PDA

View Full Version : i have an idea for the perfect joystick



raaaid
09-23-2005, 12:19 PM
it is simple instead of being the base on the table it should be on the flour, on this way instead of 5 cm of joystick effective run you would have 50 cm being the stick much longer,10 times bigger would be the precission

is anybody making this kind of joysticks becuse i would buy one

Waldo.Pepper
09-23-2005, 12:31 PM
People have modded them like that but it turns out to not be such a good idea.

In order to have the same 'effect' the 'throw' of the stick becomes prohibitively large and acuity/fidelity of control suffers.

My (better) idea is to have the shaft of the stick hang below the gimble and instead of springs or whatnot provide the centreing force, I want a pound or too of weight to act as a mass counteracting the tendency of the stick to fall over.

Now THAT'S a good idea. If I do say so myself.

BaldieJr
09-23-2005, 12:31 PM
Try to build one and you'll see that its not as easy as it looks. Getting rid of deadzone is a mega pain.

Padser
09-23-2005, 01:07 PM
Sounds like you want one of these: http://www.simcontrol.co.uk/longshaft%20page.htm

It is specially designed with a clever precision engineered joint to avoid the problem of excess throw due to leverage. Unfortunately it's also built around a rather shabby Saitek EVO (be prepared for that trigger to break!).

Or one of these: http://www.simw.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_product_details&pid=19

Although at those prices, save your money and learn to fly a real one! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers,

Pads

BaldieJr
09-23-2005, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
People have modded them like that but it turns out to not be such a good idea.

In order to have the same 'effect' the 'throw' of the stick becomes prohibitively large and acuity/fidelity of control suffers.

My (better) idea is to have the shaft of the stick hang below the gimble and instead of springs or whatnot provide the centreing force, I want a pound or too of weight to act as a mass counteracting the tendency of the stick to fall over.

Now THAT'S a good idea. If I do say so myself.

This is a good idea in theory. You'll find that you'll need much more weight than you anticipated. You'll also need a strong gimbal.

Once you overcome all that, you get to tie your electronics to it.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Chuck_Older
09-23-2005, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:
it is simple instead of being the base on the table it should be on the flour, on this way instead of 5 cm of joystick effective run you would have 50 cm being the stick much longer,10 times bigger would be the precission

is anybody making this kind of joysticks becuse i would buy one

I usally think your ideas are crackpot. I think this is a Good Idea. I hope someone makes one that works

Treetop64
09-23-2005, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
it is simple instead of being the base on the table it should be on the flour, on this way instead of 5 cm of joystick effective run you would have 50 cm being the stick much longer,10 times bigger would be the precission

is anybody making this kind of joysticks becuse i would buy one

I usally think your ideas are crackpot. I think this is a Good Idea. I hope someone makes one that works </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I second that!
However, I fear that Raaaid making a sensible post must be one of the seven signs of the coming apocolypse...

raaaid
09-24-2005, 08:14 AM
1290 dollars for a long shaft joystick?

i bet someone could make long shaft joysticks combined with realistic pedals for 200 dollars

effte
09-25-2005, 01:21 AM
Originally posted by BaldieJr:

This is a good idea in theory. You'll find that you'll need much more weight than you anticipated. You'll also need a strong gimbal.

Once you overcome all that, you get to tie your electronics to it.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Unfortunately, it is not a good idea in theory either. It works if you only consider the forces, but there is also inertia. You don't want inertia in a control system, especially not in the stick.

Imagine letting go of the stick and having it swing back and forth? Or centering the stick rapidly and having it slam your hand over to the other side? Won't do, it'll give terrible control feel. The only solution to get around it would be excessive control damping, which is also bad for this type of flying.

Cheers,
Fred

Waldo.Pepper
09-25-2005, 01:38 AM
Unfortunately, it is not a good idea in theory either. It works if you only consider the forces, but there is also inertia. You don't want inertia in a control system, especially not in the stick.

Imagine letting go of the stick and having it swing back and forth? Or centering the stick rapidly and having it slam your hand over to the other side? Won't do, it'll give terrible control feel. The only solution to get around it would be excessive control damping, which is also bad for this type of flying.

Cheers,
Fred


Quite! I think you have a point there. Too bad.

zaelu
09-25-2005, 03:52 AM
I think looking at the evolution of controling the aircraft surfaces from unpowered controls of high speed WW 2 fighters to hydraulic assisted and further "fly by wire" controls, the fact that our controler looks just like the controler of the last is no coincidence.

