Yes, thats right, but I don’t think that 16Bit resolution makes any sense with the use of pots, that’s why I made the quotation marks. Apart from that 16Bit resolution doesn’t make any sense in every kind of input (maybe with the exception of steering wheels), cause you are simply physically aren’t able to do such fine adjustments. 12Bit is more than enough.
Latest posts made by Viper1970
-
RE: Cougar Rewire
-
RE: Cougar Rewire
I’m doing a lot of HOTAS systems at the moment for my universal military homepit project and also started a Cougar throttle conversion to standalone. I will make it in a totally different way and will use the electronics of a canabalized Thrustmaster TWCS throttle for it. You can use the electronic-boards of the TWCS with standard pots it even doesn’t matter if they are 10K or 100K (simple voltage dividers - only recalbration is required, which is done if you unplug and replug the throttle after changing the pots)
I’m going to use the throttle axis for the throttle at the Cougar, the antenna axis for the antenna at the Cougar, the rudder pedal axis for the range axis at the Cougar, the microstick will be also the microstick at the Cougar and so on…
This has the advantage that you can still use TARGET to program the unit, which isn’t the case with Bodnar or TUSBA. Don’t know if hallsensors also working at the TWCS electronics, but on most controllers you can simply switch between pots and hallsensors if you choose the right ones. TM is an exception here, cause they use there own “hallsensor” technology in the Warthog HOTAS. The TWCS has simple pots with a “16Bit” resolution for the throttle axis.
-
RE: Do we develop the F-35
They didn’t worked perfectly at all. And reasons they have been even more broken is because of the lack of support (following code enhancement allowing more switches positions for example TAXI/OFF/LANDING, of JFS STARTER 1/2) of the guys who started them then left the place.
We don’t have enough manpower to handle those additional a/c by our own. Otherwise they would be already fixed.
Develop a flyable F-35 is you want. Nobody can (nor want) prevent you to do so if you like.
But I can already tell you that in few years it will be broken again and I bet nobody will actively take care of it anymore. Just like for M2000, F-18, Viggen, A-10 … Meantime, we have to maintain those a/c on some areas (which take times and effort delaying some other tasks on some other areas) while they are almost unusable. This is not an opinion, it is simply a ascertainment.As a matter of fact, I consider them as a waste of time (this is yet a personal POV).
Ok, that’s a clear explanation why things are as they are. I never heard this before, only that BMS never was meant to be anything else than a F-16 simulation and that’s the reason there is no interest in fixing those things already started. That’s also a reason why I was very disappointed, cause I didn’t understand why the Hornet and the Harrier were even in the official BMS trailer, but then said that BMS is and always was an F-16 only simulator, so there is no interest in fixing things not related to the Viper.
As said, I startet to built a whole homepit for it (which cost me a lot of time and money) and especially for the other aircraft I was interested in (the time I started the project DCS wasn’t a real alternate option, cause of the lack of interesting modules) and with 4.34 most of it was really useless, cause even simple things like eg. the analoge gauges in the pit of the Hornet did not work anymore.
If someone else started all those things and then had left the team, it’s understandable why it wasn’t possible to fix those things.
-
RE: Do we develop the F-35
Half baked or not, but it is fun to fly something other than only an F-16, even if it’s not perfect. I think the Hornet and the Harrier are really good “fake-aircraft” (until many things were broken with 4.34 - never mind if those things fixed again).
I joined BMS with the 4.33 release, as I saw the trailer with the F/A-18C and the AV-8B. I’m for sure love the F-16 also, but it is not and never wasn’t my favorite fighter jet. So I really was happy to see the improvements made with 4.33 for other “fake-jets”, especially the Harrier and the Hornet. I also looked forward to the improvements for the F-15E, the A-10 and the announced WIP F-14D. But as 4.34 came out many things were messed up and as I asked if there are any plans to fix this, I only get the answer BMS is an F-16 only sim and if you want something other, go anywhere else.
Nice if you have started to built a fully functional “universal” homepit based on BMS, which was meant to play the “fake aircraft” also, not only the F-16. I never had the expectation that those other jets will ever be perfect and for me it was ok that all is F-16 under the hood, but I didn’t expect that there even isn’t an interest to get things fixed again, that worked already perfectly in the preceding version. This was the reason I left BMS and changed to DCS.
I think other aircraft could add so much to BMS, even if they never will reach the perfection of the F-16. But that’s only my opinion and I accepted the point of view the BMS team has. That’s why I decided to change the sim, even I really love BMS, cause it has so much features the other sim doesn’t have.
