F-18 grip, WARTHOG compatible

[Bushmanni]

...More to say, with separated axis - you will got noticeable "bump" while traveling in one axis through zero point of the other. Not really the thing I'd like to have while ganzo dogfight.

...

 

A small bump is not a problem. For example F/A-18C has it. It so small though that you only barely notice it so it doesn't have any effect on precision in the center. I would actually prefer having it as then I can tell precisely when I'm commanding zero roll with feel alone which is important when maneuvering at the edge of the envelope. On the other hand having separated axes doesn't mean you have a bump at the center, only that the forward-aft force gradient and left-right force gradient are independent. If the force gradient doesn't have a bump you wont have it.

[Necroscope]

This one is easy :)

If you move the stick in a real plane (in flight) it won't return to center? It will.

And elevator/aileron cables/servos are not separated and don't require different amount of force to operate? They are and they do.

 

In flight - yes and yes. But no noticeable bump, or stick-on-rails feel, just natural "no force" area. And this area (and stick neutral point) is dynamically depends on speed and trim position. As well as required force to move the stick.

Cables are separated indeed, but there no feel of separation.

 

I spend few hours thinking on your concept last night and I think that main misconception here is in "need of player to fly according force applied to stick".

In IRL you flying according response of the airplane itself. More to say main point on airplane control is not "how hard I push the stick" but "how far I push the stick". In this situation force on the stick is just advise for you how far you can push in given conditions.

No matter if TM spring or modded springs used - this just simulate only one particular conditions for particular plane. Hence - no "force advise" for pilot.

 

All that can be solved by FFB on some degree.

 

And just as idea - you wrote that TM's spring has linear force response and this is not OK. Modded spring with progressive winding can change force-response-curve significantly. Will not solve X+Y combined force "issue" but still.

[hegykc]

You are misunderstanding everything I write, probably due to language barrier.

 

But no noticeable bump, or stick-on-rails feel, just natural "no force" area.

 

This is exactly how the spring mod feels.

 

There is absolutely no bumb whatsoever in this spring mod. Why would you presume there is? 2 tensioned springs acting against each other have no center bump. This is not my opinion, this is fact. However much you think there is some magical "bump", there isn't. This is your presumption, and it's completely wrong.

 

Force is absolutely linear and the linearity cannot be changed, only strength. Whatever strength you set, that force is always linear. This is basic spring physics and design, not my choice. Couldn't change it even if I wanted to.

 

Aircraft pitch and roll inputs are separated. Both in "feel" and in actual mechanics of the systems. I don't know how else to explain it. It takes X amount of force to apply roll, and it takes a different Y amount of force to apply pitch. That is the very definition of separation, it's different forces for each axis, different = separated = not the same. You cannot pull pitch and suddenly the stick becomes limp in left/right input, that is the case in stock warthog and it's completely wrong, and it's completely ruining precision.

 

You are fighting windmills here, Necroscope. The issues you bring up do not exist. You are just misinterpreting everything I write.

 

you wrote that TM's spring has linear force response and this is not OK.

 

Modded spring with progressive winding can change force-response-curve significantly.

 

Completely wrong on the first one. I did not write that.

- force should be linear, TM is NOT completely linear because when you engage one axis, the other is completely limp, it takes zero extra force to actuate it. Now someone's gonna say "no I don't feel it, feels ok to me". I don't care. Maybe I feel it's ok too?? Same way I feel my Peugeot is better than any Mercedes, am I right?? What we "feel" and what we "think" is irrelevant. Physics is fact, and physics of the TM mechanism says after one axis is engaged, it takes zero extra force to engage second axis in the same amount. And physics of a real airplane says that TM feels completely wrong. I will make it half-right.

 

Completely wrong on the second one.

-spring force is always linear no matter how much pre-tension you apply, always linear.

Edited August 4, 2016 by hegykc

[Necroscope]

I'm still on your side, pal. :)

Ok, whatever lead to this discussion - let's stop this for a while and just wait for actual results.

