VPForce Vs. FFBeast Comparison?

[MyCyJIbMaHuH]

15 минут назад, lxsapper сказал:

Кстати, кто создаёт эту версию FFBeast? это ты, MyCyJIbMaHuH?

Да,это я.

16 минут назад, lxsapper сказал:

Кстати, кто создаёт эту версию FFBeast? это ты, MyCyJIbMaHuH?

Да,это я.

На данный момент я отправил джойстик и педали в Сербию.Уже неделю на сербской таможне всё остановилось.

[lxsapper]

16 minutes ago, MyCyJIbMaHuH said:

Да,это я.

На данный момент я отправил джойстик и педали в Сербию.Уже неделю на сербской таможне всё остановилось.

So you only made one?

Are you going to produce them?

How much will it cost?

How much for the enclosure alone? I'm confident I could make the rest.

[MyCyJIbMaHuH]

3 минуты назад, lxsapper сказал:

Так ты сделал только один?

Вы собираетесь их производить?

Сколько это будет стоить?

Сколько стоит только корпус? Я уверен, что смогу сделать все остальное.

Я собрал больше двухсот устройств,точно не помню.

В Европу полный комплект-педали и джойстик будет-2250$ американских.Ключи для активации устройств входят в цену.Блок питания и шнуры для подключения ручки рус и usb шнуры входят в комплект.Ручка и удлинитель в комплект не входят.

Софт-FFBeast.

Наша группа в telegram-https://t.me/+kRMhTmLEQE5kNmEy

FAQ-https://t.me/FAQFFB

[zerO_crash]

Let me help the community in understanding a couple of things:

 

- With regards to general control of the aircraft, more force is better, until the point where simulated equals the real. The very simple reason for that, is that one of the ways to achieve precisiom in control, is to make controls heavy. Thay's what's being done IRL by aircraft makers, and that's what makes sense in practical applications. If you think for a second about all the bumps, PIO, +++ - they are a function of too light controls. For the same reason, a FBW aircraft, while technically capable of having a feather for a stick, will never have it, as the probability for the above is too big. Therefore, more power (up to the level of IRL specific aircraft design), is perfect, because it increases your overall precision at the cost of more energy spent on operating the aircraft. As someone with Brunner, I can tell you in this case that FFBeast is the most logical choice for those lacking the big bucks to go Brunner CLS-P (even stronger, but well above the budget of you all put together, trust me).

 

- While physics doesn't lie, it seems that many have deficit in it as well. The thermal capacity of a coolor, is in big part affected by its size and mass. Heating up 20g of copper, vs. 1kg copper block, is a major difference. That is, not considering the 1kg block having more surface to cool down, as well as temperature falling/increasing exponentially either above or below room temperature. It isn't even a discussion about effect (electric) over prolonged time - the bigger block will have a greater ability to cool itself down, meaning it will dissipate heat faster than it stores. Putting this knowledge to practice, means that strong electric motors, will have more efficient coolers (even though using more electric power), and often be used less at extremes, due to the forces that need to be overcome - if you haven't learned to trim before, you will learn now. Additionally, a higher-end product is generally industrial-grade, meaning it has to sustain loads on common basis. It's built for it.

 

Whether you were to limit the maximum strength of the FFBeast to the VPforce-levels, or simply understood why more is better in this regard, and therefore used the force that FFBeast provides dorsn't matter. At a physical level, FFBeast is made to tollerate more. The fact that it doesn't have any need for temperature protection (much like the Brunner CLS-P), speaks for itself. Explained in simple terms: You are comparing a 90hp car (VPforce) to a 400hp one (FFBeast), and claiming that both will do well in hilly terrain. Where the 90 will stay on red line, the 400 one will have plenty of excess force and not be strained at all. Do the math for yourself. 

 

Therefore, it makes all the sense to go for stronger, and more solidly built. Price being close to equal, there is no competition whatsoever. 

Edited May 29, 2024 by zerO_crash

[Hiob]

3 hours ago, zerO_crash said:

Let me help the community in understanding a couple of things:

 

The very simple reason for that, is that one of the ways to achieve precisiom in control, is to make controls heavy. Thay's what's being done IRL by aircraft makers, and that's what makes sense in practical applications. If you think for a second about all the bumps, PIO, +++ - they are a function of too light controls.

