the air forces know the secret for uber piloting the sports world doesnt
 

i have several world record racing online and i feel like i cheated because i do something that i dont know nobody else does it

most people use in their joystick wheel 400º of lock, i use 40º

i texted extensively and in any racing game theres at least two seconds difference between both set ups i get

think about it wwi fighters sticks had a run like 50 cm modern fighter joystick run is like 5 cm

what i dont understand is why real racers dont use high sensitivity

The reason i am trying to replicate the 109 controls. Imagine the sensitivity on a trim wheel (elevator) on a saitek (the small rotary) diameter less than 20mm compared to a wheel of 300mm! 1mm rotation would be nothing on a 300mm wheel yet on the small wheel it is almost 1 degree of trim!

Same with a full length stick compared to a desktop stick! ;)

I use a 10 turn pot for elevator trim connected through one of Bodnar's old boards.

It is very smooth.

--Outlaw.

Er... They do, an f1 car will reach full lock in less than one turn of the steering wheel, compared with 1 ish for road cars. Most racing cars have more sensitive steering wheels.

The magic word here is precision. It's been a while since I've raced on a pc. If I'm not mistaken the GT cars have 270 or 180 degree steering lock.
And if you're racing a simulation that's what you wanna use. Because you're simulating real life, to see how good you can get. Anything else is just childish to me, chasing numbers...

Don't know about WWI, but WWII planes had like 30 cm stick travel, the 109 25cm.
Modern fighter jets have the same. Except for the ones that use force sensing controls.

Formation flying would be next to impossible with 5cm of precision on a stick.

well you hardly ever use full stick travel once airborne.

Oh sure you do, dogfighting, aerobatics.

But the thread title suggests it's better to have extra small stick travel, which is not true.

if you want high precision you go for lot of travel

if you want to go to the limit samll travel is best

you can countersteer easy with an artificially enhanced time reaction

normally they say motorbikes turn and brake more than you do when you think youre on the limit, this is a conservation natural feeling, with small travel you beat this though on this sense high sensitivity is addictive

You can't pick one or the other, you need both. On airplanes especially.
With a 5cm stick travel the aircraft would be uncontrollable in a dive due to the forces acting on control surfaces.

The 109 has exactly that problem. Small stick travel, above 400 mph the stick is impossible to move.

What you propose can only be beneficial virtually, in a game.

Maybe for a ludicrously extreme sideslip :D

Stick-travel is only one part of this. The reason why an Extra 300 has higher roll-rates than an F18 isn't due to stick-movement, it's due to bigger control-surfaces.

Besides, your example is completely silly on for example an F16, where the stick measures force, not travel.

Memo to self: why the HELL do I even bother answering a raaaid-thread....

Thanks for the reality check:P

well im doing it out of generosity

with this setup i got a word record in an steam game(raceroom) in 4 hours(for my 1st recordin race evolution i needed 600)

without this high sensitivity setup i wouldnt be able to do it

as i said for me theres 2 seconds i gain from racing with 40º or 400º

feel free to grab free steam race room and race one of my hotlaps ghosts

i was pondering to get all records in that game but that was insane even for me

now i rather racing online, i dont even need to know the circuit to keep up with the high sens setup

That's great for you. Still a cheat if you ask me.
Isn't the point of a racing simulation to see what it would be like, racing in real life.
And if you have a wheel that can be set up to a specific car, why not do it.
Because you care more about some number, than real racing. That's childish to me.

Also, I don't know this game. Try RrFactor, Live for speed or iRacing, which are true simulators, see if it works there.

it gives me a 2 seconds advantage in ALL games i tried including lfs , gtr and all simbin games

why is it a cheat if you can do it in real life

if i was a race driver 1st thing i would setup the direction like a quad, linear and 1:1 ratio with a low force feedback

why is this cheating if it can be done in real life

or not following the heard copying the previous pilots and do whats best for you its cheating

:) well in a way it is, not following the heard i mean

If you increase the ratio between stick-travel and control-surface deflection, you'll most likely severely damage the aircraft since you go beyond the loadlimits, or you'll put yourself into a G-LOC situation with subsequent loss of control. Which, in an aircraft (and ESPECIALLY at events like Reno, usually means that you die.

There's usually a reason as to why the controls are set up as they are in aircraft.

but thats my whole point:

modern fighters use joysticks of short stick

old fighters used long sticks

do you realize the lenght of the stick is what determines run or sensitivity?

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/1...p200580vw7.jpg

http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazin...fire_ix_32.jpg

And there's a reason why they're setup like they are in real car racing too.

Do you know what would happen if you would jerk your 40 degree wheel at 200 mph.
In some panic situation, you jerk the wheel slightly you are out.
+ the strain on the construction, on the tires etc...

There's safety regulation in real life.

Anyway I have never, ever heard of a racing vehicle with a 40 degree steering lock.
It is not possible in real life, either because of mechanical reasons, safety reasons or wear and tear reasons.
There for, if you want to brag about your racing skills, be a man and do it like the real men race.

