Which aircraft are best suited for home cockpit builders?

[dsnyder]

All,

I have been building a generic home cockpit sporadically for a couple of years now. I am now at the point where I wish to commit to a more specific cockpit. At this point, I have reviewed many postings on many sites, and not ever found a complete list of which add-on aircraft work well with cockpits and which do not. I am also interested as to what methods are needed for each - that is to say, do I need a utility like "KeytoMouse", or can I assign keystrokes and/or buttons to various actions.

What I know so far is as follows:

1) Keyboard Encoders:


* Hagstrom - PS/2 model - works nice - good macro support ~72 inputs - I see they now have a USB model w/ 108 inputs but have not tried it (http://www.hagstromelectronics.com/products/modules.html)

* X-Keys - USB or PS/2 Available - looks like 128 key support and macro support. Have not used it yet personally, but looks like an excellent bang for the buck @ $60 (http://www.x-keys.com/custom/xkmatrix.php)

2) Joystick Controller:

Simple USB module that can work with switches/rotaries/potientiometers $45 (http://www.leobodnar.com/products/BU0836/)

3) Misc IO methods

Beta Innovations http://www.betainnovations.com/

OpenCockpits - http://www.opencockpits.com

GoFlight - http://www.goflightinc.com

Phidgets - http://www.trossenrobotics.com/store/c/3104-Phidget-I-O-Boards.aspx

SimKits - http://www.simkits.com/index.php

FlightDeckSolutions - http://www.flightdecksolutions.com/

That being said, which aircraft lend itself to what type of IO??

* For my generic setup and the built-in Cessna 172, I can do most everything with the FSUIPC software. Both writing my own C/C++ code to interface to rotaries, switches, and LED's to the on-screen controls and also mapping a keyboard encoder to MS FS keyboard commands.

* I have made a full Garmin 530 GPS unit that takes button inputs and maps them to keystrokes (as configured in the Reality-XP Garmin 530 .INI file)

* I have Flight One's Meridian and ATR72-500 and think I would have limited keystroke support and would have to do most operations with key2mouse (although I have not tried it myself yet).

* I have seen that LEVEL-D 767 has a full SDK and have visited Nico's website often - http://www.lekseecon.nl/ This add-on appears to be best suited for the home cockpit builder.

* I have seen Project Magenta software can help with this - but is cost prohibitive.

* I have read in numerous locations that PMDG aircraft do not lend themselves well to home cockpit builders.


What other add-ons work well with home cockpit builders (and which one's definitely do NOT) and using what technologies?? Your input is much appreciated!

Dave Snyder
Waukesha, WI

[Matt Olieman]

WOW Dave, you're opening up a can of beans :) :) :) LOL

You'll get lot's of opinions this one. I would start with making a list of what planes you like and then look at what parts are available at the price you want to pay. Or what parts you are able to make yourself.

And then.... bottom line is, how much do you want to spend :) :)

Matt Olieman

[dsnyder]

I am very aware on what I am opening up here, but I figured this was a great place for it to happen - many experienced users on many types of aircraft using many different pieces of hardware.

I have no problem making what I need, but at the end of the day I need to know how to get my real world inputs into Flight Simulator. I already have written custom USB PIC firmware (using the Microchip PIC18F4550) that talks to Maxim 7219 LED control boards, does servo control, reads switches, rotaries encoders, and potentiometers. Now I need to know how to get all of that data from my interface PC program into flight simulator. Writing to FSUIPC has worked well, but I don't think it will cover all the new specialized controls found in add-on aircraft.

Bring on the opinions and I await the fun! :D

Dave Snyder

[AndyT]

Dave,

I think you are looking at this from the wrong direction.

Sure some interfaces are easier to use than others, but that's not really the point.
In the long run its going to come down to this:
What aircraft do you want to fly? That is the really important question. Answer that one and then you have a base to work from.

[dsnyder]

Andy,

Actually, my angle on this comes from the fact that I enjoy creating the controls, instrumentation, and software at least as much as the flying/aircraft aspect of this hobby. In that regard, that is why I am soliciting feedback on opinions on which aircraft people have models and how they have interfaced to them.

For what it's worth, I am going into this with the presumption that the Level-D 767 will be the most flexible, but want to get all of the data I can before I dive into a project like that. I have not had much experience with the heavies, but have done pretty well with the Flight One ATR72-500. The biggest problem with that aircraft is I have no idea how to interface to it's controls. From that I got to thinking "I wonder what aircraft others have implemented successfully and how did they accomplish it".

In any case, by having a thread like this (with hopefully many different opinions), others will be able to reference it in the future to help them decide on their own cockpits as well.

Thanks for your comments!

Dave Snyder

[Peter Dowson]

Writing to FSUIPC has worked well, but I don't think it will cover all the new specialized controls found in add-on aircraft.