 

Yeah, not going into the nitty gritty of different opinions here and there, but the quoted part above is of course complete nonsense and quite the opposite of what really happens. First, putting max. strength into something absolutely 100% positively does NOT help with fine control. That‘s not how bio mechanics work. Second, PIO happens around the middle (aka the light part) of the control range anyway. Ever thought about helicopters, there are almost zero forces and real world pilots can fly them just fine without oscillation (most of the time).

[some1]

True, helicopters require lots of precision yet they have the lightest controls, and the pilot can remove all centering with a press of the trim button on the stick, leaving only the damping in place.

Flight simmers often forget that flying aerobatics in a real aircraft is a very taxing physical task due to g-forces, and the controls have to be tailored accordingly. Your arm weights around 5% or your body, so, let's say 4kg. At 8g that's 32 kg, and a large portion of that is added to the force acting on the stick, even with zero muscle effort from the pilot. The stick has to be heavy enough to oppose that, through the strong centering, bobweights etc. The worst thing to happen is if the pilot pulls the stick, g-force increases, he inadvertently pulls more, g-force increases even more, and we end up in a positive feedback loop that can even result in pilot blackout and aircraft destruction.

Because of the above, the point where simulated force equals the real is not realistic at all  In real life g-force "helps" the pilot pull more with less effort. But we have none of it in desktop simulators playing in 1 g environment.

By the way, you want precision in the sim, you can remove the spring completely and fly very accurately based on stick displacement only. You can't do that in a real aircraft that makes even meagre 2-3 g maneuvers, you won't be able to hold your hand still. The requirements of real environment are vastly different to the requirements of our simulators, even the hardcore motion platform sims can't fully replicate that.

6 hours ago, zerO_crash said:

For the same reason, a FBW aircraft, while technically capable of having a feather for a stick, will never have it, as the probability for the above is too big.

No one makes them requiring 30 kg force either. F-16 stick requires maximum 7,5 kg in roll 13,5 kg force in pitch (that's for the absolute max of 10.86g, requires less for 9g), Airbus stick requires 10 kg force in pitch, 2-3 kg in roll (it's assymetric). That's enough to avoid PIO and unwanted activation due to forces acting on the pilot in flight, without unnecessary workout.

Edited May 29, 2024 by some1

[MAXsenna]

6 hours ago, zerO_crash said:

You are comparing a 90hp car (VPforce) to a 400hp one (FFBeast), and claiming that both will do well in hilly terrain. Where the 90 will stay on red line, the 400 one will have plenty of excess force and not be strained at all. Do the math for yourself. 

Nope! A 10 liter 90HP truck won't strain at all compared to 2 liter 400HP rice cooker. Torque is the word you're looking for in this context.

[zerO_crash]

4 hours ago, Hiob said:

Yeah, not going into the nitty gritty of different opinions here and there, but the quoted part above is of course complete nonsense and quite the opposite of what really happens. First, putting max. strength into something absolutely 100% positively does NOT help with fine control. That‘s not how bio mechanics work. Second, PIO happens around the middle (aka the light part) of the control range anyway. Ever thought about helicopters, there are almost zero forces and real world pilots can fly them just fine without oscillation (most of the time).

We'll have to agree to disagree. Not sure why you got it from that helicopters have zero forces on their cyclics. Light helicopters like Robinson (under two tonns) will have lighter controls, but then they are operated often in a small range of movement. Anything bigger than that, and you are having heavy controls and a reason to trim. 
 

It seems you haven't explored enough biodynamics. Absolutely yes, the heavier the controls are, the more precision. Why? Because no matter how much you'd orherwise wiggle the controls unloaded, with weight on them, they act as a dampener.

[zerO_crash]

2 hours ago, some1 said:

True, helicopters require lots of precision yet they have the lightest controls, and the pilot can remove all centering with a press of the trim button on the stick, leaving only the damping in place.

