Introducing the VPC MongoosT-50

[LeCuvier]

Hi LeCuvier! ...

Cams:

• 1 Dot = Hard Center
  
• 2 Dot = Soft Center
  
• 4 Dot = No Center
  

 

Springs:

• White = Light
  
• Blue = Medium
  
• Red = Heavy
  

...

@Cyph3r:

The 2 dots on the soft center cams are well visible, but the 4 dots on the No Center cams are too faint. On one of my cams they are virtually invisible!

 

Have you ever polled for preferences on the cams and springs? I would think that very few people want the hard center cams pre-installed.

 

I have done a few combat tests with Mig-29 and Bf-109 and I find that the stick is very accurate in positioning; but the hard center makes it difficult to aim at a manoeveringtarget. When you use missiles that's not so bad; but for gun use it's a problem.

My opinion is that VPC should supply the stick with the soft center installed.

The medium springs seem ok as a default, although for use with the T-50 grip the soft ones would probably work better for me. For use with the TMWH grip, the medium ones are probably necessary.

Now I will have to try to change the cams to "soft center" which will be tricky from what I have read on this thread.

[Cyph3r]

Hi LeCuvier,

 

We're already received a lot of feedback regarding the pre-installed cams. Units are currently being assembled with the soft-center cam by default :)

[LeCuvier]

Cam replacement experience

 

I just completed cam replacement on my T-50 and here is some feedback.

1. General finding: many of the threads are not well finished and require some force for turning the screws. The designers have apparently not kept in mind that cams and/or springs will be changed by the users.

2. 2 different screw diameters (M3 and M4) but 3 different Allen wrench sizes required. The 2 M3 screws in front require a 2.5 mm wrench; the ones that fix the cams require 2 mm wrench. Unnecessary variation.

3. I had no problem pulling the pitch cam out with combination pliers. But getting the soft one in was a challenge. The tolerances are too tight. In the end I had to tap it with the rubber-coated handle of my pliers. And that's not a desirable process for precision mechanics. Actually I could put the hard one back in with no problem, but the soft ones were slightly different (bigger) in some dimension(s).

4. The 2 front screws that you have to take out hold the electronics board inside. There are M3 washers on the inner side of the board. Make sure you don't lose them when you turn the screws out!

5. Putting the electronics board back in turned out to be the real challenge. The M3 washer has to be held (hardly visible) between a ribbon cable and the board as you turn the screw back in. I used needle pliers (not sure if that's the right word; in German:Spitzzange), praying that I wouldn't damage the printed circuit. This is probably easily managed at the assembly line; but it's the only step in the process that made me sweat and swear. I'm sure there are better ways to fix a circuit board. I could imagine little plastic rails where the board just slides in. If that's not a desirable solution then at least the 3 mm washers should be fixed (soldered?) to the board so

a) you don't lose them

b) you don't have to perform micro-acrobatics when you put the board back in.

6. I forgot: the roll cams are easy to change.

My stick is till working, halleluia, and the centering is much smoother than with the 1-dot cams! Now I have to try it in practice...

[Red Dragon-DK]

Great observations. Thanks for sharing :thumbup:

 

 

I just completed cam replacement on my T-50 and here is some feedback.

1. General finding: many of the threads are not well finished and require some force for turning the screws. The designers have apparently not kept in mind that cams and/or springs will be changed by the users.

2. 2 different screw diameters (M3 and M4) but 3 different Allen wrench sizes required. The 2 M3 screws in front require a 2.5 mm wrench; the ones that fix the cams require 2 mm wrench. Unnecessary variation.

3. I had no problem pulling the pitch cam out with combination pliers. But getting the soft one in was a challenge. The tolerances are too tight. In the end I had to tap it with the rubber-coated handle of my pliers. And that's not a desirable process for precision mechanics. Actually I could put the hard one back in with no problem, but the soft ones were slightly different (bigger) in some dimension(s).

4. The 2 front screws that you have to take out hold the electronics board inside. There are M3 washers on the inner side of the board. Make sure you don't lose them when you turn the screws out!

5. Putting the electronics board back in turned out to be the real challenge. The M3 washer has to be held (hardly visible) between a ribbon cable and the board as you turn the screw back in. I used needle pliers (not sure if that's the right word; in German:Spitzzange), praying that I wouldn't damage the printed circuit. This is probably easily managed at the assembly line; but it's the only step in the process that made me sweat and swear. I'm sure there are better ways to fix a circuit board. I could imagine little plastic rails where the board just slides in. If that's not a desirable solution then at least the 3 mm washers should be fixed (soldered?) to the board so

a) you don't lose them

b) you don't have to perform micro-acrobatics when you put the board back in.