 

Here is what I mean under progressive springs: http://www.sl113.org/forums/uploaded/longtooth/200841753521_ProgressiveChart.JPG

[hreich]

Hegykc...nice to see my fellow countryman started developing something sim related (beside Milan - MFG crosswind)...Just go for it..and i will probably order your trackir alternative and this spring-mod)..

 

Sent from my SM-A500FU using Tapatalk

[hegykc]

I'm still on your side, pal. :)

Ok, whatever lead to this discussion - let's stop this for a while and just wait for actual results.

 

Here is what I mean under progressive springs: http://www.sl113.org/forums/uploaded/longtooth/200841753521_ProgressiveChart.JPG

 

I'm not offended, not at all. I don't mind debating if I can get axis separation, or how much separation. And explaining how.

 

I'm just telling you, you're going against fact here. I can't argue if there should be any axis separation, because on the real aircraft, there just is.

Save

[mrwell]

Would you be so kind of letting Hegykc alone so he could work on those fantastic project?

When done, we'll test them and we'll see...

Cheers!

[VO101_MMaister]

This debate is pretty much a beating a dead horse and i can`t resist to clear some air here.

 

1. In real ac the ailerons and elevators are mechanically separated.

2. You won`t really notice that while you move the stick around at cruising speed and moderate maneuvering. I can`t tell about acrobatic flying because I don`t do that.

3. The aileron is always lighter (by ca 50%) because of ergonomical reasons and not because it makes your flight more precise. These ergonomical reasons have no point at the low force loads of a pc jpystick.

4. Even if you make the separation perfect and the aileron axis lighter on a pc joystick it won`t help you to fly more precisely or to pull an unwanted roll into a pitch up unless you have a center detent on both axis which is again totally unrealistic. Just think it thru. When you pull hard it is actually more difficult to roll unintended with a non separated stick because the necessary force to move the stick sideways is higher than with a separated stick where the roll axis spring is unloaded in this situation.

 

5. So if you can`t fly precisely in a sim it is not because your axis are not separated but because you have not practiced enough. Axis separation won`t help you!

 

6. In a real flying you feel and correct the aircraft`s movement with your bottom which is 1000 times easier than using your eyes on a screen only.

Edited August 4, 2016 by VO101_MMaister

[hegykc]

:) :)

 

Before you dive into my explanations, or I mess up another explanation attempt, just focus on this:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you can't figure out what I'm talking about, it's this simple:

VKB Mamba gimbal is great. Warthog gimbal is 0% like VKB Mamba's. I will make it 30% like VKB mamba.

That's it. Forget about all this separation mambo jumbo.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

The below is another hard to understand explanation, because it's not easily explained in words.

3. The aileron is always lighter (by ca 50%) because of ergonomical reasons and not because it makes your flight more precise. These ergonomical reasons have no point at the low force loads of a pc jpystick.

Again, wrongly interpreting what I said, or just making assumptions on my behalf. In a stock warthog, aileron is 100% lighter once pitch is engaged. It requires ZERO extra force to engage. Coupled with sticktion, the grip snaps into over-corected position instead of smooth and gradual movement. My reasons for this mod have nothing to do with the reasons you mentioned. Go regularly fly something like War Thunder (because of all the constant aiming and action) with stock Warthog, against someone with VKB Mamba, he will eat you alive just on the stick precision alone.

 

4. Even if you make the separation perfect and the aileron axis lighter on a pc joystick it won`t help you to fly more precisely or to pull an unwanted roll into a pitch up unless you have a center detent on both axis which is again totally unrealistic. Just think it thru. When you pull hard it is actually more difficult to roll unintended with a non separated stick because the necessary force to move the stick sideways is higher than with a separated stick where the roll axis spring is unloaded in this situation.

 

Again, totally miss-matching these terms I made up, "separated" and "un-separated". Forget about those. What you said above is what I'm trying to do! Warthog has ZERO necessary force to move the stick sideways once pitch is engaged. In an A-10 you don't notice, but in a dogfight you have both axis engaged 99% of time, and that's why A-10 simmers don't mind warthog mechanism, and dogfighters hate it.

 

5. So if you can`t fly precisely in a sim it is not because your axis are not separated but because you have not practiced enough. Axis separation won`t help you!.

