Thadiun Okona
-
Posts
335 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Thadiun Okona
-
-
8 hours ago, trev5150 said:
They said they don’t support other grips when they clearly do support other grips. That’s the lie.
You’re joining in the “you should calm down” rhetorical tactic. You should stop trying to tell people they’re wrong and they’re crazy and unsettled for calling attention to malfeasance.Yes, you should calm down.
It's possible for you to be given misinformation without a nefarious plot. Not everyone that works somewhere knows what's going on at their job or even cares enough to find out or might just be terrible at it. There are many possibilities aside from 'they lied/malfeasance', which frankly is a silly conclusion to even come to in this context
-
3
-
-
This thread is dumb op you should delete it
-
4
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, Scott-S6 said:
Even based on your example for an unspecified aircraft (odd that you wouldn't mention what aircraft this is for) the AB9 is way off the correct forces with any decent length of extension. If we go with a (rather short) 10cm extension then it's doing ~6kg versus the 16 in your graph. For a 20cm it's doing 4KG Vs 16.
Hornet needs about 19KG aft pull, M2000 needs a 40KG aft pull for max pitch input, just for example. None of the FFB sticks available are anywhere close to realistic forces.
With a 20cm extension (30cm stick including grip), the AB9 can't even provide enough force for a 2G pull in the hornet.
This doesn't mean that it's useless but don't pretend that it's generating realistic forces.
So many people fixate on 1:1 forces without considering how miserable it would be in many cases and how unnecessary it is for a good experience. Most cases would require replicating the seating 100% as well due to ergonomics of the design and you would also need to be strapped in the same way because that's part of req for pulling/pushing those forces. This seems like one of those things people spend too much time wondering if they could without wondering if they should
-
2
-
2
-
-
22 hours ago, trev5150 said:
Y'all need to chill. Consider the fact that these companies are all writing code based libraries based on the embargoed IP from the patents that just expired. Coders are lazy, and they are cooperative. If they get into a legal pissing contest their just gonna waste time and money like Apple and Samsung have been doing for the last 15 years. FFS people it's boutique FFB joystick bases for flight sims. Niche of a niche market. Hundreds of dollars are at stake! OMG!! That is not the kind of business where billions hang in the balance. Same with the RAZBAM thing.
You people don't need to be taking up rhetorical arms under the banner of your chosen liege lord of some nonsense. Frickin chill.
This is the flight sim world, not an Ayn Rand novel.
What an embarrassing take on the situation..
-
4
-
-
You should check out the P51 peripherals from Authentikit https://authentikit.org/p51d/
...can save a lot of time on some of the critical cockpit parts if doing a full replica type build
-
15 hours ago, Aapje said:
According to this post the FFB2 is 0.8 Nm by default (no resistor mod), so the first one is probably in that region as well:
This was an estimate I came up with based on similar motors since I couldn't find specs for the stock motors, though seems consistent with the feel of the stick and stand by the numbers
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, Aapje said:
There is a big difference between motion rigs for VR and non-VR. In the last case, the rig conflicts with the visual cues that you get, while in VR, you can take advantage of the visuals in VR to bridge the gap between what you actually feel and what you ought to feel.
The issue with these huge movements, is that you introduce lag. It may look impressive, but for fast flying, I think that a relatively light platform with smaller, precise movements is better than these amusement park rides.
This is not a 'for VR vs not for VR' thing. Motion comes in 2 distinct flavors, arcade or realistic. Arcade motion is where the platform assumes the pose/attitude of the vehicle, realistic uses the platform's envelope to replicate accelerations and any sustained forces it's capable of recreating. Occupants in both scenarios can be using using projectors, monitors, VR etc and that has nothing to do with the platform's capabilities or design goals.
Lag in motion platforms refers to the difference from 'signal to motion', and like most time sensitive activities, less is more. All motion platforms work on compromises and are focused to achieve a limited set of optimized goals and anything outside those gets unrealistic. If someone chooses acceleration poses that take too long to get into and out of to feel believable, that's not 'lag' that's just bad motion cuing. Large excursions can be useful for corner cases as well as for *motion compensation, but you are correct most of the action happens in a small/precise manner though.
I used to work for E2M Technologies, assembling high end (1500-3000kg load, 300-600mm stroke, $100k+ platforms) 6dof platforms and running them through their paces to fill out their 20 page performance reports. Range of motion, frequency testing, latency (our systems were under 20ms signal to motion, often half that). These were used in FAA level D and military training etc.
*using large envelope to interpolate the rotation point to the occupant's head/inner ear for example. Or using some amount of surge combined with pitch to create fore/aft accelerations with minimal false cuing etc, but also leads to needing 'washout' cycles where the platform slowly resets its position without creating more motion cues.. and it's always a matter of compromise and you can always find ways to break the illusion if you're looking for them.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, zcaa0g said:
I hope this supports DirectX FFB as opposed to relying exclusively on a proprietary API that only works for specific titles. I haven't seen an official word on this, but I get it's early still.
The first video of it posted (Blu Gaming?) showed the software towards the end. There's a page with the usual sliders (spring/damping/inertia/friction/gain..) for DirectInput and with a checkbox for telemetry mode that has a separate page of sliders to adjust. I'm sure the DI version works the same as any other stick using it and as of now it's anyone's guess how well or not the telemetry tools work.
