Jump to content

rel4y

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    969

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by rel4y

  1. rel4y
    Hey guys, I have finished the CH upgrade mainboard and will send it to the factory tomorrow. :pilotfly: The final features are 8x 12 Bit axis, directly reads the CH axis, reads the CH button matrix, makes use of the standard CH USB cable, additional shift register connection, additional 2x digial axis connections = TLE5011. It will have the same KF2510 connectors as the original CH board, so it is 120% plug & play! I used up all the available pins of the MCU and also the board space to the absolute max! :D Really happy with this thing! Cheers
  2. rel4y
    Well, did the Vipergear guys tell you that there are two Throttle versions (3V and 5V) and that hall sensors work only in the 5V version? Yours looks awfully like the 3V type. Here have a look: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2863739&postcount=130 They should also put bypass caps on their hall sensors. It works without most of the time, but its bad practice.
  3. rel4y
    The LEDs are connected over a 74HCT138 decoder, so thats not an option. C9 may be a possibility on the newest boards if its not connected to the 74HCT138, though I doubt it. I guess it was added for an additional LED as the max amount of buttons on CH devices is 20 and the button matrix supports that. CH most likely doesnt expect nor want people to add additional stuff to their controllers. The CH mainboard interestingly enough also has an external 10 Bit ADC, but it seems to be downsampled to 8 Bit internally for some reason.
  4. rel4y
    Thanks A2597! :thumbup: I will definitely fit in expansion capabilities, as many as I have unused pins actually. At least one shift register connection is a must, that would allow to read an additional 80 buttons. :) A paddle switch is doable I think. I also have a dual stage trigger mod for the Fighterstick ready in CAD, but I need to set priorities right now. Otherwise I have 200 half optimized mods and none will ever be finished. The external 8 channel 12 Bit ADC adds an additional ~5€. I am not sure about price yet. I have already ordered the connectors and need to figure out an elegant way to make use of the original USB chord. Arduinos data inputs are sadly not pinned out and can only be accessed via the micro USB. Though I do have an idea for a workaround. :smilewink:
  5. rel4y
    Ok, so I tested a lot of different ideas over the last days and I think an Arduino with an external 8 channel 12 Bit ADC makes the most sense. This would support even all 6 axis of the CH Throttle quadrant with 12 Bit resolution and keep enough pins free for button matrix and LEDs. I also played around with the cool 32 Bit ARM MCUs (STM32F103 blue pill board), but these only support 3V on their internal ADCs and Software is a bit problematic... EJoy eg, is a nice little Software but I didnt get the 2.3 version to work correctly. Versions 3 and 4 dont support the blue pill boards anymore. I also found some nice new project on GitHub by a guy named vostrenkov (https://github.com/vostrenkov?tab=repositories), its called Freejoy, I will keep an eye on that one. The external ADC will make the board more expensive and adds complexity, but I am sure that most people will be interested in upgrading from 8 (256 steps) to 12 Bit (4096 steps) rather than 10 Bit (1024 steps). The other possibility would be to leave the mainboard at standard 10 Bit and make the CH sensors digital 14 Bit GMRs, but that means that the sensors would only work with my new mainboard (or any DIY Arduino running MMJoy) and not with the original CH stuff! So basically it comes down to what type of CH sensor is preferred. Would you rather have a contactless sensor that reads analog and is able to interface with the original CH electronics (8 Bit) and my new mainboard (12 Bit). OR do you say I will upgrade the mainboard anyway and want 14 Bit GMR sensors that connect digitally to the mainboard, but cant interface with the original CH stuff. Maybe a bit confusing.., but please share your thoughts with me! :)
  6. rel4y
    Thanks A2597, PM sent! So far I have decoded the USB, button matrix and axis pins. I mostly need information on the board and mounting hole dimensions. It isnt used on any CH devices, but I also have no clue what the P03 pin does. Probably some IC test pin. Still, any help is much appreciated! I am working hard on getting this project done! :thumbup: Cheers!
