It was superglue and the cable is housed in such cheap plastic that it became more a part of the superglue than the cable housing. As super glue does to cheap plastic, it completely bonded to it. I’m sending it back
Posts made by Viking
-
RE: Warthog Dial
-
RE: Warthog Dial
A couple of things you could do -
-
take a soldering iron along a small area of the PCB and see if it’s heat-glue. If so, you should be able to free it by applying some heat.
-
better yet, get a single edged razor blade or #11 X-Acto and free it by cutting along the PCB and not the wire - looks easy enough to scrape the glue from the PCB and not cut the jacket of the wire.
And is it OK to scratch or gouge the PCB or will that cause problems? I think it may be super glue
-
-
RE: Warthog Dial
I just received one and the cable for the USB is glued to the PCB. I have pulled as hard as I feel is safe without a significant chance of breaking the cable. I may be able to use something like nail polish remover but am wondering if I should just send it back. Any suggestions?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DtlqF9yNWD6nxFEJ1KWz_5BWzS_Z6rCw/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EAFekEEGVMNIxSUJLo0auTH0OFWfAfF-/view?usp=sharing
-
RE: Audible Feedback DX Button
BMS Technical Manual 10.10.7 for DX sound IDs
Put the ID of your choosing in place of the last number from your DX callbacks in the keyfile
-
RE: Resolution problem
it uses my 1080TI where do I have to put off scaling? and how do i get the right resolution if fullscreen brings the resolution down as you could read in previous remaks
Scaling can be adjusted by going to Nvidia CP then go to adjust desktop size and position.
The right resolution for most people is the native resolution of their monitor. Do you want the right resolution to be the native resolution of your monitor or something else?
-
RE: Resolution problem
Is BMS using your iGPU? And I would turn scaling for the 2D off until you get the correct resolution.
-
RE: What's up with those rumors
I had to laugh at the guy arguing with Mav-JP, saying he couldnt possibly know whether the BMS FM is accurate or made up….
That reminds me of trying to educate the keyboard warriors on here about, you know, REAL LIFE harriers, and they tried to tell me how they work. HAHA HAHA!!! Go go gadget keyboard.
-
RE: F-35 status (in BMS) request
Sprey is a hack. He inserts himself into technical evaluations that he lacks knowledge of and has built a following of internet fans that think he has been instrumental in the development and testing of things that he has not. His diatribes on the F-35 & F-15 are mostly B.S. He lacks the understanding of A/C tech since the F-16 was envisioned. He has fooled many people into believing he and Boyd had something to do with its development when all they provided was the theory behind a lightweight single engine inexpensive fighter. I don’t know if he is just ignorant or intentionally trying to get our advanced weapons programs canceled. Seeing his ridiculous attempt to have us halt the F-22 program by claiming it ignores the realities of aerial combat shows he either is a fool or has an agenda. He has said similar things for the worlds most effective A/C. He is very predictable. Every time we begin to develop a new generation fighter he goes into action and spreads B.S. and tries to get it canceled. It has been difficult for me to see all the people spread nonsense about the F-35 but people have a hard time understanding who knows and who doesn’t. The people working on it, testing it and flying it don’t waste their time trying to convince the public and much of it is classified.
I was supposed to go to China Lake and help develop the F-35 but I got out for other reasons. Many of the people I served with did and one of our pilots was the CO of the testing squadron for the F-35B. The difference between what Sprey and the general public claims, and what the people I know say is ridiculous. It’s when I realized that Sprey was either a fool or intentionally lying. For the most part I have stopped responding to people on the internet because they usually think they are always right and know everything even if it is classified. I usually just get a good laugh about it and follow along for the occasional entertainment of it.
-
RE: Tacview option
I set it to G force.
Set it to G-force then load a mission where you are pulling G’s. Now look at the blue shaded lines that go from the ground to the A/C and it’s trails. The more G’s you pull the darker the shading is.
So, what it does is darkens the area under the path of the A/C according to the value of the metric you choose.
I think I explained it OK.
-
RE: Problems taxiing on the carrier.
Is the parking brake on? That is the only operator error I can think of that would cause something like that. Is it possible you are engaging the parking brake thinking it is disengaging it?
-
RE: AI wingman takeoff problem
I used to have a very common problem of wingman not taking off when I would choose to start at take off. I changed to Taxi and it fixed the problem.
-
RE: Suggestion or request or total nonsense
Has anyone experienced errors with WDP or MC when doing this?
-
RE: Negative G Question
The cockpit instrument only measures acceleration in the vertical (meaning top of airplane) direction. It does not measure lateral or longitudinal. An F-16 suspended from a crane with its nose pointing exactly up or down or even rolled 90 degrees either way would have its meter read 0.0 despite gravity being 1g toward the tail or nose or right or left wingtip. Given enough altitude a constant -1.0g load factor would have a radial acceleration of -2 from level to -1 pitched down and 0 approaching inverted level (the last result taking infinite time). A -1LF loop is not a closed maneuver because the radius of curvature would become infinite half way through it. But any LF more negative than -1 is a closed maneuver.
This gives more clarity to the lazy way I was trying to inform how to best test the drag at -1.0 and 1.0 G. Doing a loop would not be an accurate test because of the relationship to the Earth’s mass and the limits of the A/C’s G sensor. The reason I even mentioned this is because testing drag would be best with no vertical speed and inverted for -1.0 G. The 1.0 G test could be done in standard level flight. My point was that going into a loop would be a bad way to test drag. I didn’t really make that clear when I mentioned it. I kind of let my thoughts spill out onto the post without clarifying.
-
RE: Negative G Question
It’s theoretically possible to do endless loops of negative load factor.
Actually, what I was saying is that you cannot pitch down towards Earth and stay at -1.0 G’s endlessly. Once you gain inertia in the direction of gravity you are stuck unless you deviate from -1.0 G. You will either hit the ground or you will have to pull more than -1.0 G in order to level off. Of course you can go in endless loops but with gravity once you get to the point you are trying to fly straight and level, you will have to not only overcome gravity but your inertia towards the ground, hence passing -1.0 G’s. I was talking about how you can endlessly do -1.0 G’s and exactly -1.0 G’s by flying inverted and pitching away from gravity, but you cannot do that when pitching towards the Earth, because eventually you will hit the ground or have to pull more than -1.0 G. Maybe I didn’t explain it well enough. You can do horizontal loops. But not vertical while staying at -1.0 G’s. The effect of gravity makes it impossible. It’s like if you bungee jump or sky dive. In order to decelerate while falling, you have to pull more than 1 G; or if you jump off a bench or something. It’s not the falling that kills you, it’s the sudden stop.
Negative G can be a direction in relation to Gravity. It is a metric of force. I think you misunderstood what I posted because I never posited anything about negative G being a direction. It is a force, and the Earth’s gravity is in the direction of Earth. When accelerating towards or away from Earth we experience G forces due to the direction we take in relation to the center of mass. Everything you have ever done in your entire life is in relation to the direction of gravity. Unless you have been out in space, you have never experienced gravity not having a direction. You just overcome it with an opposite force which creates G forces.
-
RE: Negative G Question
Frederf, that makes sense. It made me think about how initiating a -G condition likely creates more drag from the control surfaces because the A/C is designed to pitch up more efficiently. I guess it would be a bad design to make an A/C more efficient at -1.0 G than at 1.0 G because the A/C is at positive G’s much more. So, I see the practical answer being that if you want to pitch away from gravity you of course want to pull back on the stick, and if you want to pitch towards gravity there is likely a point at which going inverted would be best. Of course you can only hold negative g’s for so long unless you are inverted. Eventually you would end up inverted going the other direction. If I have that correct.
-
RE: Negative G Question
It depends on many other things. We have a case of chaos theory here, and would have to use something called poisson statistics. Too many variables. But in theory without accounting for the relationship between the mass creating gravity (Earth), other forces such as force and it’s vector (i.e. thrust) it can be seen as equal, because the variables you left out are the variables which in reality would make them not equal. If in an controled STP experiment with a symmetrical A/C the drag would be the same. In reality they are most often not the same for many reasons. The reason it is even a question is because of all the variables we are not taking into account here.
-
RE: Negative G Question
Yes. G force is just a part of what effects drag. Think of this extreme. A harrier coming into a hover. That equation shows that thrust vector plays a big role, and in simple terms gravity can be seen as thrust. It is a force applied to an object much like thrust. Overcoming gravity can be done a few ways; thrust, lift, inertia… although inertia doesn’t really apply too much here because it’s close relationship with G’s. The part inertia plays gets larger the greater the delta is between a major gravitational object, such as a planet or moon. They all are pieces of the puzzle, as well as what Dee-Jay points out AOA and how an A/C’s flight control surfaces are tailored for certain densities/speeds/AOA’s.
Basically an object in flight has a few forces keeping it in the air, or even water; any fluid either aerodynamic/hydrodynamic.
Specific density is a factor as well. We can see the relationship between densities and drag with altitude.
It is actually a complicated and varied system of relationships and we look at a narrow spectrum which is A/C in air.
-
RE: Negative G Question
It depends on several things. Mostly airspeed and if it is a sustained -1.0 G descent. The short answer is yes because lift creates drag. If the speed is constant and the only thing that changes is G’s then yes, there is less drag. It can be easily understood by flying with a constant speed and constant thrust and trying to go into a -1.0 G descent. You will either gain speed or have to decrease thrust. Gravity is a factor and it can be confusing because we are going towards the pull of gravity, so we can think that is the reason for increased speed. But, that is the nature of a G.
If we want to talk about an inverted -1.0 G flight vs an inverted 1.0 G flight then it would be the opposite. There would be less drag at 1.0 G than at -1.0 G. It depends on lift vector.