ARE you kidding me :))))

Do you even know what stick you've posted? And how many aircraft use that technology :)

You've posted an image of an F-16-stick. Which moves about 1/4th of an inch all in all. That movement is NOT, in ANY way, what defines the amount of controlsurface-deflection on the Viper, as it's flight-contro-system is set up so that it's how much FORCE you use that is used to measure the deflection-angle.

Comparing that to a Spitfire, which you have done here, is idiotic, even for you.

You can add the fact that most modern-day fighterjets use a Fly-by-wire system, i.e. there's no moving, mechanical linkage between the stick and the control-surfaces like you have on for example a Spitfire. It doesn't compare at all, in any way.

haha so moving one cm = 100 kg onn the elevator

myself on the stall limit paragliding measure by grams while normally by 20 kg so youre gullible if you belive that

You're not getting it: The stick in an F16 is not connected mechanically to the actuators that drive the control-surfaces as you would find for example in the F4 Phantom. The stick in an F16 only moves 1/4th of an inch in order to give the stick SOME deadzone, which was a wish from the first pilots that flew the bird since they found that a completely non-moving stick (which was what the very first production-birds actually had) was unnatural to them.

The stick in an F16 senses how much force you put on the stick, sends that input to the flight-control-computers, who then do the math to make the aircraft do what you want it to do, as long as you don't exceed the maximum G-load the aircraft can take at that speed.

So again: Posting an image of an F16-stick in this discussion is completely and utterly useless, since it's not mechanically linked directly to the control-surface actuators as you have in a Spitfire (Wire-and-pulley system) or an F4 Phantom (hydraulic system).

youre confusing the thing by throwing random facts

the fact:

modern fighters have short sticks

old fighters had long sticks

modern fighters have short run

old fighters had long run

modern fighters have high sensitivity

old fighters had low sensitivity


show me a picture of a new fighter with a long stick that is with low sensitivity

man i grant you in the future racers will go with insane high sensitivity in their wheels is a matter of a pioneer doing it and washing the floor with the rest

Hahahaha, not one, not one thing you just said is correct :)

F-16 doesn't have short stick travel. It has 0 stick travel.
But then pilots started complaining that they have trouble orienting and realising where the stick acctually is. Then the designers introduced 1/4 inch or 6mm stick travel. And that is "empty travel" not connected to the control surfaces in any way.
Maximun noseup and nosedown pitch commands are genrated by 25 and 16 pounds of input, respectively. Roll commands are generated by a maximum of 17 pounds in cruise gains and by 12 pounds in takeoff and landing gains.

But that is still only one aircraft, and it was problematic.

Wanna talk f-14, f-15, 1-104, f-111, f-117 and literally hundreds and hundreds of airplanes before and after that from all the countries around the world that have conventional sticks, with 20-30+ cm of travel. Just like the WWII fighters.

Even if your statement would be correct, older fighter can still out-turn any modern one.

Have you actually checked any of your statements before stating them??

Oh, and by the way, I'm an inventor with a engineering degree. A professional one, making a living of it. So I'm all for open mindedness and thinking out of the box.

ive seen many FIGHTERS in movies and all used short sticks

your confusing run with force feedback

f16 has a stick with extreme short run AND A STRONG FORCE FEED BACK

sensitivity is related with run not feed back

so the f16 and many other stick SHORT RUN give away my point of the high sensitivity advantage

the only sensible point ive seen so far except childish bias is that high sensitivity in racing is limited for safety reasons

Name a modern fighter with your "short stick".

And please, movies :) Are you really kidding me :)
You do know that they film the cockpit footage on the ground, and mostly on mock-up cockpits :)

the previous f16

and the f18 is pretty short if you ask me ;)

http://www.clarksmachine.com/img/f18stick1.gif

edit:

i wont go into complex stuff but just exposing the obvious:

do you know why soome one designed a 0.5 mm run stick for an extreme plane?

because countersteering a stall like that is faster

nope it was not fashion ;)

F-18, 2G per one inch of stick travel. That's 4.5 inches or 12cm for pitch up. And there is more stick travel, but you can't achieve it because of the forces being too strong to pull of, again, for safety reasons.
So, the F-18 has exactly the same stick travel as a WWII 109.

F-16 doesn't have any force feedback, and that's where it becomes apparent that you haven't actually spent more than 5min researching the subject.

Again, name another modern fighter with you "short stick"

why should i name another, one plane designer thought as me

so you dont agree that sensitivity is related with run

edit:

a force is a resistance to move, exactly what the f16 stick has, if you dont like the name force feed back thats all right we may call it the force onwards

You did say, modern fighters have short stick travel. Plural and by that meaning all of them have

Well, as it turns out, they don't. Sorry.

Raaaid is dougal...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25N-4zrk390

modern fighters have a short stick run is a true statement since the f16 has a short stick run and its a modern fighter, i didnt say all

its like if i say women are pretty, it doesnt mean all

No. ABSOLUTELY NOT! If you don't believe me, go look up the history of the F16, the TCTO's for the F16's, and the horrendous amount of information on the F16's flightcontrol-system.