We are flying "fly by wire" don't we? A controler with a long throw looks to me wird just like one with force feedback. F16 controler is short, without force feedback and with almost no swing at all.

I think the real evolution will be building cheap joysticks (under 50$) that have the precision of th CH sticks, the looks of a X52 Saitek stick and some sort of optical laser motion detector just like an MX1000 Mouse from Logitech.

effte
09-25-2005, 04:46 AM
Force control. It is the way to go. Build it with force control from the start, and it is likely to be cheaper than a mechanical stick.

Electronics are cheap, and getting cheaper every day. Mechanical parts are expensive to make, if you want them built with precision and built to last.

Yes, cheap plastic does the trick... but for how long? One thing is for certain. Plastic will not stand up to the forces used on real-life flight controls, so you will end up controlling your virtual aircraft by position rather than by force - a huge departure from real life.

Cheers,
Fred

PlaneEater
09-25-2005, 04:47 AM
Weights below the pintle point won't work well.

...but a web of rubber bands or bungee cords would. The only problem you might run into is 'rattle' when releasing the controls (it'd oscillate rapidly before settling to center).

The easiest solution is a long-shaft stick with hi-resolution potentiometers, calibrated to a limited range (ie 25% to 75% throw represents 0% to 100% throw).

The other way to do it is proportional ratio gears, but that gets ugly, and possibly bulky. Static friction might become annoying at that point, too, as the smaller gears would be on the pots and you'd have to put some muscle behind the stick to move it. We'd all look like Popeye in short order.

x6BL_Brando
09-25-2005, 06:28 AM
....parallel to the above ideas, it's also worth bearing in mind the effect of a longer shaft re: leverage. It would need substantial bearings at the fulcrum point, and the extra leverage would make the chances of damage much higher.

Maple_Tiger
09-25-2005, 07:45 AM
Originally posted by Padser:
Sounds like you want one of these: http://www.simcontrol.co.uk/longshaft%20page.htm

It is specially designed with a clever precision engineered joint to avoid the problem of excess throw due to leverage. Unfortunately it's also built around a rather shabby Saitek EVO (be prepared for that trigger to break!).

Or one of these: http://www.simw.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_product_details&pid=19

Although at those prices, save your money and learn to fly a real one! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers,

Pads



1,290 dallars lol. They better offer a life time warrenty lol

Maple_Tiger
09-25-2005, 07:53 AM
I went back to the site, and noticed that the G Stick III Plus has only a 1 year warranty.

Lmsao lol, I think three hammers should so.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Chuck_Older
09-25-2005, 10:28 AM
Can I ask a question?

Why would you be letting go of the stick at all??

And if this is an issue, why couldn't small hydraulic dampers be used? Same principle as a door closer. You set the resistance and bleed- down, and it returns the stick to center without slamming anything. Pneumatics could do it too, but you'd need an airflask charged with compressed air. Micro-valves used every day in my industry dampen equipment that weighs dozens of pounds, and quite efficiently. And they cost aboout 8 bucks each

Texas LongHorn
09-25-2005, 11:25 AM
Did you guys know that the original prototypes of the F-16 (AKA Electric Jet) used a side stick with essentially NO motion. It was truly force feedback. The stick pressure translated in control surface movement. The test pilots hated it and the design was changed to allow movement of the stick. That little bit of stick is interesting. All the best. LongHorn

Tachyon1000
09-25-2005, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
People have modded them like that but it turns out to not be such a good idea.

In order to have the same 'effect' the 'throw' of the stick becomes prohibitively large and acuity/fidelity of control suffers.

My (better) idea is to have the shaft of the stick hang below the gimble and instead of springs or whatnot provide the centreing force, I want a pound or too of weight to act as a mass counteracting the tendency of the stick to fall over.

Now THAT'S a good idea. If I do say so myself.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by throw of the stick? Didn't real life WWII fighter pilots have to move their sticks through a much larger range of motion than any joystick that we are using?

And it would seem that extending the stick would actually give you greater control as opposed to less control. When an inch of extended stick movement would translate into a fraction of an inch of movement for a regular stick, it would seem that you have a greater capacity to specify an exact control position, just as rudder pedals with a greater range of motion are better than a twisty stick.

I can understand the stresses caused by a longer stick, but couldn't that in part be compensated for with a stronger base spring and not flying like a maniac?

Padser
09-25-2005, 12:23 PM
Some interesting links here gleaned from Simviation's Homebuild Cockpits forum: http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=homebuild (some of these guys go to incredible lengths and not just when extending their joysticks... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

Both of these relate to extending an X-45.