  7. rel4y
    Hey guys, I have made and plan to make a bunch of improvements/ mods for the different CH products and some of them are already production ready. Most of my mods are explained in my thread here in the TM DCS forums, but I will update this post with the finished CH mods as well. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=220916 If you are interested or want to ask questions please contact mtwsims@tutamail.com. No PMs please! Please note that sometimes I am rather slow to respond and it can take me several days to answer your emails. Payment via PayPal or SEPA bank transaction, but for PayPal I would have to add the PayPal fees on top. CH Pro Throttle, CH Fighterstick, CH Combatstick, CH Pro Pedals, CH Yoke etc. magnetoresistive sensors The cool thing about these MR sensors is that they are a drop in replacement for the standard CH pots, but contrary to these they work contactlessly. That means you can simply connect these sensors to your CH mainboard and done. You will never have to worry about deteriorating or dirty pots again. The CH Control Manager recognizes this sensor normally and you can calibrate it within the software. Important installation instruction: Price is 22€ + 7€ tracked international shipping (shipping is only paid once per order) CH replacement hatswitches CH Combatstick to Fighterstick conversion PCB Here is a in detail description of a mod I did with this board: https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/214485-ch-products-upgrades/?do=findComment&comment=4539101 Price is 15€ + 7€ tracked international shipping (shipping is only paid once per order) CH Pro Throttle (gameport version) analog slew mod
  8. rel4y
    Just the sensors. The new CH sensors should now (at least in theory) fit all CH products. I dont own the Yoke or pedals, but from pictures it should be a direct fit. Also no soldering required, the crimp terminals are the same as on the original pots. :thumbup: I am also working on a new mainboard for the Combatstick/ Fighterstick, which updates it to 10-14 Bit resolution. Lets see what makes the most sense. :smilewink:
  9. rel4y
    Glad you guys like our sensors! I made sure these are as precise as it gets!:) Here is a little update on the new CH sensors. Proto PCBs ran through testing, now they go into full production. Maybe one or two more iterations of the 3D printed case.. A significant amount of engineering went into these, boy I can tell you! The CH gimbal layout makes it really hard to design a good contactless replacement sensor! But I am confident I have it solved.:thumbup: There is a lot more, but I will just show one little sneak peak. I designed the following piece of kit last November and made a few testprints back then. I feel now it is time for a full stainless steel version. Looks a lot like Aarnds latest FCC3, doesnt it? Electronics are updated though. :music_whistling:
  10. rel4y
    I can post again! :drunk: Incredible!
  11. rel4y
    Not sure we are reading the same thing Sith? It is absolutely clear! There is a 30% difference in stickforces required and the current elevator model is wrong in several respects. It is funny how he is saying 30% lower stickforces doesnt make a difference, just the percentage of broken wings would increase significantly. Thats how small of a difference it would be, significantly more broken wings. lol :music_whistling: YoYo knows the 109 elevator model is wrong and it should be corrected. The trim is also wrong, because somebody at ED did not know that the Luftwaffe set cruise to maximum continous power which incidentally is 1,15 ata for a G-2, but 1,35 ata for a K-4. I still have some hope ED cares at least somewhat about accurately modeling an aircraft, this long lasting bug gets finally fixed and the DCS K-4 finally is modeled as close as possible to a real historical K-4.
  12. rel4y
    To be fair it says exactly that! YoYo confirmed there is a 30% difference in gear ratio between a G-2 and K-4. Since a 30% difference is not the same the current model obviously must be somehow incorrect, right? He later didnt post anymore, but also agreed that nose down trim was increased in this test. And any other statement wouldnt make much sense anyway because thats exactly what the test was about. So did that cut make any change in the correct statement? No.