Flight simmers often forget that flying aerobatics in a real aircraft is a very taxing physical task due to g-forces, and the controls have to be tailored accordingly. Your arm weights around 5% or your body, so, let's say 4kg. At 8g that's 32 kg, and a large portion of that is added to the force acting on the stick, even with zero muscle effort from the pilot. The stick has to be heavy enough to oppose that, through the strong centering, bobweights etc. The worst thing to happen is if the pilot pulls the stick, g-force increases, he inadvertently pulls more, g-force increases even more, and we end up in a positive feedback loop that can even result in pilot blackout and aircraft destruction.

Because of the above, the point where simulated force equals the real is not realistic at all  In real life g-force "helps" the pilot pull more with less effort. But we have none of it in desktop simulators playing in 1 g environment.

By the way, you want precision in the sim, you can remove the spring completely and fly very accurately based on stick displacement only. You can't do that in a real aircraft that makes even meagre 2-3 g maneuvers, you won't be able to hold your hand still. The requirements of real environment are vastly different to the requirements of our simulators, even the hardcore motion platform sims can't fully replicate that.

No one makes them requiring 30 kg force either. F-16 stick requires maximum 7,5 kg in roll 13,5 kg force in pitch (that's for the absolute max of 10.86g, requires less for 9g), Airbus stick requires 10 kg force in pitch, 2-3 kg in roll (it's assymetric). That's enough to avoid PIO and unwanted activation due to forces acting on the pilot in flight, without unnecessary workout.

 

Certain planes have a trim button as well (Russian), not only a hat. Still, the trimming is recommended as being done with repeated presses and only in stable flight, otherwise during any maneuvering, a pilot could very easily overcontrol. That becomes even more real as atmospheric conditions are taken into consideration. A wind-gust or turbulence, and you are gone. 
 

What I cannot agree with you on, is the statement that real weight (friction) of controls is inaccurate on a simulator, as IRL, he would be helped by the G-forces. I'm not exactly sure how you see this happen, but if anything, even during higher g-loads, you become heavier, sluggish, and have a harder time counteracting a further G-buildup. Take a basic maneuever in a helicopter such as reducing the airspeed. You pull the stick back, which initiates breaking (negative acceleration), making you feel pushed forward. That is the opposite force, than the one required on the cyclic, to reduce the airspeed. 
 

Having looked at it, it appears that civilian helicopters (x > 2000kg), have adjustable friction on the cyclic. Still, that is not representative of a military aircraft which have very much expanded flight envelopes in the first place. Not that you mentioned it, but it's typical sim-forums when members start talking about the day the tried a Robinson or some other piston piece of crap, not even remotely representative of a high performance aircraft (Hiob - looking at you). A pilot might want to have a lighter stick, but then no pilot, esp. military one is taught to perform hard maneuvering with trimmer pressed in (friction offloaded). That, is an accident waiting to happen.
 

Well, even in the sim. It might be that we have a different concept of what stable is (from any videos I've seen online, I consider most to be really poor flying - imprecise most of all. Granted, poor hardware.). Try to fly a highly maneuverable aircraft (Ka-50, MiG-29, etc...) at a optimal speed, where you have high excess power available and the airframe is in its aerodynamic optimal. You'll notice that micro-control will result in e.g. 3-5 degree pitch jumps.

 

Remember that the *35kg of force, is not a flat line, from the moment you move the cyclic. It is the maximum yield, for which you would have to deflect the cyclick very far (from trimmed position). Realistically, you are looking at something closer to 15-20kg maximum, before trimming. For precision (close to trimmed position), you are no higher than 1kg - 3kg, maybe 4kg. That is fully realistic on the machines we are flying in. 
 

2 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

Nope! A 10 liter 90HP truck won't strain at all compared to 2 liter 400HP rice cooker. Torque is the word you're looking for in this context.

I never mentioned "10 litre", nor "rice cooker". Any argument can be twisted around, but ultimately, I left the details out, stipulating same duty vehicles. If you want to assume that 90HP to be 10L, then by all means, consider the 400HP a 45L. Case still stands. The lower one will typically wear out quicker (countinf external factors as well).

 

I specifically mentioned hp, not torque, because as you know hp is the speed of an engine. I didn't mention heavy duty engines, common family type (sedan if you will). To alleviate lack of torque, you will have to up the RPM. That's my comparison, and completley valid at that.

