put in 0 agl in the mission editor, it always jumps back to 98 feet after I step off the input field.

I am designing one. And it’s aimed for making it all in your garage with simple hand tools and some simple shop tools like a drill press and a 3D printer — a very tall order in design. I am mostly concentrating on the guts of controls like HAT and buttons, and slew control, all non-contact without bounce. Like mini-Hall stick, optical 8-way + 1 switch. The 8-way optical HAT switch alone has been ongoing for the last 3 year (10 complete redesign… almost there). But, I wouldn’t hold my breath on it. Even I couldn’t wait for my own RudderCore design to be completed (needs Hempstick Pico, which I have not even started yet) and bought a TM Pendulum Rudder. Moreover, there are a bunch of people already made their own F16 throttles using 3D printing. Anyway, TM Cougar is all 5V.

Yep. That messed me up for a few days. The symptom is that no matter which direction you approach the steer point, on HUD, the target box always seems to be farther than where it “should” be. The “Z” height shows up. Unfortunately, in mission editor you cannot set a steer point to be lower than 98 feet agl. That, I consider a tolerable bug, b/c 98 feet agl is close enough to not mess up your perception from afar, particularly when you are 20,000 feet doing a level bombing run. But if you do a Stuka style dive bombing, you can tell the 98 feet difference.

Mine doesn’t even touch my face. No VR goggle face print like a raccoon either. It’s an el’cheapo AirSoft helmet, not rated for impact. The adapter is a clone Wilcox NVG adapter, all aluminum. You can adjust up down, in, out, tilt up down too. The yellow thing is simply a 3D printed PLA holder. I have since replaced the rubber band with a better bungie coord, as designed. You do have to scroll saw the front lip of the plastic helmet a bit to accommodate the goggle. Everybody follow Luckey’s ski goggle design and improved on it. But everybody forgot that the real problem is that you are hanging some weight cantilever and you need something to counter that torque. Your head with long COVID-19 hair simply is a bad thing to generate that counter-torque. The forehead plate is in the right direction, but not enough. Anybody who have wore a k-pot in the bootcamp knows that thing with just one strap rolls forward and backward on its own will, particularly when you are sweating like a pig. That problem has already been solved! The 2nd chin strap from your chin to the back of your head provides the counter torque. It’s still uncomfortable wearing it for long with the goggle flipped up. But for flipping up to look at your pancake to alt-tab or adjust something quickly, it’s perfectly fine. I am in a mind to hang some horse blind on both side to block out the reflections. And perhaps an audio headphone and mic?

I see no hand at all in the visualizer, even though the status is all green. Sticker on the sensor says to activate at that URL, but no activation whatsoever at that URL, only Gemini download. Do I need to unlock the thing or pay some subscription or what? Or is it simply dead on arrival? I spend two hours searching the web for solutions to no avail and gave up.

I can also confirm that it's the Ant Elevation "bug." Here's what I tried. After I shot down the two bandits, it instructed me to go after the 4 new bandits... and lo 'n 'behold... the Ant Elevation without me doing anything to it other than following the instructions and changed mode etc., went completely berserk. Both low and high alt. next to the cursor went negative red. So, I just moved the Ant Elevation knob slightly, and it returned to blue and reads normal. Then TMS right worked as it should be, repeatedly.

I am still working on it…. But mostly the guts of it for the last 3 years, and mostly on the optical 8-way HAT switch, a real bitch with all my requirements. Today, the prototype of 9th complete redesign of the sensor cap finally proved to work well. What are left are just refinements and jigs to make making them easier than free handing it, and a lot of clean up, packaging, and documents, switching to MSLA instead of FDM. ( come on, Phrozen, where are my 8K mega and 8K mini?) I am considering releasing it, not necessarily OpenSource. Then, on to Hempstick Pico. Damn, I need to finish these for my DCS F16!

