They threatened to dox someone I know who was pointing out said flaws
They threatened to dox someone I know who was pointing out said flaws
JBeing mean to your customers who can't possibly know why things aren't being fixed or are delayed because you don't tell them (eventually did, health issues with 1 key employee etc.) isn't a good look imo
Jopinions on the dev aside, "supposedly" FFB is included in the OH-58
JIf the new FM for the Gaz makes FFB enjoyable to use I'll definitely pick up the module 
V:package: 
RHINO #0112 Has Shipped!
RHINO #0112 Has Shipped!
AClassy!
BWhy is there so many devs in the flight sim community who thinks taking customer management tips from Derek Smart was a good idea 
(And if you catch that reference you a deserve a prize)
(And if you catch that reference you a deserve a prize)
AI guess I'm a rather prejudiced and not very open minded person, but I'm not holding my breath in excitement waiting for the '58
Aat least derek knew how to advertize his product
BIt's an instant.
"Trial when available with no intention to buy" for me
"Trial when available with no intention to buy" for me
APretty much yeah
AEven if they knock the Gazelle and the Kiowa out of the park, I’m not getting it
AThere’s a limit to the lies, rudeness and sheer incompetence
NAs I started thinking about the design, the direct gear drive was one of my primary concerns. It's how it is in my currently in my production collective, however the main gear is just driving a smaller gear attached to a rotary damper which contains the magnet being read for the axis.
The precision is fine, but you can "feel" the gears through the handle. A lot of that though is because the geometry isn't quite perfect. The main parts on that unit are all referenced from imports from the original design. Which I found out as I set out to build the FFB design, are every so slightly off.
I sat and looked at my current design for a good while, thinking about how I could incorporate a pully driven system, but couldn't think of a good way without making the whole contraption significantly larger, or more complex.
But that was before I ended up just re-designing all the parts, as opposed to modifying and referencing my existing design. Now that I am looking at this again after reading your comment, I think this might be possible...
The precision is fine, but you can "feel" the gears through the handle. A lot of that though is because the geometry isn't quite perfect. The main parts on that unit are all referenced from imports from the original design. Which I found out as I set out to build the FFB design, are every so slightly off.
I sat and looked at my current design for a good while, thinking about how I could incorporate a pully driven system, but couldn't think of a good way without making the whole contraption significantly larger, or more complex.
But that was before I ended up just re-designing all the parts, as opposed to modifying and referencing my existing design. Now that I am looking at this again after reading your comment, I think this might be possible...
JI got a reply from polychop yesterday that Forcefeedback wasn't enabled. But the next major update(June?) it will be available. So we'll see what the new flight model has in store.
NThis might work... now I just have to figure out how to design the gears and adjust the positions to work with a timing belt...
BPolychop (and a few other devs), didn't have access to a ffb stick and it's not baked into DCS as you'd think. That's why it doesn't work. Since there's a new FM coder and he just got a ffb, it's being added while he reworks everything.
NCan anyone offer any advice on pulley design/positioning with HTD 5 belts?
I found a nice parametric pulley design project for 'Inventor' (30 day free trial FTW) that makes it easy to spit out HDT 5mm pulleys of any tooth count, and tells you the PD of the completed pulley (also found one for Openscad). So, its easy enough to model the corresponding PD circles in Fusion at a given distance from each other, draw the tangent lines and measure the path length.
Question I have is, How near to spot-on does the "path around the pitch diameters" need to be to the advertised length of the belt in order to achieve the proper tension? As close to spot-on as possible without being under? A little bit longer to increase tension? How much longer?
Hoping someone who's been through this with their DIY kits can chime in
I found a nice parametric pulley design project for 'Inventor' (30 day free trial FTW) that makes it easy to spit out HDT 5mm pulleys of any tooth count, and tells you the PD of the completed pulley (also found one for Openscad). So, its easy enough to model the corresponding PD circles in Fusion at a given distance from each other, draw the tangent lines and measure the path length.
Question I have is, How near to spot-on does the "path around the pitch diameters" need to be to the advertised length of the belt in order to achieve the proper tension? As close to spot-on as possible without being under? A little bit longer to increase tension? How much longer?
Hoping someone who's been through this with their DIY kits can chime in
C@_gunzablazin I use Creo and started by sketching my drive system. I set the perimeter to be fixed at 450mm and allowed Creo to control a variable to make my geometry work, in this case the lateral distance of my driving pulley from the centreline. I used the nominal pulley diameters. I provided slotted holes centred on nominal position of the small pulley to allow installation and tensioning. Not much tension is required. The belts will not stretch under hand loads or the really small loads that this system generated.
