PDA

View Full Version : Thoughts on a realistic flightstick...is it possible?



wolf-striked
10-23-2009, 04:13 PM
I have been watching flight stick development for awhile now and still see that a truly realistic feeling tabletop based joystick is out of reach.But I really feel that I know how to counter the issues that plague short throw joysticks.

Yrs back in racing sim community I was telling people that what we needed was to shorten the throw of the brake pedal dramatically and to stiffen it up an unbelievable amount to get the feel we needed.This gives the feel of a brake pedal but now you only use a small percentage of a pots rotation.SO I suggested that one now needs to add in gearing so that the highly reduced throw of the brake pedal moves the potthru its whole range.Well every top-end pedal set uses this principle now and the feel and accuracy of these brakes are simply AMAZING!

Now onto flight sticks.While the move to long throw joysticks is being done you dont actually need to do this.If one can engineer a gimbal that has very high(!!!)forces acting on it then problem is solved.Stick will need to be mounted on to a very stable heavy desk but its better than having a joystick with a huge throw that now needs much reduced stick forces to work properly since its very hard to make a gimbal that is has heavy tension and moves a very large amount.The reason being that if the tension is hard to move stick from dead center then imagine what it will be like moving stick 6 inches.

What the very high resistance short throw stick does is to give a tactile "feel" so that the highly wanted ability to do minute adjustments becomes very easy.....this due to fact that its easy to release a small amount of pressure than it is to move a joystick back a certain amount by mind memory alone.

Any thoughts on this?

wolf-striked
10-23-2009, 04:13 PM
I have been watching flight stick development for awhile now and still see that a truly realistic feeling tabletop based joystick is out of reach.But I really feel that I know how to counter the issues that plague short throw joysticks.

Yrs back in racing sim community I was telling people that what we needed was to shorten the throw of the brake pedal dramatically and to stiffen it up an unbelievable amount to get the feel we needed.This gives the feel of a brake pedal but now you only use a small percentage of a pots rotation.SO I suggested that one now needs to add in gearing so that the highly reduced throw of the brake pedal moves the potthru its whole range.Well every top-end pedal set uses this principle now and the feel and accuracy of these brakes are simply AMAZING!

Now onto flight sticks.While the move to long throw joysticks is being done you dont actually need to do this.If one can engineer a gimbal that has very high(!!!)forces acting on it then problem is solved.Stick will need to be mounted on to a very stable heavy desk but its better than having a joystick with a huge throw that now needs much reduced stick forces to work properly since its very hard to make a gimbal that is has heavy tension and moves a very large amount.The reason being that if the tension is hard to move stick from dead center then imagine what it will be like moving stick 6 inches.

What the very high resistance short throw stick does is to give a tactile "feel" so that the highly wanted ability to do minute adjustments becomes very easy.....this due to fact that its easy to release a small amount of pressure than it is to move a joystick back a certain amount by mind memory alone.

Any thoughts on this?

Aviar
10-23-2009, 04:31 PM
Do you mean a 'force sensing' stick, like this?:

http://www.saitekusa.com/prod/x65f.htm

Aviar

wolf-striked
10-23-2009, 04:57 PM
No,I believe you need some movement.Think a regular joystick movement.


For the ultimate setup....say joystick moves 1 inch backwards.Now increase joystick tension so that the last 1/2 inch you need to use two hands.From dead center its very hard to just move and as you start pulling back it gets very tough!This would have to be installed into a cockpit where you could brace your feet against the rudder pedals to pull back.The problem is the fact that at slow speeds the sticks is loose in real life but I feel this would give you one heck of a ride flying the edge in combat.

But realistically for desktops I would think a lot less tension to movestick.But this has to be increased 10fold from what we have now.I tried a Thrustmaster Cougar one day and was expecting what I have in my head and was sorely disappointed.Its very easy to move and while it has the myth of being a high tension joystick its not what I mean.

Another area that would be kool is realistic trim built into the gimbal since flying for awhile and reaching combat your arms will be burning up and you wouldn't be able to fight anymore.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif By realistic trim I mean that when you move the joystick back 1/4 inch and turn trim knob till tight and release the stick....it now stays 1/4 inch back from dead center.

Another thing and very VERY important that a high tension stick gives is ability to do a totally linear curve response on the joystick.This will allow you to pull back on stick to get some lead and release some tension slightly to just lower the nose down a tad.Non-linear stick setups cause the porpoising you see in combat sims that wouldn't happen in real life.

M_Gunz
10-23-2009, 05:47 PM
If you just use a higher resistance pot then you won't need gearing! Normal axis range is 0 to 10k ohms, try a 50k or 100k!
LOL!

wolf-striked
10-23-2009, 06:12 PM
The gearing is for racing sim brake pedal not a flightstick.The reason for the gearing is that to get the feel of an accurate brake pedal you need to have a brake pedal that moves at most 1/2 inch...not the 2+inches regular walmart brake pedals move.So the gearing now will move the pot thru its whole range of motion from just 1/2 of actual pedal movement.

http://www.cannonsimulationtechnologies.com/


Another area super high tension works wonders is in steering wheels.I begged and pleaded with one developer to make a system like this and he kept telling me people want no notch in center position of wheel.

Here are my findings on that.Yrs back I had thrustmaster T2 wheel.One day I took it apart and found a bungee inside.So I started experimenting and stumbled upon the sweetest feeling simulation device I've ever experienced.The tighter I got the bungee the more realistic it felt.I got to a point that I was using a vise grip to leverage the bungee out as far as possible and then putting a huge bolt to prevent it from entering back into hole.The bungee was stretched so tight that the feeling only lasted for 3 minutes where the bungee would just give and even though it was still tight it lost its magic.I was like a junkie coming home with a new bag of bungees everyday and doing 10-3 minute sprints until all the bungees were gone.

Every friend of mine who sucked at grand prix legends tried it and were all amazed at how it transformed the game.I would let them try it with normal bungee tightness and then my modded super tight feel and they all would say it feels like a real car.

The benefits were many.First is using totally linear steering which is so precise in how small increments makle car react.Second is ability to nudge a car over to an inch away from the road drop off at 200+mph and keep it there.And if anyone knows how hard the GPL cars were braking into a turn then this was a masterpiece.I could enter a turn slamming on brakes and just release the wheel which would return to center and NEVER go past.If i started entering in opposite lock which I felt so easily since moving the wheel from center was a job in itself I could ease off the brake slighlty preventing the rear from coming around on me.Sadly this only lasted for the above mentioned 3 minutes and then dam bungee would wear out again.....still tight but not that perfect tactile response anymore.Sadly nowadays its all FFB and this will never come into effect.

Also this 1/2 inch of travel with super high tension and then fed thru a increasing gear steup to a pot was laughed at and ridiculed for a long time in past.Now all the top pedal sets use this method.

BillSwagger
10-23-2009, 06:29 PM
i've often thought of the same thing.

My stick is spring loaded so it always pops back to center on its own. I've thought of trying to get a higher tension spring to put in there just to see how it would feel.

How is force feed back different than what you are describing?

wolf-striked
10-23-2009, 06:45 PM
FFB is a notchy mess.Thats my opinion though as many love it so....What I am describing "might" be amazing.I say might since while the steering bungee experiment opened my eyes to high tension for tactile response in racing sims.....doing this to a joystick is impossible unless a system is built from ground up.

The developer of racing pedals I mention in last post stumbled onto same finding as me.He said that the tighter he made the pedal the more real the game became until he needed to build a steel cockpit that wouldn't budge even a fraction of an inch to get the tactile response the pedals allowed.He was ridiculed on the forums for months on end.Sadly I think he went too far in that no one wants to get burning sensations in their legs while sitting at home playing a racing sim....though he still does sell them.The company is called Nixim

http://www.nixim.com/main.html

The closest I ever got to a workable joystick system was when I removed the actual joystick handle from my logitech so that only a stub was sticking out from the base.Then I flew around using my fingers instead of my hand to move the stick.This made it higher tension but it needed alot of work.I must say that my combat fighting in warclouds back then increased alot when i did this from day one.But it was notchy and the logi joystick didn't have two seperate tensions for aileron/pitch.

BillSwagger
10-23-2009, 07:07 PM
but it could be as easy as just adding a higher tension spring to give the same effect. Obviously more hardware engineering would be needed to separate tension along the different axis, but that seems to be the quickest solution. Now i'm thinking of digging through my garage to see if i have a spring i could fit in my logitech.

wolf-striked
10-23-2009, 07:09 PM
No gears are needed.A joystick already has a short throw.Maybe using less throw would be better but it needs experimentation.

Yrs back I had talked to the guy who makes the gimbal NXT for the cougar.He was gonna make a special one that had a short finger joystick built on it so that its flow with the fingers only instead of a hand to increase its tension.Not a very high tension joystick that needs to be bolted onto a desk but would probably feel sweet.I nevergot around to trying it sadly.You would need to build a base from scratch to house the gimbals.Firing would be done with your thumbs etc...

wolf-striked
10-23-2009, 07:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tuphlandng:
By gears I mean to say that the more movement in the stick the greater the force. You could adjust your tension and gears would last longer and be more reliable then springs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just using a very strong spring would suffice.Strong enough so that you have a very strong center detent.This center detent will alow you to put the linearity to fully linear....which makes for needle like precision....and the super heavy tension will allow you to use this precision with precision.

na85
10-23-2009, 07:27 PM
What you need is a non-linear spring. You can approximate the response of a nonlinear spring by using 2 or more linear springs of differing stiffness, and putting them in series aka end to end.

wolf-striked
10-23-2009, 07:46 PM
Actually a spring is already variable resistance.The springs in joysticks are so light you cant get the tactile feel of increasing tension though.

http://www.engineersedge.com/spring_comp_calc.htm

EDIT----I think???

Edit-2---yes a normal spring gets stronger when you compress further.Think of a pogo stick.When you step on it it slightly compresses.If the tension never changed then you would step on it and it would keep compressing but stops at a certain point where the strength overcomes your weight.

M_Gunz
10-23-2009, 07:56 PM
LOL! The mechanics are there for tensioning -- a stronger pot gives more resistance for shorter move. An axis is
an axis regardless of what it's used for, you match the pot (or hall sensor or other) to your mechanics and not the
other ding-a-ling way around! If they use more mechanics it is for feel, not just because they can't figure out how
to find a pot that has the same range of resistance with shorter throw.

The upshot is that you -can- modify your pedals to work just fine with 1/2" movement. Step one: replace the pot.

wolf-striked
10-23-2009, 08:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
LOL! The mechanics are there for tensioning -- a stronger pot gives more resistance for shorter move. An axis is
an axis regardless of what it's used for, you match the pot (or hall sensor or other) to your mechanics and not the
other ding-a-ling way around! If they use more mechanics it is for feel, not just because they can't figure out how
to find a pot that has the same range of resistance with shorter throw.

The upshot is that you -can- modify your pedals to work just fine with 1/2" movement. Step one: replace the pot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why does this always happen.Some peeps that don't see the idea and say other random stuff.A pot adds no resistance to a joysticks travel...this is accomplished by a spring in the joystick.

Also...then why are the high end pedals using gearing with short throw brakes?

BillSwagger
10-23-2009, 08:12 PM
i'm not sure how extensive you are thinking, but what about an air bag/ pump instead of a spring.

When you pump up a tire, the resistance is felt as the pressure increases. Too much pressure, let some air out. Not enough, press the pump.

Sort of like the Nike Air of Joysticks. lol

I'm not sure how pratical it could be, but considreing they can fit similar engineering into a basketball shoe that takes its fair share of abuse, similar mechanics can be used in building resistance into a joystick.

wolf-striked
10-23-2009, 08:17 PM
I'm sorry for making you think I was working on building this.I cant build anything as I have noaccess to a workshop or tools.I just wanted to point out where I feel the current trend is going and where I think it should be headed.

I found a post from nixim from 2004 where he mentions me and how I understand how the pedals work(i'm dprieto).

http://forum.rscnet.org/showthread.php?t=182994

If you read down further you'll see how ridiculed the guy gets.Theres always peeps that jump in claiming an idea is crazy.


Heres an "interesting" comment from the old man himself.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to say SB, I think that is the best post in this thread so far, you have it in a nutshell my friend, - though I have to say that I do have engineering qualifications - which would go some way towards explaining how I came up with the Converter as a solution to a percieved problem.

and that problem was, - "how to make a realistic feeling brake".

The answer turned out to be a series of steps in the build up of the Converter, as I completed each stage I analysed the feel by driving for a month or so, before moving on to make an alteration which would lead to an improvement in feel. - a very long and discerning process.

Let me say at this point, that it took about four years to complete the Converter, - but also what we have in the Converter is something that looks nothing like my original idea.
After three years I decided that all the work I had done up to that point, though it worked fairly well - I realised that I was never going to acheive perfection with that particular idea - so very reluctantly it literally went in the bin.

However, I had gained a lot of usefull knowledge in those three years, and I put it to good use in the present form of the Converter. - And all the development work was done with Grand Tourismo on PS2.

Did you know? if you use a wheel and pedals to drive GT3 - then there is about 33% deadzone in the brake before braking had any effect on the car, no? - neither did I - until the Converter pointed this out to me, I shall explain.

A real car brake feels solid and precise in use, That was easily achieved by the use of steel components, and in the first stages thats all that the Converter had, - a good solid pedal returned to rest by a strong spring, now don't get me wrong this was already a vast improvement over the standard logi peds and for a short while I thought that I had cracked it - I thought I had made for myself, the perfect brake, - but!, after a while I started to have doubts,
Being self critical, I began to feel that it still was'nt quite right.

What was it? I asked myself, - and then I realised that real brakes have a dead zone and once you are through that dead zone the brake return pressure increases at an increasingly rapid rate as you further depress the pedal.
My pedal did not feel like this, and no matter how stiff the spring I fitted, I could always press to the full distance of the pedal throw, - not really realistic.
Also about then, I became aware of the 33% deadzone in GT3.

I then had to figure a way of telling me by "feel", - exactly when the car actually started to be effected by the brakes, and it was then that I hit on the idea of the "Dynamic stops" or "D"stops.

Now not only by placing the D stop(s) in the right position behind the brake pedal lever, - can you feel the exact point at which the brakes start to effect the car, it also gives a back pressure which is identical to a hydraulic system.
I also found that now, with a D stop in place I could use a much lighter return spring, which again further improved the feel.

Further refinements, - included using different shape, sizes, density, and number of D stops, along with an infinite adjustment capability, not to mention also changing or altering the tension of the preload springs.

I realised that I had far surpassed what I had originally expected to acheive, and when I felt the effect of this in GT3, where I felt at the time I had stumbled almost on the perfect answer to FF (sorry Roger) for a brake, - I swear I was so happy I had tears in my eyes.

I could feel the precise point of pad/disc contact, and a perfectly natural feeling brake after that, and it could be tailored to anyones taste, or to any driving game - and on any platform (providing the game supported a wheel and pedal set).

Now to answer your question a little more pointedly SB.-

M_Gunz
10-23-2009, 09:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wolf-striked:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
LOL! The mechanics are there for tensioning -- a stronger pot gives more resistance for shorter move. An axis is
an axis regardless of what it's used for, you match the pot (or hall sensor or other) to your mechanics and not the
other ding-a-ling way around! If they use more mechanics it is for feel, not just because they can't figure out how
to find a pot that has the same range of resistance with shorter throw.

The upshot is that you -can- modify your pedals to work just fine with 1/2" movement. Step one: replace the pot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why does this always happen.Some peeps that don't see the idea and say other random stuff.A pot adds no resistance to a joysticks travel...this is accomplished by a spring in the joystick.

Also...then why are the high end pedals using gearing with short throw brakes? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some day you may learn some basic electronics. Amps, Volts, and Ohms. Ohms are the measure of Resistance to Current
flow as by Ohm's Law; Current (Amps) = Potential (Volts) / Resistance (Ohms).

Standard digitizer circuits run a flow of current through the sensing device (stick, pedals, whatever) to charge a
capacitor and then bleed that off while timing how long it takes, the time is the analog of how much Resistance the
device made to the flow which is analog to the position of the handle or whatever of the sensing device, aka the brake
pedal. Standard digitizer circuits including the analog PC stick/pedal ports in most sound cards (and the BU-chip
device used in better homebuilds) wants a range of 0 to 10,000 ohms Resistance which btw is Electrical Resistance and
not how hard the pot is to turn. There are pots that run full range in 1/4-turn to 10 or more full turns and a huge
range of maximum values.

If they have gearing then it is for feel unless they perhaps don't have any even-half-competent EE's on staff which
is -very- hard to believe.

You trying to use pedal mechanics as proof of a need to turn a pot full range with less foot travel is a deduction
and me telling you there is no need for that is simple fact and not random at all.

Even from a surplus house you can find a wide range of pots, try DigiKey for even more. (http://www.allelectronics.com/make-a-store/category/470/Potentiometers/1.html)

wolf-striked
10-23-2009, 09:10 PM
I'm a high school dropout and though I am not proud of that I must add i do know about ohms,voltage etc.

Charging a capacitor......are you ok?A pedal is a simple pot that measures how far you push the pedal.There is no charging of a capacitor....why would you need to hold a charge and release.A pot is just a variable resistor.When you move the pot the resistance changesWOW.The game measures the change in resistance and with that info it knows how much you moved the pedal.

Fella,no change to a different pot will add "feel" to a joystick.The feel is all done by the mechanical side of the joystick....aka the spring/springs.

Thats crazy if you are studied in electronics and can't understand that.

wolf-striked
10-23-2009, 09:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tuphlandng:
When you posted this I thought wow some one is thinking the same thing. I myself know nothing about electronics except real basic stuff. What I do now is mechanics and Hydrolics. I have a dislike for my wheel brake combo because it doesn't feel real at all. When you used the example of the brake pedals I thought pay dirt.
I am sure you know this
The pressure oplide by the foot creates energy to a mechanical pedal *** wich is then turned into hydrolic energy transferred by your brake lines then turned back into mechanical energy. The control in braking is acheavd by the deference in pressure by your foot once the dead zone is passed,pre-load, then the more you press the greater the energy transfer and the faster the vehicle slows down. the greater the speed the greater the force is needed so we press harder. The resistance that we feel has to do with the speed and weight of the vehicle.


With that train of thought is where posts came from. control serfices speed and weight = resistance


"I'm sorry for making you think I was working on building this."

That's OK I can live with a soggy joy stick http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Buy a logitech G27 wheel and install a nixim brake mod.The Nixim brake mod is just a piece of very stiff rubber that you put inside of the brake spring that adds a very progressive feel to the brake.brake mod only cost around $15.00 dollars.

Thats a really good setup right there for around $300.00 dollars.

na85
10-23-2009, 09:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tuphlandng:
Or inside each other </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Negative, that won't work.

na85
10-23-2009, 09:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wolf-striked:
Actually a spring is already variable resistance.The springs in joysticks are so light you cant get the tactile feel of increasing tension though.

http://www.engineersedge.com/spring_comp_calc.htm

EDIT----I think???

Edit-2---yes a normal spring gets stronger when you compress further.Think of a pogo stick.When you step on it it slightly compresses.If the tension never changed then you would step on it and it would keep compressing but stops at a certain point where the strength overcomes your weight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't say you wanted a variable spring, I said you wanted a non linear spring. There is a difference.

M_Gunz
10-24-2009, 04:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wolf-striked:
I'm a high school dropout and though I am not proud of that I must add i do know about ohms,voltage etc.

Charging a capacitor......are you ok?A pedal is a simple pot that measures how far you push the pedal.There is no charging of a capacitor....why would you need to hold a charge and release.A pot is just a variable resistor.When you move the pot the resistance changesWOW.The game measures the change in resistance and with that info it knows how much you moved the pedal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I wrote, that was a description of the --standard digitizer circuit-- that the pedals might hook up to.
Some input devices have the digitizer built in, USB devices that use pots/halls for example.

It's kind of like when I write about ohms of resistance I get reply about resistance to foot movement and
then accused of throwing random information.

Shadrach52
10-24-2009, 05:48 AM
You are absolutly right Wolf-striked. I am building a joystick setup at the moment which is at the stage I can use it in game.

In the first instance it is based on the force feedback mechanism from a Logitech Wingman. This mechanism determins the throw. The rest of the mechanism gimble is constructed from 25mm square aluminium angle and bar.

Once the throw was established I could purchase some gears to give a full turn to some Vishay pots which are output through a Leo Bodnar board.

The mechanism is mounted on a 200mm high box with a further 200mm extension (old chrome curtain rail) between mechanism and grip and buttons from old Logitech stick. This brings the grip to a nice level just above knee height without an excesively long movement.

The feedback force proved insufficient to give really positive centering so, as per your suggestion, I added springs to improve this and make the whole thing much stiffer with increasing resistance as the stick is moved away from centre. I also added some drawer runner based pedals which are attached to the box.

The overall result is a quantum improvement over other sticks I've used (Logitech Wingman, Saitek Evoforce, Microsoft Sidewinder). Control over the plane is absolutely precise. There is no fighting to get and hold a target in the sights as my plane yaws and wanders around the sky. Tighter turns are made easily without sudden spins and landing even on carriers are almost guaranteed with a rock steady path in.

The only slight downside is that rolls in particular seem a tadge sluggish but this can, hopefully, be improved with some more tweaking of the hardware and software.

There is still a bit of work to do and the addition of a control panel using switches and buttons but perhaps I'll try and get some pictures loaded sometime soon.

wolf-striked
10-24-2009, 07:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Shadrach52:
You are absolutly right Wolf-striked. I am building a joystick setup at the moment which is at the stage I can use it in game.

In the first instance it is based on the force feedback mechanism from a Logitech Wingman. This mechanism determins the throw. The rest of the mechanism gimble is constructed from 25mm square aluminium angle and bar.

Once the throw was established I could purchase some gears to give a full turn to some Vishay pots which are output through a Leo Bodnar board.

The mechanism is mounted on a 200mm high box with a further 200mm extension (old chrome curtain rail) between mechanism and grip and buttons from old Logitech stick. This brings the grip to a nice level just above knee height without an excesively long movement.

The feedback force proved insufficient to give really positive centering so, as per your suggestion, I added springs to improve this and make the whole thing much stiffer with increasing resistance as the stick is moved away from centre. I also added some drawer runner based pedals which are attached to the box.

The overall result is a quantum improvement over other sticks I've used (Logitech Wingman, Saitek Evoforce, Microsoft Sidewinder). Control over the plane is absolutely precise. There is no fighting to get and hold a target in the sights as my plane yaws and wanders around the sky. Tighter turns are made easily without sudden spins and landing even on carriers are almost guaranteed with a rock steady path in.

The only slight downside is that rolls in particular seem a tadge sluggish but this can, hopefully, be improved with some more tweaking of the hardware and software.

There is still a bit of work to do and the addition of a control panel using switches and buttons but perhaps I'll try and get some pictures loaded sometime soon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shadrach52,while I thank you for mentioning me its ALL your work.Thats great news and I feel we ALL are on our way to enlightenment.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Go north(tighter)my friend and seek more.Your looking to ncrease spring strength until a fully linear setup is very precise to fly....and then go abit stronger. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

My logitech sidewinder had one spring to control the tension...is this the way you have it setup?I think the best results would be achieved by using a gimbal that has two springs,one spring to control pitch movement and one spring to control bank movement and that the pitch and bank are on different axis.The reason for this is that you want to be able to pull back on stick while feeling the banking springs guiding you...or letting you know your not applying any bank movements if you don't need them.Also by having separate axis for both you can fine tune the amount of spring strength for each.Here is a pic of a NXT gimbal

http://www.wingsofhonour.com/h...in_3072x2304x24b.jpg (http://www.wingsofhonour.com/hardware/thrustmasterhotascougar/review_modding-u2nxt-hs2-hs1_20090718/pic_cougar-modding_20090509-0142_0028_u2nxt-gimbal-built-in_3072x2304x24b.jpg)

The springs are way too small but you can see the separate axis setup.

You might try reverting the length back to standard tabletop joystick,going full linear and testing as this will make the springs you have installed right now become even stronger due to decreased leverage.

EDIT--also rudder pedals need to start being made with very heavy duty springs.A setup where you have to actually build a cockpit so you can apply the pressures needed to move the rudder pedals is what I mean.You want to have to really put you muscles to work to move the rudder pedal.Goes back to ability to run full linear rudders and the precision to fly it with precision caused by the high resistance of rudder pedal setup.Think about a plane just slightly off center to yours and you want to nudge the yaw over in the slightest amount.Then this setup will allow that.
~S~

na85
10-24-2009, 09:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wolf-striked:
I'm a high school dropout and though I am not proud of that I must add i do know about ohms,voltage etc.

Charging a capacitor......are you ok?A pedal is a simple pot that measures how far you push the pedal.There is no charging of a capacitor....why would you need to hold a charge and release.A pot is just a variable resistor.When you move the pot the resistance changesWOW.The game measures the change in resistance and with that info it knows how much you moved the pedal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually that's not how it works. The analog voltage signal produced by the potentiometer gets run through an ADC or Analog to Digital Converter where the analog voltage drop is encoded into a binary number. That binary number is used by the game.

Shadrach52
10-24-2009, 11:20 AM
I use a four spring setup - same in priciple to the Cougar mod.

My gimbal consists of the joystick shaft which sits in a 120 mm frame made from the 25mm angle aluminium and holds a ffback mechanism one side and a bearing the other. Two springs are attached to the shaft and to a post in opposite corners of the frame. The frame rocks between two other post arrangements, one with the ffback, the other with a bearing. Two further springs are attached to opposite sides of the frame and down to the mounting board.

This arrangement means the direction of force from the springs are very close to being inline with the direction of movement giving maximum effect. I used posts each side of the joystick shaft as my first attempt had the springs running down at 45deg to the frame as per the cougar mod which in effect halved the spring force.

The spring force is probably two or three times as strong as any joystick I've used. I could make it more but don't think that necessary and would begin to spoil the force feedback effect which is already weakened by the leverage of the stick extension.

I extended the shaft to make the range of movement more realistic but I am sure it would work as well without and the base could be clamped to a table top.

Unfortunately my digital camera is broken or I could give you a better idea what I mean.

wolf-striked
10-24-2009, 01:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wolf-striked:
I'm a high school dropout and though I am not proud of that I must add i do know about ohms,voltage etc.

Charging a capacitor......are you ok?A pedal is a simple pot that measures how far you push the pedal.There is no charging of a capacitor....why would you need to hold a charge and release.A pot is just a variable resistor.When you move the pot the resistance changesWOW.The game measures the change in resistance and with that info it knows how much you moved the pedal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually that's not how it works. The analog voltage signal produced by the potentiometer gets run through an ADC or Analog to Digital Converter where the analog voltage drop is encoded into a binary number. That binary number is used by the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was just simplifying it and saying that a capacitor is not an electrical device thats needed.Your right,a joystick(some are digital nowadays??)is analog and needs to be converted to digital since a PC needs binary.But capacitor?That stores an electrical charge to be released at a later time.

And I say again....I learned this stuff reading books on circuitry....meaning u gotta give me a break.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

wolf-striked
10-24-2009, 01:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Shadrach52:
I use a four spring setup - same in priciple to the Cougar mod.

My gimbal consists of the joystick shaft which sits in a 120 mm frame made from the 25mm angle aluminium and holds a ffback mechanism one side and a bearing the other. Two springs are attached to the shaft and to a post in opposite corners of the frame. The frame rocks between two other post arrangements, one with the ffback, the other with a bearing. Two further springs are attached to opposite sides of the frame and down to the mounting board.

This arrangement means the direction of force from the springs are very close to being inline with the direction of movement giving maximum effect. I used posts each side of the joystick shaft as my first attempt had the springs running down at 45deg to the frame as per the cougar mod which in effect halved the spring force.

The spring force is probably two or three times as strong as any joystick I've used. I could make it more but don't think that necessary and would begin to spoil the force feedback effect which is already weakened by the leverage of the stick extension.

I extended the shaft to make the range of movement more realistic but I am sure it would work as well without and the base could be clamped to a table top.

Unfortunately my digital camera is broken or I could give you a better idea what I mean. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you able to run full linear and still be precise.By forgoing the FFB you may be able to up the spring strength by large amount and full linear could be super precise...instead of the overcompensating mess it is if done with weak spring joystick.

Very soon I am gonna order a NXT gimbal.I don't own a cougar but will install it into a small box with a tiny nub for the joystick.I think this,while not being realistic compared to a full handheld stick,will give me the tension I want since working with finger strength is harder than moving your arm.

Keep going with it....

squareusr
10-24-2009, 04:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
If you just use a higher resistance pot then you won't need gearing! Normal axis range is 0 to 10k ohms, try a 50k or 100k!
LOL! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope this was not only intended as a joke but also understood as a joke by the audience? the voltage difference between "ground to collector" and "collector to high voltage" does not change with higher reistance pots, only the current would shrink (maybe making noise more of a problem). What you can to is getting a pot with a very short angle of travel, but the better idea would be to ditch pots completely and use less antiquitated technology, like a hall sensor, or a load cell, if you are really deep into the "high force, little movement" thing.

But what you should really ask yourself is: "why the focus on desktop sticks?" If you have pedals and maybe even a trackIR you are already way out of the "socially acceptible", you might just take a long throw stick as well.

PS: if they have gearing then it's probably just cheaper to manufacture that way (less calibration issues), that's the only possible explanation i see for the X52's play-inducing "mechanically augmented hall sensor"

M_Gunz
10-24-2009, 04:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wolf-striked:
And I say again....I learned this stuff reading books on circuitry....meaning u gotta give me a break.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How about giving a break to those who have dealt with these things hands-on even part time for decades already?
I was trying to help you telling you how and why changing the pot makes adding mechanism the wrong way to go.

If you want a good starting point for hands-on then I can recommend something like these. (http://www.radioshack.com/family/index.jsp?categoryId=2032398)
Books alone are not the way to learn, certainly not the way I learned either. One thing I did learn is how many
people who never learned think that everyone who did got everything from books and are so quick to prove that
"books don't have everything" and then go on about things like boiling water freezes faster than cold water or
whatever else their Granny told them. Next step is always the fist fight since that's really how you decide how
things work. Hey, emotion takes over where knowledge leaves off and there's lots of shallow puddles out there.
Since I lived in a poor (only ***gots read books) neighborhood the last 7 years of school I learned to argue either
way, that goes back to 1967 so guess how much bull I'm ready to take?

squareusr
10-24-2009, 04:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wolf-striked:
Charging a capacitor......are you ok?A pedal is a simple pot that measures how far you push the pedal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because it's a lot cheaper to check a capacitor for "voltage above threshold or below threshold?" ten thousand times a second than to actually measure the voltage (with more than two possible results).

One can be done by chips that maybe cost half a dollar, the other needs a chip that might cost two dollars or more (disclaimer: those numbers are completely made up). Things like this make a world of a difference in consumer electronics that will go over the counter for a two-digit amount.

About spring setups: i use a two spring setup (three with pedals), one spring for each axis. Stick deflection is transferred into pull on bowden wires and an axis' spring gets extended by deflection to both sides. It is very easy around the center (barely enough to keep the stick straight) but it becomes much stronger towards the limits of motion. Right now i'm in the process of adding FFB motors to modulate spring strength. The stick is running full linear of course, so i am never trimming for higher precision around the center, only for reduced load on the springs.

M_Gunz
10-24-2009, 04:52 PM
I should have just linked to something like this the first time. (http://www.epanorama.net/documents/joystick/pc_joystick.html#pc_interface)

There are better and faster ways but not much cheaper ways. The same thing or better can be found built-in to many cheap
user-programmable microcontrollers like the STAMPs and AVRs as a small part of the whole package. Leo Bodnar uses one of
those unless he manufactures his own chips. The plus of using those is that you don't have to go the ADC route, his
updated controllers also allow pure digital measure as well much the same as non-optical mice count spokes movement of
internal wheels (turned by the mouse ball) past two light bridges.
LOL, which is better, the optical mouse or the one that uses the mechanical ball and wheels? No contest!

julian265
10-24-2009, 05:22 PM
I'm of the same opinion as Gunz, but would have expressed it differently.

Gears (especially the gearing used in the average gaming controller) will have slack, and give unwanted dead-zones when ever you change your foot's movement direction.

Rewording what Gunz said, if the original pot was 10k, and zero pedal deflection gives ~0 ohms,
then you can pick a 100k pot and position it so that zero pedal deflection gives ~0 ohms also, however the resistance will rise 10 times faster, meaning you get full in-game response with lesser deflection.

To do the above well, would require no-slack in the pots mounting and shaft connection (ie, slight interference press fits), however doing this is easy and cheap compared to using gears without slack.

Either way, why gaming controllers are still using pots for critical axis (x/y/pedals) measurement is beyond me.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tuphlandng:
I really thought a variable spring would work

non linear spring

Please explain

Tuph </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Two springs in series will let the weaker spring compress first, then move on to the stronger one (ie two stage spring constant). Two springs in parallel (ie inside each other) will have a fixed spring constant.... Unless you were meaning that the stronger spring is shorter than the weaker one, and the longer one has to be compressed a bit first before being contacted.

julian265
10-24-2009, 05:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by squareusr:
I hope this was not only intended as a joke but also understood as a joke by the audience? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

See my post above.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by squareusr:
But what you should really ask yourself is: "why the focus on desktop sticks?" If you have pedals and maybe even a trackIR you are already way out of the "socially acceptible", you might just take a long throw stick as well.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well put.

Except I don't mind whether the stick has any centering force or not, hence I didn't bother with springs. Mine has the frictional resistance of a tightened uni-joint.

Airmail109
10-24-2009, 05:34 PM
Modded Thrustmaster Cougar.

Nuff said.

wolf-striked
10-24-2009, 07:19 PM
Ok change to a pot that has higher resolution in smaller rotation so that you don't need gears.Forget all that for now.

This post is not about the gearing needed to make a pot turn.I wanted to point out that the direction that joysticks are headed is wrong IMO.We dont need longer throw joysticks....extending a joystick does give more precision...but a better way is to make the resistance of the throw we have now very strong.Much stronger than say a Cougar.

We all agree running full linear is the best way to run a sims controls.But when you do that you now have joysticks that have no center position and weak springs.With heavy duty springs you will feel the INSTANT you start applying backpressure and by tactile feel youll be able to add a bit more or a bit less.

With weak springs you have to use your mind to move the joystick say 1/16 of an inch.With heavy duty springs you pull and judge this amount by "feel".

Some people will understand this and some won't.

M_Gunz I actually know alot about electronics just from reading.When I was younger,as a hobby I used to build circuits that convert actual wall outlet electricity to DC and stepped down to the voltage I needed....all done on a small circuit board....yes I electrocuted myself a many times learning and doing this.Basically I needed a power supply source(variable)and built one from scratch all learned by reading.

But again....forget the electronics of a joystick....I am talking about the mechanical side.

wolf-striked
10-24-2009, 07:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
Modded Thrustmaster Cougar.

Nuff said. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I tried a Cougar in a store and the resistance was suprisingly weak compared to what I had heard about it.I hear modded sticks have reduced tension for longer life of springs.

What I am talking about is running full linear with enough resistance that you can move the stick by "feeling" for precise control.

BillSwagger
10-24-2009, 07:35 PM
i popped a higher tension spring into my logitech and there was more tension on the initial pull, but the resistance actually flattens out as i near the edge of its throw limit.

I was expecting it to have the most tension on the outside of its throw but apparently the way the joystick is built the spring actually compresses the most in the first two centimeters of throw than it does the last centimeter of throw. If you can imagine pulling through the resistance and then have it suddenly let up. Its difficult to be precise through that part of the throw curve.

I think the stick was designed around a specific spring tension. This effect is actually present with the stock spring but since the tension is way lower its not at all noticeable.

I would actually opt for a longer of a handle as well as increased tension for accuracy, but on another note, accuracy is really just a matter of learning the joystick you have. Some might be more accurate than what i have, but if you are use to relying on subtle hand movements then accuracy can be learned, not only engineered.

M_Gunz
10-24-2009, 08:25 PM
Indeed Bill. Try flying with just index finger and thumb holding the stick and see the change.
A biggie is whether or not the player rests arm weight on the stick. That and a tight grip are
two factors in ham-handedness.

wolf-striked
10-25-2009, 12:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
i popped a higher tension spring into my logitech and there was more tension on the initial pull, but the resistance actually flattens out as i near the edge of its throw limit.

I was expecting it to have the most tension on the outside of its throw but apparently the way the joystick is built the spring actually compresses the most in the first two centimeters of throw than it does the last centimeter of throw. If you can imagine pulling through the resistance and then have it suddenly let up. Its difficult to be precise through that part of the throw curve.

I think the stick was designed around a specific spring tension. This effect is actually present with the stock spring but since the tension is way lower its not at all noticeable.

I would actually opt for a longer of a handle as well as increased tension for accuracy, but on another note, accuracy is really just a matter of learning the joystick you have. Some might be more accurate than what i have, but if you are use to relying on subtle hand movements then accuracy can be learned, not only engineered. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like my tests with the T2 racing wheel yrs back.There was this sweet spot that lasted a few minutes.All of a sudden I was driving a car on my PC it felt that good.After 3 minutes it would just start to slightly lose tension but the feel of a real car would diminish rapidly.Yrs back I actually built a steering wheel from scratch.I used super heavy duty springs but the gimbal itself left the center position slack and then as you turned the wheel the forces became exteme so at full lock you would need two hands for prolonged turning.It just didn't cut it after feeling the modified T2.

I know what you mean about the sidewinder spring loosening up at edges.If you look at it you'll see that when you first start a movement the plastic piece compresses the spring but then the side opposite to direction your deflecting starts to rise and tension reduces.Much better than the Saitek with there non-existent spring feel.

Fehler
10-25-2009, 02:24 AM
I would like to add my thoughts to this discussion:

When I was building my "Julian" stick (Made from a car U-joint utilizing hall sensors) I too struggled with the notion of incorporating a centering force of some sort. Of course, the logical design would have used some sort of spring tensioner to "re-center" the stick, right?

I was so eager to use this new build that I started to play the game with a stick that had no self-centering action built into it. (My idea was that I would need to plan the design before using it, and I became impatient)

What I discovered was that my new full-throw stick was much more intuitive than I thought it would be. Then it occurred to me...

Unless there is some game input attached to some sort of servo action that actually increases stick forces as forces are built up on the control surfaces of my computer plane, then it is all fake anyway!

A spring is a spring is a spring. As you move a spring centered stick away from center, the same amount of force is applied, pushing you back to center. It matters not what type of force would be on your computer generated control surfaces. I am sure, everyone is aware that stick forces are not always constant. The more force on a control surface, the more force on the stick (When dealing with cable and/or rod driven controls) That's why there is more force needed to pull out of a steep dive than to manipulate the same amount of deflection in normal flight.

So, what does a spring really simulate? Nothing. It merely puts the stick back in the middle. Whoopie... I can do that without a spring.

Springs only give a person a false sense of control force.

I could be wrong, but I am not sure if a servo driven stick could take inputs from the game and generate this type of true feedback into the stick. I am not a devicelink wizard, so I am not sure this is a correct statement.

So, with my stick, I have no centering force other than gravity. In level flight, I trim my plane so that my stick is in the middle of it's throw. Again, it is quite intuitive; even more so than I had dreamed. And because there is some amount of friction inherent in a U-joint, the stick tends to stay in the position that I put it unless it is leaning heavily to one side or another. That's how I determine the amount of trim needed by feel.

Perhaps there will be programming in the future that will allow someone to create a true force feedback stick, one that interacts with the flight game software and actually applied more force on the stick under the proper situations, and not just wiggle in your hand or just push back at the same rate all the time.

Now imagine THAT! Diving in your "Plane X" and having to exert 40 lbs of pressure on the stick to get "X" degrees of deflevtion on the elevators in order to pull out of the dive! And imagine only needing say 10 pounds of pressure to deflect the elevators the same "X" degrees in normal flight! THAT would be realistic and would be worthy of being called true "force feedback".

Springs alone cannot do that.

SO, really.. Discussion of using springs without some sort of game to stick interface that transfers the stick forces of the game into your hands is really a useless discussion.

xf86config
10-25-2009, 03:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Perhaps there will be programming in the future that will allow someone to create a true force feedback stick, one that interacts with the flight game software and actually applied more force on the stick under the proper situations, and not just wiggle in your hand or just push back at the same rate all the time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not sure i get this part.

The MSFFB2 stick ( and its predecessors) already do a certain level of what you describe. Fly your aircraft at high speed and the force required to move control surfaces increases. Fly near stall speed and the forces required to move control surfaces is negligable or non existant, allowing flight by feel rather than guestimate.

Unfortunately the feedback sticks i have experienced sadly do not allow for feedback on the rudder axis. I don't believe any 3rd party rudder pedal does either. For me, this is what is missing in sims. Currently you can fly and trim by feel on elevators and ailerons, but without a feedback axis for rudder any hope of gaining an acceptable "seat of the pants" experience is failing.

Fehler
10-25-2009, 03:12 AM
Well see? Ya learn something new every day!

So you are saying that the stick forces in one of those FFB sticks actually increases as the simulated control surface force increases?

Well then all that is needed are servos strong enough to create 50-70 pounds of force, and the software to drive them I guess...

I always want to learn something new each day I live. I dont feel that my day is complete without it. But now that I have learned something new so early in the day... What the hell am I going to do with the rest of my time!!!

Thanks a lot! LOL!

wolf-striked
10-25-2009, 09:20 AM
No one has made a stick that is HARD to move from dead center in any of the 4 directions and that ramps up nicely giving a tactile feel to how much input your giving but doesn't become too hard to hold at max deflection.

Yes its always hard and doesn't change like a real planes stick would but you live with this fact like people with low tension sticks do(like CH users).

Moving a stick by releasing tension is way easier than moving a stick by muscle memory.Our bodies are in tune with force or I should say our muscle.

Do this test.Hold an imaginary joystick in air and push it forward ever slightly.Its not easy to move "slightly" since the body expects back pressure.You need alot of practice to be able to do this.

Now push against a desk with your fist until you have a nice backpressure and then imagine adding in a slight forward movement.You now have a tactile feel and by adding just a bit more force you get movement.

This allows one to not have to sit as steady as possible trying concentrating super hard on the sticks movement...instead you can relax and concentrate on your surroundings instead.

Sokol__1
10-25-2009, 10:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I was so eager to use this new build that I started to play the game with a stick that had no self-centering action built into it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fehler,

And if integrate a "deadman switch" in these spring-less stick?
That switch turn off X an Y response if you take your hand off the grip.

Sokol1

M_Gunz
10-25-2009, 02:46 PM
Fly with a light touch. (http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/aoa.html#sec-light-touch-1)

wolf-striked
10-25-2009, 04:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Fly with a light touch. (http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/aoa.html#sec-light-touch-1) </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

BillSwagger
10-25-2009, 04:47 PM
instead of using the higher tension spring, i stuck a hard rubber washer at the base of the stock spring. The tension itself is very consistent, there is just a bit more of it which gives it a nice feel. There is no increase in tension as i increase throw.
I really don't think the springs in some sticks were meant to simulate tension, but instead just makes sure your stick pops back to center.

Since logitech Attack 3s are so cheap and have so many buttons i often wondered if another could be used as a throttle quadrant.
Something like: Y axis = power and X axis = pitch
Taking the spring out of the stick means the stick no longer returns to center, but its not enough to hold the stick in place.

Are there ways to add tension to hold the stick in place and give it a nice smooth throw with out making it pop back to center?

wolf-striked
10-25-2009, 05:10 PM
Bill maybe a big glob of non conductive grease(for plastic also) jammed in would hold the stick up.Maybe also take off the handle so its just the knob and you may not need grease or whatnot.

Sokol__1
10-25-2009, 05:20 PM
BillSwagger

Better made "Joy-Thottle" with some modification:

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/5151/throttlejoylogi3.jpg (http://img229.imageshack.us/i/throttlejoylogi3.jpg/)


The horizontal wood rail make friction to Y lever. X is put in pot with knob in left side of handle.

Sokol1

wolf-striked
10-25-2009, 05:28 PM
Sokol...try using the actual throttle pot.Its different quality on Sidewinder joysticks.I have had mine for so many yrs and while the pitch and roll pots spike the throttle pot is still rock steady.Its also coincidentally a different color.

Shadrach52
10-25-2009, 05:29 PM
I think a persons liking and use of a joystick and for that matter pedals are very subjective. If I understand you, wolf-striked, you are saying that you would have better control over the game if the joystick
acted more like the brake pedal of a car.

Because you would be using a strong opposing force to push against you would have greater precision than relying on greater movement with weaker forces.

This is undoubtably true. I also play race simms - GTR2 and Grand Prix Legands - and intend to build my own wheel, pedals and gear shift. I have purchased the strain guage version of Leo's board and intend to use a load cell for the brake. I will use a heavy spring - a car valve spring perhaps between brake lever and cell to give a small movement to transmit the force.

For me, the whole point of playing a sim is to make as much effort as possible to try and kid myself that I really am a Jim Clark racing driver or a WWII fighter pilot locked in mortal combat. For that reason I try and make my input devices feel and behave as near to the real thing as possible. For racing this is not so hard - I drive every day in real life and have even done a little motor sport at club level.

I have never flown a plane let alone a WWII fighter so I only have my imagination and second hand accounts to work with. On a purely subjective level I am very happy with my project to date and feel it goes some little way to replicate the movement, forces and contol I might experience in real life. Of course it's just a game and even if I went so far as to build a replica cockpit perhaps with motion built in and multiple displays etc. it would still fall a mile short of the real deal.

For me there are a couple of issues regarding input devices. Fistly they need to at least aproximate to the feel and behaviour (real or imagined) of the real life control. In my experience most run of the mill devices are pretty poor. You need to spend more than most care to - or build your own.

The second is the degree of input precision they have over the game. Most controllers have analogue output - potentiometers or hall sensors. This output has to be converted to digital to be used by the game ie. sliced up into descreet values. The game has a resolution or a set number of values it can recognise. Like a digital camera, the higher the resolution the better the picture.

The board in the device also has an output resolution 8, 10 or 12 bits for instance. The higher the resolutions the greater the potential for precise control.

Most devices pivot around an axis and have a degree of rotation. In the case of joysticks its usually less than 90 degrees. Most joysticks usually attach the pot or sensor directly to the end of the axis. This means only a fraction of the potential range is available to be sliced up into digital values hence the attraction of gearing to increase the range available. This is as true for hall sensors.

Joysticks are built to a budget to maximise profit. I don't know any that use gearing because it would need a high quality of build but then most simpler sticks suffer from some play or soon become become worn enough to lose precision over the limited range of movement. The Logitech Wingman was dire.

I would have thought the best and simplest solution to obtain wolf-striked's effect would be to attach a beam load cell directly to the end of the joystick shaft limited to one plane of movement with a second at right angles similarly limited to one plane. I don't know how much movement a beam load cell gives if any. It might need a slightly flexible joystick shaft?

The Saitek Evo has a mouse type wheel turning in a sensor which eliminates the problem of wear but because of the limited rotation it only moves about 16 windows through the sensor from lock to lock giving a very low resolution. Again this would benefit from gearing to give multiple turns - like running a mouse across a table rather than moving it 1/4 inch.

The best commercial stick I've used for precision is the Sidewinder which feels much like a gamepad joystick.

M_Gunz
10-25-2009, 05:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wolf-striked:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Fly with a light touch. (http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/aoa.html#sec-light-touch-1) </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess you don't have the slightest idea who wrote that.

squareusr
10-26-2009, 01:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
LOL, which is better, the optical mouse or the one that uses the mechanical ball and wheels? No contest! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My first ideas about building a custom stick actually revolved around using the sensor of an optical mouse for measuring stick travel. Would have been a very awkward construction (with some awkward software to go along with it). With those &gt;1000 dpi mice we get these days one could get impressive stick resolutions, given the right mechanics. But in the end hall sensors and the BU368 are by far the more reasonable solution.

squareusr
10-26-2009, 02:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fehler:
Perhaps there will be programming in the future that will allow someone to create a true force feedback stick, one that interacts with the flight game software and actually applied more force on the stick under the proper situations, and not just wiggle in your hand or just push back at the same rate all the time.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good FFB Sticks like the Microsoft ones do not have any centering besides the motors and can be set up so that there is little or zero wiggling and only the game-controlled amount of centering.

I'm currently in the process of using this to control the amount of recentering force by inlining FFB motors between two springs, so that the motors will add more or less force to the pull of the springs. It's supposed to work like this:


Little motor force:
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
#--fixed-----|/|/|/|/|/|-------------.
/Motor\
| 0 |
\ /
&lt;--to-stick----|/|/|/|/|/|-------------
</pre>
More motor force:
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
#--fixed-----||||||||----------------.
/Motor\
| 0 |
\ -&gt; /
&lt;--to-stick----|/\/ \ / \/\/|----------
</pre>

The motors are driven by regular FFB electronics that are tricked into applying recenter force by constantly putting the pots into an off-center position (will be interesting to get around auto-calibration)

The motor configuration looks like this (http://immaterialien.de/pics/stick/spring_side.jpeg). The string is a dummy representation of the wires connecting the springs, the ball bearings are used to take load off the axle.

Right now i only need to find time to get me a useful collection of fresh springs, because it will certainly take some experimentation to get the best balance between springs and motors.

squareusr
10-26-2009, 02:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wolf-striked:
No one has made a stick that is HARD to move from dead center in any of the 4 directions and that ramps up nicely giving a tactile feel to how much input your giving but doesn't become too hard to hold at max deflection. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What you describe is not centering force but inertia. You might just use a heavy long throw stick that is made from steel instead of plastic and you are set. Moving parts on my bicycle-based stick are probably about 2 kg total, i guess many of the unijoint sticks are considerably heavier.

M_Gunz
10-26-2009, 02:41 PM
I wouldn't know how to get a mouse to be seen as a stick axis. To mount the mouse steady and move a section
of a disc past it would be clumsy-big even if the cover was stripped from the mouse.

I have experimented with IR LED and IR sensor, passing the light through clear plastic printed with B/W gradient
at a local office store. 50 cents gets a whole sheet copy laser printed on clear plastic, LOTS of strips that way.
I tried first to reflect the IR from white paper with black-ink gradient but LOL the IR reflected the same from
white or black which I didn't expect! Maybe the 900nm near-IR is exceptional, I dunno but the LEDs only ran me
20 cents each and the idea of being able to vary the gradient to change the sensor output allows flexibility.
The sensors were under 30 cents and the current draw for the whole setup is very low, I got good results on the
meter running about 10mA at 4.8V (3 AAA's through 470 ohm resistor plus the LED) through the LED. Haven't gone
past breadboard and anything I'd use regularly though.

Using a LED through a square aperture and sensor I can measure total movements of an arm down to 2 or 3mm pretty
close to linear. If I could use a lead screw to block the light then very small rotations could be measured.
That makes me think... many old floppy and CD drives do have small lead screws in mounts.

M_Gunz
10-26-2009, 02:46 PM
Solenoid for FFB actuator? (http://www.allelectronics.com/make-a-store/category/575/Solenoids/1.html)

No, they're not all suitable.

M_Gunz
10-26-2009, 02:58 PM
Last bit, you -might- have the stick springs press on piezo discs and pick up the potential on that with a FET.
I'd bet they use piezos of some kind in the new Saitek, but no springs. It is nice tight solution and you can
measure even very small forces that way.

A simple demonstration. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xuw9frP1GNo)

BillSwagger
10-26-2009, 04:03 PM
Not sure how to describe this, maybe this is what you are already talking about, but what about the idea of using something similar to sensors on a digital scale.

Essentially the stick hardly moves, but it might be better to have some give and maybe load it with a very heavy spring, so at least it gives the feel of stick and not just this handle that you push and pull against. Pulling on it will compress on a sensor that measures how much force is being used. So it could give a measurement in grams or ounces, but instead the signal would go to the driver or software where the information is calculated into stick movements.

So if you can imagine taking a digital scale and pressing on it, the higher the number that shows, the further the stick movement would be.
This way would be more relative to forces achieved during flight. For example, in a game you could program 80lbs of stick force, which could be measured and calculated by this type of stick.
Currently in Il2, you might notice on some planes at higher speeds there is little elevator authority because the pilot is programmed to use 50lbs of stick force.
Imagine if the stick forces were measured by the actual strength of the players?
So maybe it takes 60lbs of stick force to recover a 109 from a dive, but if i'm able to pull 90lbs using both hands, the recovery might be much sooner than what the current engine simulates.

The other possibility with this stick is that regular maneuvers might only require 30lbs of force, while at higher speeds you might need more strength to get the same results. Trimming off forces would then be necessary or your arms would tire.


This type of stick is probably way ahead of its time, and would require gaming/sim developers to also work a format into their code that would allow the stick forces to actually be measured and used properly in the game, instead of having pre programmed stick forces like in Il2. Full real settings, could also mean full real stick forces.



Bill

M_Gunz
10-26-2009, 04:20 PM
Maybe use a fiberglass rod for the stick, it would have the spring built in?

Airmail109
10-26-2009, 04:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
Not sure how to describe this, maybe this is what you are already talking about, but what about the idea of using something similar to sensors on a digital scale.

Essentially the stick hardly moves, but it might be better to have some give and maybe load it with a very heavy spring, so at least it gives the feel of stick and not just this handle that you push and pull against. Pulling on it will compress on a sensor that measures how much force is being used. So it could give a measurement in grams or ounces, but instead the signal would go to the driver or software where the information is calculated into stick movements.

So if you can imagine taking a digital scale and pressing on it, the higher the number that shows, the further the stick movement would be.
This way would be more relative to forces achieved during flight. For example, in a game you could program 80lbs of stick force, which could be measured and calculated by this type of stick.
Currently in Il2, you might notice on some planes at higher speeds there is little elevator authority because the pilot is programmed to use 50lbs of stick force.
Imagine if the stick forces were measured by the actual strength of the players?
So maybe it takes 60lbs of stick force to recover a 109 from a dive, but if i'm able to pull 90lbs using both hands, the recovery might be much sooner than what the current engine simulates.

The other possibility with this stick is that regular maneuvers might only require 30lbs of force, while at higher speeds you might need more strength to get the same results. Trimming off forces would then be necessary or your arms would tire.


This type of stick is probably way ahead of its time, and would require gaming/sim developers to also work a format into their code that would allow the stick forces to actually be measured and used properly in the game, instead of having pre programmed stick forces like in Il2. Full real settings, could also mean full real stick forces.



Bill </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cougar with the f-16 force mod. Would just need a decent programmer to set it up for varying loads.

squareusr
10-26-2009, 04:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I wouldn't know how to get a mouse to be seen as a stick axis. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
that trick would have needed lots of quirky custom software (or maybe a smart glovie script could do it).

Now i simply use the bodnar/hall combination for the stick and IR voltage divider (rnzoli) and am happy with that. The FFB project will probably enter evaluation stage soon, so far i can only guess how it will turn out.

BillSwagger
10-26-2009, 04:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Maybe use a fiberglass rod for the stick, it would have the spring built in? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was thinking along those lines, but i remember when i was a kid, going to the arcade and always seeing that machine that had the guy you would arm wrestle. Remember that one?
You had to press against it, and it would still give some, but in order to win you had to really push against it. Of course with a stick, i don't think there could be counter forces, but some type of ffb system could vary the degree of strength needed in a manuever so it might actually represent the forces encountered in flight.
A spring would be the easy way, but if not a very heavy spring, then some other material that can bend in all directions while still maintaining its original shape. This would allow the base of the stick to flex some in all directions will still compressing the sensor.


I also don't know that such a stick would be ideal sitting or even being bolted to a desktop. If the forces are realistic then it would need to be placed between the players legs like an actual flight stick.



Bill

Eow_TK
10-26-2009, 05:24 PM
I would buy a stick like that if someone actually made it Bill. It would be interesting to play online, where part of your success might come from actual 'pilot' strength. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/typing.gif

M_Gunz
10-26-2009, 05:34 PM
You could probably attach a trailer hitch receiver under the seat of a chair and build the stick onto an extender so it
can be removed on need. Then you wouldn't be trying to hold the stick with your legs and use pedals at the same time.

BillSwagger
10-26-2009, 05:50 PM
it could actually be mounted to the pedals and be adjustable to suit the comfort of the pilot.
edit: and whats to say rudder forces could not also be engineered the same way.


here is a pick of a mechanism, but getting proper forcefeed back calculations would we require software thats able to recognize how much the weight is offset by shifting the ball.

Non-FFB is more straight forward.


http://i709.photobucket.com/albums/ww99/billswagger/stick.jpg



The way software works you could also have multiplier and dividers so the weight used in the game, could be double or half of the force you are using. This might mean that kids could still use the stick, or if playing with 50+ lbs of stick force became too tiring you could turn down the settings and use 10 lbs which would still be equivalent to 50 lbs in the game.

It does add to the idea of a full real setting.

wolf-striked
10-26-2009, 06:24 PM
Saitek's newest stick coming out will be like your describing.It has no movement and the stick registers the force.....like the mentioned Cougar F16 force mod.The thing is that many complained that no movement is terrible in a prop sim and its more suited for jet aircraft.

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/523/saitekx65f.jpg

In my head a good gimbal setup would be rubber as the tension mechanism.Forward/back and left/right each have there own tough solid rubber piece that compresses to give resistance.At first it will be silly hard but overtime it will lossen up nicely.In order to make high tension with spring IMO you couldn't put this inside a tabletop joystick.

BillSwagger
10-26-2009, 07:01 PM
i don't see a tabletop stick being able to simulate actual stick forces, and if it were, it would be better placed between the legs of the pilot like an actual stick.

I was thinking floor mount, but being the way its designed it could mount to a center beam that attaches to rudder pedals.

A high tension spring would mean that the stick can pivot and shift as a normal stick would but the resistance would be felt as actual force because of the way the ball acts against the sensor.

Force feedback would shift the location of the ball as well as the sensor which would mean that additional tension would be felt from the handle of the stick.

Trimming might lock that ball in place, so you no longer had to apply force to keep the stick positioned there.
The result would be a stick that actually stiffens up in highspeed dives, or acts more loosely or sponge like when approaching a stall.

My drawing is not to scale, and depending on the amount of tension needed, you might actually have the ball located further way from the pivot point than the handle of the stick ends up being. in my drawing, i'm thinking the pivot point would need a gimbal or something similar to give the stick something to pivot against.
There might be a way to have separate springs for each sensor to flex against with out the need of a high tension spring above the pivot point, but i think there would be more give and better simulated tension with the spring at the base of the stick just above the pivot.
Table top sticks might be better suited with the latter, i just don't seem them simulating actual stick forces.


I think the way i'm visioning it is not easily detailed in a couple paragraphs.

M_Gunz
10-26-2009, 08:49 PM
Bill, trim doesn't lock IRL and you don't need to with a full length stick either. It just changes where the stick
would end up if you let go of it. In flight you hold the stick in place then crank in trim until there's no force
on your stick hand. If you were to hold the stick there and wind in nose up trim your would feel increasing force
against that hand. If you then let go of the stick it would move backward.
However since IL2 is programmed for non-FFB sticks the only feedback you get is relative to absolute center which is
not like real (above). Perhaps with a microcontroller and the right software you could get around that, maybe.

If you have a small local airport then you might convince a pilot to take you up and let you do some short simple
flying but be prepared to buy the gas and something extra besides. The right day and people and that can happen.
Look for notices of different attract-the-public events and your luck will likely be better around then.

wolf-striked
10-26-2009, 11:20 PM
This is where a need to for flight simmers to start headed for cockpit setups.Look at the advancements in racing sim hardware recently.The pedals are so realistic you need to bolt them down and have a hard rigid racing seat to apply the forces needed.FFB steering wheels are also being bolted down.

Flight sim hardware needs to catch up.Heavy tension sticks that have tabletop clamps built right in.Rudder setups that need cockpits etc...

Look at these homemade racing cockpits.We need to seek for "real feel".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T65CXTjYmU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...g14w&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5uITg4g14w&feature=related)

This one is funny.Monday morning and people asking you at work how you broke your hand. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV_s3Xm9chI

BillSwagger
10-27-2009, 01:36 AM
I guess the stick i'm thinking of would be more for enthusiasts, although i'm also quite happy using just a table top stick.

The people that purchase the more expensive get ups and TIR would probably want something like this, and i'm probably not the first to think in this direction as far as "real" flight sticks go. The people who make these racing wheels are probably already thinking of something like this.

This stick would be well ahead of Il2, and probably better engineered for later sims to come. Like i mentioned before, some sort of format or code that is worked into the game to allow the stick to work properly off of forces. It might be very similar to a FFB frequency, but it could be capable of more detail cause you'd need to work the forces into the "ball" end of the stick that would tell the pilot he is approaching stall, or that buffeting is felt as he nears compressibility.

Trimming should be dialed in, but i said locking mechanism when i should've said something like establishing a new center point where the ball end is currently located.

Is that not how real trim worked, for example....you push forward on the stick to keep from nosing up. You then use the dial until there is no more force required to keep the stick in place. Or is it different than that.

I would probably need to fly a plane to really design something like this with pin point accuracy. I just think the whole force feedback dynamic could really be expanded upon if the proper format were developed and used. It opens up a whole new avenue of numbers for people to ***** about, but there are records of stick forces for different planes. I think it'd be a neat thing to have.

It might actually be kinda dangerous considering that a stick would have the ability to whip around simulating the forces actually encountered while flying. Should probably come with a warning. It would be no more dangerous than exercise equipment, so i would think it would still be possible to sell and market under similar safety precautions. You'd still need to idiot proof it.

Eow_TK
10-27-2009, 04:48 PM
Bring a cup http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif damn that would suck! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

BillSwagger
10-27-2009, 07:22 PM
i was thinking along the lines of a lap belt that had to be buckled while you sat in the chair. If it wasn't buckled, meaning you aren't properly seated, then the stick wouldn't register.

There's also other built in mechanisms that could be used to make sure the user is properly positioned.

I'm thinking of other products likes these racing wheels. They are sold and over engineered to be more safe than what would be necessary. Then modders get a hold of it and make it better, yet less safe. However, if they get hurt its on them and not the company that made it.

I really wouldn't want to sell something that could catapult a toddler through a window. Come to think of it, i don't think it would actually be that strong being that most extreme stick forces were in the range of 10 to 20 lbs. When i'm thinking of 50+lbs, that's the strength required of the pilot who might need to recover from a dive or pull an insane maneuver at higher speeds. The stick its self would actually be more stationary under those conditions, simulating resistance the pilot would need to work against. It would not be whipping around with 50+lbs of force.

Bill

Eow_TK
10-27-2009, 07:25 PM
Thats true, just joking around. But I think these are very promising ideas for future developers.

M_Gunz
10-27-2009, 07:27 PM
Bill if you connect the springs to the lower end of the stick at one end and solenoid each at the other then the movement
of the solenoid arm would vary the pressure of the spring on the stick. Pressure/strain sensor could fit anywhere, even
strain gauges on the stick itself would work and allow a little smaller base.

Most any conducting material conducts differently when under strain. A very low voltage current flowing through that to
the base of a transistor can easily control current flow in a stick port (or BU chip) setup. That's the principle that
solid state scales work under, the actual movement is so small that it's practically nothing.

Solenoids... wouldn't have decent pinball machines without em!

PS -- much more power than solenoids and I think you might need pneumatics or hydraulics.

BillSwagger
10-27-2009, 08:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:

PS -- much more power than solenoids and I think you might need pneumatics or hydraulics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd want to avoid the use of heavier equipment. I'd go with compressed air and an electric air pump/compressor as a hydraulic system, but i'd still look toward electric motors with higher torque or gearing capability first. They make pretty strong motors like those used in larger electric drills or a drill press, but proper gearing would be essential to allow for higher torque.

It might not even take that large of a motor if it used four motors working as a push/pull on both axis.

I would need to see inside a FFB stick to get some ideas so it could be a beefed up version of a FFB table top stick.

M_Gunz
10-27-2009, 08:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:

PS -- much more power than solenoids and I think you might need pneumatics or hydraulics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd want to avoid the use of heavier equipment. I'd go with compressed air and an electric air pump/compressor as a hydraulic system, but i'd still look toward electric motors with higher torque or gearing capability first. They make pretty strong motors like those used in larger electric drills or a drill press, but proper gearing would be essential to allow for higher torque.

It might not even take that large of a motor if it used four motors working as a push/pull on both axis.

I would need to see inside a FFB stick to get some ideas so it could be a beefed up version of a FFB table top stick. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A tabletop stick will be limited by the table it is on and its mounting to that table. Hope the PC and monitor are
mounted on something else if you want to drive much push. Stall buffets, going transonic, takeoff roll vibration
on rough fields, things like that wouldn't be good for a spinning DVD drive just to mention one part. Better stick
to the integrated with pedals setup?

Compressed air is pneumatics. Hydraulics uses fluids. And solenoids are straight line versions of electric motors.
The first two involve seals but let you put the motor part away from the application. Solenoids don't. Still the
airhammer type parts available off the shelf do have their attractions don't they?

A 24V solenoid can deliver a very powerful kick and can also reverse fast enough to vibrate but will generate a
good bit of heat if it has to hold extended for long. IIRC 12V solenoids are what you see in pinball tables,
still a bit of drive.

Now if I have a 60-lb per inch compression spring and a solenoid behind it capable of 1 inch of movement and 60 lbs
push and hook that 2 inches below my very strong gimbal then a hand 6 inches above the gimbal could get 20 lbs push.
They do make industrial die springs -much- stronger than 60-lb per inch btw. With the right forces and leverage a
1/4 inch travel can do the job.

If you sell something strong enough to break a wrist or finger then expect to get sued for big money no matter how
many warnings you slap on or release forms you collect. Law has nothing to do with facts, it's all about money and
politics.

julian265
10-27-2009, 10:38 PM
If the stick monitored it's position, it could monitor and limit its force-feedback induced movement speed to safe levels, hence no catapulting toddlers, and no stick slamming into your hand with any considerable inertia.

A user setting could choose the maximum force to be applied also.

This kind of stick would only be for quite serious simmers though, you'd have to either bold the stick base down, or mount your chair on it.

M_Gunz
10-28-2009, 02:58 AM
Julian I have wondered if a stick could use something like a Wii setup to measure position?

BillSwagger
10-28-2009, 03:47 AM
there's numerous ways to ensure safety. I'd still want to preserve the realism.

I really don't think the stick forces would be so extreme that they could break someones hand or finger, anymore than a high end racing wheel would.

There would still need to be precautions taken.
Infared sensors is one way, a lap belt, or even a safety grip to ensure the hand is tightly gripped. I've seen gardening tools or chainsaws with special grips that also act as a second switch to ensure the hands are in position.

Similar to the this, but with much less travel required, so that the hand can firmly grip the handle while the trigger finger or thumb can still be comfortable to use:

http://www.pet-dog-cat-supply-store.com/shop/shop_image/product/994c3884455089b1110674b1f043265f.jpg

BillSwagger
10-28-2009, 04:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eow_TK:
Thats true, just joking around. But I think these are very promising ideas for future developers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ha..I know.
sometimes its good to have a laugh.

Another way to break up the monotony or rather dry conversation, is to insert a musical montage.
Dont let this detract from the nerding up that is going on here.


Now watch this video from the 80s.

Before CGI, there were stuntmen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXehSng0NV4
,

Eow_TK
10-28-2009, 05:37 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

julian265
10-28-2009, 06:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Julian I have wondered if a stick could use something like a Wii setup to measure position? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It possibly could, if a moving part was always visible. Although encoders mounted on the force-feedback motors would probably be an easier solution. Monitoring motor current should be good enough to measure and limit the applied force also.

If the control circuit monitored and limited the angular speed, there'd be no need for any dead-man switches etc - if you let go of it, it would just drift to one side. Whilst the 'pilot' is holding it, it could ramp up the forces to the set maximum because the pilot wouldn't let it move too fast or far.

BillSwagger
10-28-2009, 07:02 AM
Originally, the thought i had came from using sensors that took a measure of weight and calculated it into stick movements. I still think it would be a pretty neat thing to have, if pilots had to rely on their actual strength to maneuver a plane properly.
Its not really a matter of the stick moving around so much as simulating the stick force required of the pilot.

Buffeting, and vibarations would be an added bonus to that, but really having anything exaggerated beyond that might not be necessary.

M_Gunz
10-28-2009, 07:42 AM
Buffeting is part of the feedback you really want, to know what is happening at the control surfaces.
MSFFB owners have posted here on having control feedback, it is a huge plus compared to not even without full forces.
With a regular stick you don't react until the view changes, with working FFB you know before then.

squareusr
10-28-2009, 03:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
Infared sensors is one way </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Had that on my Sidewinder 1 (and the Wingman Force before i scavenged it for parts) and hated it. It totally spoils immersion if the stick goes limp whenever you take off the hand for a quick adjustment of something else or even when you take a lighter grip position than "white knickle cramp". Luckily it could be solved by applying some tape over the sensor.

wolf-striked
10-29-2009, 01:12 AM
IS the FFB realistic though?What I mean is....does stick fall over if not held as a real plane does(resistance of linkage withstanding) and then tighten up as air speed increases?I would love to see that happen....maybe SOW?

FoolTrottel
10-29-2009, 01:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wolf-striked:
IS the FFB realistic though?What I mean is....does stick fall over if not held as a real plane does(resistance of linkage withstanding) and then tighten up as air speed increases?I would love to see that happen....maybe SOW? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, my Guillemot FFB does that. in 1946.

No forces at all when ready for takeoff. Gradually increasing forces when speed increases.

At high speeds, you can feel the much higher forces. Not so high that it 'locks up' though, you would need such a strong stick and powerful motors for that... one could break it if that were really so (stick locking up).

BillSwagger
10-29-2009, 02:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wolf-striked:
IS the FFB realistic though?What I mean is....does stick fall over if not held as a real plane does(resistance of linkage withstanding) and then tighten up as air speed increases?I would love to see that happen....maybe SOW? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the stick would only fall to one side if the plane were still on the ground. Otherwise, the air going over the control surfaces would hold the stick up, and only changing the position of the stick based on the air deflecting on control surfaces. It would be akin to how a racing wheel makes it way back to center on its own based on the momentum of the car. If you don't hold the wheel it has a tendecy to bobble from right to left, but if you are already going straight and fast there isn't any movement or deviation from center, if any at all to only simulate road vibration.

I think similar stick forces could be duplicated where at virtual no airspeed the sick would fall the one side, and under regular flight the stick forces would increase with the airspeed. Like i said before, i think more detail should go into the stick forces that the pilot would need to work against while flying a simulated plane. Modeling stick forces when the person lets go of it should be a secondary consideration, although if the FFB is detailed and accurate, i don't see why it wouldn't also mimic the outcome of hands off flight. If at the end of the project all the stick forces are detailed and accurate, and for whatever reason, letting go of the stick in midflight doesn't mimic actual circumstances that would be perfectly fine.

Indeed powerful motors could be used and very easily incorporated as a FFB system. Really just larger motors, and a stick that can width stand the forces pushing and pulling against it.

I would also incorporate an inter-changeable handle. Some people may want a jet or helicopter feel, while others may want a Spitfire design or even a WW1 type stick. If you are leaning toward gaming you may want more buttons on the stick for ease of use.
I'm surprised some of the higher end sticks aren't already doing this.



Bill

M_Gunz
10-29-2009, 05:44 AM
Why would the the real stick fall to one side? Is one aileron heavy and the other light?

The elevator may drop but I wouldn't bet the farm that's true on -all- planes. When looking at parked aircraft
be aware that the plane may have gust locks or the controls tied/bungeed down to prevent winds from damaging
linkages and surfaces. Otherwise side-to-side is wherever they were left.

late-model P-40 walkaround, note the elevators do hang down which is usual (if not universal, I can't say for sure). (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xeuaBsqbx4)

So for P-40M's and likely all these warbirds (I won't say proved) the stick goes forward due to elevator weight
and balance. Probably need FFB to force that on landing in cases of obsessive-compulsion to perfect detail.

wolf-striked
11-01-2009, 12:06 AM
Yeah fellas thats what I mean.Not ailerons but elevator.When parked it should go forward.

M_Gunz
11-01-2009, 01:19 AM
You might be able to build or get a stick that requires 50+ lbs to pull all the way back at the right speed --but--
since you won't be pulling 5 or 6 G's while doing it you still can't say it's as hard as the real thing or even
simulating the real thing.
Nobody who flies for real is going to confuse the PC experience with real flight. Nobody who hasn't is going to
know the full experience. Watching porn is not going to teach a virgin what sex is like.

wolf-striked
11-02-2009, 08:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
You might be able to build or get a stick that requires 50+ lbs to pull all the way back at the right speed --but--
since you won't be pulling 5 or 6 G's while doing it you still can't say it's as hard as the real thing or even
simulating the real thing.
Nobody who flies for real is going to confuse the PC experience with real flight. Nobody who hasn't is going to
know the full experience. Watching porn is not going to teach a virgin what sex is like. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I WON'T change my mind!

The future of joysticks lies with VERY heavy tension spring effect.This way we can run full linear settings and fly it without overcompensating.The hand can judge release of tension better than releasing 1/8 inch of travel.I am hoping that the Saitek will give some of this feel but after my experience with the Cougar I doubt it.Cougar was not what I expected.I can see someone coming from a CH stick thinking that its very heavy though.

And watching porn will teach you a massive amount of stuff.We learn by example so study up..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif :P

M_Gunz
11-03-2009, 04:26 AM
Since I wrote: Watching porn is not going to teach a <span class="ev_code_RED">virgin</span> what sex is like.
... just what does your reply have to do with that?

I'm not asking you to change your mind about joystick spring strength. If you want to fool yourself that sitting
in a chair at 1G and pulling "full strength" is more than a small step towards the real experience then go to it!

I doubt very much that the majority of future combat flight sim players will be using sticks requiring 50+ lbs of
pull due to the expense including whatever such a stick needs to be mounted on. Some will for sure just as some
do build partial to full sim cockpits. There's a guy in Greece who put the seat, stick, pedals and screen in a
motor controlled gimbal made of heavy gauge PVC pipe. He's only lacking the hydraulic legs and box to approach
full motion capability. I doubt that more than a small percent of players have the space let alone money to give
such things, the ones who do have the bucks get their realism by actually flying. It's a matter of priorities.

Kart racing is closer to real NASCAR than sitting behind a PC with the best gear you can get. The difference
between flight sims and flying is even larger.

BillSwagger
11-04-2009, 08:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
You might be able to build or get a stick that requires 50+ lbs to pull all the way back at the right speed --but--
since you won't be pulling 5 or 6 G's while doing it you still can't say it's as hard as the real thing or even
simulating the real thing.
Nobody who flies for real is going to confuse the PC experience with real flight. Nobody who hasn't is going to
know the full experience. Watching porn is not going to teach a virgin what sex is like. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


True, it will never be like real flying. For the cost of making a sim pit with hydros that could spin me around in front of a desk top, i would instead just spend that money to get my pilot license.

On the other hand having real tension on the stick can be a better indicator of a sim planes flight characteristics. It not only adds more realism, but it would also add another dynamic pitting pilot vs pilot. Not only by skill or type of craft, but by his physical capability and strength. It opens up a whole new avenue of competition not currently offered by today's flight sticks.
The other thing, as it stands now, stick pull is pre programmed into the game. The max pull in Il2 is 50lbs. I know i can pull more than 80lbs with both hands. So perhaps the advantage of owning such a stick would also let you get more performance out of your simulated plane, rather than whats pre-programmed for other users.

The size of the unit seems like a trivial matter. It could be bolted to a cross beam under the seat or even clamped to a desk. Realistically it probably would need to bolt to the cross beam that also attaches to a rudder set up. So planting your feet on rudder pedals also helps to support the rig.

M_Gunz
11-04-2009, 11:17 AM
You would be better able to judge the backforce that's for sure. No argument there.

You know... if the stick could pull the 'realistic' lbs force multiplied by the G's the maneuver is generating
then that might be closer to the real effort of the difficulty G's place on bodily movements.
At 5 G's it turns 10 lbs pull to 50 and 50 to 250 maybe you don't pull high G's and just hold it while working
the throttle and other controls at the same time, or typing chat. You would really need strength and stamina
to not just pull the weight but control the movements without exaggerated stick movement.
Good E-fighting is mostly about energy conserving lower-G maneuvers and tactics anyway.

squareusr
11-04-2009, 12:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
At 5 G's it turns 10 lbs pull to 50 and 50 to 250 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I fully agree with you that stick pull will never actually simulate flying and that more Gs will make everything a lot more difficult (including handling the stick) but i still have to remind you that you are confusing mass with force.

At 5 G's the force (N) equivalent with 10lbs at standard G (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=10+lbs+*+G&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g1) is still the same force, because the stick is pulled by aerodynamic pressure on the control surfaces (which does not change because of Gs), not by the mass of the control surfaces (well, maybe a little on the elevators but that would be a pretty small fraction, otherwise the stick would not center once you get to speed).

BillSwagger
11-04-2009, 01:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
You would be better able to judge the backforce that's for sure. No argument there.