How do you guys solve the sticktion problem? My very first mod to a rudder pedal was a damper mod about 15 years ago, using two largest RC dampers I could find. Two problems. 1. The damned things leak hydraulic oil. Not a problem for RC cars, just refill before each outing. It doesn’t leak a lot, just a few drops, enough to cause a huge problem for my carpet. 2. Inevitably due to the rubber o-rings inside the damper being compressed to prevent oil leak, the tighter they are compressed, the more sticktion there is. The less they are compressed, the more leak you get. I didn’t see a way out of this conundrum so I abandoned the damper approach. I’d be glad to get back to it if you guys have solved these two problems. Note that I can detect even the slightest sticktion throwing off my shots.

I’d like to know the answer to this “problem” too. You ain’t alone, OP!

Talk about messed up control defaults. For YEARS, I thought DCS was just ridiculous with its flight model. My P51 and A10 would just bank left hard, invert, and dive whenever I pull the stick back a bit hard. Come on, prop procession isn’t that bad! Not on real Cessna, or Piper! Sure, P51 is a very powerful plane that I have never flown in real life, but this is some ridiculous banking that requires an uncle Chuck in order to just cruise, let alone fight. Not everyone flies the X-1, you know. Oh, and the A10 is a twin jet. There shouldn’t be any prop procession! So, I never really got into DCS, and wrote it off as a bad investment! Those are the two cheap modules I buy to try it out. Didn’t work out…. Move on. I even offered a cast bronze F16 TQS as the reward to a local fellow simmer friend to fix it for me. He didn’t take it, after I described the symptom to him. I finally figured it out myself. For some reason I could never understand, the damned thing would automatically assign all controllers it detects with X, Y, Rz to roll/pitch/yaw, including the damned mouse’s! Oh, and my Razer optical keyboard, and keypad also emulate joysticks. And vJoy joins the party too! All of them! So I would end up with multiple controllers all trying to control roll/pitch/yaw. And it would not manifest until I pull back on the stick a bit hard. So, I would take off ok…. And fly around, land fine…. But as soon as I tried any “maneuver”, it would bank left hard and dive! What? No split-S, you stupid plane! Haw, haw haw…. Old timers are probably laughing their rear ends off… everybody knows that, you rookie! Well, never in my wildest dream would I dream of programming it to assign all controllers’ X/Y/Rz to roll/pitch/yaw. There is the right way, the wrong way, the army way, and there is just the idiotic way. There is just no bloody reason to spend that extra effort to default it wrong! What are you trying to pull? Screw with new customers? And trying to discourage players changing/adding controllers? What for??? So, that was the last place I would have ever looked! Come on…. Nobody would…. Worse… every time I plug in a new controller, it detects and assigns the new X/Y/Rz to roll/pitch/yaw too! I plug in my Saitek yoke I use for flying 787 in MSFS 2020, my DCS F16 starts banking/rolling unintended! So, every time I add a new controller, I would have to go in and clear every single plane’s X/Y/Rz for the new controller. WTF? Even worse, I write my own USB firmware for controllers, so I often have “new” controllers to try out! This just drives me nuts! Come on, ED. Stop this auto-wrong!

Thank you for your kind words... @rel4y I didn't know any simmer is using it. I know a small commercial company was (is?) using it for their sim controllers, and a Brazilian company was (is?) using it for controlling ROVs. Other than that, I know nothing. No MLX90363 for Hempstick incoming. But the good news is... I am contemplating on writing Hempstick Pico, a complete rewrite from scratch for RPi Pico (maybe even RPi Zero 2 W). It may take a long while... my goal is force generators for my own controllers (the bronze casting of F16 TQS for instance.). So, timetable is on the progress of my own controller prototypes (stick, throttle, and rudder all); i.e. when I need it, I will write it. Moreover, I am "busy" with DCS F16C. OP, sorry for hijacking your thread.

No can do! It's an MLX90333 running in 3-wire SPI mode, instead of analog 5V mode, or PWM mode, like rel4y guessed correctly. That's why it's 5 wires... dead giveaway, Vcc, GND, MISO/MOSI, CLK, and CS. In PWM or analog mode, it would be 4 wires, Vcc, GND, X, and Y.

