Jump to content

Burner_Tbird2

Members
  • Posts

    140
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Burner_Tbird2

  1. I do not have access to pictures at the moment, but to describe it- It does not involve the PS2 connector area or the nut that attaches the shaft to the gimbals. It is where the shaft attaches to the handle itself. The handle closes around the shaft and is secured with two screws. Basically that shaft to handle interface is very sloppy and any decent amount of force will cause the handle to slide around (fore/aft and left/right) on top of the shaft. Its largely a non-issue with a stock set of gimbals as there is not enough force to loosen up the interface. But a force sensor stick or custom gimbals with higher poundage make that sliding a huge problem. I currently use a force stick and its a pain to remedy. My next project will be replica Blue Angels gimbals with your F-18 handle perched on top so that's why I ask. From what I can make of your 3D renders it looks like you'll be reusing that metal shaft. I think that's feasible but I would float the suggestion of one or two headless allen bolts that can be coated with threadlock and tightened against the shaft to pin it in place. If that description did not do the trick, let me know and I'll see if I can take some pictures tonight.
  2. I'd interested in the F-18 grip in resin. Possibly the throttle grips too but it would depend on its compatibility/ease of installation with the WH throttle. Really liking this project! PS- pay attention to your means of attachment between the grip and the base. A copy of TM's method of attachment would be disappointing as they always come lose on those of us who put additional poundage on the springs or have a force sensor stick.
  3. We're going to be using the TIR for translation as the Rift dev kit can't handle that. But we 'should' be able to use Rift sensors for rotation. Just a question of if we can do it ourselves or if ED will have to add three variables to their code to pick it up.
  4. Flim- are you using TIR only or have you been able to integrate the Rift sensors?
  5. Let's not forget that what Flim is building costs, at minimum, 10x as much as a Rift. What I envision is taking all that left over money from buying a Rift and investing in hand tracking and a bare-bones simpit. No realistic panels or displays, just all the switches in the right place mounted in cheap MDF. Imagine playing a game like A-10C or BMS where you have the Rift on but can see your hands in game and when you reach out all the switches are actually under your fingertips. Now that HAS to be cheaper than a replica F-16 or A-10 pit plus five LCD projectors. Though, I'm not factoring in the headache of programming DCS A-10C or BMS to integrate hand visuals. Also if the hand tracking were precise enough the physical switches wouldn't even need to be wired, hand tracking and finger movements could trigger the in game events. A pipe dream at the moment, but that's where I'd like to see the technology go.
  6. Try the final product, since all that's been posted here so far is pictures ;)
  7. Same deal. A-10C is activated but not able to connect to DCS World MP.
  8. Yeah great flight, best new sim experience in a long time. Multiplayer aerial refueling is something I've wanted to do for years. Take on fuel as a flight, press to the practice area, drop the blue practice bombs of death, RTB for an echelon break to landing- beautiful.
  9. James, I already want to own one of these. -Like I want to own a Ferrari- TMs prospective customers of course WANT both stick and throttle, but would be much more likely to actually buy just one or the other for half or 2/3rds of the price. TM will sell more product this way. The increase in cost, shipping/boxing seperately, could be offset by a slight increase in price buying them piecemeal. I'd happily pay $280 for just the throttle. On a personal note, I love the new handle but could never go back to a desktop deflection stick. Just not happenin. Considering building my own floor mounted deflection stick cause I'm crazy like that!
  10. My VTB bretheren, is it too late to suggest they sell these two seperately??? They do function stand alone. The hardcore crowd, who they're obviously pricing this thing toward, is not going to use the stick base. They all have mods for that area, Nutty even said he's using the handle on his FSSB. I see most of us pumping out $520 for what amounts to a sweet throttle and a slightly better handle. Honestly- not worth it. The VTB is Guillemot's connection to the hardcore community. Pass the message along that even the most avid flight simmers, who fly everyday, are having sticker shock. I know its too late to suggest they make the thing out of plastic (like the real deal) but it might not be too late to box them seperately! Respectfully, Burner
  11. The Sidewinder pic looks like it came loose from the rail during a trap. If you look the F-18 is on the landing strip which is generally avoided by taxiing aircraft and his nose gear strut looks compressed as well. Momentum does the work- no ignition necessary.