The F16's stick moves 1/4th of an inch. That 1/4th of an inch is built into the system to give pilots a deadband so that they don't input unwanted commands, especially in pitch. ABSOLUTELY NO force feedback is in the stick of an F16. AT ALL. Period. That's one of the things that catch new pilots on the Viper off when they transition from the T38 Talon (which is based on the F5) to the Viper. So I'll say this again: The F16's flight-control system is based on FORCE of the input, not the TRAVEL of the input. That's one of the key differences between the stick in an F16 and for example an F18. Both are fly-by-wire designs, but the F18's stick move in a more traditional manner.

But hey! Don't believe me all you want. I don't know jack shit about the F16's, even though I served as an F16 groundcrew during my RNoAF servicetime (yes, this is irony, since you seemingly need to have things fed to you with very small spoons). I've seen, touched and handled every single part of the F16's airframe and systems through that, I've spent more time with my nose in the TCTO's for the aircraft, and I'd daresay I know a TAD more about the F16 than you do. So stop talking out of your butt, and try to understand that there are people here with far greater knowledge, even hands-on knowledge, with the aircraft.

youre trowing random facts again and trying to apply the autority criteria in your favour

what of this statements is false?

statement number 1:

the f16 stick has an extreamly short run


statement number 2:

a high or low sensitivity depends on the stick run

statement number 3:

the f16 has a short run which it implies it has high sensitivity

edit:

your making a sophism in your point:

the control is based on the force

oh yeah to move it farther you have to apply more force

then so its a 109 stick based on the force to move it farther you have to apply more force

a sophism

Nothing of what I've said is random in any way, shape or form. If you doubt me, go look it up.

Not false. What YOU fail to recognize, however, is that the 1/4th of an inch of travel on the stick is deadband. Nothing happens inside that 1/4th of an inch, AT ALL. Once you reach the limit of that 1/4th of an inch, where the stick doesn't move anymore, THEN the flight-control system starts translating the FORCE (basically the weight you put on the stick) you input into control-surface deflection, which again makes the aircraft roll/pitch.


Which is NOT true for the F16's stick.

Which again is NOT true, because the travel of the stick has absolutely nothing to do with the maneuvering of the aircraft what so ever. Again, when you reach the LIMIT of that travel, the WEIGHT (i.e. force) you put on the stick is what defines how large the effect on the controlsurfaces will be. High weight (i.e. pulling hard on the stick) equals a faster and higher response from the aircraft.

You're comparing a wire-and-pulley system to a computer-controlled system. You might as well compare a squirrel and a pig. They're both mammals, but that's where the comparison ends.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp? Either you're being a deliberate troll, or you're as intelligent as my right shoe.

The F-16 doesn't have stick travel connected with airplane maneuverability .

You can easily have a 30cm stick that exerts more sensitivity than a 5cm one.
It is not connected at all.

i dont believe that

i googled f16 stick and dead zone- band and i call that bs, i know you never pilot with a big dead zone

oh man do you find curious people over the net

have you got any link of an f16 stick having a dead zone?

utter bs, lets see if my intuition is right

edit:

In regard to the amount of movement: I think the F-16 has the least
amount of movement of any control stick so far implemented on a
production aircraft. In fact, initially it was designed to have no
movement. On other aircraft it varies and it often depends on the
length of the control stick. For example, the Gripen has a very short
stick and the rotation point is just beneath the wrist. I can't
remember how many degrees it deflects, but I do know that it feels
very natural. Since it is short, the linear movement of the stick at
the hand will obviously be quite small.

from:


http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Arch.../msg00017.html

You can read the following links if you don't believe me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General...ighting_Falcon

http://f-16.net/articles_article13.html

You can also read this for a pilot-perspective on the comparison between the F18 and the F16. It touches upon the deadband, and MAY just be something that you MAY FINALLY understand what the hell you're talking about, although I doubt that.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/air-war...rspective.html

If you need more proof, go download the F16 TCTO for the Flightcontrol-system. It's explained in far greater detail than I currently bother with. You're hell-bent on labeling anything that goes against your so-called knowledge as false anyway, so I don't think I'll bother with either you nor your posts again.

You're nothing but a troll, and a bad one at that, and should simply be banned from these forums.

You really are an idiot, questioning something that is patently true and so well documented and evidenced. Your quote doesn't help as it has already been stated that the stick has a tiny movement. Originally it had no movement.

Now do a search referring to an F16 sidestick or side controller then post an apology to Fjordmonkey.

Hood

this link mentions not dead band:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General...ighting_Falcon

this one neither:

http://f-16.net/articles_article13.html

this one is the only i found mentioning dead band and anyone will understand he is talking of effective run NOT A DEAD ZONE

http://www.defence.pk/forums/air-war...rspective.html

so its you who is the troll and is pretending to work with f16 as many have done in this forae

at least your smart enough not to impersonate an officer which is a criminal ofence

man i have some experience pilot you cant pilto with a dead band thats why i know youre a bser

how the hell do you take up fuel with a 6 mm DEAD ZONE

here the real stuff:

http://www.realsimulator.com/html/fssb.html


The Hotas Desktop System is an upgrade for the Thrustmaster HOTAS Cougar. It replaces the Cougar's original gimbal system and pots with a completely different system that uses force sensors to measure the displacement of the joystick. The joystick barely moves replicating the displacement values of the real F-16 side stick controller. Similarly, the forces for maximum displacement are replicated although these can be reduced to suit personal preferences.

thanks for being rrude to me

in my book youre a pretender

edit:

bad luck for you that that test pilot used the words dead band meaning effective run

now anybody smart enough knows the nerd pretender you are

and pray an f16 maintenance mecahnic is not an officer or you could be trialed as an officer impersonator a crminal ofense

In my book you're an utter idiot, but hey, that's just how it is.