 

You have completely misunderstood me. Let me try to make it more clear. Un-hook the roll axis on a VKB maba. Congratulations! You jut got a Warthog mechanism! Now try to fly with that. Can anyone understand me? :D Warthog has zero extra fore for aileron once pitch is engaged, and vice versa. Pull 50% pitch up and hold, now move the stick sideways... it's limp and sticky, the worst combination! That's the whole problem.

 

And I don't mind explaining. It needs to be explained if you're not expecting it. You might get the mod and say it's all the same to me. This mod puts forces on both axis, at all times, in all combinations of movements. If you fly exclusively modern jets, you never encountered this problem, and you might not need a solution.

Save

Edited August 4, 2016 by hegykc

[Bearfoot]

:) :)

 

In a stock warthog, aileron is 100% lighter once pitch is engaged. It requires ZERO extra force to engage. Coupled with sticktion, the grip snaps into over-corected position instead of smooth and gradual movement.

 

Warthog has ZERO necessary force to move the stick sideways once pitch is engaged.

 

Warthog has zero extra fore for aileron once pitch is engaged, and vice versa. Pull 50% pitch up and hold, now move the stick sideways... it's limp and sticky, the worst combination! That's the whole problem.

 

 

I have never touched a stick of any aircraft in real life, but as an independent and impartial observer, I can confirm all of the above ...

 

I have TMWH with 20cm extension.

 

I just tried:

 

(a) 100% stick aft; then 100% stick right.

 

(b) 0% stick fore/aft; then 100% stick right

 

The difference is night and day. Clear and clear can be, (a) requires much less force than (b), to the point that (a) feels limp and sloppy, where there is nice dampening resistance in (b).

[Svend_Dellepude]

Not so much talk hegykc.Just get that spring mod ready to ship! :D

[RAZBAM_ELMO]

I have never touched a stick of any aircraft in real life, but as an independent and impartial observer, I can confirm all of the above ...

 

I have TMWH with 20cm extension.

 

I just tried:

 

(a) 100% stick aft; then 100% stick right.

 

(b) 0% stick fore/aft; then 100% stick right

 

The difference is night and day. Clear and clear can be, (a) requires much less force than (b), to the point that (a) feels limp and sloppy, where there is nice dampening resistance in (b).

 

yeah i have a 20cm extension as well and that bump is next to nill, its barely there to make sure i know where center is.

[VO101_MMaister]

:) :)

 

 

You have completely misunderstood me. Let me try to make it more clear. Un-hook the roll axis on a VKB maba. Congratulations! You jut got a Warthog mechanism! Now try to fly with that. Can anyone understand me? :D Warthog has zero extra fore for aileron once pitch is engaged, and vice versa. Pull 50% pitch up and hold, now move the stick sideways... it's limp and sticky, the worst combination! That's the whole problem.

Save

 

My comment was not about your mod vs the stock Warthog.

I don`t own a Warthog so I cannot comment on its carachter.

And I am not here to criticize your mod, because it actually looks smart and for 30 bucks it is a bargain especially if you deliver with dampers, because that makes a huge difference.

 

My intention was to chill this hype around separated axis, because it wont make your flying better. I still own and I had used for almost 10 years an evenstrain modded TM cougar which had 0% load separation on its 2 axis but it was 100 times more precise than a stock cougar which had 100%!

[hegykc]

I don`t own a Warthog so I cannot comment on its carachter.

 

My intention was to chill this hype around separated axis, because it wont make your flying better. I still own and I had used for almost 10 years an evenstrain modded TM cougar which had 0% load separation on its 2 axis but it was 100 times more precise than a stock cougar which had 100%!

 

HAHA are you kidding me??? :megalol: :megalol: :megalol:

That is the SAME setup I made for the warthog!!

I just googled it. How do you not see that :) I have the same 4 springs in a circular arrangement, that's an evenstrain Warthog mod. It will give the same results as your TM cougar mod!

I told you, you are completely misunderstanding what I write. BOTH these mods HAVE axis separation, stock warthog DOESN'T.

