Hempstead

Yes.... I bumped into the Razer Tatarus keypad problem. Basically, the software installed by Razer Tatarus has some negative effect on other USB game controller. The symptom is that once you have that software installed, keypad plugged in, you can only see something like 6 or 8 controllers in the game controller. Which USB controller will show up? Depends. Now, if you have things like vJoy, or Razer keyboard installed virtual controllers, they will show up, and bump your REAL controllers off this list. Whatever controller not listed on this game controller list will not show up in DCS. Once I got rid of the Razer keypad (Razer keyboard and mouse are ok), I can have as many USB game controllers as I want.

What 4-pin? TM has always used 5 pin connectors since the Cougar days. Not in the exact pin #, but even from my memory without looking it up, I can tell you the 5 pins are, V+, GND, CLK, Data, EN. That is, positive power, ground, clock (24-pulse per cycle), serial data out, and enable pins. The truth is, AVA has a 6-pin connector. But, it's backward compatible with the old 5-pins. I currently have an old spare Warthog stick on my AVA base. And it works fine. Although I have put it aside and went back to the Warthog (don't like the absolutely no center force). I haven't reverse engineered the AVA base yet, so I don't know if the 6th pin is used for what, or used at all.

Attached is the same file in STEP AP2014 format. NewPiston.STEP

You want to put a taper to the 4 holes... trust me... I CNC milled a solid chunk of 6061-T6 aluminum to perfection... and bought a 5mm reamer and bunch of slightly under 5mm drill bits for the reaming... in an attempt to eliminate the dead center, only to find that that it locked up... and there is a taper of the 4 holes (top of the hole has a slight smaller ID than the bottom of the hole; go measure them with a good caliper yourself). If I have a recommendation... I would say that 3D printing with FDM is difficult to get that precision required for the taper. Resin printing... good luck with all those strong resin like Phrozen Onyx Plus. So, I would recommend that you either mold that 4 holes, or design some metal parts for it (i.e. buy a correctly tapered drill/reamer and dil/ream a brass/bronze tube for the 4 holes. I have the 3D model for it in Solidworks (without the bottom "blocks".), attached. You can grab the accurate dimensions from there. Note that this 3D model has the straight holes, not tapered. This is the one I used to send to MaserCAM to generate GCode and then CNC milled it. The real recommendation? Buy a replacement part from TM. NewPiston.SLDPRT.zip

Sure… if that’s the definition of “ultimate” for you. What I always advocate is to build what you can, with what you can get, according to your skill level. If you don’t have space, do what HansSolo does. If you have space, do what I do, https://blog.hempstick.org/2024/08/f-16-blk-50-central-pedestal.html. But even though I have a lot of space, mine has caster wheels so I can move it out for further construction, and vacuuming. Note that, my front pedestal is only there to support dials and switches in position. In fact that’s the whole point of my “pit”. I have no intention of putting in any instrument, like HSI, etc. All the “looks” will be supplied by VR.

Sure you can build with real dimensions. That's what I am doing anyway, simply because I have a lot of F-16 cockpit parts and 3D models. However, I do take the approach of using 80/20 aluminum extrusion for max. flexibilities, instead of building a pit that looks like a chopped off F-16 section for the look. The reason being, 1. I don't build it for the looks, and 2. DCS' 3D model might not be correct, so I would need to "calibrate" the locations of the stuff I build to fit DCS' (the other way around is not likely to happen). Therefore, a fixed traditional plan built with plywood or even aluminum would be trouble in adjusting these locations to fit VR. Plus, If you do a traditional plan, you have to build from start to get to a significant stage for it to be useful (months!). I build my pit in a weekend, without a plan, not even a sketch, with just a rough idea in my head (although I had been thinking about it and collecting parts for months), mounted just a car seat, rudder, stick, throttle, a bunch of USB hubs, caster wheels, and off we go hooking up to DCS and started flying. Then, pretty much every other time I fly in it, I thought of some way I can improve it, and kept building more and more. It now has a swappable front panel, that is also my Gran Turismo 7 driving pit, as well as regular video game station with keyboard and mouse. One of the 3 front panels is an F-16 front panel with HUD/ICP, and pedestal mounted (no functional electronics yet). In other words, I want a pit that I can use now for various video games, not 500 hrs hard labor later for just one game. I don't advocate any "plan." IMHO, for a VR pit, it's waste of time. For building a traditional pit for the looks, or for 2D, ya.... knock yourself out with a plan.