Actually, this is the worst casting of the 4 sets. There were voids in this set, and I almost threw it away due to the casting defects. But I figured I could use it as a "tech testing" piece using different tools/techniques on it before using them on the other 3 sets. For instance, would 100A DCEN on the TIG welding work? Yes, kind of, and my TIG welding skill sucks big time, but my sanding skill is plenty good enough to cover that shortcoming. As you can see in the picture below, it's not perfect. There is a little gap between the upper and lower main body, and there are still some small holes in the screw hole. But it looks great and feels great in my hand too. Well... I am an amateure, I can happily live with such results. I am currently working on the guts of this thing... among other things, the optical HAT switch, mini-Hall sensor, and the controller (not necessarily based on Hempstick). But you see where I am going in the LONG run. The 3D model is just one of the first steps... the least "valuable" part of this "long run." I would have shared all of them OpenSource (I am going so far in compiling Linux kernel myself, writing Linux kernel drivers/modules, and learning Yocto to get my own Linux distribution, etc. etc.), but unfortunately, somebody has to violate the OpenSource licensing terms. So, now I can't figure out how to share without getting my shit stolen.

The attached are pictures of the inside of the F16 TQS. The first one, the black one, is the real one with all the parts. Although I didn't really model the inside except the 3 "islands" for accepting the screws, it's in general quite "close" to the original with some small modification for modeling convenience. In general, I used 0.1" thickness and tried to keep that thickness everywhere. The 2nd picture is the result of my bronze casting of it (chopped it up in multiple pieces for easy casting and extraction, 3D prints, silicon RTV mold, and then traditional lost wax casting process, and TIG weld them back together... and a lot of sanding.). The inside of it is very close to the real one. Why bronze? It's the local Pratt Fine Arts Institute, where I took class and cast them. Artists do bronze... they don't do aluminum, so I observed Pratt is a Fine Art institute. And I actually quite like the extra heft of bronze, and this thing would never get off the ground, so weight is not an issue. And don't ask... Although I cast total of 4 sets, in anticipation that some would fail, I lucked out and ended up with 4 sets. I will not sell this stuff. It would a violation of LMCO's copyrights.