Edited May 29, 2024 by zerO_crash

[some1]

1 hour ago, zerO_crash said:

Not sure why you got it from that helicopters have zero forces on their cyclics. Light helicopters like Robinson (under two tonns) will have lighter controls, but then they are operated often in a small range of movement. Anything bigger than that, and you are having heavy controls and a reason to trim. 

Maybe from here? https://www.reddit.com/r/Helicopters/comments/12d4lj9/question_about_force_trim/

Worth a read. There's even an UH-1 pilot there commenting that he flew OH58 and UH1 with force trim off most of the time, including manoeuvring.

27 minutes ago, zerO_crash said:

What I cannot agree with you on, is the statement that real weight (friction) of controls is inaccurate on a simulator, as IRL, he would be helped by the G-forces. I'm not exactly sure how you see this happen, but if anything, even during higher g-loads, you become heavier, sluggish, and have a harder time counteracting a further G-buildup. Take a basic maneuever in a helicopter such as reducing the airspeed.

Now imagine a fixed wing aircraft, not a helicopter. I've already wrote an example in the previous post. Also, I'm talking about the centering (spring) forces, especially peak forces when pulling high gs, not the relatively constant friction or damping, don't mix the two.

 

32 minutes ago, zerO_crash said:

Well, even in the sim. It might be that we have a different concept of what stable is (from any videos I've seen online, I consider most to be really poor flying - imprecise most of all. Granted, poor hardware.).Try to fly a highly maneuverable aircraft (Ka-50, MiG-29, etc...) at a optimal speed, where you have high excess power available and the airframe is in its aerodynamic optimal. You'll notice that micro-control will result in e.g. 3-5 degree pitch jumps.

The controls are displacement based, so the precision depends only on how small are the movements that you can make with the stick, not how much force you have to apply. Of course having some force resisting your inputs is better, building muscle memory and better feel of what the aircraft is doing. But you certainly don't need 10 kg+ forces to fly with precision in the simulator.

[zerO_crash]

5 hours ago, some1 said:

Maybe from here? https://www.reddit.com/r/Helicopters/comments/12d4lj9/question_about_force_trim/

Worth a read. There's even an UH-1 pilot there commenting that he flew OH58 and UH1 with force trim off most of the time, including manoeuvring.

Interesting. While the helicopters mentioned are generally light, except UH-1, it does raise the question why some pilots prefer such light controls. On bigger helicopters, and Russian, the forces (friction) is strong enough, such that pilots can let go of the controls completely, and let the AP fly the aircraft independantly. Also, during any kind of route leg turn, the cyclics/collectives, won't displace. 
 

I will admit that the topiccis more versed than we are making it sound. It is, for ecample, a know fact that in smaller helicopters (light), physical space constraint forces the pilot to practically curb his legs around the cyclic while using pedals. As such, the movement of a low-friction cyclic will be both reduced, as well as less of a problem - the controlling hand will be resting on the legs.

 

There surely are more points to this. I'd still argue though, that for general military use, higher forces (friction) are correct. (Reduce FFB for OH-58, Sa-342 or any other light, even UH-1H, if you will). Point is, with such setup, you can simulate just about anything. (FFB-strength in "Special Settings" acts then as a friction adjuster.)

 

5 hours ago, some1 said:

Now imagine a fixed wing aircraft, not a helicopter. I've already wrote an example in the previous post. Also, I'm talking about the centering (spring) forces, especially peak forces when pulling high gs, not the relatively constant friction or damping, don't mix the two.

There is no mixing. When talking about FFB, one talks about maximum potential force exertion. For units which can overheat, yhere is additionally sustained vs. temporary. As such, FFBeast at 35kg, does not mean that you will encounter that 35kg friction the moment you move the stick. You will encounter more, as you move away from the trimmed centre. In terms of fixed wing, FFBeast doesn't even do it just. There are aircraft which exceed 40kg of force, under high-G situations.

 

5 hours ago, some1 said:

The controls are displacement based, so the precision depends only on how small are the movements that you can make with the stick, not how much force you have to apply. Of course having some force resisting your inputs is better, building muscle memory and better feel of what the aircraft is doing. But you certainly don't need 10 kg+ forces to fly with precision in the simulator.