CYou can see the computer variable dimension here, didn't realise it was obscured on the other image
CSlotted holes centres on the nominal position.
CFollowing installation, the drive motor sits exactly where I designed it to sit, in the middle of the slot.
NThanks a ton! Sounds like I am more or less on the right path, just using a more simplistic approach with more simplistic tools. I imagine that's probably something you could do in Autodesk Inventor, but I probably don't have time to learn it well enough in my 30 day trial..lol.
My approach thus far, trying to nail a belt length has been something like this... If I go with the slotted mounting hole approach, it makes it a lot easier...
My approach thus far, trying to nail a belt length has been something like this... If I go with the slotted mounting hole approach, it makes it a lot easier...
CYou will mainly need the slots to get the belt on. To calculate your perimeter there is an equation in the gates handbook from memory. They also have a free app called design power which will do it for you.
TI’m going to fasten my belt with screws, in the large pulley. That way I can just cut the belt at the nearest “cog”. The large pulley doesn’t rotate more than +/- 20-30° anyway.
NThats definitely an option, and probably a lot easier than sourcing a specific, potentially obscure length closed loop belt. I've seen 350mm belts as low as $3 and a 355mm belt was $12 from the same seller..
C@t_oll @_gunzablazin I suggest designing for the belt size you want or can get. Htd5 15mm belts are available here in Australia for not much and start at about 180mm length and go up in 5-10mm increments. Depending on the belt they have steel or fibre reinforcements. Once you drill them the belt probably wouldn't last long due to the stress concentration. Clamping is an option which is done in linear systems.
NUpdate for anyone interested.. This is where I'm at trying to adapt the design to belt driven. I had to reduce the gear ratio to 4:1 (60T/15T) in order to get the pulleys to fit, and to seem like I had enough teeth engaging the belt on the small pulley. I might be able to go down to a 14, but a 12 or 13 tooth wouldn't have many teeth engaged.
I could, of course, make the whole thing bigger.. but I have to consider the print volume of my printer (180mm3 Prusa Mini).
Not really concerned about lack of force at 4:1 vs 5:1 or 6:1, was just thinking that the farther I can drive the motor, the more precision I'll have on the axis.
I could, of course, make the whole thing bigger.. but I have to consider the print volume of my printer (180mm3 Prusa Mini).
Not really concerned about lack of force at 4:1 vs 5:1 or 6:1, was just thinking that the farther I can drive the motor, the more precision I'll have on the axis.
N@walmis Maybe we need a DIY Projects channel so people like me don't muddy up the General channel showing off their science projects 
Jin the meantime you could make a new post in #
knowledge-base for it
knowledge-base for it
MThis is the the showcase channel basically is
PQuestion, I got on the waitlist twice. Will my first submission count for my spot in line?
WFYI Rhino has 12T pulleys
TI appreciate your concern, however, the pulley can turn 70° either way, before the screw becomes the bearing part of the belt. It will only turn 20° so worst case, 13 belt cogs will be sharing the load with the screw. The screw (and washer) is basically just pulling the belt down to the pulley. It won’t be seeing much of the belt tension. But, as always, if it doesn’t work I’ll just redesign. 
SI am really interested for this project. I am fallowing
SI will suggest to put the motor inside the base under the metal tube to save some space
V:package: RHINO #0107 Has Shipped!
RHINO #0107 Has Shipped!V:package: RHINO #0110 Has Shipped!
RHINO #0110 Has Shipped!B"Three hundred and eighty-five bottles of beer in the wall.
Take one down, pass it around. Drink it all down.
Three hundred and eighty-four bottles of beer in the wall"
Take one down, pass it around. Drink it all down.
Three hundred and eighty-four bottles of beer in the wall"
V:package: RHINO #0115 Has Shipped!
RHINO #0115 Has Shipped!Asounds like a party
V:package: 
RHINO #0118 Has Shipped!
RHINO #0118 Has Shipped!NSure enough it does... I have my shrouds covering mine up and was too lazy to remove them so I was looking at pictures from the photo spread on imgur, which looks like it had 20T gears on it
WYeah, the first few rhinos had slightly larger pulleys
A105 made it home 
ANow to rebuild the whole rig to accommodate it 
JMan those things are flying off the shelves now!
Bdon't jinx it, lol
SYou can also add loadcell which would allow for way smooth resistance or damping effects
SLike the simucube pedals