FSSB resistance

Discussions about Cockpits, Joysticks & Setups
User avatar
Gunner
Virtual Thunderbird
Posts: 1190
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:01 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Post by Gunner » Mon Oct 01, 2007 10:30 am

Just for reference...my scale gives me 15.25lbs at that y setting Burner.
User avatar
Lawndart
Virtual Thunderbird
Posts: 9290
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:36 am
Location: Mooresville, NC

Post by Lawndart » Mon Oct 01, 2007 10:47 am

All these numbers... :shock: :D

IMHO I think we ought to refer to any lbs numbers as adjusted for the 10/21 lbs stock values when talking force settings and axis shaping, rather than the actual force numbers which might be a pound more or less. Makes more sense to me to have a uniform comparison scale for the sake of discussing an adjusted value. Otherwise, it's great FYI to know the actual measured force as well...
User avatar
Burner
Virtual Thunderbird Alumnus
Posts: 1420
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 5:08 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA

Post by Burner » Mon Oct 01, 2007 5:07 pm

Gunner- try testing various pull strengths between 40%-70% that seems to be where the non-linearity starts. With say 4 different readings between 40%-70% I could probably trend a line to tell us how much pull we'll get for any particular percentage upper and lower deadzone. Basically the problem is that the ratio starts at 0.5 and finishes at 0.57 so I'll produce a line (equation) that accounts for that change and just tells us how much pull we get at any particular percentage.

LD- I like using the real values b/c they account for the error between printed values and actual values.

Time to run, practice in 20!
Image
User avatar
Lawndart
Virtual Thunderbird
Posts: 9290
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:36 am
Location: Mooresville, NC

Post by Lawndart » Wed Oct 03, 2007 9:28 pm

Thanks for all your research and time spent testing Burner. I used your data as a basis for my own thus far. :D

Question: What were the actual X-Axis test results from Gunner with no deadband and a linear curve (no curve)? Secondly, the Y-Axis had 22.5 lbs this way correct?

I have no curve/no deadzone in LockOn for the X-, and Rudder Axis. On the Y-Axis I used 50/10/40 (Shift/DZ/Curve) in LockOn. (I also remembered why you can't simply use a linear setting on that axis... due to the way the Foxy trim function is programmed!!! I realized this in flight I might add... when my "connect trim" suddenly added what seemed to be another 15+ lbs instantaneously! :oops: ).

Adjusted for 10/21 measurements these are my current settings:

X-Axis = 10%
10% / 2 = 5%
(1-0.05) * 10 = 9.5 lbs

Y-Axis = 67%
67% / 2 = 33.5%
(1-0.335) * 21 = 14.0 lbs

9.5 / 14.0 = 0.68

DZ of 10% closely resembles my previous "breakout force" and a -7 curve is very similar to my old setting. I do notice a more responsive upper and lower end of the curve though, possibly due to the 0.68 ratio, compared to what I was using before at a 0.8 ratio. Translation: Requires deliberate input to roll, smooth near center and easy to max out if needed.
Image

I wanted to go for roughly 2/3 of the maximum Y-Axis pull available and this seems to take care of it! At first I had no DZ setup in HCCP, but since I still use the LockOn axis settings for the Y-Axis and I had 10% before in HCCP - I went back, partly because I also noticed a small erroneous input registered in Foxy without this DZ in place, likely caused by a tiny bit of tilt of the stick itself. Definitely can't take your hand off, let alone re-adjust your grip with this setting + trim engaged, although I flew perfect paint right off the bat in my first loop & roll after not having flown at all since Sep 22 (the back to back Saturday sorties). The setting is definitely a beast and will make you look like Popeye in no time. The constant burn in my forearm will take a bit of time acclimating to. Small note (to self): The Y-Axis is a b*tch to calibrate now! :shock:
Image

Again, this closely resembles my old LockOn settings. Very easy and minute to control near the center and up to about half deflection of rudder pedal travel, then it tapers off and gets brisk. The -7 curve resembles my old LockOn setting, aside from being steeper beyond half rudder pedal inputs. I don't foresee myself using much more than half a rudder kick anyways, but if I need to it has some bite. Most importantly very precise control for Line Abreast as well as the Slow Roll. 8)
Image

Here's a spreadsheet for simplicity with my settings.
Image


P.S. I did a complete "hard" re-cal of the pots when I had the Kitty opened up for surgery and both my Y/X-Axis' are currently reading 325 while at rest. I got that spot on, just by pure luck on the first try! :P
Last edited by Lawndart on Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Thumper
Virtual Thunderbird Alumnus
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 10:00 am
Location: Weslaco, TX

