I'm replacing my vkb with this vforce rhino ,but I have to buy a new grip
I'm replacing my vkb with this vforce rhino ,but I have to buy a new grip
GIf you are in the US and want a Virpil T-50 I'll sell you mine. Brand new. Only tested on my self built FFB unit with VPForce Motors. I bought it for the direct integration, but like my VKB better so I went back to that.
AI don't know if I understood correctly, but it should be possible to use vkb stuffs with the rhino, at least in the furure?
SI'm selling my entire vkb stick and replacing it with the rhino. However, the rhino doesn't come with the grip only the stick. So I'll have to buy a grip for it since I'm selling the entire vkb unit.
Ayou should ask walmis, but it should also be possible to use your vkb stick and blackbox, at least at some point in the future
Aif I read him correctly
SI have enough sticks, no reason to hold onto the vkb if I won't be using itever again, my vkb is brand new I haven't used it since I bought it 3 or so years ago, I've always used the ms ffb2 and just couldn't get away from using it.
GYeah, I understand. I just have the VPC MongoosT-50CM2 Grip for sale that I bought to go with my VPForce FFB.
Fjust for info how ordering at Virpil works: "Please be aware this is a backorder. Your order will be dispatched when all items are available. "
This usually only takes a week or two.
This usually only takes a week or two.
Fi recently ordered a TM50 and Constellation Alpha. ordered on 14th of may and got it delivered on 23rd of may. (the constellation alpha is the one walmis used to implement support for the rhino)
WThanks again, I'm really grateful for the investment btw 
NAm I going to be the first person to attempt to attach a Virpil VFX onto the Rhino? The F-14 seems like the perfect module for FFB due to how the trim works.
WProbably yes. I'll need info from you to implement the VFX extra functionality 
WVKB adapter PCBs arrived today. Looking good!
BSpitfire simulator report :-
The ED Spitfire is reasonably close, the sim instructor flies DCS himself. He thinks the DCS version is harder to fly than their own flight model.
Takeoff and landing are easier than the DCS Spit - not hugely, but enough to be noticeable. The DCS one bleeds speed more in turns and it's stall is more dramatic.
The seating position is like being sat in a proper chair at a dining table, it's really upright.
The rudder pedals are very close. The cockpits not much wider than my shoulders and I'm not heavily built, god knows how people fitted in them wearing an Irvin jacket
All the controls are heavy, especially the throttle.
The ED Spitfire is reasonably close, the sim instructor flies DCS himself. He thinks the DCS version is harder to fly than their own flight model.
Takeoff and landing are easier than the DCS Spit - not hugely, but enough to be noticeable. The DCS one bleeds speed more in turns and it's stall is more dramatic.
The seating position is like being sat in a proper chair at a dining table, it's really upright.
The rudder pedals are very close. The cockpits not much wider than my shoulders and I'm not heavily built, god knows how people fitted in them wearing an Irvin jacket
All the controls are heavy, especially the throttle.
BThat's about the most scientific I can be, everything was so alien to me that I spent the whole hour right at the limit of what I could process effectively and I didn't have enough brain left over to be analytic.
Stick forces are sort of in the Brunner CLS-E range, if you were using no extension and the highest forces you can program.
Stick forces are sort of in the Brunner CLS-E range, if you were using no extension and the highest forces you can program.
BThe Brunner can only support that level of force for 'normal' flying, if you were doing A2A with it, then it would start to self limit quite early
VWould the contacts be user replaceable as VKB contacts are pretty infamous for wearing out. Happened on both of mine
VReally excited tho as it mean I get to use VKB f14 grip, which if it didn't break within hours of arriving would be my fav stick lol
VOh and now the contacts have arrived any idea for price?
S@walmis will the grip have the ability to be offset( like russian grips) by like 20 degrees for comfort? Instead of straight like the US ones?
C@walmis what kind of production times could we expect if I ordered a rhino today?
EI can attest to this, having owned the Brunner CLS-E. When flying anything that requires you to pull the stick near the limit and hold it there for a length of time, for example WWI/WWII aircraft in a dogfight, there's some kind of protection in the CLS-E base that kicks in and removes the FFB forces, and the stick will go slack. It then takes a few seconds for the base to recover and start working again. It's almost like the base has a stamina bar that needs to recover when depleted. It made the base impossible to use, and it was also a pain in the ass getting a refund from Brunner as well.
WNo problem to source more PCBs, but I imagine tinning a thick layer with solder should do the trick no? 
WInitial #
faq channel done for the most asked/interesting info.
faq channel done for the most asked/interesting info.
WHey, 4-6 weeks probably.
WYes, Virpil grips have a feature, that you can mount it rotated in any way you like.
TNew here! I’ve looked through some of the different gimbal designs. I may have missed some, but they all seem to have isolated axes, ie one motor affects x, the other y. Is there support for differential gimbals? Where both motors in the same direction affect one axis, and both motors in opposite directions affect the other?
WHey, I personally didn't see such gimbals. Curious as to any advantages to isolated axis gimbals ? Sounds more complicated
TI think the primary reason is most often some kind of mechanical constraint, I know it is in my intended case. But I would argue that it doesn’t have to be more complicated or complex than isolated axes. The gimbals I’ve seen here are over constrained in the mechanical sense, and seem to require at least one spherical bearing, and quite tight alignment between the bearings to avoid binding up. A series isolated gimbal is probably the simplest design, but mechanically speaking, a differential gimbal can be less complex than the style of parallel isolated gimbals that looks to be the common design here.
TAs for the software, yes that needs to be more complex.
WI managed to pull off the Rhino gimbal without a spherical bearing, but a couple of regular ones in the center. But yeah tolerances need to be pretty tight.
WDo you have any drawings of the differential gimbal? Interested to see how it looks.
VSounds almost like how you get pitch and roll in a two actuator motion rig?
VSomething like this?
TYes, that is indeed one variation of it. I’m desperately trying to find a thesis report, I think from TU Delft, there were quite a few examples of gimbals detailed in it. I should have a copy somewhere, but I can’t find it. I’ll keep looking
TSeems like a waste of time tbh. The stick is roll on the side to side axis and pitch on the forward and back. The forces on the ailerons and the elevators are separate and independent. Having a motor for each is logical. Mixing them just sounds like a completely unnecessary headache. I've also never seen a ffb gimbal that uses a spherical bearing.
TThe single advantage is an accumulative force from the motors in each axis, theoretically you can increase the force in each axis individually by like 1.6 times, but the net force the motors can exert remains the same so really you aren't gaining much in exchange for the increase in complexity
M@walmis Hey, sorry if I have missed something, but do you have a breakdown of the purchase options and costs, please?
VHe just made an FAQ channel
MAhh, thanks! Hadn't seen that yet.
TLike I said, there is usually a mechanical reason for using a differential topology. It doesn’t actually give a torque advantage, since a diagonal force at the reference point would put all torque on one motor. I’m not saying it’s better for some general reason, but it has its uses.
TIn the independent axis it gives a torque advantage, however there are a few losses, and as soon as you add the other axis you start losing that advantage
TThe motors will be working against each other significantly, since their output is rotational. It would make more sense with a linear actuator
TStill largely pointless for this application
TI’m not here to convince you. But I’d still like to know if @walmis would be interested in supporting it? For my purpose, a linear mixing of axes is sufficient. Torque for motor A = C1 * torque in X + C2 * torque in Y, torque for motor B = C3 * torque in X + C4 * torque in Y. If i can set the constants C1-4, I’m good.
WThere's also position feedback
WWhich will be mixed also
TYes, my fingers got tired, that has to be un-mixed as well
TWorth it? If you don’t think so I understand.