Read this: http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...-16-design.htm

Especially the 7th paragraph, which goes like this:

The cockpit and its bubble canopy give the pilot unobstructed forward and upward vision, and greatly improved vision over the side and to the rear. The seat-back angle was expanded from the usual 13 degrees to 30 degrees, increasing pilot comfort and gravity force tolerance. The pilot has excellent flight control of the F-16 through its "fly-by-wire" system. Electrical wires relay commands, replacing the usual cables and linkage controls. For easy and accurate control of the aircraft during high G-force combat maneuvers, a side stick controller is used instead of the conventional center-mounted stick. Hand pressure on the side stick controller sends electrical signals to actuators of flight control surfaces such as ailerons and rudder. The arrangement of the pilot's control stick is a radical departure from standards that trace their origin to the early days of World War I. Traditionally, the fighter pilot's control stick used for actuation of the ailerons and elevators has consisted of a lever mounted on the floor of the cockpit between the pilot's legs. (There have, of course been many variations in the detail design of the control stick.) On the F-16, the traditional control stick has been replaced by a short "side-arm controller" mounted on the right-hand console of the cockpit. The side-arm controller is a small-displacement pressure-sensitive handle that, together with the fly-by-wire system, gives the pilot the ability to exercise very precise control of the aircraft. To help prevent unwanted commands to the control handle the pilot rests his right arm in a carefully designed support.

And if this just isn't enough to convince you, nothing will. Except maybe talking with a real F16-pilot, which I'd tell you to do if I thought you had any opportunity of doing so.

well i will be convinced when i see an explanation of an stick havinng 6mm of DEAD ZONE, theres none there

man im a pilot, ive piloted many things, thats utter bs

plz read again my f16 emulating joystick link in the top

Go read the TCTO. I don't care if you're a pilot, you've never flown an F16, and you never will.

Your link towards an emulation of the F16-stick is in no way proof that the stick in the real F16 is the exact same, which I know for a fact from not only working on the F16 but also talking quite a bit with RNoAF pilots during my time in the RNoAF.

But yep, I'm done with both you and this thread, and I still say you should be banned for being a moron.

the net proves your an uneducated pretender troll:


https://www.google.es/#hl=en&sclient...w=1280&bih=841

edit:

oh and to the other troll who asked me for other modern planes with high sensitivity


well as the f16 "maintenance guy" googles is your friend


https://www.google.es/#hl=en&output=...w=1280&bih=841

Lol that's pure bs there. I love that you're using a simulator stick as evidence about how the real thing works.

Must be hell being an A10 pilot with their joysticks and throttles ocasionally sliding across the desk in their cockpit. Well that's what my Warthog does so it must be true.

Idiot.

Hood

Raaaaaaid..

Look at this video, it's a real F-16 - you can clearly see the red button on top of the flight stick (most of the time). It hardly moves, even when the pilot is throwing it around all over the show.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1X8SE-FDjk

Wasting your time as he will not accept he's wrong. Next it'll be some youtube clip of Katy Perry and some BS derivative sketch proving something totally unconnected.

Hood

yes thats my whole point a high sensitivity is an advantage to go to the limit(because it takes shorter to move the hand a litle than alot)

thats it why he hardly moves the stick cause it has high sensitivity

well winny i take your advice for good and dont give a dumb about those haters

dont you agree that f16 stick has a high sensitivity, quite more than wwii sticks?


in fact ive tried myself a simillar setup to the f16 sidestick racing

i increased hugely the FORCE dumping of my g25 and have a lock of 5º

thats like moving the hands 0.5 cm from lock to lock

also i agree that a huge force resistance is another way to decrease sensitivity, its not only the run actually

edit:

and winny dont you think i am being reasonable calling bs a 0.6 cm dead zone in a control stick?

come on its common sense imagine driving like that

edit:

i have just tested the f16 sidestick concept with my g25 to race:

i decreased the lock to 4º thats like .7mm run on th hands

and i incresed centering force to the maximum(which is gradual the more you move the wheel the more it increases)

also added it a very slightly force feed back

i was going at times faster than the average guys in a circuit i had never driven

i feel like cheating now i have a modded g25 to act as an f16 sidestick :)

edit:

well after a clasification multiplayer in a circuit I HAD NEVER RACED BEFORED i ranked 14th of 24 with the f16 style wheel setup :)

this thread has been a great idea now i know even more about controls setups

To be honest I'm still not sure what your point is.

Staying with racing cars, an F1 cars steering ratio is pretty much 1:1
So you move the steering wheel 1 degree and the wheels turn 1 degree. A road car will have something like 15:1 or 20:1, it's just practicality. You don't need to reverse park an F1 car..

So the sports world does understand sensitivity.