In Spanish: http://www.serafimov.com/articulos_tecnicos_palanca.htm

And another, in English:
http://users.acninc.net/padipaul/HBCP.htm

No feedback on how the modified sticks behave in game (probably FS2004), but perhaps you could contact the chaps via e-mail for details if you decided to go ahead with your own project.

And here are some Luftwaffe addicts...

Bf109 (English): http://www.edbert.net/109pit.htm

Bf109 (in German): http://taffe.de/53958996b41421a0f/index.html

FW-190 D-9 (also in German) http://www.finestart.de/D9/d9-mainframe.htm

These guys need to get out more... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif but you've got to admire their ingenuity!

TTFN

Pads

jeroen-79
09-25-2005, 12:37 PM
That's just force sensitive, nothing is fed back to the pilot through the stick.

There is such a mod for the Cougar:
http://cougar.frugalsworld.com/mods.php#uber3
http://www.eaglevision.nu/fcc.htm

If you want it to move then a flexible metal rod would do the trick.

BaldieJr
09-26-2005, 07:53 AM
Originally posted by Tachyon1000:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
People have modded them like that but it turns out to not be such a good idea.

In order to have the same 'effect' the 'throw' of the stick becomes prohibitively large and acuity/fidelity of control suffers.

My (better) idea is to have the shaft of the stick hang below the gimble and instead of springs or whatnot provide the centreing force, I want a pound or too of weight to act as a mass counteracting the tendency of the stick to fall over.

Now THAT'S a good idea. If I do say so myself.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by throw of the stick? Didn't real life WWII fighter pilots have to move their sticks through a much larger range of motion than any joystick that we are using?

And it would seem that extending the stick would actually give you greater control as opposed to less control. When an inch of extended stick movement would translate into a fraction of an inch of movement for a regular stick, it would seem that you have a greater capacity to specify an exact control position, just as rudder pedals with a greater range of motion are better than a twisty stick.

I can understand the stresses caused by a longer stick, but couldn't that in part be compensated for with a stronger base spring and not flying like a maniac? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


My very first stick attempt was an extension to an X45. It did not work well at all. THe extension amplified the X45's dead zone to the point that the game was unplayable.

BPLIzard
09-26-2005, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
it is simple instead of being the base on the table it should be on the flour,....

Then it should be called bread stick.
Bah da boom chish!

Just kidding there, bud http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Tachyon1000
09-26-2005, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by BaldieJr:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tachyon1000:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
People have modded them like that but it turns out to not be such a good idea.

In order to have the same 'effect' the 'throw' of the stick becomes prohibitively large and acuity/fidelity of control suffers.

My (better) idea is to have the shaft of the stick hang below the gimble and instead of springs or whatnot provide the centreing force, I want a pound or too of weight to act as a mass counteracting the tendency of the stick to fall over.

Now THAT'S a good idea. If I do say so myself.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by throw of the stick? Didn't real life WWII fighter pilots have to move their sticks through a much larger range of motion than any joystick that we are using?

And it would seem that extending the stick would actually give you greater control as opposed to less control. When an inch of extended stick movement would translate into a fraction of an inch of movement for a regular stick, it would seem that you have a greater capacity to specify an exact control position, just as rudder pedals with a greater range of motion are better than a twisty stick.

I can understand the stresses caused by a longer stick, but couldn't that in part be compensated for with a stronger base spring and not flying like a maniac? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


My very first stick attempt was an extension to an X45. It did not work well at all. THe extension amplified the X45's dead zone to the point that the game was unplayable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wasn't aware that sticks had any deadzone except those defined by the user via software. Seems odd that folks have gone to such lengths to modify their X45s as shown elsewhere only to find them unusable. Makes me think you might have done something odd.

When I just touch my EVO stick centered in the config screen it registers movement. Hard to believe it has any deadzone.

BaldieJr
09-26-2005, 02:47 PM
I've nothing better to do than make up ways to discourage fellow enthusiasts.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Tachyon1000
09-26-2005, 03:29 PM
I don't doubt the veracity of your claims or of your experience. What I fail to understand is if this is truely not something that works or makes the game unplayable why are there entries on websites dedicated to making such modifications, and such modifications of the exact stick that you have.

Wouldn't people be waving their hands? Hey this doesn't work. That's why I suggest that perhaps you might have done something incorrect, but what the heck do I know.

codeseven7
09-27-2005, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by Tachyon1000:

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by throw of the stick? Didn't real life WWII fighter pilots have to move their sticks through a much larger range of motion than any joystick that we are using?