6. I forgot: the roll cams are easy to change.

My stick is till working, halleluia, and the centering is much smoother than with the 1-dot cams! Now I have to try it in practice...

[dburne]

Thanks for the write up! Helps give me a sense of what to expect.

 

I sure hope I can handle changing mine out ok, it may be a challenge for me as I am partially blind. I am definitely going to have to give it a try though when my replacement cams get here. The stock cams are just too hard a center for me, and the stock springs ( even with 175mm extension) too strong.

Edited September 1, 2017 by dburne

[Cyph3r]

Thanks for the write up! Helps give me a sense of what to expect.

 

I sure hope I can handle changing mine out ok, it may be a challenge for me as I am partially blind. I am definitely going to have to give it a try though when my replacement cams get here. The stock cams are just too hard a center for me, and the stock springs ( even with 175mm extension) too strong.

 

It may be easier for you if you change the cams while the mechanics stays inside the housing (i.e don't remove the electronics board from the front that LeCuvier said he had issues with!)

[dburne]

It may be easier for you if you change the cams while the mechanics stays inside the housing (i.e don't remove the electronics board from the front that LeCuvier said he had issues with!)

 

Thanks for the tip, good to know that does not have to be removed to install these. I was starting to sweat a little there...

[Abburo]

@Cypher: if somebody from your team could make a video tutorial it will be best.

[Cyph3r]

@Cypher: if somebody from your team could make a video tutorial it will be best.

 

Don't worry, there will be some high quality how-to videos available soon :thumbup:

[LeCuvier]

First flights with soft cam

 

I did some combat exercises with Mig-29S and Bf-109. Wowwwwww!

After installing the soft cam, I have adjusted the pitch and roll spring tension as soft as possible while the stick still returns to center from the slightest deflections. The result is awesome. No center bump at all and smoothest steady movement in all directions. I could never aim the aircraft so precisely at its target. It was definitely worth the money and the sweat!

I will be enjoying this!

As a next step, when I can muster the courage, I would like to put my TM Warthog grip onto the T-50 base. I'm still a bit reluctant though because I'm not sure I can plug the TMWH grip into the mini-Din connector of the base without damage, and get it out again later without damage. With the TM-50 grip that's easier, as the grip side connector comes out a bit and so I can hold and align the two mini-DIN connectors. The TMWH grip's connector does not come out and so I don't know how to ensure proper alignment. And later when I want to pull it out, I fear I will put too much strain on the base side cable. So I hope someone will try this and report back.

Why I want to use the TMWH grip? For use with the A-10C, and other modern aircraft (e.g. KA-50) that can benefit from the additional switches.

[Cyph3r]

I did some combat exercises with Mig-29S and Bf-109. Wowwwwww!

After installing the soft cam, I have adjusted the pitch and roll spring tension as soft as possible while the stick still returns to center from the slightest deflections. The result is awesome. No center bump at all and smoothest steady movement in all directions. I could never aim the aircraft so precisely at its target. It was definitely worth the money and the sweat!

I will be enjoying this!

As a next step, when I can muster the courage, I would like to put my TM Warthog grip onto the T-50 base. I'm still a bit reluctant though because I'm not sure I can plug the TMWH grip into the mini-Din connector of the base without damage, and get it out again later without damage. With the TM-50 grip that's easier, as the grip side connector comes out a bit and so I can hold and align the two mini-DIN connectors. The TMWH grip's connector does not come out and so I don't know how to ensure proper alignment. And later when I want to pull it out, I fear I will put too much strain on the base side cable. So I hope someone will try this and report back.

Why I want to use the TMWH grip? For use with the A-10C, and other modern aircraft (e.g. KA-50) that can benefit from the additional switches.

 

That's great to hear! :thumbsup: Glad you're having a good time with it.

 

I've used the TMW Grip on the MT-50 base and you just need to eyeball the alignment before you bring them together, and as long as you don't force anything, it will just drop into the connector under it's own weight. Also detaching it again is no problem!