-
RE: WIP: F-14 B/D
Boy, no-shit, every time I even move towards my desk, I get a dirty look from someone that has their nose burriend in a smartphone 14/7…
Oh yes, especially wifes are a big problem with this hobby! I’m turning 50 years now this month and my kids are grown up, so no more “familiy”-stuff, but my exwife and also my new girlfriend now, never really liked my hobby much.
Talking about my homepit isn’t a good idea. It always makes the mood bad.
-
RE: WIP: F-14 B/D
Great news
I know how life sometimes could be.
I’m starting now for the fifth or sixth time to built my homepit. Hope this time my dreams from the past over twenty years come true.
The first time I started with it, was 1998. Now we have 2020 and I never was able to fly one single mission in my pit
Every time I reached a state close to finish, things changed and I had no more time for it. Then, after a few years of intermission I had to start from scratch again.
What makes me skeptical about this project was, that you didn’t hear anything about it for such a long time now and also the change from 4.33 to 4.34 which, maybe, made work already done incompatible now. I have no clue about this, cause I’m no coder, but I had the fear he gave up with it cause to much had to be done from scratch again. As said this was only an assumption.
I’m looking forward to it and hope we could fly one of the best fighters, ever seen the light of day, in BMS also somewhere in the future
-
RE: WIP: F-14 B/D
Sadly it looks like it is dead
Started in Dec 2015 and now we have Feb 2020. I had so much hope to see a F-14D in BMS or even a useable (not perfect) cockpit for the F-14’s at least.
-
RE: MFD extraction - what is the best way to do this in 4.34?
Hello,
I also wanted to know which material you used for printing
I’m also printing a lot 3d parts, but used only PLA until now. PLA is really bad if you want to sand it. The surface always looks very ugly.
I wanted to try PETG next, but had no time to do so.
-
RE: 4.34 - F/A-18 missing needles in all analog gauges
Where could I found the LOD’s of the cockpits themselfs? I fideled around a bit with the LOD-Editor yesterday and was able to find the aircraft models, but I couldn’t find the cockpit 3D-models. I used the cockpit-parents document as reference but those LOD-Numbers are totally different models (e.g. a Maverick rocket instead of an F-16A pit the reference stated) in the hdr.
Is there a good manual somewhere, on how to edit models? I already made an 3d-pit of the KA-50 Blackshark for EECH Allmods and maybe with some hard work I’m also able to do stuff for BMS. Looks like it’s much more complex in 3D but I will do my best. But I’m not able to do the coding which is needed for instruments to get them running. Don’t know how things working in BMS with the 3D-cockpits, but in EECH you must be able to code in C for such things.
-
RE: 4.34 - F/A-18 missing needles in all analog gauges
I really start to be pissed off big time
You can say you are disappointed that we don’t bring more support for non f16 , but that is total bullshit to say 4.34 is a step backward
Tell me exactly which step you consider backward ?
- the full carrier ATC support ?
- the improved carrier code ? (Cables ? Pitch and roll ? )
3)the f18 improved FLCS ? - the su33 Specific AFM ?
- the gun pod integration for m2kD?
Tell me exactly ? Do you think carriers are for f16?
And if you are not happy , why don’t you start modeling a nice 3D cockpit for the f14 ? Or the su33?
Too easy to complain all the time and critisize us is all the time !!! Fed up with this childish behavior ! Go and fly DCs they have plenty of fantastic module to sell !!
You know why I am talking about DCS?
I have worked years for carrier ops , f18 flcs etc….because one guy in BMS was always teasing me to do it because he was interested in the f18 only. He was supposed to work on the cockpit and so on !!!
I worked literally YEARS
The day The f18 has been released for DCS , this guy left the group saying he was not interested anymore
So YES I am pissed off to read that all this work is considered a step back
I read this a lot all the time ever and ever again, that BMS is F-16 only, cause of the systems and … It doesn’t make sense to do other aircraft, cause they never will be like in real life. As I said, I think they are realistic enough and you and the guys which made them have done a exceeding work here! Why wasting all this hard, good work?
You said, you’ve done so much work for it, but what’s all this work worth if the aircraft which benefit from it never get bugfixes cause all of the hardcore F-16 flyers have the opinion it’s not worth it or if, somewhere in the far future at best.
Don’t get me wrong! I respect your work and I’m really happy that guys like you did other aircraft and made so much work to get naval operations possible, but if you ask something about anything else as the F-16 here in the forum, you mostly get the answer that BMS is an F-16 simulation and nothing else, so if you want to fly something other go to DCS.
I love BMS and I see so much potential in it, which DCS will never have. That’s why I’m dissapointed that so much guys have this hardcore “F-16 only attitude”. Btw I have all the DCS modules like F-14, F/A-18, F-16, F-5, A-10, AV-8B and even FC3, but I will always prefer BMS over DCS cause it has so much more to offer.