 

 

These mods ALWAYS have SEPARATE forces (=SEPARATION) for pitch and roll! (2 separate sets of springs)

Stock warthog has THE SAME (=NO SEPARATION) force for pitch and roll! (1 spring)

Since you don't own a Warthog, let me show you how a stock warthog feels: UNHOOK 2 of your "evenstrain mod" springs, that's it. You are now flying with a warthog mechanism. Is it good?? (it's a bit more complicated than that, but to explain my point, that's it.)

This is our debate in a nutshell:

Me: "The sky is blue!"

You: "The sky is not green!"

You are misinterpreting everything I say, and then using that completely false argument to prove your point :) What I did with this mod, is exactly what you want. You are just using completely made up/false points (due to my poor explanations) to argue "against" it.

Save

Edited August 5, 2016 by hegykc

[VO101_MMaister]

OK, I didn`t get what is so wrong with the warthog or what do you call unseparated axis load. Now from this graph I get it. It looks odd indeed.

 

I am completely aware of that the Cougar gimbal I used have the same spring setup as yours. Balancing all the four spings all the time is what I call unseparated. The stick I use today is truely separated and this feature itself doesn`t make the flying easier. That was my point.

 

MM

[hegykc]

The stick I use today is truely separated and this feature itself doesn`t make the flying easier. That was my point.MM

 

Yeah but you are now comparing separated axis vs separated axis :D to make a point. Because you went from spring mod to dual cam, that's separated axis to separated axis. That's why it doesn't make the flying easier, because nothing changed in terms of axis separation. You had it before, you have it now. I dare you to try a stock warthog :) You will change your point completely.

 

Axis separation means just what the word implies, separate forces for each axis. This forces can absolutely be the same strength (10 Newtons in my example above), but it needs to be 2 x 10N, 10N for pitch, and another 10N for roll. And you have that in any spring arrangement acting against each other, and in any dual gimbal/cam system. But in a stock warthog there is only one spring, so 10N of force all together. And if you use that 10N for 100% pitch up, guess what? You have zero Newtons left for roll, and vice versa. And that makes the stick limp and sloppy when you need it the most, in most critical situations. With the sticktion on top of the limp stick, stock warthog is garbage for dogfighting on the edge of the envelope, in WWII plane. Anyone claiming different has either not tried a 4 spring or dual gimbal system, flies only jets regularly, or is just not interested in getting the absolute best in a plane, and is flying completely casually.

 

Both circular arrangement springs and dual gimbals have axis separation. Dual gimbals more so then the springs mod.And if you compare either of them to a stock warthog, the difference in precision and "flight skills" is night and day. Drastic improvement.

 

Dual gimbals is even better than this spring mod, if you want to fly as close to reality as possible. It's better in the amount of axis separation, and in how realistic it represents real aircraft controls. And it definitely improves your flying skills compared to stock warthog, without a trace of a doubt.

Save

Edited August 5, 2016 by hegykc

[98abaile]

I get what both sides are saying, but the fact remains, as someone in the market for a new joystick, I want one with separate axis and progressive cams, realism be damned.

 

The reason is simple:

When using the warthog: When I command 50% right stick, I have to exert a fixed amount of force. If I then add aft stick in addition, the force required to keep 50% right stick goes up (equally, the force required to command aft stick in this instance is higher than without the right stick input). The force required to command an input on one axis should not be affected by the input of the other axis.

Edited August 5, 2016 by 98abaile

[aaron886]

You're fanning the flames of confusion, 98abaile. Nobody is disagreeing with that, just the opposite.

[kolga]

Even though I don't own a warthog I am really excited for all your projects!

 

P.S. How do you pronounce your name?

[Mickey_Techy]

 

P.S. How do you pronounce your name?

 

LOL, good question?