I don't see the connection between a steering wheel and a flight stick on an F-16, they're totally different things. Surley the aircraft equivilent of steering is the rudder not the stick? The sticks there to let the pilot tell the plane to either roll, roll faster or don't roll, that's why the 16's stick isn't bothered about sensitivity of stick movement and is more interested in the pressure applied.

the thing i found out is that a short run on the controls allows you to countersteer faster both for a stall in a plane or a spin in a car

it also makes you more agresive

no point just sharing the knowledge :)

edit:

what i rediscovered today its that a big force resistance reduces sensitivity

so you have the advnatage of a short run being able to counters teer in an stall with enhanced reaction time with a normal sensitivity due to the copensantion by the force

arent internet bulletins great? :)

The stick has no sensitivity other than the sensitivity to the force being applied by the pilot. He hardly moves it because he cannot, apart from a tiny amount of "deadzone" built in to give tactile feedback.

Will you understand this? Maybe, but I doubt it. And why do you think it is more sensitive than WW2 sticks? Different aircraft, control services and the F16 is inherently unstable so you cannot compare them.

Maybe the aliens got inside your head when you were asleep.

Hood

well what i said in my original thread is that i see a short run as an advantage for competing though at 1st look might not look so

the f16 and all planes with side short stick prove it not to mention my personal expereince tweaking my g25 wheel

Then you went off on a flight of fancy spouting rubbish again. You still don't get that the F16 side stick range of movement does not have any effect on control surface movement.

Hood

i get it perfectly i just dont belive it

in fact im simulating an f16 stick in my wheel just now:

total precision and ultrafast movements, the best from both worlds by setting an ultra short run with a very strong force resistance(the more you move it the bigger the force) with hardly no feedback

this f16 maintenance guy of F16 has reminded me the wackos that abound in th net

edit:

man if you believe that any plane stick has 0.6 cm dead zone throw this game to the garbage you have no clue, bs

editÇ:

i have an idea for the gullible:

why dont you set your joystick a huge dead zone and try to fly like that, then tell me, specially you fiord monkey

do you even know what a dead zone is?

stinks like bs then its bs

this looks so bad it makes me look like a beacon of sanity, maybe i should search other shores

edit:

winny i hope you dont take it bad but an f1 wheel doesnt have a 1:1 ratio of lock, for what i know just bikes and quads have this

think you can turn the steering wheel 180º at least but the front wheels never turn 180º

Nope you don't get it or you'd have apologised by now. Let me see if I can make it even more simple for you.

1. The force required to move the stick in any direction to its limit is registered as a control surface input.

2. The physical movement of the stick is not registered as a control surface input. The whole 1/4" of movement is therefore "dead".


I think I'm done with this BS thread and I'll just wait for the next one. I'm afraid you're not a beacon of sanity, more like a low-watt bulb.

Hood

yeah fly with a 6 mm dead zone in the game and tell me how good do you do

after all you know, youre just trolling

i think its me whose done with trolls if you dont understand you CAN NOT fly a plane with a 6mm dead zone is not my problem

hey but if you feel better an f16 maintenance mechanic says so so must be true, but be aware when you meet a nigerian prince offering you a deal

edit:

oh and another lie:

you can fly perfectly in formation with 0.5 cm run in the joystick

im driving now with absolut precision and very good times with 0.5 cm run in my wheel and the smoothness comes from the huge froce RESISTANCE

this one that you as an expert (copy pasting) can tell the plane



http://www.ottenbourg.com/blog/uploa...380cockpit.jpg

if someone still doubts how an f 16 side stick works:

to move it 1 mm you apply 1 kg

to move it 2 mm you apply 2 kg

to move it 3 mm, maximum range you apply 3 kg

just as i set up my wheel now

had anybody heard before of those force controls joystick before? sounds pretty interesting and just what i had found out best

Please give us the details on your flight experience in real aircraft. We are all dying to hear what you have to say!!

--Outlaw.

As always, total and complete crap!

This is just like when you claimed that the gunship targeting systems tracked the gunners eye and not his helmet.

EVERYONE has heard of force sticks. They have been around for 20+ years!!!!! You could not be more ignorant if you tried. And I mean that LITERALLY. The fact that the F-16 was the first aircraft to use a force stick and that it's original zero travel was modified to a very small dead zone is so well known that the level of stupidity required to question it and/or fail to understand it is just staggering. And by staggering I mean that no human technology will ever be able to measure such a level.

All it takes to make a force stick is a wheatstone bridge and 2 strain gauges. Leo Bodnar even has wheatstone bridge circuits you can use to build your own force stick. I built one for IL-2 10 years ago but my home made circuitry had too much noise in it. Bodnar's is very nice. Coincidentally I sourced tiny strain gauges just a couple of weeks ago b/c I've been thinking of giving it another shot with Bodnar's circuits.

Strain gauges are a dime a dozen from www.omega.com and Bodnar's boards are known throughout the sim world.

The fact that you haven't come across one of those 2 sites just proves that you have no interest in learning anything nor of giving the rest of the world the benefit of your, "knowledge".

It simply proves that, AS YOU HAVE POSTED BEFORE, the reason you post on this forum is so that you can reread your asinine ranting later.



--Outlaw.

More CRAP!!!!