[Karon]

Units are currently being assembled with the soft-center cam by default

This is great! I honestly impressed by how Cyph3r and VirPil are working :)

[kingpinda]

I think I recall someone pondering if the spring strength was sufficient for the topheavy Warthog. My Base came preinstalled with medium springs and soft cam. With a 12 cm extension from Milan, the creator of the mfg crosswind it stays put in the middle very well.

 

Haven't adjusted the spring strength yet because I still need to secure the Base to something. All in all very happy with it. Dry practicing feels already very smooth.

 

Edit: I do wonder though if the wires are supposed to be exposed just above the gimbal and going to the din connector. They seem to chave ever so slightly against the metal hole it's going through when pitching up or down

Edited September 2, 2017 by kingpinda

[LeCuvier]

...I've used the TMW Grip on the MT-50 base and you just need to eyeball the alignment before you bring them together, and as long as you don't force anything, it will just drop into the connector under it's own weight. Also detaching it again is no problem!

@Cyph3r: have connected and disconnected my T-50 grip a few times and that requires less force now.

I was therefore encouraged to try what you said, and in fact the TMWH grip went in quite easily. I will have to increase the tension of the pitch spring just a little bit to make it balanced.

However (I'm sorry to have a "however" again): I downloaded a picture that you downloaded some time ago, and which shows on the right the T-50 base and stick, and on the left the T-50 base with the TMWH grip. And it shows the button assignments for both configurations. However, that picture still shows the originally planned button number assignments, and I verified that the actual button numbering with the TMWH grip in is totally different from what that picture shows.

Can you please upload an updated version of that picture? It will be useful when people start updating control bindings for use with the TMWH grip.

I attach the picture I'm referring to.

 

 

[Red Dragon-DK]

@Cyph3r: have connected and disconnected my T-50 grip a few times and that requires less force now.

I was therefore encouraged to try what you said, and in fact the TMWH grip went in quite easily. I will have to increase the tension of the pitch spring just a little bit to make it balanced.

However (I'm sorry to have a "however" again): I downloaded a picture that you downloaded some time ago, and which shows on the right the T-50 base and stick, and on the left the T-50 base with the TMWH grip. And it shows the button assignments for both configurations. However, that picture still shows the originally planned button number assignments, and I verified that the actual button numbering with the TMWH grip in is totally different from what that picture shows.

Can you please upload an updated version of that picture? It will be useful when people start updating control bindings for use with the TMWH grip.

I attach the picture I'm referring to.

 

 

 

Picture saved. Thx for sharing :smilewink:

 

Yes it would definitely bu useful for other users if Cyph3r uploaded it

[LeCuvier]

Picture saved. Thx for sharing :smilewink:

 

Yes it would definitely bu useful for other users if Cyph3r uploaded it

Caution: that picture is obsolete! I only uploaded it so Cyph3r knows what I was referring to.

[LeCuvier]

TMWH Grip button ID's change completely with T-50 base!

 

I have recorded the button ID's that the TMWH grip exposes when used with the T-50 base and compared them to the native Warthog button ID's. The ID's are totally different.

Even the POV hat is no longer a POV hat. Instead, the TMS switch has become a POV. I attach the cross-reference.

@Cypher: I supose all this is determined by firmware.

So before I start creating new control bindings I need to know: Will it stay this way or will it change with a possible future firmware update?

PS:

My migration strategy is to continue using the hardware buttons for the same functions as before. Which means I have to assign different Button ID's to the functions. This is a significant effort as it will apply to all "modern" aircraft I own. And that's why I need to know if that's the way it will be going forward.

 

Edit: I had an error in the attached cross-reference. Original attachment replaced by corrected one.

TMWH Grip Button ID CrossReference.pdf

Edited September 4, 2017 by LeCuvier

[Cyph3r]

@Cyph3r: have connected and disconnected my T-50 grip a few times and that requires less force now.

I was therefore encouraged to try what you said, and in fact the TMWH grip went in quite easily. I will have to increase the tension of the pitch spring just a little bit to make it balanced.

However (I'm sorry to have a "however" again): I downloaded a picture that you downloaded some time ago, and which shows on the right the T-50 base and stick, and on the left the T-50 base with the TMWH grip. And it shows the button assignments for both configurations. However, that picture still shows the originally planned button number assignments, and I verified that the actual button numbering with the TMWH grip in is totally different from what that picture shows.

Can you please upload an updated version of that picture? It will be useful when people start updating control bindings for use with the TMWH grip.