  13. rel4y
    For Gods sake... NO! Let me qoute myself again! I tested against the soviet G-2 docs from YoYos post at different CG in %MAC! What do you you not understand about this?? You do realize that a non gunpod G-2 at CG 28% MAC weighs ~3142 kg? I have made CG tables for G-2 and K-4 and then tested, you could easily do the same. No witchcraft involved... You still lack a basic understanding of CG! It doesnt matter what engine it had. Please, just ask Yo-Yo to explain it to you, or reread his sticky. He explains what he did and I did exactly the same. Again, we dont need to assume anything because the charts provide all the necessary information. You still dont understand that dynamic pressure can not be directly translated into stick forces, because of such things as gearing factor eg. Why would you want to deflect the elevator to 35° at these speeds? The airframe would over G and self destruct way before. Makes no sense... The 109 elevator was obviously designed to limit G-forces to survivable levels, just like it is good practice. The charts say at va 650 kph (Mach 0,73) you can pull 2.8° elevator deflection with around 33 kg of stickforce in a 109 G, thats easily above 5Gs load. In a K-4 with different elevator gearing, this would only be 25 kg of stickforces. And the charts again. You "assumed" at 450kph and 700-800 kg/m^2 the stickforces will be 350-400 kg, ridiculous right? I dont care what you think a car door does or does not do. Who cares?! It doesnt change the fact that the DCS K-4 is modeling a G-2 elevator and not a K-4 one. YoYo has said it himself? https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3912440&postcount=133 What is your point here? You "feel" its fine, good for you. Its still not a correct K-4 elevator. Now please just stop arguing in this nonsensical way.
  14. rel4y
    PMd you. I dont have the 3.8V to 5V boards currently, but I explained a workaround in the PM. :)
  15. rel4y
    You got mail. :) I have made a new batch of Throttle Hall sensors over the weekend and I also made a big step forward with the MFG Crosswind F-16 Pedals. They are now tested and finalized, just had to adjust two minor things. Even the 3D printed plastic pedals already work great. The final product will be made out of Aluminium. There are two positions for width which make a difference of 3 cm (1.18 in). The foot angle can be adjusted by around 63° from vertical (13° more than shown in the pictures). :thumbup:
  16. rel4y
    I did. PM answered! :)
  17. rel4y
    First of all, this is not my fight. I think everything is correct about the rolling characteristics after YoYos revision a few years ago. The non liquid weight close to the longitudinal aircraft axis has absolutely negligible influence on roll characteristics. So if all I do is put a 500kg radio and/or a 50kg heavier gun in the fuselage which sits on the longitudinal axis, my roll characteristics dont vary a thing. I also never said I did any "verification flights" at 2900 kg. Why would I? What I am supposed to verify with that? If you are talking about the elevator discussion, all I needed was CG in %MAC. But since you still havent understood the basic concepts, it is moot explaining why. I verified the power off curves of the soviet G-2 tests. YoYo has accepted himself now that how double trim tabs were set in the high speed trials increase maximum nose down trim and that the K gearing ratio changed. Judging by the comments in that thread, the community seems to be hopeful that the elevator problematic finally gets resolved. No more discussion needed on that topic. So back to this topic. What an interesting fact you noticed there... The aircraft used was Bf 109 V34b and therefore we know all about its history and engine and whatnot. Well at least one of the two of us seems to know. It also had an ejection seat and was one of the permanent DVL Versuchsträger aircraft at Rechlin rigged with measurement equipment. However, for roll comparison all that needs to be known is that it was a 109, had the stiffended G wings and standard G control column. Sure you can set the weight to 2900 kg, but what for? First you talked about dynamic pressures on the elevator (I guess?). Now you switched to a force in kN. Would you mind telling me which chart in YoYos post you are talking about? Because I cant find any listing something in kN and it wouldnt make any sense either considering how the measurements in the test were done. The only chart adressing dynamic pressures is the german one. Lets forget about that kN nonsense and check what the chart really tells us... at 450 km/h we have a dynamic elevator pressure of 1000 kg/m^2 and that translates to about 12 kg of stickforce! Are you honestly saying you cant move 12 kg? What are you? We dont need to assume anything, especially not your 350-400 kgs of stickforce. How on earth do you think that by halving dynamic elevator pressure you get the stickforces??? It is not even the correct unit... You even misread the dynamic pressure against the airspeed, with both parameters being on the same damn axis! This is soooo sad, I dont know what to say. At least you got the last sentence correct... I am totally not sure if you are trying to troll us into an angry reaction or if you are really that incapable. Pretty much everything.. Jesus Christ..