You might want to investigate the use of the new FSUIPC "mouse macro" facilities in relation to sophisticated aircraft panels such as those from PMDG. I think pretty much all of the functions can now be operated via FSUIPC-assigned buttons.

When using FSUIPC offsets you'd need to use the "virtual button" facilities to trigger the macros, that's all. There's 288 possible "virtual buttons" available, so you should be okay. These could operate every dial and switch in a PMDG cockpit.

The main problem with such panels, really, is getting data OUT of them for display on your own gauges. For something like the PMDG aircraft this mostly amounts to the MCP autopilot registers, though that could be solved now, I think, by using one of the ready-made MCPs with PMDG driver support included.

Regards

Pete Dowson

[dsnyder]

(Thanks for the update on FSUIPC, Pete)

So, are their any other add-on aircraft available that I can read data from? (I assume I can do it w/ Level-D 767).

Also, for an aircraft that I don't have the ability to read instrument data from, I imagine that you must save your flight with your switches in a known position and always physically pre-position those switches before reloading that flight (in order to ensure the physical switches are in-sync w/ the virtual ones)?


Dave Snyder

[salautom]

maybe you can have a look at http://www.sim-avionics.com
the triple-7 is not that difficult to build (mostly glass cockpit)

[Peter Dowson]

Also, for an aircraft that I don't have the ability to read instrument data from, I imagine that you must save your flight with your switches in a known position and always physically pre-position those switches before reloading that flight (in order to ensure the physical switches are in-sync w/ the virtual ones)?

It wasn't really the switch positions that I thought would be the problem, but the data to drive external instrumentation -- digital displays, and so on -- with the MCP being the most obvious.

With switch settings the way I adopted for the PFC 737NG cockpit and my PFC driver was to save, in the driver's INI file, the switch settings as they were being operated, and then restore them next time to the simulator. This works fine provided you don't mess with the switches when the driver isn't running.

However, this was only necessary because the PFC hardware doesn't provide a way of reading switch settings -- it only sends data to the driver when a switch is operated. With many of the hardware solutions available these days it might be possible to simply read all the switrches and initialise the Sim accordingly. The only time when any manual synching would be needed is when switches are toggled by the same action -- push on, push off. If you can't read the setting that would be awkward and need manual checking/intervention.

So, from that point of view a 737 is probably a lot easier to handle than a 747 (thinking of the overheads).

Regards

Pete

[kiek]

This works fine provided you don't mess with the switches when the driver isn't running.


For large simulators with lot's of switches it is a tedious job to manually synchronise your hardware switches with the ones in the panel of your aircraft.

And even more important, during a flight you have to be sure that your switches are sync, because you normally don't see the software panels (overhead, pedestal, mip, ..) of your add on.

But there is good news: if you choose the Level-D 767 and my free lekseecon (or FSCONV) programs then synchronisation of the panel with your hardware switches is guaranteed, not only at start up but always!

For instance, if you change a switch with your mouse in the panel, then lekseecon (or FSCONV) will revert that action.

What a relief! ;-)

And what about lekseecons built in features for lights test and cold and dark cockpit support... :-)

regards,
Nico Kaan
www.lekseecon.nl (http://www.lekseecon.nl)

[kiek]

3) Misc IO methods

Beta Innovations http://www.betainnovations.com/

OpenCockpits - http://www.opencockpits.com

GoFlight - http://www.goflightinc.com

Phidgets - http://www.trossenrobotics.com/store/c/3104-Phidget-I-O-Boards.aspx

SimKits - http://www.simkits.com/index.php

FlightDeckSolutions - http://www.flightdecksolutions.com/

Just to make this nice overview more complete

FSBUS - http://www.fsbus.de

Nico Kaan

[dsnyder]

Nobody else has any experience with other aircraft for their home cockpit???
Also, what limitations did you encounter in using it?

(A shameless bump for this thread, I know)

Dave Snyder

[dsnyder]

So, just when I have my decision to go forward w/ the Level-D 767 for the basis of my home cockpit, I browse the web just enough to see that the 737 seems to be, bar far, the most popular home cockpit for heavies. This seems a bit strange to me as the Level_d 767 has the SDK and Nico's terrific interface program, where PMDG has always been knocked for their lack of Home Cockpit support. Examples of this are www.opencockpits.com (mostly 737 items), Go-Flight 737 MCP, etc.

From Peter Dowson's replies in this thread, it appears that once you get the FSUIPC mouse macro working, you will be able to operate instruments and open subpanels with home cockpit setups, but I still don't see how I can have as much functionality supported (in the 737) when the Level-D has so much programmability going for it.

I am very curious to hear from both sides on this one.

David Snyder
Waukesha, WI

[Tomlin]

I think the reason that given enough money, a 737 would be the easiest, is because there's very few parts that multiple suppliers dont already have available. This is not an issue if you are into buildling your own panels, parts, etc. But, if you want proffesionally made parts, then there's so many choices with the 737 compared to any other sim part vendor IMHO.