I attach the picture I'm referring to.

 

 

Glad to hear you got them swapped over okay!

 

Regarding that image, that is if you use the MT-50 grip on the TM Warthog base! I will create a new button mapping template for the TM Warthog grip on the MT-50 base :)

 

 

Picture saved. Thx for sharing :smilewink:

 

Yes it would definitely bu useful for other users if Cyph3r uploaded it

 

I did upload it ;) But remember those ID's are for the MT-50 grip on the TM Warthog base!

 

I have recorded the button ID's that the TMWH grip exposes when used with the T-50 base and compared them to the native Warthog button ID's. The ID's are totally different.

Even the POV hat is no longer a POV hat. Instead, the TMS switch has become a POV. I attach the cross-reference.

@Cypher: I supose all this is determined by firmware.

So before I start creating new control bindings I need to know: Will it stay this way or will it change with a possible future firmware update?

PS:

My migration strategy is to continue using the hardware buttons for the same functions as before. Which means I have to assign different Button ID's to the functions. This is a significant effort as it will apply to all "modern" aircraft I own. And that's why I need to now if that's the way it will be going forward.

 

I will confirm with our Electronics engineer, but I believe how it is now is how it will stay :thumbup:

[Red Dragon-DK]

Got it now. Thanks for mention it :music_whistling:

[LeCuvier]

Glad to hear you got them swapped over okay!

Regarding that image, that is if you use the MT-50 grip on the TM Warthog base! I will create a new button mapping template for the TM Warthog grip on the MT-50 base :)

:thumbup:

The left hand,part of that picture clearly represents the TMWH grip. But the button ID's are clearly not the ones you get with the TMWH grip on the TMWH base. I checked again.

It's high noon for getting some comprehensive documentation posted on the VIRPIL site. There must be a fair number of T-50 sticks out there and their owners shouldn't have to figure it out for themselves.

Edited September 3, 2017 by LeCuvier

[Cyph3r]

The left hand,part of that picture clearly represents the TMWH grip. But the button ID's are clearly not the ones you get with the TMWH grip on the TMWH base. I checked again.

It's high noon for getting some comprehensive documentation posted on the VIRPIL site. There must be a fair number of T-50 sticks out there and their owners shouldn't have to figure it out for themselves.

 

I'll have to check myself when I have time, it was a very old image (February I think) so a lot has changed since then.

 

The MT-50 Grip Manual and Base Quick Start is posted on the site already. The priority at the moment is our own products, but I will work on adding your requests to the site as soon as I can :)

Edited September 3, 2017 by Cyph3r

[kingpinda]

Hey cyp3r could you please read post 1271 regarding the exposed wires beneath the gimbal. Is this normal or is it missing a piece of shrink wrap?

 

 

Additional: regardless I'm going to take it for a spin right now for I have mounted the Base to something :)

Edited September 3, 2017 by kingpinda

[Cyph3r]

Hey cyp3r could you please read post 1271 regarding the exposed wires beneath the gimbal. Is this normal or is it missing a piece of shrink wrap?

 

 

Additional: regardless I'm going to take it for a spin right now for I have mounted the Base to something :)

 

It's normal, nothing to worry about :)

 

Also great mount! :thumbup: Let us know how your first flights go!

Edited September 3, 2017 by Cyph3r

[kingpinda]

It's normal, nothing to worry about :)

 

Also great mount! :thumbup: Let us know how your first flights go!

 

Ok thanks for the info. Have been flying a couple of hours and it feel great. However i need to take it apart tommorow i think.. even with medium springs and extension I feel its still to heavy. I tried adjusting springs untill warthog was not falling topheavy on both roll and pitch and then went flying. extremes are still bit heavy but middle is nice and responsive.

 

Although now i have a small *thunk* whenever i go from pitch up to pitch down right after i hit center. This happens with a small sticktion feel. Like those horrendous saitek springs which made me overshoot the bead on ones canopy. Its not as bad though but i may have bad cams or there is something wrong with the spring. It sounds like a spring issue. Upping the tension doesnt really help.

 

With roll the issue is less prominent. but I also feel the spring tiktiktik when i go through the center.

 

Gonna look at the insides tommorow to see if i can isolate the problem.

[WindyTX]

Are you sure the Cam is secure I had a. Thunk and it was because the CAM wasnt screwed in in both screw hole my own fault.

 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk