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: 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.
-
RE: 4.34 - F/A-18 missing needles in all analog gauges
Gone back to 4.33.5 for now, cause I want to fly other aircraft, too.
I really don’t have much hope for the support or bugfixes of other aircraft than the F-16 somewhere in the nearer future. Looks like 4.34 is a step backwards in this case.
Also YAME-Extractor still does not really support 4.34. This is the case for nearly one year now. So I couldn’t see any need for me to upgrade to 4.34 at the moment. I’ll stay with 4.33.5.
In my opinion 4.34.2 is only the better choice for guys which want to fly the F-16 only. I had the hope, as I heard 4.34 will see the light of day, that maybe some cockpits from the already included aircraft like the A-10A and the F-15E will be a bit improved and maybe the F-14D is already on board, too.
But sadly that didn’t happen and it also looks like noone is really interested in other flyables than the F-16 and it’s countless versions anymore.
And it’s not right that Falcon always was intended as an exclusively F-16 only simulation if you look at it’s history. Even in Falcon 3.0 was an A-10 planned as first addon aircraft, but it never made it. Instead the F/A-18 and the Mig-29 came out as addons. For Falcon Allied Force an A-10 was also planned as an later addon.
-
RE: 4.34 - F/A-18 missing needles in all analog gauges
considering the thousands of hours i spent on AV8B thrust vectoring capabilities, AV8 AFM , F18 dedicated FLCS and AFM and Carrier ops , i think that statement is a bit exagerated.
I agree though that at the moment
- nobody is interested to develop more the dedicated avionics
As a consequence,
- nobody is really interested in developing new 3D cockpits
and i agree THAT is frustrating
Ok my statement was really a bit harsh, but that’s the case because of my disappointment.
BMS should be the backbone of my homecockpit. I startet this project years ago, at the time Falcon 4.0 was state of the art. Already then I had the plan to make a universal cockpit, which is able to simulate many different aircraft. It should be as realistic as possible, but not to the last nut and bolt.
Those times back those years it was no question to have functional gauges or MFD’s (or it was much, much to expensive), so the only thing you could implement to your homepit were switches, knobs and dials. No problem to get this running for different aircraft. I wanted to use the pit with the Jane’s series, Free Falcon, Strike Fighters Project 1 and Enemy Engaged All Mods. Years passed by and I had a lot of other things to do in real life, so I sadly had no more time for my homepit project.
I always had an eye at BMS, but the fact it was F-16 only kept me from using it for the cockpit. I wanted to stay with Free Falcon and have the ability to fly different aircraft. I know that this wasn’t as much realistic as BMS, but hey I’m no pilot who makes his training lessons for the next mission at home. A simulation should of course be realistic, but I think at the end it’s still a game and a hobby which should make fun, not a training rig to learn real military aviation procedures. Don’t get me wrong, I like realism, but sometimes I think this kind of hyper-realism is a bit exaggerated. This is also the case we have to wait 3-5 years for one new aircraft in DCS (and another 5 years until it is finished), for example, or we had no real interesting modules for years.
I really prefer to fly an F-14 or an F-15 which isn’t hyper-realistic to the last, for a simulation-game, unimportant system, before I’m only able to fly uninteresting military trainer aircraft, which are modeled to the last nut and bolt. I don’t like this attitude to make things only like in real life, or completely leave it. Hey, it’s a simulation game and it should convey how it is to be a fighter pilot but it’s not a trainer. On the other hand it shouldn’t be something like War Thunder or Ace Combat or anything in that direction. Realism yes, realistic realism for sure, but not that hyper-hyper realism, which makes some things impossible to add to the simulation, cause the system of the aircraft could not be simulated exactly as the original or they are simply unknown because they are secret.
In 2015 Falcon BMS 4.33 appeared and I was really ravished to see that there was now also a flyable F/A-18C and a AV-8B. I took a look at it and also read, that the A-10, the F-15 and the other flyable aircraft should also get much better cockpits in the nearer future. Short after this the project of the F-14D, my all time favorite jet-fighter, was also announced. This and the fact that BMS is absolutely homepit-builders friendly (thank’s for all the work you all have done here), was my decision to built my project with BMS as the main simulation. I also wanted to use EECH All Mods for the attack-helicopters and Strike Fighters Project 2 for all the older vietnam era stuff. FS2004 or FSX should be used for big birds like C-130 Hercules, C-117 Globemaster, C-5 Galaxy or even transport choppers like the CH-53, UH-1 etc. The MSFS is also relatively easy to interface with a homepit.
For EECH and SFP2 mainly input systems like the HOTAS and all the buttons and switches in the cockpit were intended to be functional. I also wanted to be able to fly older jets and attack-helicopters with the pit, so I had to make this compromise not to have functional gauges and MFD’s at the moment for those two simulations. Maybe one day? DCS was no consideration this time, cause of the missing interesting modules for me. I only had Flaming Cliffs 3 and the Huey at this time and for the Huey you also can use the MSFS, which offers a lot of good realistic UH-1 choppers, too. The Huey isn’t a real attack chopper, it’s primarily a utility helicopter, so no need to fly it in DCS, even if the flight dynamics are superb. But there are also Hueys for the MSFS which have a real good flightmodel.
Since BMS 4.33 offered other fighters now too, has one of the best possibilities to interface a homepit and also has an outstanding dynamic campaign (not to mention all the other outstanding features of it), it should be the main simulator I built my cockpit for. You could see at my pictures from the cockpit that I have “stolen” most of the avionics from the F-16 for my universal pit, to be able to use it perfectly with BMS. Some “extra-features” like the mini-overhead-panel and some extra control systems are also integrated, to make it more helicopter and big birds friendly. I also made many different grips and throttles and also a collective to be universal and have the possibility to fly the choosen aircraft with the right feeling.
That’s why I hope that BMS will still support other flyable fighter-jets in the future too and not drop the idea of having other flyables than the F-16. Yes, it is all F-16 under the hood, but it’s ok I think. Maybe sometime this could be made better, but meanwhile it’s also ok like it is. And it makes some things a lot easier for cockpit-building. Compared to DCS, BMS is lightyears ahead if you want to built your own homecockpit. It’s much more FPS friendly and the engine doesn’t change permanently, so you have always to run after it.
If you built a homepit, you couldn’t do this within a few months, it takes a lot of time (especially if you relatively low on money, like I am). If the simulation you want to use permanently claims for newer, better hardware, you will never reach the end of your project, cause you have always to adapt it to the new situation during the building process. BMS also offers interface software like F4ToPokeys or YAME which are really a dream for hompit-builders. With exception of the MSFS (and maybe X-Plane) you will not find any other simulation which offers such a perfect cockpit-interface.
So why should this great all in one pack stay F-16 only for ever?
Ok, here is what I’m working on. I built this with a very, very limited budget, so not all is perfect. It’s still a long way to the finish. All has to be sanded, painted and all the lettering has to be done and, and , and… Sadly, I had no time for working on it the last two years. Some things will change now, cause at the time I was building them, I had no other possibilities to make them. Especially some of the control buttons, switches etc. Now I have a 3D-printer and will rework a lot of the things that I already done.
Side- and Centersticks are changeable and will not be used at the same time like you see it in the layout-plan. It’s also possible to use a yoke and a four engine throttle-quadrant or even a collective. The big old CRT 22’’ will be replaced by a triple view TFT-monitor set, but I have to rework the rotateable connection holder for my overhead before I can use a triple view