  12. Same skill sets. Most of the formation pilots I know also race, and they race well. When I'm not flying the high show: rFactor- F1 05, BMW M3 GTR2
  13. StrikeMax, Could you post the steps you went through to replace the model using the new LOMAC Tool for MAX -> LOM conversion. The included readme leaves me guessing. Thanks :D BTW your model is the HEAT
  14. Anyone else noticing that none of the flyables, aside from the Su-25t, are based on LOM files outside the collision model? Is the collision model the solid unmoving body of the aircraft or merely a very low poly count approximation of the aircraft shape used to detect a collision and not used in any visual manner. What I'm saying is will we actually be able to modify anything cool, or will it just be missles/vehicles/certain non-flyables? Seems to me that w/o a corresponding cmd file moveable wing surfaces over new models will not be possible. I'm D/Ling 3Ds Max right now, once its done I'll join the tester crowd.
  15. As the Recruiting Officer of the VTB I just want to clarify we currently have no Phase II candidates in training with us. Everyone trying out, Viper/Corsair included, is still Phase I and not associated with the VTB. That said Viper is still in good standing on our forum and I wish him the best of luck with his new squad. Burner
  16. Very nice looking skin! I'm sure the whole community would appreciate posting your template once you're finished. :D
  17. Very Clean, I love the gold engine cowling. Not sure I agree with the painted on wings following the leading edge so closely, thereby making them a bit stout. But an interesting take on the Tbirds colors all around, and nicely hi-res to boot. :thumbup:
  18. LMAO FF please tell me that's not your real hair! Ahh stoners with video cameras, its the comedy life blood of the internet.
  19. I didn't know a Saitek would do all of what Fudd is asking. I though those sticks used a spring system for movement and therefore wouldn't physically move when trimming. Konkussion you sure about that? And Deathcoffin the trimming of an aircraft can greatly affect its responsiveness and behavior. The Real Thunderbirds and the Virtual Thunderbirds both use nose down trim.
  20. I think we can put the original photo to rest. Yes its real. And real F*ckin crazy. Now who can find some video footage?? :)
  21. SwingKid- I think you're over emphasizing the ground effect. This phenomena adds a small amount of lift to the plane when low to the ground. This is only significant when the plane is at slow speed as it can make the plane behave as if its actually flying faster. At high speed the jet has so much more available G the control surfaces absolutely smash thru the any wingtip vortices bouncing off the ground. Side note on the original photo. Looking at the reverse angle you can see the spectators are standing on a 5-6ft hill. This is probably where the pic was taken from and the added elevation makes the plane look a little closer than it actually is.
  22. :D I got my moments SwingKid- Where did you read about this super ground effect you refer to, sounds like something that would only be covered in an advanced aerodynamics study.
  23. After looking at the photo I think I see a way to authenticate the photo, or at least determine if the plane was actually that close to the ground. It would not prove that the gear wasn't down at the time, but it would take the search one step further. In the photo there is the small area by the rear ecm boom that looks like it has sky around it. Now while that piece is pretty ambiguous it directs attention elsewhere. In that- if the picture was originally of an aircraft with clear sky behind it then there would also be clear sky on the other side of the cockpit canopy. However there is the taxi way. This means that if the aircraft was in fact somewhere else, that taxiway would need to be fabricated. This also means that the curve of the taxiway line would be an artistic interpritation of what the straight line would look like thru the refraction the canopy creates. However the fact is the amount of image distortion thru the canopy is a mathmatical fact. If one were to look at a similar image of a known valid Su pic they could compare the image distortion- it could possibly be much much less than what we're seeing here. Also if a pic could be found of a Su from a similar vertical angle with a backround at a similar distance away then the angle of curve seen could be empirically compared and more solidly, scientifically, verified. The Defence rests. ;) PS- just saw those reverse angle shots, pretty good corraborating evidence
  24. Soooo..... SwingKid am I to understand from your post it is impossible for a jet to crash while flying at high speed low to the ground? You should pass this information onto the Air Force right away! I'm not sure its real either, but I don't think its been disproven yet.
×
×
  • Create New...