Ah... yes and no. Yes... you can get away with just using the VR controllers to flip and turn switches and dials (or even using your hands). That's what I currently do. And it works quite well. But... No, it's not the same. It's still no as fast and as "trained" with muscle memory as real switches and dials, which sometimes matters in a fight. So, what I am building now is a pit that has all the physical switches and dials laid out exactly as what's in VR (the real dimensions do not matter, all that matters is DCS' dimensions), such that when my virtual finger reaches for a virtual button, there is physical button right at the same spot IRL to meet my physical finger. And the physical button will send a USB event to the PC, configured in DCS. I called this Augmented Virtual Reality (AVR). That is, the VR world is augmented with the physical "stuff" instead of the other way around for AR. The good thing about this is that your pit building doesn't have to look nice at all, forget the backlight (I have my HUD printed w/ blue filament, and I am not inclined to paint it matte black; well I might when I am bored one day.). The looks is only for your vanity, nothing more. Build it for the function, build it for the feel. Don't buy it for the looks!

Ah, sorry, that was a 4P3T, not a 4T.

Couldn't you just buy one? https://www.digikey.com/en/products/detail/nkk-switches/MN43BB1W01/20839896 Granted, they are not cheap, and of limited stock. But for one or two pieces, it ain't worth the efforts to develop one, unless you are in for the "journey." Note that the one I linked is a miniature toggle. A lot of panels are designed with minimal space for miniature toggles, like the F-16 ICP. Regular sized toggles won't fit. Even I wouldn't bother making toggles. I design/make optical switches for no debounce, and low latency reasons (needs firmware development to go with them), in additional to durability. Toggles? Why bother? Latency is almost irrelevant in such controls on panels. A 50ms delay of debounce time wouldn't hurt. On stick trigger though, that's literally a live or die question.

ON-Semi NSI45020-D, or adjustable version NSI45020JZ-D. Just do a google search, and download the PDF spec. sheet files. Example schematics is inside. Basically, just wire all the LEDS in series with the IC chip. Done.

Why don't you use two L-brackets bolted together to form the shape? There is no law against it, unless you have space limitation.

between the legs with an extension.... hmm...

Drafting tables... rulers, pens, pencils, paper, erasers, etc. etc... spend many years in undergrad studies honing the drafting skills... and almost never touched them for over 3 decades... moved to CAD. The only times I still use pen and paper is for concept arts, to put down ideas. Or, to do tracing in reverse engineering, then take a picture, import into CAD. I remember when I published the first F-16 part 3D CAD model in SolidWorks... somebody even said it's useless, the pictures with annotated dimensions worked just fine, why bother with CAD models. I had to coax them by telling them they can get dimensions I did not measure out of the model, while with a drawing, or a picture with annotated dimensions, you can't. Plus, you can take the model and modify it anyway to fit the materials and manufacturing methods you choose on top of my model without having to start from scratch.

Optimizing the F-16 "Trigger Piston" manufacturing process with design, so it's possible for you to make it at home with simple tools. My design of the trigger will cost you something like less than USD $10, and the two optical sensors inside will cost about $7 alone, instead of USD $150. https://blog.hempstick.org/2024/08/optimizing-trigger-piston-design.html

I have very bad fps with Chinooks, F-4, and OH-58 too... all in in the 10fps range. As soon as I switch back to F-16, after restart of Quest Link, I get 45 fps stable.

