Saitek X65F

[DCCBOSS]

I have been looking at the new Saitek set up has anybody looked at this and what are your thoughts 

[Wedge1126]

People on the internet are lazy. Don't make us google stuff on our own. Give us links!

Saitek X65F

[Krusty]

The webpage "claims" the stick doesn't move... that it sense force "like real fighter inputs do" -- but real fighter sticks/controls actually move, and so do all joysticks in the known world.

I think that's marketting rephrasing things in a poor manner.

It has to sense the force you put on the stick, and it sense it by how far you deflect the stick, right?

Otherwise, you're up-ending the base when you try to give any inputs.

[minke]

biggest issue with the stick seems to be that its gonna need screwing/bolting to the desk. There doesnt seem to be any mounting holes,not that I would want it fixed down.

[batch]

yep also noticed it doesnt look easy to mount, which would seem to be a definite must

608 programmable commands? I cant think of 108 commands Id want to program..... sheesh

so many buttons and switches Id never remember what I programmed where

[ink]

looks awesome, I have been using there X-52 for at least 3 years with there rudder pedals,  cant complain at all, this may give me a reason to upgrade

[minke]

would be nice if one of the 608 commands could be -
mute wife ack
or
make me a coffee

[PFactorDave]

would be nice if one of the 608 commands could be -
mute wife ack
or
make me a coffee

Dadsguns would have a "Bring me a sandwich" button.   

[Tilt]

It has to sense the force you put on the stick, and it sense it by how far you deflect the stick, right?

Otherwise, you're up-ending the base when you try to give any inputs.

Its interesting by using strain guages (load cells) it could have a massive range. Such a stick would not move as we know it.

Presently the degree of fidelity we get from a stick is down to the hall effect or resister accuracy plus the range of stick movement across it. (deflection).

Using load cells there is no limitation similar to conventional sticks which require angle of deflection to set the range here the stick just measures force. The range is set by the accurate range of the load cell.

This load cell range could be much bigger (albeit that the system will have to be solidly bolted down for very big ranges of input)
The test then is the degree of accuracy relating to the load cells them selves and the range (of force/load)across which they can retain their accuracy.

[Silent6]

Looks like a POS compared to the new logitech stick thats out now... The logitech G940 a complete setup with pedals....

[ink]

Looks like a POS compared to the new logitech stick thats out now... The logitech G940 a complete setup with pedals....

Damn that looks awesome too

[Tilt]

From reading here and elsewhere the 940 seems more suited to a WWII type sims (conventional control surface activation) where as the X65F seems more suited to modern jet sims (servo/power driven control surfaces)

I cant see how the X65F can ever give the feed back of a force feed back.

[Wmaker]

The webpage "claims" the stick doesn't move... that it sense force "like real fighter inputs do" -- but real fighter sticks/controls actually move, and so do all joysticks in the known world.

I think that's marketting rephrasing things in a poor manner.

It has to sense the force you put on the stick, and it sense it by how far you deflect the stick, right?

Otherwise, you're up-ending the base when you try to give any inputs.

Like Tilt explained, using load sensing the stick doesn't have to move in the context we are talking about here. It has nothing to do "about rephrasing things in a poor manner", they are telling it as it is. And as far as real fighter sticks go, F-16's stick for example uses the very method X65 is using. After input from the pilots a few millimeter area of moment was added to give some artificial "feel" to the stick. The stick still uses load sensing and the added movement has nothing to do with the actual input signals which still come from the load sensors.

While there are benefits like Tilt mentioned, this is definately not my cup of tea.

[Ghosth]

A load cell joystick would have:

Absolutely no center slop. The edge of input would be right where you set it with dead band.
No potentiometers to go bad, basically no moving parts. Even Hall effect sensors can get "magnetized over time.
The harder you push, the more control input you get.
Nothing between you and the input. No center spring, no  gimbals, nothing, just your hand  and the stick.
A load cell joystick would actually start bringing aircraft trim in a simulation closer to real life.
If you don't trim, you'll have to maintain a certain amount of stick pressure to keep the Aircraft straight and level.

Krusty a load cell is basically a scale. Miniaturized, capable of being mounted in any orientation. Two of them would be mounted on a joystick, one for pitch, the other for roll each capable of positive and negative values.  Stick would likely have very little if any movement. It doesn't need movement to work. No more than a truck scale does. It just needs a "load" to measure. You could make such a stick on a thin shaft so there is a certain amount of "flex". If you wanted movement.

[Baumer]

I actually spent several hours at the CON talking to Pyro and Hitech about building just such a stick.

If you think about it a load cell stick would give you the most accurate representation of the forces you deal with in flight. For example, if the plane is out of trim you have to push on the stick to keep it centered, as you change trim you are actually reducing the pressure you have to exert to keep it centered. That's just how it would work with a load cell and as Ghosth pointed out there's no slop or springs giving you an artificial centering movement.