  18. rel4y
    This makes me sad. You clearly don't even know what a Newton is and then tell me to Google it. A pressure is not the same as a force... And where on earth did you find this pressure in the first place? Non of the documents in yoyos past talk about pressures, yet you quote his post?
  19. rel4y
    Because there is no problem and the following quotes make it clear that discussing anything aircraft related in this thread is a waste of time. How does aircraft weight in the fuselage influence high speed roll characteristics, just interested?! 7-8 kN are 700-800 kg/m^2 in your mind? God almighty... Stickforces of 300-400 kg? Jesus!
  20. rel4y
    I also offer the same adapter for half the price and with a digital hall sensor as extra. I designed it initially for myself, because I think the price tag on the realsim is ridiculous. Been making them now for almost two years, so it is by all means a proven product. Feel free to check my thread on the sig. Kind regards
  21. rel4y
    Thank you my friend! :thumbup: That is certainly a club I never wanted to join... :D At the moment it sadly still is a daily reminder, but I am hopeful that it will get better eventually. Sent you a PM btw. Thank you too, good Sir! Yeah, got hit by a car, then flew like a bird - at least for a few seconds - or so they say. Shit happens, but it certainly makes you value life that much more.
  22. rel4y
    Hello guys, Thank you for all your kind words and good wishes, you bunch are great people! I had a back injury after a motorcycle accident, but I am back in action now. :) My brother had taken a few orders and answered some of you guys, but he could only ship the sensors that were still in stock. Also my PM box was overflowing, so I may not have received/ responded to all of your PMs and would like to apologize for that. Yesterday, I have ordered new parts for the Cougar Hall sensors and a bunch of new stuff that will be coming up. :) More Cougar stick sensors are in assembly and the CH joystick sensors will receive an upgrade because they caused me some unexpected trouble. Sorry to acorky at this point, I had to refund his CH sensor order. So CH stick sensors are not availabe right now, but the CH Throttle sensors work fine and are in stock in case anybody is interested. Cheers all!
  23. rel4y
    I dont think I did, but I do think we have to work with what we have. Based on past MP experience that would be B-17s bombing something in post D-Day Normandy, being escorted by Spits and P-51s. A8s lacked the high alt performance to occupy the fighter cover, but were employed against the slower bombers, while 109s were mixing it up with allied fighters. That would certainly be one historic use case, if it happened exactly like this over Normandy I cant tell for certain. Over the Reich it did. The other option is to only add A-8s and play out ground attack missions with allied CAP or counter ground attack missions, which basically results in low level furballs and no strategic goals. Maybe I am wrong, I dont know. I leave it to talented mission makers like Phil to come up with something semi historic & fun. I honestly dont know the actual pre (nor post D-Day) numbers by heart, nor do I care much. I also dont doubt the general credibility of the source you posted, but what I can tell you is that III/JG26 most definitely did not use 109 G-10s as of 3 Jun 44. Maybe I am misunderstanding you in general, but werent 109s and 190s both operating in France around D-Day? And didnt the Brits put escorts on their short range bomber incursions across the channel?
  24. rel4y
    That video shows nothing at all and should quickly be forgotten. Yeah I am also talking about initial acceleration and not maximum dive speed, mate. Gravitational acceleration stays constant, prop efficiency decreases with Mach until at some point the prop creates net drag. So at the beginning of the dive you will have a contribution to initial acceleration based on thrust/weight ratio of the aircraft and with increasing Mach the prop thrust decreases in its relative net until only netting drag. If anywhere, the engine thrust has the absolute highest influence at initial dive acceleration and not in the endphase. In the terminal/ high mach dive lower drag is paramount. Does that make sense to you? So in simple speak: prop at low Mach > accelearation based on thrust/ weight + gravitational acceleration prop at high Mach > creates net drag, gravitational acceleration only
  25. rel4y
    Actually you can, if you use JSGME here is a package I created some years ago and still use to date. Afaik it passes integrity check no problem, at least on Burning Skies it does. You can also do it by hand, just add the bf-109k-4_cross.dds and change the lua to include it on the skin. https://www.dropbox.com/s/l5c5czqlu013iet/Bf%20109%20historical%20Skins.zip?dl=0
×
×
  • Create New...