 

For years, I have wondered about that also, but never got around to ask :)

[hegykc]

While I do final testing, force simulation, and wait for my custom springs to be done. I'm prototyping panel design, and panel manufacturing methods. These are going to be cut next week:

They're for B-17. Front switch panel, electrical panel and C-1 autopilot panel. A2A makes an incredible B-17 simulator for FSX, and fsx always had built in controller and instrument support, like DCS-bios, to be interfaced with arduinos and servo/stepper motors. So I need to send some panels for people to test code on, for the civil aviation stuff. If we ever get a DCS B-17, I'll be ready :D

 

On the electrical panel (the big one with instruments) you can see "name plates" under each switch. These replicate metal name plates, with "brushed aluminum" lettering on matt black surface. They're found on most military products and that will be the case with my replicas.

 

All this panel replicating helps me in designing generic panels and button/switch boxes to go along with my own throttle and stick base, and as standalone products. It helps design labels and markings, choose switches and knobs etc. Because I don't want some toy-ish looking thing or randomly placed switches. Even if "generic" in nature, it needs to look badass, and be the cheapest switch box on the market by factor of 2 at least.

 

Head tracking unit is still a priority after the spring mod.

 

When using the warthog: When I command 50% right stick, I have to exert a fixed amount of force. If I then add aft stick in addition, the force required to keep 50% right stick goes up (equally, the force required to command aft stick in this instance is higher than without the right stick input). The force required to command an input on one axis should not be affected by the input of the other axis.

 

This is not the case in stock warthog. Well, it is but the effect of extra force needed is minuscule due to design, not enough to prevent non intentional inputs, and not enough to prevent over-correcting. And the only thing that can further worsen these bad side effects, is sticktion. And what do you know, warthog has it :)

 

In a real aircraft, the combined force of 50% pitch, and 50% roll is always going to be bigger then each one of them alone. In any airplane, prop or jet, old or new. This is just basic physics and force vector addition. This "realism" that I'm trying to design into the stock warthog, will actually result in better, smoother and more precise "gaming" experience even in arcade flying shooters like War Thunder.

 

If you think stock warthog has "uniform" force requirements throughout it's range of motion, it doesn't. Even if you don't care for realism, or don't want realistic, this spring mod will be a better experience. Even if you fly arcade shooters. Because you'll be able to choose different setups on the same spring mod. The mod just makes it much smoother and precise. Then if you want more realism, you can put different springs, and different attachment points, and you can have 1: 1.5 : 2 ratio for roll : pitch up : pitch down. If not, you can have "uniform" forces all around for your arcade flying.

 

P.S. How do you pronounce your name?

 

My name is Hrvoje. Pronounciation is something like "Hrvo - yeah". Nickname is Hegy and that one is easier, just "Hegy" with the "G" like in "ghost". "kc" is my city code.

Save

Edited August 6, 2016 by hegykc

[hansangb]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I hope you make a ton of money!

 

BTW, those B17 boxes, I see some holes on the side. Are they meant to be connected together?

[Warthog_Farmer]

Let me start by saying I love all of your work and I am really hoping to buy a couple of your products.

 

However... When it comes to B17 panels... I am a little confused. It's quite the talent you have being able to create these things and, if they are for personal consumption, that is fantastic. But if they are for selling and turning a profit I can't see a B17 cockpit selling in anywhere near the same numbers as, say, a DCS compatible P51, A10C, Ka50 etc... panel.

 

Either way - amazing job and I really hope some of these products come to fruition!

[kolga]

 

My name is Hrvoje. Pronounciation is something like "Hrvo - yeah". Nickname is Hegy and that one is easier, just "Hegy" with the "G" like in "ghost". "kc" is my city code.

Save

 

Thanks, those panels look amazing!

[Sporg]

However... When it comes to B17 panels... I am a little confused. It's quite the talent you have being able to create these things and, if they are for personal consumption, that is fantastic. But if they are for selling and turning a profit I can't see a B17 cockpit selling in anywhere near the same numbers as, say, a DCS compatible P51, A10C, Ka50 etc... panel.

Hehe, consider that there are other simulators out there, with a huge audience. ;)

And like hegykc said, they are used to interfacing control panels with the simulator.

 

So I think it is a fairly sound decision he made, and if we get lucky with a B-17 here, then we too can use it some day. :)

 

(Actually, a DCS Lancaster is planned/hoped for in the very long run, these panels might be useful there as well. ;) )