Post by Thumper » Wed Oct 03, 2007 11:58 pm

Lawndart wrote:On the Y-Axis I used 50/10/40 (Shift/DZ/Curve) in LockOn. (I also remembered why you can't simply use a linear setting on that axis... due to the way the Foxy trim function is programmed!!! I realized this in flight I might add... when my "connect trim" suddenly added what seemed to be another 15+ lbs instantaneously! :oops: ).
Might be a stupid question, but why not recalculate and reprogram the trim function in foxy and set all your curves in foxy instead of having one axis curve set in LockOn?
Last edited by Thumper on Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Lawndart
Virtual Thunderbird
Posts: 9290
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:36 am
Location: Mooresville, NC

Post by Lawndart » Thu Oct 04, 2007 12:43 am

Trim behavior would be different using the same Foxy command as we're currently using when the curves are moved to the HCCP only. We'd have to find a new way to program Foxy. Plus not all members fly with FSSBs which would mean we'd likely need to have different Y-Axis curves between force sensor users and gimbal users, unless we there's a way to program Foxy to move the "centerpoint" of the axis up along the curve in HCCP, so that you pull your way down on the axis and into the flat portion of the curve. This might work (?), but then again, it only solves moving all curves to the HCCP with a LockOn specific trim setting on it. It would be nice to have trim that really worked as it's supposed to in the game to begin with. Basically, we'd accomplish moving the curves, but end up with the same result as we already have and a Foxy command tailored to LockOn. It would be nice, beacuse it would keep LockOn out of the equation when it comes to setup; however, the end results would be the same.

I do think it's possible to "mimic" our current LockOn curves with the "trim" and/or another axis mod in Foxy, but we'd have to test fly these new settings too. Short term, that's probably not the best idea... :wink: It's mostly about the Y-Axis when it comes to muscle memory!
User avatar
Lawndart
Virtual Thunderbird
Posts: 9290
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:36 am
Location: Mooresville, NC

Post by Lawndart » Sat Oct 06, 2007 11:02 pm

After (finally) getting home from Burner's casa (I spent 1:45 on I4 in a traffic jam with all 4 lanes shutdown westbound); however, I had plenty of time to think about and compare my setup to Burner's and after I got home I had to "test sit" my own pit some more for comparison.

@Burner, basically our stick inputs respond pretty much the same as mine, but with more force on the Y-Axis. The ratio between X- and Y- inputs is negligible I think, as I couldn't feel much of a difference between 0.68 (that I use) and 0.66 (that you had). Rudders were a little too touchy for my liking, but one thing I do like are your RCS pedals! After getting home, the Elites just don't give me that real airplane feel like the RCS did to a greater extent, although the Hall Sensors are equally smooth...

Seating position and stick position in relation to your body (knees) was the biggest challenge I'd say. I just had the stick to high in relation to my body, knees and elbow. My feedback (to you Burner) would be to increase your Rudder curve (IMHO / personal preference) and then we both have to get solid pits!!! The only way I can increase my Y-Axis force more is by mounting the stick on a solid structure with the height adjusted to my knees. You're able to go higher than I am right now due to your clamps and wedging the part your stick rests on to your armrest, but it would still be a little too raggedy if you were to go any higher.

Minus the Rudder difference I could probably fly a full show with your setup without missing a beat (as long as I hit the gym a few times more often... I can't tell whether my forearm burns more from flying in your pit this evening or the workout I got earlier in the day)! :wink:

Of course, with an optimal seating position (pit), the higher force settings would become less of an issue. I'm looking forward to trying Gunner's pit next week and the 21 lbs... something tells me it won't be as much as it sounds due to body position, although I'm sure my arm will burn still after a maneuver or two!

To sum up my experience thus far. I think setting a 0.68 ratio between the X- and Y-Axis and going as high as your setup will allow (pit, seating position, relation of the stick to your knee and eblow etc) is what I would recommend. You definitely need a solid pit for anything much higher than 15 lbs, but the range of inputs is so much better in the higher lbs! Oh well, time to hit the gym more often! 8) :lol:
User avatar
Lawndart
Virtual Thunderbird
Posts: 9290
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:36 am
Location: Mooresville, NC

Post by Lawndart » Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:03 pm

While it doesn't change the ratio or "feel", this does change the estimated actual amount of force while using axis shaping, considering we guesstimated that 100% of dead-zone in HCCP was approximately 50% of the actual axis movement in our calculations as this is what we used to figure the math and lbs. According to the provided manual with the software it's closer to 30%...