If you want to support multiple sticks/throttles, including center mount, it means you want to support multiple aircrafts so you need flexibilities. For that, I would suggest 80/20 type of aluminum extrusion, which allows you to easily reconfigure to match DCS' "inaccurate" 3D models, and use quick release handles/screws for quick reconfiguration/adjustments. I build a basic pit using just some stock 80/20 extrusion and home made brackets, over a weekend (and will be forever "improving" it. If you are going with the 80/20 type of aluminum extrusion, I would highly recommend that you make your own brackets. Aluminum L-brackets will be cheap and easy enough to make, yet strong enough for our purpose (cut to the right length, drill two holes, that's it!). I mean, it's not like we are building an electron scanning microscope that require utmost rigidity and stability. There is really no need to buy those very expensive and exotic brackets from manufacturers. Yes, theirs are better, but mine are good enough. The "screw nut" blocks are too much trouble to make by yourself, unless you like tapping hundreds of threads.... they are cheap enough to buy from the manufacturers. But avoid buying screws from them. There are a lot of companies who sell screws in bulk that are much cheaper, like Tacoma Screws, or on Amazon, Grainger, McMaster-Carr, etc. Note that I did use the original US-made 80/20 extrusion, because I have a pile of them in stock. But you all know Amazon sells a lot of cheaper alternatives, those which shall not be named, nor the names pronounceable.

Indeed, each to their own. For me... it's not so much of the wobble. Although the rare occasion that I let go of the stick and it wobbles causes my F-16 to also wobble is very annoying, it's resolvable by carefully letting go of the stick. What really bothers me is the not knowing the center by the feel. That is... I have no idea whether I am at center or not. So, that means you have to setup ample amount of dead center, or else. It really doesn't matter much during a fight, but it bothers me a lot when trying to do some daily maneuvers like flying a DME Arc, or aerial refueling. Misjudge the center during aerial refueling, you die. So, you are forced to do the dynamic balancing thing, like the one legged MIT robot, i.e. never stop moving, and constantly do "small corrections." I prefer to do one small correction. Let go (no force, but keep the hand there), watch... and do another small correction. Let go.... That is very difficult to do with the AVA. In other words, it forces me to constantly inferring with the F-16, and I don't fly like that. I trim, as taught by my flight instructors. Again, like I said, this is really down to a personal preference. What they really need is a CAM with an abrupt "fold line" at the center to create a centering notch. You can make one yourself. I won't be bothered to make one, as I have my own stick design to complete.

Kind of agree. I don't like AVA either. I packed it away. Don't get me wrong. I think this is a personal preference. WH, IMHO, has too high the centering force. And, it's not adjustable. But by design, AVA has theoretical zero force at equilibrium center point (this may not be the same as the physical center point). This is the opposing spring design's fundamental effect. The CAM helps a bit, but it's very weak. It's so weak that you have to look for it to feel its effect. It's a much better design than Cougar, using the CAM as the adjustable centering force. I think it has potential, but the CAMs are still crappy. It's probably good for flying helos, but I am mostly an airplane flyer.

Added a new 3D printed blk 50 center pedestal. https://blog.hempstick.org/2024/08/f-16-blk-50-central-pedestal.html

I got "... Unable to accept invite...." error.

Scroll up on this page, page 3, Werewolf_fs has the workaround.

Looks like it. Mine shows v68 as well after installing the v67 file sets. Thanks to Werewolf_fs' v67 file sets. I am back in business.... for now.

I just got hit by the Meta v68 update. Unfortunately, since it was officially release (I don't do the public Beta)... uninstall and install again will still get you the v68.

That's precisely what you get when you don't attach the stick. So, looks like your gender re-assignment surgery is a success.

The answer is no, without a stick connected properly, the base's firmware will refuse to function. You will hear the regular ding of Windows when an USB device is plugged in, but you will not see it showing up in the Windows Devices page. If I have to guess, most likely the USB HID device descriptor request is deliberately refused by the base firmware.