I played the game with nearly half an inch of dead zone for years because my stick was crap. Your statement is just pathetic!!!!!

if you can't fly a plane with 6mm of dead zone then how was I able to drive a 1972 Ford Econoline with about 35 degrees of dead zone in the steering wheel?

Have you ever even driven a real car?

--Outlaw.

PS
Man I miss that van!!!

yes i had a crappy joystick and i had to set it a huge dead zone

and i think we both can agree it sucks so i doubt it they would make that on purpose

You'll love this one:

www.saitek.de/prod/x65f.html

yes its the same than this


actually this is how an f16 joystick works:


http://www.realsimulator.com/html/fssb.html

http://www.realsimulator.com/assets/...-force-300.jpg

i dont know why i have to be attacked for not being so stupid to belive any stick is built with a huge dead zone in purpose

The equivalent of what you're proposing, on an F-16 would be a stick with 10 times less force loading. So 2.5 pounds for full pitch up.

I'd like to see you fly that thing.

During the last development phases we found that there was a big difference between the required pressure to fly with comfort and the high pressure that is required if you want to simulate the real thing.

You're not. You're being attacked because you spout BS and you're wrong but won't admit it on this and many other topics. Huge dead zone? 6mm movement total where none of the stick movement matters? You still haven't got it.

By the way, simulators and gaming joysticks aren't the real thing and won't wok in the same way. There is no way you will be taken seriously relying on simulator stuff versus the real thing. Lol.

Hood

The joystick barely moves replicating the displacement values of the real F-16 side stick controller. Similarly, the forces for maximum displacement are replicated although these can be reduced to suit personal preferences.


grow up a pair now 99% of people know im right and fjord ape is a pretender nerd troll and you his buddy

oh and my intuition was right whats scarry

you see by calling me moron idiot pathetic just for being generous and telling a pilot skill which is true you stress me and make say deliring nonsenses

The troll couldn't stay hidden could it? You'll fit in as a caveman.

Genius.

yeah well i deleted somethings for being nonsesnsical i accept the fact i know nothing for sure no point speculating

as a kid i learnt my intuition was usually right, but after seeing many things on tv very bizarre some of which later verified some others couldnt i dont even trust my senses now or well i trust them in a 50% much less my intuition so im thrilled at it working so well and caugthing that lie

S!

I was in the belief that originally the F-16 stick did not move at all, but the small movement was put there per pilot request so they had some feedback of moving a controller they were used to in older generation planes. For example Boeing still has the "classic" yoke in their airliners even the system is FBW, to give the pilot feedback of controlling a plane. I could be wrong though.

Wiki says:

oh i just spotted whn rereading my asinine pathetic bs

i piloted a paraglide

youre very good spoting bs do you believe fjord moneky to be an f16 maintenance guy after his affirmation of a 6mm deadband in the stick?

why do you get on me and not him?

gradual force resistance allows for extreme short runs, even one micrometer run,what the amateur will call zero run

and my whole point is that short run is better to pilot

if i didnt discover anything, i rediscovered, and i am probably the only person in the wrold racing with 0.5 cm run in his wheel with big succes

Quite a difference from your original LIE...

What did you expect to gain with your lie?


Because he is right and you are wrong. I even affirmed his statements as fact in one of my own posts. A post YOU REPLIED to! How can you even be asking such a ridiculous question?

--Outlaw.

oh so you say the f16 has a 6mm dead zone?

what a ridiculous statement back it up as ive backed it up it doesnt

http://www.realsimulator.com/assets/...-force-300.jpg

youre so biased towards me that even back up nonsense even you dont belive

maybe its being time to ignore you youre just a ahter who will say any nonsense to fullfill his hating agenda

what is my lie i piloted several paraglide his lie its he an f16 maintenance guy, i bet in his country there are like 5 of those

so after all this discussion you still believe the deazone bs

or should i say you LIE and say you beliv it when knowing its perfectly nonsensical because youre so full of hate towards me a guy who has nothing to hide and can go around the world telling what he thinks, i bet thats what makes you sick

S!

Actually Norway has more F16's than 5 ;) Been there seen them. Thanks for the hospitality BTW, was great to visit Trondheim :D

yeas but for heavens sake how gullible you have to be to believe than an f16 stick has a six mm dead zone and havent you fly sims and know pretty well the dead zone issue, its ridicuolus

I'll try one last time.

The movement of the stick does not affect the control surfaces. The pressure on the stick causes the computer to determine the input to the control surfaces.

Now, you may say that to move the stick requires pressure so in fact the stick has no dead zone because any pressure that moves the stick also causes a control surface input. True it does, but the movement is based on the pressure and not the movement of the stick.


