tea_cypher

Yes its alive, yes it is being worked on, yes new bugs are being added to the tracker.

Think of the harrier more like the 14, using rudder really helps i find if your want to turn more aggressively, but push to hard and she will kill you

I believe this was done on purpose, as its supposed to reflect the time it takes to switch over, I suspect you are using target or something, in which case maybe setup the software to pulse the movement again half a second later. At the same time if can see the concern, and if there is a key bind to direct select STOL mode maybe it needs highlighting as an issue ( I seem to remember the default binds are only to move up or down a step)

Because the air brake is not all or nothing, but can be adjusted from 0 to 100%

And if you want to cheat, use this can get you up and ready in the time it rearms.

I rember hearing, that IRL they would start moving backwards a little befor doing it.

Just checked, all seems good to me, please provide a track.

Humm odd, will do a quick test, I would also say when possible always post a track file with a bug report.

Nice

Well you could set it up so that when the button is pressed it assumes the nobs is centred, turns it ingame to tbe correct location and then presses, a mini macro persay.

Nice, have you given any though to how you will cause the reset function?

I am running a workbee, but uppgrading it to queenbee with high quality linear rails, will make it alot more rigid and allow me to machine alley, not got any manual mills though i have a lathe

Thanks Stang, I fully admit mine is not perfect, but tried to give methods people can try, as there really is not the greatest info out there. Back lighting is one of those really interesting topics, for what I am doing, do I need it, No, but its cools so try not make it work :) My thoughts are by using opal acrylic the light will be diffused and give a reasonable diffusion, as for rigidity, its a fair question, but I have done a test piece in 2mm alley along these lines at it seems pretty solid, again will in meet mil spec testing, who knows. This is all a learning process, trial and error, joys of having home based equipment is that you can prototype and improve. The entire imperial argument is a different thing, my document is within the requirements of mil-spec. And its interesting that NASA use SI units (metric).

Got around to doing some more CAD, rebuilt from scratch but here is the left console minus throttle

Next Video, I discuss back lighting plan, assemblies in fusion 350, and show my development so far.

I have a cnc router which i will be using for all opps, presently upgradibg it so it maybe a few weeks, but i did do a testnplate already and it seems to be ok. Will hope to put up a new video this coming week looking at assembly and of the parts in fusion360 and showing what i have done to enable blighting ting

Look interesting, seems to be some form of small startup, so order knowing this, but on the same vane who else put there are doing such a project, the only shame is it seems to ve for the thrustmaster f16 mfds, which are smaller then the ones used in hornet/harrier/a10 by an inch i believe

Video 5 Up.

Video 4 Up

Would really like to now what he was searching to find them, only Honeywell ones I have seen over here have been very expensive. Just searched Honneywell ET on ebay, and cheapest completed one was £95!

Part 3 - Cutouts!

Video 2 Released

Ok I have recreated the mil standard in metric, DEADMAN, can you review and confirm I aligns with the spec. Mil-STD-25212C Metric v3.pdf

Actually conversion is 25.4mm = 1" And you are right the machines are set up in Metric, I am presently comparing the document I am using against the standards, and there is not that much wrong, the main thing seems to be a discrepancy on the hole width centre point, although I suspect this maybe a tolerance stack issue, one of the biggest issue is the mil standards are 3rd hand photocopy standard which can give some issues with doing correct stacks and tolerances. Ohh and there is a major cockup in the appendix where the panel heights are way off in Imperial, but spot on for metric. so it wouldn't be something I would have noticed.

Thanks, I have changed into a plain link, the youtube embed thing doesn't want to play ball. I agree if I wanted to do it fully right I would use imperial, but my software and specifically my CNC all operate in metric, and I can directly relate to metric not so much imperial, the numbers from this document should be good enough. I have previously looked at some mil standards, and although they are 'right' I like the way the document I am referencing is laid out, it makes it as for dummies as possible, but if there are any major errors I would really be interested in what they are if the group knowledge here could create an improved version, I would see this as a brilliant outcome, what I want to achieve with this is for a beginner to be able to have a good crack and making there own panels for what ever plane they want to do.