Read manual excerpt below.
CCP and TM software manual wrote:2.5.1 Dead Zone Information

By changing the Dead Zone Information (UDZ is Upper Dead Zone, LDZ is Lower Dead Zone, CDZ is Center Dead Zone), you can alter the inactive regions on each axis. The effects of successive changes will be reflected in the graph to the right-hand side of the area where the parameters are listed, dead-zone areas being highlighted in red. All values have a maximum of 100%, where 100% is approximately 30% of the actual axis movement on the Joystick. For instance, the default value used internally by the Joystick is 1% of each of the dead-zone areas, which gives a total of 3% of the complete axis travel.
User avatar
Burner
Virtual Thunderbird Alumnus
Posts: 1420
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 5:08 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA

Post by Burner » Sun Oct 07, 2007 9:43 pm

CCP and TM software manual wrote:2.5.1 Dead Zone Information

By changing the Dead Zone Information (UDZ is Upper Dead Zone, LDZ is Lower Dead Zone, CDZ is Center Dead Zone), you can alter the inactive regions on each axis. The effects of successive changes will be reflected in the graph to the right-hand side of the area where the parameters are listed, dead-zone areas being highlighted in red. All values have a maximum of 100%, where 100% is approximately 30% of the actual axis movement on the Joystick. For instance, the default value used internally by the Joystick is 1% of each of the dead-zone areas, which gives a total of 3% of the complete axis travel.
That doesn't make mathematical sense :?

I'm sticking with Gunner's empirical values.
Image
User avatar
Burner
Virtual Thunderbird Alumnus
Posts: 1420
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 5:08 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA

Post by Burner » Wed Apr 02, 2008 12:10 am

Here are my most recent settings, from about October of last year. I should have posted them earlier. LOMAC Y-Axis settings are as usual.

X-Axis = 10% = 9.5 lbs
Y-Axis = 65% = 14.18 lbs
9.5/14.18 = 0.67

It's the smaller X-Axis center dead zone coupled with a harder Y-Axis pull strength that makes this setup very responsive around the center.

Image

Image

Image

Enjoy!
Image
User avatar
Teej
Virtual Thunderbird
Posts: 1533
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:29 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Another datapoint...

Post by Teej » Thu Sep 10, 2009 5:55 pm

I'm flying with the original "FCC" Cougar mod.

I'm using a cheap fish scale, measured directly below the trigger.

If I "zero out" the HCCP, I get the following forces, judged based on the graphic joystick analyzer that you can click within Foxy (the one some people have used to write their name with their Cougar...)

Max deflection: Approx. 10.5# X, 11.5# Y
First grid square off center: 2# X, 4# Y
Half pull: 6# X, 7.5# Y
Each grid square: Approx. .75#

In speaking with Burner & Gunner, on the assumption that the FCC resembled a maxed out FSSB, we set X deadzones to 100/100 and Y to 53/53. As we can see above, the forces aren't quite the same...however, the output came pretty close...

With those deadzones, I get:

7 / 9.5 pounds (~ .73 ratio) max pull
2 / 4 off center (same as unaltered)
4.5 / 6.5 half pull (.69 ratio - pretty damn close to real)
Each grid square is closer to .5# delta.

Teej
smok
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:14 am
Location: France

Post by smok » Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:33 am

Fine! What about thrust setting?
User avatar
Panther
Virtual Thunderbird
Posts: 1009
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2006 4:41 am
Location: Las Vegas, NV

Post by Panther » Tue Dec 15, 2009 12:15 pm

Thrust is default linear in LO settings and in CCP. The only modification to my throttle is I've HS1™ Throttle Kit (thread) and I adjusted the detents to only have one (AB detent).
Sinister
Posts: 165
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 5:23 pm
Location: Las Vegas NV

Post by Sinister » Fri Dec 18, 2009 8:30 pm

Smok, what are you trying to do with the throttle?

Is there something in particular that you are trying to do with the throttle settings?
Trigen
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 3:20 pm

Post by Trigen » Sun Dec 12, 2010 9:54 am

To reopen an old thread.

Been looking a little at this and it seems that the FSSB is capable of simulating the 16 lbs forward push limit.

Given that you are in the 21 lbs setting, if you set the lower deadzone to 48% it should be about 16lbs forward and 21 lbs on the pull.

While I'm somewhat stupid, well totally retarded when it comes to any sort of math I think I'm in the ballpark, but do correct me.

In any case seeing a setting the lower deadzone has no effect on the pull it can only lead to the conclusion that you can define what sort lbs you want on the push and pull independently of each other by using the deadzones.
Physicists makes me laugh, why?
Their highly intelligent minds has epic battles with the understanding and use of an overhead. (The same is true for mosts scientists).
There's nothing worse than a 5 min explanation to a yes or no question.
Post Reply