Right, and logically so. But then many movements will actually be imprecise. There is a reason why AP with dampening modes exist, much like FBW. What I'm saying, is that those imprecise movements, can either be filtered out by the dampening of AP, or by increasing the friction of the stick. The more friction, the less likely you are to perform PIO or unwanted inputs, simply because the dynamic of movement is slower. 

Edited May 29, 2024 by zerO_crash

[some1]

8 hours ago, zerO_crash said:

Still, that is not representative of a military aircraft which have very much expanded flight envelopes in the first place. Not that you mentioned it, but it's typical sim-forums when members start talking about the day the tried a Robinson or some other piston piece of crap, not even remotely representative of a high performance aircraft (Hiob - looking at you). A pilot might want to have a lighter stick, but then no pilot, esp. military one is taught to perform hard maneuvering with trimmer pressed in (friction offloaded). That, is an accident waiting to happen.

Just watched Kiowa startup video where Casmo explains that he never used force trim and most of the guys he knows didn't either. They only turned it on when on the ground, to prevent the cyclic from accidentally moving around. Turns out you can fly in combat with a cyclic that is "wet noodle" (his words).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-hITMf5FxI&t=618s

1 hour ago, zerO_crash said:

There is no mixing. When talking about FFB, one talks about maximum potential force exertion. For units which can overheat, yhere is additionally sustained vs. temporary. As such, FFBeast at 35kg, does not mean that you will encounter that 35kg friction the moment you move the stick. You will encounter more, as you move away from the trimmed centre.

Spring, friction, damper, inertia are different kinds of force feedback effects that you can implement using electric motors with directX API. All work within the budget allowed by your stick motors, but differently. Trim effects are implemented with spring, not friction. Dampening and friction are two different things. Weight is not friction, etc. You use these words interchangeably.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/windows/desktop/ee416335(v=vs.85)

Edited May 29, 2024 by some1

[zerO_crash]

7 minutes ago, some1 said:

Just watched Kiowa startup video where Casmo explains that he never used force trim and most of the guys he knows didn't either. They only turned it on when on the ground, to prevent the cyclic from accidentally moving around. Turns out you can fly in combat with a cyclic that is "wet noodle" (his words).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-hITMf5FxI&t=618s

Interesting, I'll take a look

 

8 minutes ago, some1 said:

Spring, friction, damper, inertia are different kinds of force feedback effects that you can implement using electric motors with directX API. All work within the budget allowed by your stick motors, but differently. Trim effects are implemented with spring, not friction. Dampening and friction are two different things. Weight is not friction, etc. You use these words interchangeably.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/windows/desktop/ee416335(v=vs.85)

Yeah, I'm not using MS FFB nomenclature:

 

"DirectInput defines the following types of condition effects:"

 

It's their specific professional language (programming of FFB). I use them based on common definition. To give an example of the differences; in helicopters which apparently have adjustable cyclic/collective "friction", what you actually adjust, are "spring" forces (according to MS/DirectInput). I don't use their nomenclature, because we often touch on IRL situations on these forums, where these terms are defined more commonly. Otherwise misunderstandings can often occur.
 

 

To specify; According to MS/DirectInput, I'm talking specifically about spring forces. That's really what is preventing the stick from falling to either side, regardless of the other effects. It just seems that it's not as one sided, and obviously depends on type (aircraft), but pilot preference. It's somewhat funny though, because I've seen manuals discuss the problematic of using force trim (disabling all forces on the stick/cyclic for as long as it is held), and that in different regimes of flight. For example in Russian VVS/Army, pressing and holding trimmer is recommended against, on the grounds that it introduces at best a minimum amount of PIO. I've seen the same in the Apache manual (available officially), if I recall correct.

 

Finally, observing different cockpit videos IRL, I've seen a majority show a pilot use force on cylic (you can judge it from posture), rather than afree floating one. (Saw once a UH-1 pilot who showed how the stick would fall to either side, if not held firmly.)

 

In a sense, a good FFB stick allows to test this and make onservations for oneself.

[MAXsenna]

I never mentioned "10 litre", nor "rice cooker". Any argument can be twisted around, but ultimately, I left the details out, stipulating same duty vehicles. If you want to assume that 90HP to be 10L, then by all means, consider the 400HP a 45L. Case still stands. The lower one will typically wear out quicker (countinf external factors as well).
 
