@walmis what kind of production times could we expect if I ordered a rhino today?
@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.
Wthis looks like a matrix multiplication
Wwell, if you give me the math, I could make it happen, but it's a low priority thing
TWell yes, it’s a simple coordinate transform. You move from x,y to a new set of unit vectors.
TAnd back for the position feedback
Whmm, that would make it possible to have arbitrarily rotated base, might be worthwhile.
TAbsolutely!
B@expertnewbieI've read accounts from people who say that the Brunner CLS-E is doing something a bit more complex than just sensing when the motors get hot, but the end result is that it isn't what you want if you fly air combat sims with medium to high stick forces set in the software. I have kept mine, because I fly helos too, and that's something it does well. The CLS doesn't self limit, or it's very much harder to get it in that state. The price of the CLS however is something in the low 5 figure range.
WHi all. New here, just saw this today over at the ED Forums.
I already have a spring loaded DIY gimbal and I'm thinking of buying the DIY FFB and add it.
X (aileron) would be quite straightforward, remove the spring, hall sensor, TM Warthog etc and bolt the motor to the base and add a pulley to the shaft. For Y(pitch up/down) I would have to hang the motor under the X gimbal => the motors mass will be added to the X gimbal, it will be opposite the stick so it will at least balance somewhat but the Y motor mass will still need to be moved by the X motor. Any thoughts on the feasibility of adapting this gimbal to FFB?
I already have a spring loaded DIY gimbal and I'm thinking of buying the DIY FFB and add it.
X (aileron) would be quite straightforward, remove the spring, hall sensor, TM Warthog etc and bolt the motor to the base and add a pulley to the shaft. For Y(pitch up/down) I would have to hang the motor under the X gimbal => the motors mass will be added to the X gimbal, it will be opposite the stick so it will at least balance somewhat but the Y motor mass will still need to be moved by the X motor. Any thoughts on the feasibility of adapting this gimbal to FFB?
WHi, nice build! The pitch motor should not have problems moving it, and with a little bit of parameter tuning the system could perform quite well. You could even counterbalance it a bit.
WThank you, it is actually about 20 years old.
hmm..maybe I'm misunderstanding something but Y/pitch/forward-back motor will only move the stick forward and back.
X/aileron/left-right would have to move both the stick + theY/pitch motor (but X would be counterbalanced by the Y/pitch motor)
hmm..maybe I'm misunderstanding something but Y/pitch/forward-back motor will only move the stick forward and back.
X/aileron/left-right would have to move both the stick + theY/pitch motor (but X would be counterbalanced by the Y/pitch motor)
W
W
PHi there !
I have a few questions for the setup :
-Do you use directx force feedback or just "generic" feedbacks
-Can force / inertia / damping maps be made in order to have other than linear effect scalling ?
-Can effects differ for X and Y axis ?
-How is the motor calibrated ? Does it need to turn over 360 degrees to align the feedback sensor ?
-Any plans for higher power motors such as a mige 130st ? (that would be my goal )
I have a few questions for the setup :
-Do you use directx force feedback or just "generic" feedbacks
-Can force / inertia / damping maps be made in order to have other than linear effect scalling ?
-Can effects differ for X and Y axis ?
-How is the motor calibrated ? Does it need to turn over 360 degrees to align the feedback sensor ?
-Any plans for higher power motors such as a mige 130st ? (that would be my goal
)WHi!
- Yes, directX is supported.
- Yes there is mapping functionality for those effects
- Yes
- If there more than one rotation for whole stick movement, the stick needs to be centered around the first revolution when powering on the motors, then it will track position with multiple rotations. You can watch my DIY video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNhRD2Bsb8o
- The current biggest motor for this design is 86BLF04. At the moment I don't have the time resources to research additional motors, perhaps in the future
YouTubeValmantas Palikša
This is a first introduction of the Rhino FFB system that will be available soon for purchase as a DYI kit. This system will enable enthusiasts to build a plug-an-play FFB joysticks with custom mechanics. Contact me for details if interested.
Contacts:
VPforce Discord Channel: https://discord.gg/Y7YmFGHbee
DCS Forums: https://forum.dcs.world/p...
Contacts:
VPforce Discord Channel: https://discord.gg/Y7YmFGHbee
DCS Forums: https://forum.dcs.world/p...
PThank you
PActually one more for you...
-Do you allow for non-linear effect scalling in setups with linkage connection (sine)
-Do you allow for combined force/position scaling in case one axis has influence on the second one?
-Is there trim effects moving the neutral position ? Maybe even some force trim functions ?
That touches some kinda specific guimbal but that might give some interesting benefits !
-Do you allow for non-linear effect scalling in setups with linkage connection (sine)
-Do you allow for combined force/position scaling in case one axis has influence on the second one?
-Is there trim effects moving the neutral position ? Maybe even some force trim functions ?
That touches some kinda specific guimbal but that might give some interesting benefits !
W- Currently there is a curve interpolation based on fixed points, but dunno, for specific use cases some additions might be implemented.
- Today I talked with @troetter regarding the similar thing. I think a matrix transform for the X Y coordinates/forces would be a good generic solution.
- Yes, this is implemented in standard directX and DCS uses it (force trim). I plan to to add firmware force trim for titles that don't support FFB.
PThat is one of the custom setups I had considered ! A nightmare to solve (double trilateration) but a table was my solution.
Though this setup wasn't the best... the linkage was too deflected too have an acceptable usable range.
Though this setup wasn't the best... the linkage was too deflected too have an acceptable usable range.
PAnd that is the second setup I came up with. Much simpler, higher force, easier to solve, no crazy linkage deflection.
But would still require some table for one of the two axis.
Project hadn't advanced at the time due to the lack of interface and I didn't really have the time to make it myself !
But would still require some table for one of the two axis.
Project hadn't advanced at the time due to the lack of interface and I didn't really have the time to make it myself !
WYeah... I like the KISS principle
MI'm interested in using your kits for a GA Simulator in XP11, is it possible to connect a more basic grip (Will be me own design with a single push button mounted on the top), and have the push button work through your controller? Also, is it possible to have the spring tension increase as you accelerate down the runway? I.e the aircraft I am simulating has all mechanical control linkages and therefore stay 'sloppy' until the speed increases