[dsnyder]

What version of the 737 (PMDG, PIC, etc.) do people tend to use most? Is there one that lends itself better to a home cockpit builder than another?

Dave Snyder
Waukesha, WI

[Michael Carter]

The B727 is about the same, more or less, as any other non-supported build with respect to getting data out of it.

There isn't anything I found so far that I can't get to work as in input using the mouse capture of Pete's program, but aircraft-specific output for annunciators are another matter entirely. And no, the switches cannot be moved after the sim is down without moving them back to the last state they were in before shutdown.

FS common annunciators are supposed to be no problem. Gear, marker indicators, etc.

In fact many of the input commands of the DF727 are common to FS as well and FSUIPC has no problem with these. Sometimes the designer though, will name a function to the closest they can find such as "#1 Mixture Full Rich" to start fuel flow on a turbine engine. The odd-balls (and you'd think 3rd party designers would include this) are the No Smoking/Fasten Seat Belt switches, runway turnoff lights, flight control warning test, alternate flaps, anti-skid, and a couple of others. Still, they work well with the mouse capture funtion and it makes the aircraft happy when you can follow the procedures and the panel set-up so you don't get angry bells and horns later after start-up.

It's been a lot of fun, a lot of frustration at times, and a lot of moments of epiphany as the light comes on during different problems to solve. You can't buy a turn-key 727 from anyone, much less parts, and that goes for a lot of us here that do it from scratch.

I have three scratch-built panels left in my overhead that are not critical for safe flight, though they do work. The remainder of my sim is built by Boeing, Collins, Gables, and the rest of the sub-contractors for Boeing, except the throttle quadrant, yoke column, seat, and center control stand that I built.

[brynjames]

The GoFlight MCP-Pro works out of the box (no programming or extra drivers required) with both the Level-D 767 and the PIC737. There may be better MCPs on the market, but this one is very suitable for folks wanting to get started quickly.

--
Bryn

[brynjames]

I'm always surprised there aren't more Airbus builders.

Not wanting to start any Airbus/Boeing gang wars here; just noting the relative simplicity of two sidesticks against two coupled yokes from the builder's point of view.

And is motorised control of the Airbus TQ required when autothrottle is engaged - or does the throttle lever just stay put in the notch the pilot puts it in? Maybe someone could educate me here :)

I'd be interested to hear what leads those builders who aren't wedded to Boeing on ideological grounds to chose to build a Boeing instead of an Airbus. Is it lack of pre-made parts? Lack of good FS Airbuses to base the system on?

--
Bryn

[HansJansen]

I'm always surprised there aren't more Airbus builders.

...
And is motorised control of the Airbus TQ required when autothrottle is engaged - or does the throttle lever just stay put in the notch the pilot puts it in? Maybe someone could educate me here :)

--
Bryn

Hi Bryn,

Indeed the Airbus TQ does not have any need for motorizing - once the autopilot takes over, it will remain in the CL gate until touchdown. Everything is regulated electronically. Only the trim wheels move during autoflight...

Also I would like to point out the relative simplicity of the Airbus's panels - almost no mechanical instruments, and nothing like that on the overhead: there you find only switches and indicators. So, easier to build even though fewer parts can be purchased compared to Boeings.

(You can smell that I am an Airbus builder of sorts, can't you?)

Luck,

[Trevor Hale]

As far as I know Betainnovations has closed it's doors..

Trev

[Jackpilot]

Hi Bryn
Just adding my cent!

Airbus is easier on all counts from a builder perspective, but this is only the appearance.
Systems, including fly by wire, are much more sophisticated and difficult to replicate.
And the real interraction with the airplane (overriding automatism sequences notably) next to impossible to recreate 100%.

The NG flys like a big Cessna with antiquated but well known and easy to acquire technology, and many many systems easy to interface.

On the other hand, who said that you cannot have a 737NG with two sticks for a cleaner, easier,(much cheaper) and more modern cockpit. Why not? We are the engineers after all.

[Michael Carter]

If I liked Airbus, I would have built an Airbus.

It' not a matter of simplicity. It's a matter of what I like
and what I want.

[fweinrebe]

Dave, it looks like like the 737NG builders prefer the PMDG version and the Airbus guys like the PSS version the most. Just my observation.

I am also starting to wonder which jet I would build once the PC9 is completed this century. I chose 3 jets which I like the most to narrow my research. They are the B757,B777 and B747-400. Of the 3 although the B757 is my favourite, I will probably go for a B777 since more resources are available for it.

Then I will try out each B777 package that is available and choose the best suited one. Accepting the fact that it will only suit 80% of my needs and I will still have to figure the other 20% out.

I guess the lesson here is, go for the aircraft you like most (or almost most) and build that. Each one has its own battle to fight.

[salautom]

B777, excellent choice!

- FS9 or FSX
- opencockpits interfacing
- sim-avionics software

(and if you have the money: a CNC-milling machine, it is my best tool)