SIDE STICK VERSUS CONVENTIONAL CENTER STICK
Both the Hornet and Viper use fly-by-wire flight-control systems, which means aircraft response is governed by a set of programmed flight-control laws that "live" in the flight-control computers, which I affectionately refer to as "George." In other words, the pilot isn't flying the airplane, George is. The pilot tells George he wants the airplane to do something, and George then zips through the math to figure out which flight-control surfaces should be moved to fulfill the pilot's request. The big difference (and it is a big one) is that the Hornet uses a conventional center stick, and the computer senses stick position to interpret what the pilot wants. The Viper uses a side stick, and the computer senses stick force from pilot input.
Flying a side-stick control takes a while to get used to, but once you do, it's a joy. The conformal stick's shape feels very natural (it fits in the hand like a melted candy bar), and it allows easy access to nine of the 16 HOTAS controls. Two fully adjustable forearm rests on the right cockpit bulkhead stabilize and isolate the pilot's arm and wrist, so when rattling around the cockpit during turbulence or going after the bad guy, the pilot's arm won't accidentally move and initiate unwanted control inputs. In its original design, the Viper's control stick didn't move at all; it just measured pressure from the pilot's hand. However, after initial F-16 flight tests, a ¼ inch of stick movement was incorporated to give a small dead band and a nominal breakout force to give better "feel" of a neutral stick because otherwise it was entirely too sensitive. The control harmony is quite good (the pressures required for pitch and roll mix well), but without the capability to physically position the stick, it's easy to contaminate roll inputs with unwanted pitch inputs, and vice versa.

My first Viper instructor predicted that I would over-rotate on takeoff and drop the right wing; he was right. The over-rotation occurs because a pilot is used to "moving the stick and then something happens" at rotation speed. When I reached 145 knots and pulled back, of course the stick didn't move but a scant ¼ inch, so I pulled more. The inexperienced have no way of knowing how hard to pull, so I pulled probably twice as hard as was necessary.

"A Navy Test Pilot's Perspective" by Tougas, John Toonces "Flight Journal" Jun 03 Issue

how do you explain that gogling side stick for an f16 and dead zone it only links here

https://www.google.es/#hl=en&sclient...pw.r_qf.&cad=b

Because that's how Google's search engine works. Just because you can't find something at the first go doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that your intuition was right - it was wrong. Go and read some threads here - a great site that I used to visit a lot when playing Falcon 4:

http://www.f-16.net/

Hood

the thing is that that f16 test pilot account using the word dead band for run confused the comunity

till now many people in the comunity believes the f16 stick is 6mm lose:rolleyes:

the f16 stick works as that pressure joystick i linked to

it says it REPLICATES an f16 sidestick

do you know what replicate means

for example do you know what a spit replica difference is with a real spit?

just the plate number ;)

There is DEFINITELY a dead zone in the stick. Otherwise BREATHING on the stick would cause the control surfaces to move. And I mean that LITERALLY. A strain gauge at one end of a 24" long piece of 1/16" tk steel flat bar WILL measure the deflection CAUSED BY THE CHANGE IN TEMPERATURE DUE TO BREATHING ON THE OTHER END FOR LESS THAN A SECOND. I know b/c I've done it before. Now, as any idiot knows the F-16 stick will have 2 strain gauges to dampen temperature effects and the stick is insulated from most airflow but A DEAD ZONE IS REQUIRED on a force stick due to the extreme sensitivity of the devices.

Whether or not that dead zone is 3mm (fore/aft or port/starboard) of motion (or compensated for in the software) is irrelevant.

The point is that, in the F16, the 3mm of movement in a single direction DOES NOT MOVE THE CONTROL SURFACES TO 100% DEFLECTION. Nor is it the limit of measuring the force. So, after the 3mm has been reached, you are NOT EVEN CLOSE TO 100% INPUT. Now it may be that some amount of control input registers before the stick has stopped moving, but it is nowhere near the limit.

Additionally, as others have pointed out, the F-16 stick IS NOT EVEN CONNECTED TO THE CONTROL SURFACES. It's connected to the flight control computer only and the computer decides if the control surfaces should move or not (and how fast).

Furthermore, the gain (sensitivity) of the control inputs can be adjusted in flight. For example, when performing in-flight refueling the gain is set very low to smooth out the flying.


--Outlaw.

From the website link YOU POSTED...

It clearly states the BIG difference between the game stick AND THE REAL THING.

Here it is again...

100% proof that your graph is NOT an F-16 stick. It is the COUGAR MOD.

--Outlaw.

well i understand you do this for fun, thats why i do it but your insults show where you get fun from

are you really an engineer or a lawyer?

one thing is a micrometric dead zone and a different what wjord monkey said whom you believe the WHOLE RUN AS DEATH ZONE



now you dont even understand english like when you say katy pery said thank you


The joystick barely moves replicating the displacement values of the real F-16 side stick controller. Similarly, the forces for maximum displacement are replicated although these can be reduced to suit personal preferences.

http://www.realsimulator.com/html/fssb.html

4000 grams = 8.8 lbs.

The highest setting on the Cougar Mod is the, "17 to 25 pound". IF you make the assumption that this truly replicates an F-16 stick, your graph maxed at 4000 grams DOES NOT SHOW AN F-16 STICK.

There is no arguing that. So, your graph IS JUNK in the context of an F-16 stick.

Of course, none of that is relevant BECAUSE AS I SAID BEFORE, THE END OF TRAVEL DOES NOT MEAN THE END OF INPUT.

Of course, you don't understand that so it does not make any difference. Just for the record, I'm pretty sure that at least some of the bacteria in my lower intestines understand it by now.

Also, just for the record, I own a REPLICA of a 1965 Shelby Daytona. If I ever finish it mine will outperform the original by a significant margin. REPLICA (and replicate), DOES NOT MEAN EQUAL.