I specifically mentioned hp, not torque, because as you know hp is the speed of an engine. I didn't mention heavy duty engines, common family type (sedan if you will). To alleviate lack of torque, you will have to up the RPM. That's my comparison, and completley valid at that.

Apologies! I was not trying to twist your words, I was just pointing out, because you advocate for stronger motors, that you can actually have a larger stronger engine with LESS horsepower than a smaller weaker engine. See now?
Also Revolutions Per Minute is the speed of an engine. Horesepower is work over distance/time or something like that. Torque times RPM in any case.
Cheers!

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[zerO_crash]

24 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

Apologies! I was not trying to twist your words, I was just pointing out, because you advocate for stronger motors, that you can actually have a larger stronger engine with LESS horsepower than a smaller weaker engine. See now?
Also Revolutions Per Minute is the speed of an engine. Horesepower is work over distance/time or something like that. Torque times RPM in any case.
Cheers!

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk
 

Don't worry, we're good Iknow what you meant, but that would not work as an argument for my point, quite the opposite. Again, the topic of automotion isn't flat, there are many nuances, especially to engines. 
 

RPM is the rotational speed of the engine, in pure dynamics.

 

Horsepower, is the amount of work done in a certain amount of time. The two basic formulas are for rotational motion, and linear motion. In other words, horsepower tells you something about how quickly an engine can do a given job (hence the unit of measure -> foot-pound-second (fps or ft-lb/s)).

 

What I'm saying is, even if certain aircraft (helicopters and planes alike) have/allow little friction (spring force per MS/DirectInput) on their controls, the majority, esp. military, really do have a fair amount of weight to them. With a strong FFB base, you have the option to simulate just about any system. It also gives options for chosing length of the stick, without the fear of insufficient friction. There is virtually no argument against going for a stronger base, even if you were to lower the FFB strength in the "Special Options" of individual modules. It's a win-win, considering price parity (approx.) between FFBeast and FFRhino.

[MAXsenna]

Don't worry, we're good Iknow what you meant, but that would not work as an argument for my point, quite the opposite. Again, the topic of automotion isn't flat, there are many nuances, especially to engines. 
 
RPM is the rotational speed of the engine, in pure dynamics.
 
Horsepower, is the amount of work done in a certain amount of time. The two basic formulas are for rotational motion, and linear motion. In other words, horsepower tells you something about how quickly an engine can do a given job (hence the unit of measure -> foot-pound-second (fps or ft-lb/s)).
 
What I'm saying is, even if certain aircraft (helicopters and planes alike) have/allow little friction (spring force per MS/DirectInput) on their controls, the majority, esp. military, really do have a fair amount of weight to them. With a strong FFB base, you have the option to simulate just about any system. It also gives options for chosing length of the stick, without the fear of insufficient friction. There is virtually no argument against going for a stronger base, even if you were to lower the FFB strength in the "Special Options" of individual modules. It's a win-win, considering price parity (approx.) between FFBeast and FFRhino.

Absolutely!

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[shwed]

Spring, friction, damper, inertia - on FFBeast, all this is flexibly configured in the software, and the large force gives a large range of settings for different aircraft.

[Mikestriken]

On 5/28/2024 at 9:18 PM, zerO_crash said:

Let me help the community in understanding a couple of things:

 

- With regards to general control of the aircraft, more force is better, until the point where simulated equals the real. The very simple reason for that, is that one of the ways to achieve precisiom in control, is to make controls heavy. Thay's what's being done IRL by aircraft makers, and that's what makes sense in practical applications. If you think for a second about all the bumps, PIO, +++ - they are a function of too light controls. For the same reason, a FBW aircraft, while technically capable of having a feather for a stick, will never have it, as the probability for the above is too big. Therefore, more power (up to the level of IRL specific aircraft design), is perfect, because it increases your overall precision at the cost of more energy spent on operating the aircraft. As someone with Brunner, I can tell you in this case that FFBeast is the most logical choice for those lacking the big bucks to go Brunner CLS-P (even stronger, but well above the budget of you all put together, trust me).