Instead of claiming wild theories from a post that got deleted by admin on ViperPits, please point out anywhere else have I ever demanded royalty. Even the PTFE rings I sell here, I barely stayed black. I view it as a community service, b/c if I factor in my labor... it would be at least triple the price. Oh, and I posted the full spec. of the PTFE ring and told everybody who wants to make them for profit, please let me know, I would refer business to him/her so I can get out of the community service.... no takers so far... one British cloner... but you don't see me complaining about not getting credited. Even on ViperPits, I made it abundantly clear that I would grant a personal commercial license of the 3D model files to my fellow ViperPit members, at the fee of whatever you feel appropriate, in the form of donation to ViperPits.. The purpose of that was to take the money question out of the equation, yet at the same time prevent big commercial companies from swooping in and take everything without crediting the works by the flight sim community. Where and when did I EVER demand any royalty? Plus, all those 3D models except those by Kumrik, which are clearly marked out as exception, were created from scratch by my own two hands. Even as today, you can still see that exception on GitHub, in the form of Copyright.txt. All 3D models published here are released under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial Internationl, v4.0 license. All rights reserved. Jonah Tsai, 2014-2015. Exception: Copyrights of files under ButtonsKnobsLights/Knobs/Kumrik Knobs/* belong to Kumrik of ViperPits. They are also published under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial International v4.0 license. https://github.com/JonahTsai/F16/blob/master/COPYRIGHT.txt Please point out which part got on my hand that was donated! I never received any parts from anybody without paying big money for it, not even as on loan for measurement. I know I way overpaid for a lot of them, particularly those ones I bought from one of those ViperPits admins. In fact, a VP admin lives just 2 blocks away from me and he owns a FAM pit. I asked to go measure some dimensions from him and received a cold shoulder of silence. Great help, eh? Except those from Kumrik, I did paid literally thousands of USD in purchasing all those genuine F16 parts out of my own pocket, nobody else's money. Yes, indeed a couple of parts I did purchase from the ViperPits community at exuberant markup (You think I didn't know I over paid? Think again. ;) But I wouldn't qualify that as community helps. I did create all those 3D models by my own two hands, except those by Kumrik. Every single line of in those 3D drawings were put down by me. I have the GitHub repo history as a proof of the progress, published all in the open. You can go check them out yourself -- every bit of change is recorded in GitHub commit history. And I have never ever laid eyes on any F16 blue prints. Every time I saw LMCO name on any drawings some dumb ass posting on ViperPits, I shake my head and close it immediately. I don't want to be contaminated, in case someday some dumb ass would come claim I copied from any "blue print." The only helps I received from the ViperPits community are the followings: 1. A couple of corrections and feedbacks. These are all documented in the 3D model thread on ViperPits. Go read them and see how "many" helps I got from the community. Not that many really. 2. The TUB model... all the dimensions were from Feather's annotated photos and spreadsheet. This is clearly attributed to Feather's credit. All I did here was translating his dimensions to CAD models. That was the extent of my works on the TUB model. And it was clearly attributed. 3. A couple of dimensions for the HUD models that I wasn't sure about the resin cast I paid over USD$1000 for, so I crossed checked with a 2D drawing I found on ViperPits... I can confidently say 99.9% of the dimensions of the HUD model came from my caliper and 100% of the 3D modeling was my works. 4. A lot of encouragements from ViperPits. But.... all those 3D models were constructed by my own two hands, every single line. I don't know about you... I qualify that as files 100% created by me. Let me put this abundantly clear. It's people like you that I stopped publishing anything for free. Instead, I am giving out things for free to only people I trust. That's where you are completely wrong. Let me repeat again -- I don't own any of the design copyrights of those F16 parts. Lockheed Martin (LMCO) does. I only claim the copyright of the unique combination of the step-by-step construction in the the 3D model files, which if you just open those files in any compatible CAD you would re-execute those steps I created in order to reconstruct the 3D models, and claimed copyrights. I never claim any copyrights of the designs. You make a part for sale out of those 3D models files, first of all you violated LMCO's design copyrights because you just cloned LMCO's product for sales not because you used my files, unless you took out a license either from LMCO or US Air Force, like ThrustMaster did. But that's between you and LMCO, none of my business. All I am concerned is that I published those 3D model files under Creative Commons Non-Commercial International license, so if you used my files to make profit, you clearly violated the "non-commerical" clause. That is very uncool, whether you agree with my claim of copyright or not. That is not how a community should be. If a community steal from each other in the open, perceived or not, who would share? The bottom line is very simple. You don't satisfy my no-stealing demand, I won't publish more. It's that simple.

Thadiun, Go ahead, knock yourself out. ;-) As I said, I only do the PTFE rings as a community service, making no profit at all. So, if you want to make them and sell them, I'd gladly bow out. There are PTFE sheets that are made one side bondable. I have experimented with them as well. The original idea was actually a very thin 1/32" thick PTFE one-side bondable sheet, with an 1/32" thick aluminum or steel ring for stiffening to make it almost exactly the same thickness as the original rubber O-ring. Couple of problems with that prototype. 1. Even with epoxy, the bond eventually delaminate. 2. The 1/32" thick aluminum or steel ring is still too thin, they buckle easily. So, they still need to be glued down. That defeats the whole purpose of the stiffening ring, as glue eventually get attacked by the grease/oil (depending on the kind of grease/oil you use, and you know some clueless will use WD-40; and I have actually heard somebody did it). The composite ring is particularly prone to de-lamination when the ring is bend. And that's exactly when you actually need it to stay bonded. I found out the hard way that to prevent this problem, you actually have to up the total thickness to about 1/8" for the composite ring. But, I also found out that at 1/8" thick, a solid PTFE ring at 1/8" thick would do that job by itself. So, no point of doing the extra busy work of using a stiffening ring that ups the costs and works. ;-)