You know... if the stick could pull the 'realistic' lbs force multiplied by the G's the maneuver is generating
then that might be closer to the real effort of the difficulty G's place on bodily movements.
At 5 G's it turns 10 lbs pull to 50 and 50 to 250 maybe you don't pull high G's and just hold it while working
the throttle and other controls at the same time, or typing chat. You would really need strength and stamina
to not just pull the weight but control the movements without exaggerated stick movement.
Good E-fighting is mostly about energy conserving lower-G maneuvers and tactics anyway. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, but i never understood stick force to also be multiplied by G force when flying. Part of the reason why the stick force adds up to 50lbs of force on some planes is because of a combination of G force and wind resistance. Most of it is wind resistance. I know that most of the force is lateral so the force would actually try to put your hands in your lap. Pushing or pulling the stick would not be working against any extra force, but you do bring up another interesting point. I think the G force will be what always separates a desktop simulation from reality. I think its possible to create and program the detail, and enough computing power to enjoy a close to life simulation but working G force into a desktop simulation would be near impossible with out building a Disneyland type of rig to ride on.

You could work those forces exerted onto the virtual pilot.There might be a way to simulate pilot exhaustion with a stamina bar. The more prolonged high G maneuvering you do the stamina bar begins to deplete. As it depletes your virtual pilot becomes exhausted and less responsive. Upon a rest period or low G flight, the stamina bar replenishes. I think that would be a better way than trying to create it around stick force. That is something separate of the stick and really could be created or modeled in any sim. Its just a matter of implementation.

squareusr
11-04-2009, 02:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
There might be a way to simulate pilot exhaustion with a stamina bar. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dangerously close to "air-WoW" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

(while this is generally frowned upon i think some individual, changing, stats for the virtual pilot might actually be a very useful feature for people who fly with icons etc. on: better spotting skill -&gt; earlier neutral icons on dots , better ID skill -&gt; earlier display of army/type, better navigation skill -&gt; more correct positioning on map..., of course useless for full real and still not directly useful for the rest, only when it would be used as either a survival incentive -at the cost of making aces even more superior- or, reversed, as a handicap system, bragging rights for the guy who gets the blindest, dumbest, greenest, weakest virtual pilot into the air)

BillSwagger
11-04-2009, 05:15 PM
yes..but to clarify how I intended it, it (the stamina bar) would be part of what the speed bar is now, not something that's part of the icon.
I just thought it would be good to model pilot exhaustion, and then you could monitor your own virtual pilot strength and stamina through out a dogfight. There would be a lot to gain by knowing the other pilots stamina, but that would actually take away from the game, and i'm really against cluttering up the screen with little stamina bars for each icon.

wolf-striked
11-04-2009, 07:55 PM
I never said 50lbs is what I am looking for.Enough resistance so that I can fly full linear with comfort.I think also that a significant center detent so you know when you have reached center and are now applying opposite movement.

About the stamina bar....I always thought that IL2 needed some sort of indicator for when the virtual stick stopped moving.SO when you pull back full on stick and the sim is only pulling back halfway.What happens in this scenario is that you start porpoising because as you release pressure on stick the sim doesn't register any movement in game and so you overcompensate etc......

An indicator of some sort would work as you pointed out Billswagger.At first I was thinking in terms of sounds of a person straining when your virtual stick stops moving.

Then I wondered about even better way that the sim does some behind the scenes work so that the linearity of the stick changes when you reach this point.SO you pull halfway back...the sim knows already that the virtual stick is about to stop moving and so makes the second half of your real joystick control that last amount of travel.What this would cure is the dilema of having half your sticks movement cause no movement in sim and the related porpoising effectthat stems from this.

I'm too tired to explain it better&lt;&lt;&lt;just in case that made no sense.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Laters ~S~

BillSwagger
11-05-2009, 03:54 AM
and just when i thought i was getting ahead of myself.



http://img.hexus.net/v2/internationalevents/ces2008/df/df_large_1.jpg

M_Gunz
11-05-2009, 05:51 AM
Bill, a bit before you got here a guy from Greece showed the one he built, seat, pedals, stick and screen
in a frame giving it reasonably limited tilt and roll motorized to game output, when the plane banks the
chair does too also when the nose goes up or down the seat-rig does as well. He had a video showing it in
use. The frame is heavy PVC, looked like 3 or 4" tube, it didn't give or shake in use.

wolf-striked
11-05-2009, 11:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
and just when i thought i was getting ahead of myself. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats a start.Racing sim equipment is way more advanced than flight sims and we need to catch up.I was thinking of buying racing sim equipment and converting for flight sims.

Cockpit
http://thomas-superwheel.com/t..._id=3&Itemid=1&pop=1 (http://thomas-superwheel.com/tswsite/index2.php?option=com_virtuemart&page=shop.view_images&product_id=94&image_id=3&Itemid=1&pop=1)

Pedal set with two brakes installed in the gas and clutch positions.The brake pedal is very progressive and you really need to press hard on it to move.....perfect for those precision yaw shots.You could probably talk to Todd at CST pedals for a custom made(two load cell brake device only).
http://www.virtualr.net/wp-con...roduction-pedals.jpg (http://www.virtualr.net/wp-content/gallery/631/cst-f1-production-pedals.jpg)

squareusr
11-05-2009, 04:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wolf-striked:
I never said 50lbs is what I am looking for.Enough resistance so that I can fly full linear with comfort. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What you need for full linear is more sensor precision, not more centering force. And a way to hold the stick without resting the arm's weight on it (between the legs is ideal because there you have an armrest that will automatically support the movements of the arm, subconscious coordination between arm and leg works very well). Then the next priority would be to have a lot of mass on the stick, which gives natural inertia, but still no centering force.

If you add centering force, it will actually lower your precision. That's why light tools are better for precision work than heavy tools. Centering force will help in "feeling" the deflection state of the stick, but even that does not get better when you simply strengthen the force. What you need is a reasonable, clean gradient between zero force in the center and high force at high deflections. This, btw, is a thing the Saitek single spring mechanism is also very poor at and spring-less FFB sticks are very good at (they just don't have a very clean gradient because of the "notchy" nature of electric motors).



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I think also that a significant center detent so you know when you have reached center and are now applying opposite movement.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Totally useless idea. You want the smoothest motion possible around the center. And the "real" center would be wherever you trim it anyway, so the information you could get from the notch would be completely worthless.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
About the stamina bar....I always thought that IL2 needed some sort of indicator for when the virtual stick stopped moving.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
There's a perfectly fine virtual stick in all the IL2 cockpits. Before you start thinking about building a physical cockpit you should maybe start flying in a virtual one before http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TheGrunch
11-06-2009, 02:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by squareusr:
There's a perfectly fine virtual stick in all the IL2 cockpits. Before you start thinking about building a physical cockpit you should maybe start flying in a virtual one before http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You spend time looking at your lap and not at the opponent during a turn-fight? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Sillius_Sodus
11-06-2009, 12:22 PM
Wow BillSwagger, that's quite a setup, where did you find it?

wolf-striked
11-06-2009, 12:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheGrunch:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by squareusr:
There's a perfectly fine virtual stick in all the IL2 cockpits. Before you start thinking about building a physical cockpit you should maybe start flying in a virtual one before http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You spend time looking at your lap and not at the opponent during a turn-fight? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Grunch. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Sensor precision is mandatory yes.Your mistaken about high centering force.If you make a high centering force stick it better dam well have no stiction.Stiction will be its biggest detriment.

Now yrs back I was pushing this high brake pedal idea and got the same negative feedback.Guys claiming it was stupid and all you needed was better pots lada lada lad.Sound familiar?

What was happening was people started putting cut in half raqcuet balls in their pedals.They were all liking it.Then I was pushing the "more harder" idea and they did a quick 360deg about face.

The reason was this....a pot turns its full rotation and the game reads that.When you stick a hard piece of rubber you restrict the movement of the pot to 1/4 of its full rotation.Well what do you think this causes??

It causes a terrible resolution since game is reading a huge amount of info from a small area of the potentiometer.This is when the idea to add gearing came into effect.So now you only press pedal 1/2inch instead of 2inches and the gears will turn the pot thru its full motion(with just 1/2 inch of pedal travel).

This stick needs to be designed from ground up for this.Very smooth bearings and a superb mechanism to apply smooth tension with a very progressive feel to it(not like Sidewinder where its harder and gets easier as you pull on it).Does this need gearing....I don't know but it does need a very SMOOTHLY PROGRESSIVE resistance.I think a hard piece of rubber would work.

For the center detent being ******ed.Back to my modified steering wheel for a sec....Very important to know is the exact angle the front wheels are turned and a center detent that is very hard to move past is the perfect tool for this.

The steering wheel I modded with the HEAVY DUTY tension had it and it was amazing.There was a car on my PC with it.The most amazing thing was braking while turning.I would slam the brakes down and instinctivly and easily release steering lock(happened just by me letting go of steering wheel)until I hit the center detent.At this point I knew that if I kept on braking with that amount of force I would need to start adding in counter steering......and the magic was that this HIGH tension wheel was giving me all the feedback I needed to do this comfortably.I could tell how much counter steer I was applying just by the miniscule changes in force and could either add more in or release brake slightly.

Another beautiful area of feedback was powering out of corners.With this high tension and power was applied I could feel EXACTLY to the mm when I would start counter steering.So I would slam the gas pedal and release the wheel.If the car on the pc started to oversteer and i had completely released wheel(now sitting at dead center)I knew anymore gas and the car would increase its oversteer and so I would adjust by easing off gas.

A plane remains to be seen but IMO strong SMOOTH PRGRESSIVE feel with high tension from the first milimeter of movement will in plain English ....ROCK!!!

wolf-striked
11-06-2009, 12:35 PM
Post by Nixim of his revelation of using a hard piece of rubber for progressive resistance "feel".

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to say SB, I think that is the best post in this thread so far, you have it in a nutshell my friend, - though I have to say that I do have engineering qualifications - which would go some way towards explaining how I came up with the Converter as a solution to a percieved problem.

and that problem was, - "how to make a realistic feeling brake".

The answer turned out to be a series of steps in the build up of the Converter, as I completed each stage I analysed the feel by driving for a month or so, before moving on to make an alteration which would lead to an improvement in feel. - a very long and discerning process.

Let me say at this point, that it took about four years to complete the Converter, - but also what we have in the Converter is something that looks nothing like my original idea.
After three years I decided that all the work I had done up to that point, though it worked fairly well - I realised that I was never going to acheive perfection with that particular idea - so very reluctantly it literally went in the bin.

However, I had gained a lot of usefull knowledge in those three years, and I put it to good use in the present form of the Converter. - And all the development work was done with Grand Tourismo on PS2.

Did you know? if you use a wheel and pedals to drive GT3 - then there is about 33% deadzone in the brake before braking had any effect on the car, no? - neither did I - until the Converter pointed this out to me, I shall explain.

A real car brake feels solid and precise in use, That was easily achieved by the use of steel components, and in the first stages thats all that the Converter had, - a good solid pedal returned to rest by a strong spring, now don't get me wrong this was already a vast improvement over the standard logi peds and for a short while I thought that I had cracked it - I thought I had made for myself, the perfect brake, - but!, after a while I started to have doubts,
Being self critical, I began to feel that it still was'nt quite right.

What was it? I asked myself, - and then I realised that real brakes have a dead zone and once you are through that dead zone the brake return pressure increases at an increasingly rapid rate as you further depress the pedal.
My pedal did not feel like this, and no matter how stiff the spring I fitted, I could always press to the full distance of the pedal throw, - not really realistic.
Also about then, I became aware of the 33% deadzone in GT3.

I then had to figure a way of telling me by "feel", - exactly when the car actually started to be effected by the brakes, and it was then that I hit on the idea of the "Dynamic stops" or "D"stops.

Now not only by placing the D stop(s) in the right position behind the brake pedal lever, - can you feel the exact point at which the brakes start to effect the car, it also gives a back pressure which is identical to a hydraulic system.
I also found that now, with a D stop in place I could use a much lighter return spring, which again further improved the feel.

Further refinements, - included using different shape, sizes, density, and number of D stops, along with an infinite adjustment capability, not to mention also changing or altering the tension of the preload springs.

I realised that I had far surpassed what I had originally expected to acheive, and when I felt the effect of this in GT3, where I felt at the time I had stumbled almost on the perfect answer to FF (sorry Roger) for a brake, - I swear I was so happy I had tears in my eyes.

I could feel the precise point of pad/disc contact, and a perfectly natural feeling brake after that, and it could be tailored to anyones taste, or to any driving game - and on any platform (providing the game supported a wheel and pedal set).

squareusr
11-06-2009, 03:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wolf-striked:
What was happening was people started putting cut in half raqcuet balls in their pedals.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's still not so much about having more total force than it is about having a good gradient (big difference between lowest and highest force, smooth transition). Traditional cheap brake pedal controllers will give nearly the same counterforce fully depressed as they give when depressed only a little.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I don't know but it does need a very SMOOTHLY PROGRESSIVE resistance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
in short: a good force gradient. guess we found a point in which we agree.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A plane remains to be seen but IMO strong SMOOTH PRGRESSIVE feel with high tension from the first milimeter of movement will in plain English ....ROCK!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try it. Then try a real plane. Then try a stick with progressive force but with virtually no centering force around the center, not only on the first millimeters but even on the first centimeters. You will forget everything you imagined to be good about a "centering detent". Planes are not cars. Brakes really don't need precision on the first % of travel because the threshold is never that low. Planes on the other hand need all the precision you can get around the trim point (wherever that may be), but if the outer regions are crude it's not so much of a problem. You either want to roll just a little or you want to roll as much as you can.