And it would seem that extending the stick would actually give you greater control as opposed to less control. When an inch of extended stick movement would translate into a fraction of an inch of movement for a regular stick, it would seem that you have a greater capacity to specify an exact control position, just as rudder pedals with a greater range of motion are better than a twisty stick.

I can understand the stresses caused by a longer stick, but couldn't that in part be compensated for with a stronger base spring and not flying like a maniac?

I have thought about this 'aircraft flight control stick' vs. 'wrist action joystick game controller' issue since I first started flying sims. I have flown real aircraft using a stick and rudder and have never felt the the two were comparable as far as realism. Sure, the in game aircraft react to joystick inputs fairly true to life, but sitting in front of a monitor bending your wrist is nothing like having to fully extend your arm forward and back and side to side (sometimes with 'two' hands) to get full control surface movements. When I decided to replace my failing Logitech Strike Force 3D, I decided to cut it off at the base and extend it. I used 3/4" copper plummers pipe ( I wanted to feel the weight of it in hand), including two 45deg. opposite angles midshaft to replicate what I saw in alot of WW2 cockpits. Together with pedals it was MUCH more realistic as far as 'actual' control stick movement.

My now crappy Logitech worked well enough to convince me to cut my brand new CH Fighterstick intwo and extend it also. This time the extention will be shorter (first one was a straight shaft with a full 24" of legnth but the 'throw' was overextended, so after shortening it several times and adding in the bends using the 45's it was much better) perhaps made of PVC and some type of light spring action at the base to keep it from flopping around (though the Fighterstick's centering spring already feels much more substantial than Logitech's). We'll see how that works out. But I'm definitely sold on a 'stick' vs a joystick.

VFS-214_Hawk
09-27-2005, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by codeseven7:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tachyon1000:

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by throw of the stick? Didn't real life WWII fighter pilots have to move their sticks through a much larger range of motion than any joystick that we are using?

And it would seem that extending the stick would actually give you greater control as opposed to less control. When an inch of extended stick movement would translate into a fraction of an inch of movement for a regular stick, it would seem that you have a greater capacity to specify an exact control position, just as rudder pedals with a greater range of motion are better than a twisty stick.

I can understand the stresses caused by a longer stick, but couldn't that in part be compensated for with a stronger base spring and not flying like a maniac?

I have thought about this 'aircraft flight control stick' vs. 'wrist action joystick game controller' issue since I first started flying sims. I have flown real aircraft using a stick and rudder and have never felt the the two were comparable as far as realism. Sure, the in game aircraft react to joystick inputs fairly true to life, but sitting in front of a monitor bending your wrist is nothing like having to fully extend your arm forward and back and side to side (sometimes with 'two' hands) to get full control surface movements. When I decided to replace my failing Logitech Strike Force 3D, I decided to cut it off at the base and extend it. I used 3/4" copper plummers pipe ( I wanted to feel the weight of it in hand), including two 45deg. opposite angles midshaft to replicate what I saw in alot of WW2 cockpits. Together with pedals it was MUCH more realistic as far as 'actual' control stick movement.

My now crappy Logitech worked well enough to convince me to cut my brand new CH Fighterstick intwo and extend it also. This time the extention will be shorter (first one was a straight shaft with a full 24" of legnth but the 'throw' was overextended, so after shortening it several times and adding in the bends using the 45's it was much better) perhaps made of PVC and some type of light spring action at the base to keep it from flopping around (though the Fighterstick's centering spring already feels much more substantial than Logitech's). We'll see how that works out. But I'm definitely sold on a 'stick' vs a joystick. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Same here. After r4ading this I decided to take an old stick and experiment with it. I got the basics and it does work. Even with full throw as per a real stick, the 100 across the board settings are still too sensitive.


Its all about stick settings and over controlling.

codeseven7
09-27-2005, 07:29 PM
I think the longer the stick, the farther the throw and hence the larger the dead zone problem. You have to decide on a stick legnth that is short enough to reduce the deadzone to acceptable levels yet retain that 'stick' feel. Also, I found that mounting my stick base 6-12" above the floor (using a simple box) reduced stick legnth. I also like my pedals around 6" above the floor, they feel more like the cockpit sitting position to me.

Tachyon1000
09-27-2005, 09:33 PM
Someone explain this to me like I don't know what you are talking about.

What is throw and what does it have to do with anything?

How does a joystick's dead zone have anything to do with anything? It would seem sticks don't have a dead zone unless you specify one.

