@walmis new adapter worked flawlessly. thank you!
@walmis new adapter worked flawlessly. thank you!
WAwesome. Looks like I nailed the issues.
SGood morning mates. A fast question. I am build the base for my FFB motors. I wonder what is better for the Cyclic Base. Be 2 parts? Or one part? And why?
WIt needs to be able to rotate in the center otherwise there will be a gimbal lock when moving diagonally
SS@walmis i guess you mean this here
Wyes indeed
Ssorry video is not working.oh i have not think about it
Sso we tight it with a nut and ready?
S
WYeah those parts need to have a bearing in between and clamped down tight so there is no play
SThanks a lot for you help 
TThis didn’t make sense to me either when I was printing mine because the nut is on the wrong side to secure the bearings. I ended up redesigning so the bearings sit on a spacer and the bolt goes all the way through with enough threads to put the nut on the grip side of the bearings. Works great.
TI made the recess for the bolt shoulder deeper and made the top profile of the center section longer to move the bolt closer to the grip end. Used a washer for the spacer and secured the nut from the grip end.
Sso you used a bigger screw and moved the but to the end of the bolt?
TWhere the green arrow is pointing in your picture I extended that shoulder so there was a just enough gap for a washer (can’t remember, M6 I believe?). Then on the other end in increased the depth of the recess so that the bolt length doesn’t need to change.
TI used the Mabo base though and I don’t remember that cylinder that is coming out of the cutaway in your image.
TThis cylinder indicated by the red arrow was not on my version of the base.
AI guess that the cylinder at the red arrow is only an auxiliary object to illustrate the axes.
AThe green arrow pointe to a hexagon nut with flange
TI didn’t delve into the design of the Alu extrusion stick base too much so wasn’t sure if it was native to the design. I believe this is the “Farm” base or similar.
Thanks for posting yours on GitHub, it really helped me get started!
Thanks for posting yours on GitHub, it really helped me get started!
SMy iteration of Mabo's original design.
60mm M5 bolt
Nuts under bearings and on top to keep it snug.
Since I like to over build and since I had some clicking due to movement (which turned out to be main gimbal bearings moving), the orange under the bearings is a tpu spacer.
Smooth as silk and quiet
60mm M5 bolt
Nuts under bearings and on top to keep it snug.
Since I like to over build and since I had some clicking due to movement (which turned out to be main gimbal bearings moving), the orange under the bearings is a tpu spacer.
Smooth as silk and quiet
THi everyone. I need a second opinion. I am using the 86BLF03 motors and as such could not find a design online which I could use. So I am planning to redesign Mambo’s solution and adjust the design to make space for the larger motors. Because I will use it to fly helicopters exclusively, I am thinking to upgrade the 70 tooth pulley to a 90 tooth one to ensure that especially the small movements will be recognized. Any thoughts?
Sto get the finest movement resolution possible, use whatever ratio is equal to making the motor pulley just about complete a full revolution. an example with easy numbers: if your full stick travel is 36deg, 360/36 = 10:1. A 90t pulley to a 9t motor pulley would match, but you can use a 10t on the motor to keep it under a full rotation so there's no power-on issue with centering.
TWhen you speak about the travel degree is it the total movement from front to back?
S36 degrees isn’t too much? Usually travel is around 20-25. Right?
TNote that the 86series have a 1/2" shaft, and the smallest off the shelf pulley I found for that was 15T (for 5M). So to get 10:1 you're going to need a big pulley on the other end. I'm curious how much of a difference such a ratio would make? I've got my base at about 6.6:1, with a +/- 15° throw and that gets me a little over 1000 steps in each direction. Even with the longish extension I have, that works out to a single step of the ADC being about 100microns movement of the grip. I can't reliably make a motion of the stick small enough to move only one step. But maybe I'm just a bad pilot...! I also haven't tried helicopters, but will soon.
SSo which is a good ratio for helicopters? For a grip with extension about 40cm.
RI printed 12* limiters and it’s perfect for my 32cm extension
Si just used 36 to make the math easy to show, you can put in whatever numbers your stick moves
SDumb question: no matter how much I tighten it, it seems that the winwing adapter has a bit of play on the rotational axis: is this intended?
WLooks like the cup edge reaches the top attachment first and there's no friction lock. What kind of extension is that?
WProbably easiest would be to print a 1mm spacer/washer to put in between the adapter and extension
JWalmis, as I was thinking about my DIY build I am still planning, I asked myself if the control board has a certain maximum resolution of the output current and thus the output force? With the total pulley ratio that might make my force resolution especially in the lower quarter I would most often only use quite stepp-ish.
Just wondering if it is possible to quantizise this.
Just wondering if it is possible to quantizise this.
WCurrently positional resolution is 4096 steps/rev, output current resolution is not dependent on input resolution (internally it's in 10mA steps)
JThanks!
ADoes TelemFFB also need an updating along with the .15 FFB Configurator or has something changed with regards to periodic effects?
AI'm having to push values in the config.ini through the roof to get any noticeable effect, e.g. gun vibration and weapons release was at 0.2 on the Gazelle before today's update, and now I've had to put them both at 1.0 to even notice anything on either effect
Nnothing to my knowledge.. I also haven't had a chance to check out the new firmware yet
Nhmm.. a really quick test in the spitfire and it seems normal to me...
blatantly obvious questions.. periodic effects gain in VPfC turned up? And you don't accidently have the pot knob assigned to periodic effect gain but turned down?
blatantly obvious questions.. periodic effects gain in VPfC turned up? And you don't accidently have the pot knob assigned to periodic effect gain but turned down?
AYeah, double checked that
Nreally strange.. I just checked out the gazell, which I never fly, but it seemed normal to me.
AHmm. Hella late here, I’ll unplug it, have another look tomorrow and report back
Jive been trying to work out settings for the force trim to behave in the DCS AH-64 for some time now. The issue I have seems to be around the new center once the force trim is activated. If I activate force trim the controls do not hold exactly where I set the new trim, it always springs back slightly toward center. I'm not sure whats wrong and i've tried all sorts of combination of settings to no avail.
MGot my kit build up and running today (at least to see outputs on my laptop, desktop is down, so no real testing).
I plugged my realsimulator F/A-18 in to it, expecting to just run it for power and BTLE in, as normal. To my surprise, the Rhino software detects button inputs from it! However, it does not detect the SCS depress, the actual RECCE depress, or the TRIM depress (so the hats on the face, it does detect pickle depress).
Any idea why it might be missing those buttons, or any way to fix it?
I plugged my realsimulator F/A-18 in to it, expecting to just run it for power and BTLE in, as normal. To my surprise, the Rhino software detects button inputs from it! However, it does not detect the SCS depress, the actual RECCE depress, or the TRIM depress (so the hats on the face, it does detect pickle depress).
Any idea why it might be missing those buttons, or any way to fix it?
MIt looks like the grip is sending those as DX buttons 61-63, if the Rhino does not look for those buttons, is there any way to do a remap on the Rhino side, or expand what it sees?
NI had this problem initially when I had a curve set on the cyclic axis' in the apache
HI was hoping this would be fixed as well. Along with the force 8 way hats to 4 way
Jit was my understanding that setting a curve in DCS conflicted with other FFB settings
Nmy rote understanding of it is that FFB doesn't understand the curve exists, so when the in-game stick movement is not 1:1 with the physical stick movement, FFB sets the center point based on the virtual stick position, not the physical stick position.
Nhence, if your physical stick has moved farther than the virtual stick, the new trimmed position, based on the virtual stick position, is closer to center than the physical stick actually is.. thats why the new center doesn't match where you had the physical stick