-
2
-
-
Using the M36 stem at the top as a known measurement, the enclosure of the base looks appx 240mm long, 200mm tall and 175mm wide
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, Biggus said:
Image on the box looks very much like a Winwing stick, although that youtube clip shows him plugging a TM stick into the base. There's also this:
I can't help but wonder whether Moza and Winwing might be collaborating on this?
https://packaged-media.redd.it/z11e...=1d9f1efc0786cc049189b7b4e46c18a0acf7a0e0#t=0
-
1
-
-
Walmis's VP Force shift register boards are already stocked with chips and only cost like 10Eur.. they're also the smallest footprint at 20x45mm. Multiple can be daisy chained together if you want more than 32 buttons
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSflUrHfM9AB0f-0WGyhOLxvXQNMr7E8TBDSYYJUBQ8kqaDC7g/viewform
-
Took me a bit to get used to Fusion coming from SW but man it does so many things I wished I could do in SW and I ended up liking it better
-
Use something like Joystick Gremlin to emulate the stock kb inputs for all cockpit functions aside from axes. You can assign whatever joy buttons you want to whatever kb strokes you need. Another advantage of doing it this way is if your controls ever get wiped for whatever reason the only thing you have to rebind is axes
-
Clear resins print much more optically pleasing translucents than filament
-
Sounds like EMI issues
-
It's a travesty that all the input hardware posts were stripped out of the Input Hardware forum and instedead buried among hundreds/thousands of super lame posts about RAM and processors. Basic computer hardware has almost nothing in common with joysticks and other input devices which were ironically perfectly at home when they were found in a forum titled Input Devices
-
9
-
-
What a nightmare, now all the good and interesting stuff is buried under mountains of boring <profanity>, what a stupid forum merger
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, hannibal said:
fastened the grip assembly to the top gimbal
This reminded me of a mounted machine gun simulator some defense contractor was making for the Army I saw when I was doing some field work.. they took one of the small Buttkicker shakers and mounted it at the tip of the gun to simulate the recoil from firing. It was turned so the piston travel was inline with the barrel.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, edmuss said:
I might grab an allegro sensor from Leo Bodnar (3 quid with free postage as a test) to see if it gives a finer response. I would imagine that the sensors I have don't have an amplifier, they were about a quid each on ebay!
I don't have a real world issue with the reponse I get from my rudder pedals, they seem plenty fine enough but more control can't hurt! If there is a significant difference then I'll invest the huge expenditure in the a full set of the allegro sensors for the collective (when I design it) and the rudders
A1324 is a more suitable sensor for use in joysticks/cockpit projects. People really latched onto the 1302 and I think gravitate towards it because that's what they've seen used and that's what LB sells but it lacks sensitivity. This makes it req 180deg movement for a full voltage swing. That means you are only going to use a fraction of your controller's resolution when using the much smaller arc any joystick or joystick adjacent device will be moving. A1324 is 5mv/Guass and you get a full swing out of 90deg, A1302 is 1.3mv/gauss.
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, Viper1970 said:
The project is still going on, although there is not much to report at the moment. Right now, I'm printing countless of my self-developed POV mechanics for these China 5 directional switches I bought.
They work quite well for my needs, although they are really not top notch. But using more advanced Alps or even OTTO POVs is too expensive for me.
The pressure point or behavior of the POV's during operation is roughly comparable to that of the old Thrustmaster F-16 FLCS coolies, except that I can implement a much smaller design of the POV's here and don't need as much space inside the case.
It is also possible to set the function between 5 and 4 way POV by using different stamps.
At the moment I'm also doing the AH-64D/E POV's for the cyclic. I mostly use hats that can be found on Thingiverse and adapt them to my needs, respectively if none could be found I do them by myself. The right side ones are for the Apache, the ones on the left were for the Viper/Venom.
I dislike the Alps 4/5 ways, they are mushy and have such long travel they're goofy to actuate with the hats going to high angles. Ottos/Mason etc feel great but are way to spendy but there are great ones you can print that are easy to make and if you use the *right tact switches feel better than what TM, Virpil, VKB, Winwing etc use in theirs. You would need to revamp your grips cause they have barrel bodies and are built similar to TM's that mimic Otto etc.
https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:3452944
If you use the normal generic 260gf switches they still feel mushy like Thrustmaster's cause that's what they use however you can buy 500Gf branded versions of the same switch and they feel a lot better. *Omron B3F-1006
https://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Omron-Electronics/B3F-1006?qs=wE98CiVmOw78gCH%2BNiS1qg%3D%3D
https://www.digikey.com/en/products/detail/omron-electronics-inc-emc-div/B3F-1006/1129851
-
On 1/6/2023 at 9:44 AM, Hempstead said:
Well.... that's an idea!
I was wondering why you weren't just using a shift register board to get your wire bundle in check, especially since they're so common now
-
17 hours ago, Viper1970 said:
I am currently working on printable B8 Standard (F-4 / F-5 / A-7), A-4E, F-15C/E and F/A-18 grips.
For my own project, I used grips from Thrustmaster and Suncom, which I modified.
But I would also like to have printable versions of these grips.
Have you seen this guy's project? https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:5764003
-
3
-
-
6 hours ago, No1sonuk said:
Maybe have a rubber tube under the existing button to give more resistance?
Or a small spring, though neither of these help with the tactile report/click force
Forgot to add this, but these metal dome CK switches make great internals for scratch built Otto replicas, very loud tactile click and 300gf force, the other 600.. combine with a spring/plunger in a housing the way TM makes them and it's a much more compelling switch than the mushy ones they make with the little dome switches in them.
Here's a youtube vid I made showing it compared to another clicky CK switch that would also work well for the same reasons, depending if you want a sharper or duller report on the click
-
1
-
-
Bumping this in case viper thinks there's no interest since he mostly posts alone here. This is one of the more interesting threads around here though, love seeing all the progress
-
4
-
Moza inconsistent information about supported grips
in Input Devices
Posted
This is definitely how people that are calm behave.
You can stop trying to save us simps of the flight sim community anytime you like. We're obviously too dumb to understand how BIG JOYSTICK is trying to scam us so you are wasting your energy tilting at windmills