 

- While physics doesn't lie, it seems that many have deficit in it as well. The thermal capacity of a coolor, is in big part affected by its size and mass. Heating up 20g of copper, vs. 1kg copper block, is a major difference. That is, not considering the 1kg block having more surface to cool down, as well as temperature falling/increasing exponentially either above or below room temperature. It isn't even a discussion about effect (electric) over prolonged time - the bigger block will have a greater ability to cool itself down, meaning it will dissipate heat faster than it stores. Putting this knowledge to practice, means that strong electric motors, will have more efficient coolers (even though using more electric power), and often be used less at extremes, due to the forces that need to be overcome - if you haven't learned to trim before, you will learn now. Additionally, a higher-end product is generally industrial-grade, meaning it has to sustain loads on common basis. It's built for it.

 

Whether you were to limit the maximum strength of the FFBeast to the VPforce-levels, or simply understood why more is better in this regard, and therefore used the force that FFBeast provides dorsn't matter. At a physical level, FFBeast is made to tollerate more. The fact that it doesn't have any need for temperature protection (much like the Brunner CLS-P), speaks for itself. Explained in simple terms: You are comparing a 90hp car (VPforce) to a 400hp one (FFBeast), and claiming that both will do well in hilly terrain. Where the 90 will stay on red line, the 400 one will have plenty of excess force and not be strained at all. Do the math for yourself. 

 

Therefore, it makes all the sense to go for stronger, and more solidly built. Price being close to equal, there is no competition whatsoever. 

 

I don't think anyone is saying that not having more torque is better. The main thing is the software. If the VPForce software simulates more things than the FFBeast software, then there is something to be said about VPForce being competitive. Now ideally one could buy the FFBeast and figure out how to get it to play well with the VPForce software.

[shwed]

or do the opposite? the functionality of FFBeast is the same, and the interface is more friendly

[markturner1960]

Well I have 2 VPForce Rhinos, one in each sim pit (Jet & Helo) and use each for at least 2 or more hours a day and have never had any kind of issues with either of them. Walmis will tell you they have been exhaustively tested. I had a brunner before and after a session of hard use it cut out due to heat overload, fans going mad......Never had such issues with the Rhino. 

Of course, you can never have too much horsepower/torque etc.....but I would really question the implication that the VPForce Rhino does not have enough.....I think thats plain wrong....

Oh and the Telem FFB effects software is super easy to use and intuitve. I will admit the number of combinations of effects and sliders in the main config software can be overwhelming, but the default config pretty much nails it, you only need minor tweaking from there.....

Edited June 17, 2024 by markturner1960

[Teh-Stig]

On 5/17/2024 at 9:19 PM, Hiob said:

One piece of thought for people that are thinking about getting either one, is the amount and way of individual modding/tuning the devices.

For me, who is fond of 3D-printing, the Rhino is more accessible. Building it even gave me ideas for a FFB conversion of my MFG pedals. Things like that would be much harder for me to do in wood or metal.

That could be the other way round for people that have metal workshop equipment of course. 

Either way. Even people who are not planning to do any DIY should be aware, that FFB requires some tinkering - at least you need to setup your profiles.

Ability to modify and tweak the design is why I ultimately went with FFBeast.  I liked the fact it used standard motors and encoders.

The Rhino being locked to specific motors and tuned controller killed Rhino for me.  Also probably makes Beast more mass producible.

[Lt_Dan1984]

I got my rhino the other day and it’s very strong I’ve had the stick ripped from my hand a few times and I’m only at 50% 
 But if you also want it to smash your  desk in half aswell go FFbeast

Edited July 28, 2024 by Lt_Dan1984

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

13 hours ago, Lt_Dan1984 said:

I’ve had the stick ripped from my hand a few times

Are you using an extension?

[Lt_Dan1984]

17 hours ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

Are you using an extension?

No only using grip on top of base no need for extension have tried it with my 200mm and it’s still fine but to long for my set up 

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

32 minutes ago, Lt_Dan1984 said:

No only using grip on top of base no need for extension have tried it with my 200mm and it’s still fine but to long for my set up 

Yes the base already has a “built-in” extension, and combined with say a CM2 grip it may not be needed.

I ordered a 11 degree throw limiter nonetheless so I can test including my extension and see what works best.