Finally, how is it that the stick is too sensitive with an extension? It would seem that you have to move the extended stick through a larger area to create the same input as a non-extended stick. Now I can see how the extended stick might have more of a tendency to move or be harder to control overall, but TOO senstive?? I must be missing something.

Do these joysticks measure force instead of position? Longer stick, greater force, dead zome, too sensitive. Those ideas seem to hang together if the stick measures force, but why would a stick measure force when it is position that you want.

Someone explain it to me, please. I am confused

BaldieJr
09-28-2005, 05:17 PM
Stick throw is the distance from one extreme to another. Take your pitch axis as an example. On my X52 it has about 6-8 inches of throw, or travel.

Add an extension and the throw becomes 15-18 inches.

The sticks electronics are tuned for a short throw.

Factor in gimbal slop, electical dead-zones, or even throw-time and you start to understand why you can't just hack off your stick and add a few feet of broomstick.

All sticks have a dead-zone built in. If it didn't, the stick would never return exactly to center and your game experience would stink. You'd be readjusting your flight direction constantly. When you ease up on the stick it would not return to exact center. It would be annoying and imprecise.

When you stretch out the stick the dead zone goes from a few mm to a few inches. It becomes near impossible to guess when your stick will actually give input to the game. Yeahw, you're over compensating at every move.

Just think about it from a tactical point of view: If it takes your opponent 1/2 second to apply full-stick in either direction while you require a full second (thanks to the longer throw), you are automaticly at a disadvantage.

Considering the research applied to modern fighters: if a longer stick was better F-16's would have them installed.

codeseven7
10-06-2005, 06:06 PM
True, but this a WW2 sim, nearly all WW2 fighters had a 'fully arm extending' control stick, not a wrist bending 'joystick'. Joysticks make flying sims much more unrealistic (and easier) than actually throwing a stick from full stop to stop during a dog fight or difficult carrier landing. If the dead zone problem could be reduced to acceptable levels, immersion would be greatly increased (and some of you 'aces' would be in for a real 'eye opener'!).

Spinnetti
10-06-2005, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:
it is simple instead of being the base on the table it should be on the flour, on this way instead of 5 cm of joystick effective run you would have 50 cm being the stick much longer,10 times bigger would be the precission

is anybody making this kind of joysticks becuse i would buy one

I made one and it worked just fine.
I made it roughly the same length as my favorite plane, and attached it to a former recumbant excercise bike along with rudder pedals etc.. I put the monitor up where the windscreen would be.. It all worked great until a bratty relative broke it.. they didnt even tell me and I found out after they left! Grr.. It was a lot of work to modify the joystick, so I just went back to a stock X45

Spinnetti
10-06-2005, 08:10 PM
Originally posted by Tachyon1000:
Someone explain this to me like I don't know what you are talking about.

What is throw and what does it have to do with anything?

How does a joystick's dead zone have anything to do with anything? It would seem sticks don't have a dead zone unless you specify one.

Finally, how is it that the stick is too sensitive with an extension? It would seem that you have to move the extended stick through a larger area to create the same input as a non-extended stick. Now I can see how the extended stick might have more of a tendency to move or be harder to control overall, but TOO senstive?? I must be missing something.

Do these joysticks measure force instead of position? Longer stick, greater force, dead zome, too sensitive. Those ideas seem to hang together if the stick measures force, but why would a stick measure force when it is position that you want.

Someone explain it to me, please. I am confused


You seem to get it... In fact, its not MORE sensitive, its LESS - i.e. its a lot easier to make small smooth motions because you have to move the stick more than you would with it normal length... It works just fine.

I have some pictures of the setup around somewhere.

I took a stock stick apart, then machined up an extension and extending the wiring. it was a pain to do, but fun to use.

Sokol__1
10-07-2005, 05:07 PM
Spinneti,

Post pics of your setup. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Extend sticks found in AviaForum:

Cougar mod:
http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/6356/gimbal910ok.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/905/gimbal935wf.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Real and heavy Mig(?)stick - USB by Mindaugas:

http://img280.imageshack.us/img280/817/img03247ch.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Saitek X45, whit not too long extension:

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1732/pic00082bl.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

More in: http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=65

SP!

Sokol1 > Jambock__21

Spinnetti
10-08-2005, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by Sokol__1:
Spinneti,

Post pics of your setup. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



After seeing those, mine isn't nearly as good...

I did do two versions though, one of them like the chair setup..

In each case, I took apart a stock stick and extended it... I didn't do all the gimbals and all that.. didn't find it necessary. (detracted from my building my (almost full size) Experimental FW190 flying replica anyway)

I do like the ideas you have shown here tho...