I have tried quite a few different spring gradients on my stick. Some with very strong centering right from the middle position. But the one i liked by far the most is so light around the center that i can actually move the stick by blowing air at it, while still building up to a force equivalent of around two kg on each axis. Control will by the way still not be "nervous" around the center, because the stick (the moving part) has enough mass

M_Gunz
11-06-2009, 06:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wolf-striked:
The reason was this....a pot turns its full rotation and the game reads that.When you stick a hard piece of rubber you restrict the movement of the pot to 1/4 of its full rotation.Well what do you think this causes?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Confusion in people who have little or no understanding about pots and even when given the information STILL
can't figure it out, obviously.

I can getcha pots that give the full range in 1/10th of a turn or less and tolja-so back early in this thread.
I even showed you one source and gave another, both at prices way below Radio Shack. And yet STILL you persist
with your same old song and dance saying you've had it right since long ago and the others are wrong. If you
understood such a simple thing as the first sentence in this paragraph then you'd know there need be no problem.

Eow_TK
11-06-2009, 08:06 PM
Anyone here fly a war bird before, I'm pretty sure someone handled a p-51 before, but I cant remember who. Maybe one of them could share some insight on what it felt like flying a war bird.

BillSwagger
11-06-2009, 08:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wolf-striked:
The reason was this....a pot turns its full rotation and the game reads that.When you stick a hard piece of rubber you restrict the movement of the pot to 1/4 of its full rotation.Well what do you think this causes?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Confusion in people who have little or no understanding about pots and even when given the information STILL
can't figure it out, obviously.

I can getcha pots that give the full range in 1/10th of a turn or less and tolja-so back early in this thread.
I even showed you one source and gave another, both at prices way below Radio Shack. And yet STILL you persist
with your same old song and dance saying you've had it right since long ago and the others are wrong. If you
understood such a simple thing as the first sentence in this paragraph then you'd know there need be no problem. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


so what you're saying Gunz is that i could buy a pot that only requires 1/10th the turn, and also gives me 20 times the resolution of my original pot?

thats how i took your earlier post to mean.



Bill

TheGrunch
11-06-2009, 09:05 PM
EDIT: Never mind, I'm completely wrong as usual.

wolf-striked
11-06-2009, 09:13 PM
M_gunz,I think you know what your talking about but some things don't add up.When you said that a capacitor is used in the pot setup of a brake pedal I was getting suspicious.Now you write about this pot that turns 1/10 a normal pot.I could be wrong here but I must ask...does it give the same resolution as standard pot?

But the fact that you weretelling me that all I need is this pot also makes me wonder.How can a pot give feedback as to how much pressure you are applying?

M_Gunz
11-06-2009, 10:33 PM
No. Try reading that again. The Standard Analog to Digital (A/D) Converter uses a capacitor and times the discharge. That was part of explaining the ohms range that the Standard Port expects.

Bill, unless the pot is really cheap or worn or dirty it is able to adjust fine enough for any 12-bit digitizer
and that's 16x as fine as the 8-bit standard gameport.

If I have a pot that gives 0 to 100,000 ohms linear over a 90 degree range then I would have 1111 ohms per degree
of turn, a full 10k ohms in only 9 degrees of turn. You pick the range to match the values you want to get back.

If you're trying to shift emphasis of controls from position to pressure then why no use pressure sensors instead
of position sensors just as Bill posted earlier?

wolf-striked
11-07-2009, 07:34 AM
Pressure sensors would work.Depends on the type though.We will see what the new Saitek brings to the table with its no movement setup.I think 1in of movement in each direction would be best for a prop sim.1in with very progressive and hard at end feel.

The CST brake pedal uses a load cell.The tension of that brake is made by actually bending this load cell.Works really well from what I hear on net.

The spring you see here is not the tension of brake but just for a bit more give in whole system.The load cell bends up and registers movement to game in brake pressure applied.Two of these placed in gas/clutch positions would be sweet for a rudder setup.....IMO.

http://www.cannonsimulationtec...e-Pedal-Assembly.JPG (http://www.cannonsimulationtechnologies.com/user/cimage/Black-Brake-Pedal-Assembly.JPG)

Shrike1978
11-09-2009, 11:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
If I have a pot that gives 0 to 100,000 ohms linear over a 90 degree range then I would have 1111 ohms per degree
of turn, a full 10k ohms in only 9 degrees of turn. You pick the range to match the values you want to get back.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

M_Gunz, if you use only 9 degrees of pot (100k ohms) that have 90 degrees of travel that will give you only 1/10 ADC resolution. ADC measure voltage, not resistance! So at 10k ohms (9 degrees)you have 1/10 of voltage applied to that pot. If you have ADC with 10 bit resolution (1024 discrete values) then ADC will return 102 at 9 degree... and 1024 at 90 degree (full applied voltage).
In joys you have pots with only middle 60 degree usable, but you can turn them usually 270 degrees - from 0 to 105 degree you have 0 ohms, than from 105 to 165 degree you have linear rise of resistance, for example from 0 to 100k ohms, and after 165 to 270 you have maximum resistance - 100k ohms.

M_Gunz
11-09-2009, 12:33 PM
ADC's measure current, Otherwise a pot would be useless in a stick as would a Hall sensor or light sensor.

Voltage and Current are intrinsic whenever there is flow and the relation is Current = Voltage/Resistance.
If I put 5 volts across a 1k resistor then I measure 5V across the resistor.
However that resistor limits current flow to .005 Amps = 5mA. Without higher voltage that is the most
current that will get through that resistor.

Same goes for LEDs. LED by its own internal resistance can handle 1.5V with all the current it can drive.
Same LED with a resistor can happily run at 12V and even be choked dimmer if desired. I can even buy LEDs
with such a resistor built-in sold to run on 12V for right around $0.50 depending on color.

I know that an ADC only measures values within a certain range. That was the point; instead of building a
mechanical solution to have the original pot turn fully when the pedal moves less, use a pot that gives the
full ADC range in the shorter pedal movement. Since the pedal movement is restricted it makes no difference
what the pot and circuit would do outside of shorter that range, would it?

Shrike1978
11-09-2009, 02:36 PM
ADC measure VOLTAGE! Pot is voltage divider and ADC is connected to middle wiper so ADC measure voltage between GND and middle wiper. For measuring current you need to put instrument in serial with resistor.

For building stick you have two options: use pot from some other joy (with smaller range like I already explained), or use regular 270 degree pot but then you need some gearing.

squareusr
11-12-2009, 11:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wolf-striked:
I could be wrong here but I must ask...does it give the same resolution as standard pot?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Potentiometers, being analog, mechanical devices don't have a fixed resolution that is dependent on travel. Low quality pots will jump from in larger, semi-random steps, higher quality pots will jump in smaller, semi-random steps. It may be easier to achieve a certain level of quality with larger travel, but there is no automatic connection: good short-travel pots can be much higher quality than cheap long-travel ones.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">When you said that a capacitor is used in the pot setup of a brake pedal I was getting suspicious. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You can get suspicious all you want, it won't change the fact that the large majority of game input devices use capacitors in their method of sensing the position of their pots. Probably not in the way you expect the capacitors to be used, as otherwise you would not be that surprised.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How can a pot give feedback as to how much pressure you are applying? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Nobody ever made that claim. But with a progressive spring gradient you can certainly convert between force and travel and measure travel with a pot.

wolf-striked
11-12-2009, 11:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by squareusr:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wolf-striked:
I could be wrong here but I must ask...does it give the same resolution as standard pot?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Potentiometers, being analog, mechanical devices don't have a fixed resolution that is dependent on travel. Low quality pots will jump from in larger, semi-random steps, higher quality pots will jump in smaller, semi-random steps. It may be easier to achieve a certain level of quality with larger travel, but there is no automatic connection: good short-travel pots can be much higher quality than cheap long-travel ones.

Gotcha.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">When you said that a capacitor is used in the pot setup of a brake pedal I was getting suspicious. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You can get suspicious all you want, it won't change the fact that the large majority of game input devices use capacitors in their method of sensing the position of their pots. Probably not in the way you expect the capacitors to be used, as otherwise you would not be that surprised.

I said in one of my posts that I learned electronics from books.I don't claim expertise on the subject and would say I am just a little knowledgeable.I didn't know we were going as far back as the DAC circuit.Heck we can go back to the step down transformer if we have too....joking.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How can a pot give feedback as to how much pressure you are applying? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Nobody ever made that claim. But with a progressive spring gradient you can certainly convert between force and travel and measure travel with a pot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wgunz was saying that in beginning of thread.He said you don't need a spring at all and that a quality pot will take care of all that ails.But,just as I was confused,he was probably too and everyone was just on a different topic and hence the confusion.

M_Gunz
11-12-2009, 01:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Shrike1978:
ADC measure VOLTAGE! Pot is voltage divider and ADC is connected to middle wiper so ADC measure voltage between GND and middle wiper. For measuring current you need to put instrument in serial with resistor.

For building stick you have two options: use pot from some other joy (with smaller range like I already explained), or use regular 270 degree pot but then you need some gearing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hook a pot between a gameport 5V and axis and measure the voltage. The pin that has the ADC gets the power it is
measuring from 5V supply fed through the pot. The ADC gets 5V at some limited mA, supply giving the maximum.
You see a voltage divider there? I see a current limiter feeding an ADC.

ADC circuits differ so it's no use bothering with the internals because they change, is there? There are many.
What an ADC may do to turn mA at 5V into voltage is simple: charge a capacitor with it. Capacitor being charged
raises the voltage across itself with time. So current flow is turned not only to voltage but to time as well
and it's the =Time= it takes to fill the capacitor to LOL, 5V, that gets measured.

Any resistance in the desired range, 0 to 100k ohms can be used. With a 1 million ohm pot the full range is there
in the first 1/10th of a turn, all the rest shows up as 100k to the PC. It makes no difference if mechanical turning
of the pot is limited.

I have connected the gameport to a light sensor and... it worked. I used hall sensors in cash registers to determine
open and closed states, I've put wires from gameport onto my finger and moved those measuring skin resistance.
If I wanted to make a cheap linear slider I might get away with sliding a coin along parallel nichrome wires or
graphite rods. It wouldn't be the most accurate and might not last long but it can be hooked up and work!

It's a very robust port, you can ground the 5V pins all day and not hurt them but I do keep wires to them away from
static or 120VAC kind of moments. IMO necessary to hobby connecting is having crimp pins and even a cheap crimper
but pliers will do in a pinch.


Wiki on gameports (http://pinouts.ru/Inputs/GameportPC_pinout.shtml)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Some joystick used special 100 kohm potentiometer which can only turn that 60..90 degrees which joytick can turn. The more common construction is to use the standard 470 kohm (lin) 270 degree potentiomer and use about one fourth of the scale from the beginning (in this way getting 0..120 kohm value range). Usually those potentiometers are normal carbon slider potentimeters which do not last long in intense gaming. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The resistance value of the joystick potentiometers are measured using very simple monostable multivibrator circuit, where a small capacitor is loaded through the joystick potentiometer to a certain voltage level. The joystick interface has four this type of monostable multivibrators. Typically joystick interface multivibrators are all in one 558 IC (that IC is like four simplified 555 type timers in one IC) for two joystick ports and 556 (dual 555 timer) for one joystick only port. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">he bigger the potentiometer resistance value is, the loger it takes from the capacitor to reach the threshold voltage. The time how long it take for each multivibator to reach the logic 1 after the triggering is measued using software and that value tells the resistance of the potentiometer (and the stick position as well because the potentiometer is connected to the stick). This simple method for measuring the resistance value is quite cheap, but not very accurate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

These guys seem to think that it's Resistance that's being measured! So now we have all parts of Ohm's Law!

I have my old work references from the 80's and 90's on the shelves behind me but I can't hyperlink to them. It's
the same thing as the Wiki only with more detail on the programming end or application use than the Wiki.

M_Gunz
11-12-2009, 02:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How can a pot give feedback as to how much pressure you are applying? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Push the pedal and you compress the spring, you have to put X pressure to move the pedal arm through Y degrees
and tada change in position is analog to pressure applied.

I'm not confused so who does that leave?

I can measure pressure put on a metal shaft just by the change in electrical resistance of that shaft.
Piezo material can and is being used to sense pressure directly already, why I wrote about pressure sensors earlier.
They're using them to turn noise, any vibration into electricity. You might measure how far they move with a good
micrometer. They are capacitors that charge when squeezed, they also bend as they are charged, make great buzzers.

ADD:
Anyway with piezoelectric sensors you do NOT need any perceptible movement to measure pressure.
With change in resistance under strain you can use a metal pedal arm and measure pressure without a piezo.
That's TWO ways you can measure pressure with near-zero, micron-range movement.

MORE:
Why don't you check out the new upcoming Saitek that errrr, doesn't move but senses pressure directly.
Yup, the same kind of way that F-16's started out. That got changed to IIRC 1/4" movement for good reason,
I don't know why Saitek didn't copy that instead.