--Outlaw.

so do you agree with fjord monkey statement?:

the whole 6 mm run of an f16 sidestick is dead zone

Actually it would have to be - unless they changed the whole stick after the complains - and added potis/hal sensors to the original force sensors. Doesn't sound too likely either.

Guess we need a field service manual.

as an old VIRTUAL pilot i KNOW the huge dead zone(the whole run) issue its bs, so should you

it means the stick is 6 mm LOSE

edit:

if you have the money similar to the other joystick

http://www.aerotronicsllc.com/docs/SSCv2.pdf

is my rep so bad that even when im obviously right people rather apply the authority criteria even when the authority probably is a lier?

edit:

this portraits the second advantage i talked to at the begining that with a short run you go closer to the limit, youre more agresive:


The F-16 was the first aircraft to use the "fly by wire" system, which does not translate the pilot's control- movements by cables and pulleys, but by electronic impulses. Between the flight stick and the control areas is the FLCS (flight control system) which translates the applied pressure to the stick and sends the corresponding electric impulses to electric motors, that move the control areas. The FLCS also controls the amount of movement to be sent to the controls, in order to avoid to hard actions or wrong movements. Of the pilot, which might get the airplane into a critical position. Using the manual pitch override panel of these corrections of the FLCS can be overrided by the pilot.

The F-16 was also the first aircraft that had the flightstick at the right side instead between the pilot's legs. This allows easier controlling during high Gs and also keeps more free space to host important displays in front of the pilot.

The first F-16 models had the SSC (side stick controller) with no free movement at all, which made the pilot feel like trying to move a telegraph pole. Later some free movement was given to the SSC to avoid this feeling. Anyhow, if you think that now it is like moving a joystick with reduced movement, you are wrong! I had the chance to sit in an Air Forces F-16 simulator and thought that the stick was just cemented in. It really takes some force to move the stick. A F-16 pilot told me that the whole movement of the stick is just about 2 to 3 mm in each direction.

A big problem is that due to the poor feed-back of the SSC, the pilot can easily oversteer the plane, taking himself and (if there) the instructor to the maximum Gs. I made this experience myself. I just had my first flight in an aerobatic SP-91L and my instructor told me to fly a loop. In other airplanes I felt the force feed-back growing slowly when starting a loop, but this time I did not feel anything at all. Then things happened very fast. My instructor started to puff, I started to puff also and the G-meter showed 8G! So far facts of the real flying ;-)).

Together with the TQS (=Throttle quadrant system) the HOTAS system (Hands on Throttle and Stick) is conformed. This system allows the pilot to handle his plane during critical fight conditions, without taking the hands away from throttle and flight stick.

http://www.xflight.de/pe_org_par_ssc.htm

that proves what, exactly?

that this joystick is able to replicate accurately an f16 sidestick

http://www.realsimulator.com/html/fssb.html

and this graph proves it HAS NO DEAD ZONE which proves fjord monkey is imposturing an f16 mechanic

http://www.realsimulator.com/assets/...-force-300.jpg

im a nautic engineer and i know a control imput LOSE 6mm is utter bs and any engineer who did that in the rudder would be inmediatly fired

you want to see my qualifications?

edit:

he also says the stick is cemented which is the opposite to LOSE 6 MM

by now you know im right youre just pretending, acting

edit:

from my other link:

The roll axis sensitivity is 17 lbs. left and right (in the real f16 stick)

pay attention to the graph for a 3mm displacement there would be 9 kg force or around 17 pounds just as the real thing so that graph belongs to the aleirons axe of the f16 stick

The graph proves nothing.

You're not a nautical engineer, you're wrong and have no way of backing up such a claim, and no I don't want to know your qualifications as they're irrelevant.

He says it feels cemented, not that it is. Later he confirms movement of 2mm or 3mm in each direction. Who said it is loose?

You're wrong. You've been wrong from the start and seem incapable of accepting it.

Hood

the graph proves theres no death zone

this is what a death band graphic looks like:

http://www.maximintegrated.com/image...DI152Fig06.gif

you know if it has a 6mm run death zone and then starts reading presure this implies its lose and the pilot said its cemented

why dont you start insulting me thats your only argument ive given plenty of proof youve given none

no you're not.

well not exactly im being two subjects out of 40 from being one

so im practically an engineer

not only that i have university education in most subject since i have as well a diploma in english filology besides i know basic programing and im getting farther into art, not to mention my world records and mad virtual racing skills

a true renaisince gentel man

Having a qualification doesn't mean anything. There are so many graduates with law degrees that know nothing about law. When you actually work as an engineer then you can claim to be one. Until you do that you're just someone who may or may not get a nautical engineering qualification. That you've taken 10+ years or so far sadly probably makes you unemployable.

If I were an engineer I'd be insulted by your claim. If you're going to accuse others of BS make sure you don't say it yourself... And regarding the F16 joystick why don't you ask about it on the www.F-16.net forums then if you're right you can link to the answers and we can all agree you are right. If they confirm you are wrong then you can apologise to Fjordmonkey.

Hood

Now you mention it - actually yes.

Yeah and certificates hand drawn in crayon don't count.