Hi guys just wondering is someone still Using the Dinosaur EPIC?? It was a pretty good interface but I guess it

There are a few yes. I read on Matt Olliemans site last night that he is re-experimenting with it.I think EPIC is getting close to history indeed. It's only the pioneer cockpit builders that are using it I think. Most of them are from US.The problem with EPIC is that it's not cheep and that you have to program all yourself.Also the other options are strong. Total-sollutions like FSbus and IOcards and PHCC that support almost everything you might want to hook up .. well, you know them.

Roberto, I am still using EPIC USB. Honestly, I think it's the best interface card ever encountered. Too bad not so many people are interesting in EPICUSB nowdays. Of course because it's so expensive, and not so many cockpit builders know C++ or would have time to learn it. I have tried seveal other interface card such as FSBUS, Phidgets, and etc. IMHO, liked EPIC best because they can be so acturate more than other interface card. As matter of fact, EPICUSB isn't yet becoming history, there are still a lot of support on thsi card. If you would visit Ray Sotkiewicz's site at www.simengineers.com . You will see lot of interesting pictures, suggestion, topic, even quote of the day and etc. Also there is a blue sphere which is at upper right corner at front page, you can simply click on it to visit the fourms where everyone is sharing, helping, and giving suggestions. All I can say is, if you really want to have your cockpit function at 100% acturate. I'd suggest you get EPICUSB.

I am building my own custom software for my project (737NG). I cannot fathom spending 25% the projected cost of my sim's hardware on the software alone when I do, indeed have the programming knowlege and patience to do it myself. This software relies on either WideFS/FSUIPC or FDSWideConnection/FDSConnection (now defunct, but I have a working copy) to get its data.In my software, there are 6 programs that make the magic:FSLink Server - Sits on display computer, fires up all display software, renaming the windows to custom IDs as it runs them, and sends the keystrokes to the program windows specified by the clientFSLink Client - Sits on the FS Computer, launches FS and, once it establishes a connection with FS, attempts to establish connection with FSLink Server. As it runs, it listens for joystick buttons to be pressed. When they are pressed, the program looks up the window name and key to be pressed and notifies the server, which then sends the keystroke.FSLink Linker - Connects to the WideFS/FSUIPC or FDSWideConnection/FDSConnection data stream and makes configurable variables available for use in the other programs via named memory spaces. It converts all variables in FS to workable variables that make sense.FSLink PFD - The Primary Flight Display based on the NG (Complete, featuring settable Vspeed Bugs, all autopilot bugs and alerts)FSLink ND - The Navigation Display based on the NG (25% complete, MAP Mode done, all others coming once FMC is at least 25% done - up to getting the preflight info done)FSLink EICAS - The Engine Information and Crew Alerting System based on the NG (done, featuring configurable N1/EGT green arrow values)FSLink FMC - The Flight Management Computer based on the NG (not even 15% completed due to complexity and time limits)With all these pieces of the software, I need an interface that doesn't talk to an offset in FS (my software talks to itself via the named memory spaces separately, so all variables stay in tact - no need to put the info into FS as that wastes processing power on the FS computer). For me, EPIC is the easy choice as I can make the switches do anything I program it to.It seems to be a very steep learning curve, but so was OpenGL :-) and I feel I will be up to the challenge. I have already dealt with Ralph Robinson and he IS extremely helpful (busy, but his knowlege is worth the wait) and the SimEngineers site is also an easy target for information on EPIC.I also do not know of any of the other solutions that allow you to hook up EVERY piece in the 737NG cockpit. That's over 300 switches. EPIC can handle just that. Most others fade out around 200 or less. I want a cockpit that isn't just procedural with the switches. I want them to actually do something, as if you're really flying the beast.

Hello couldn't agree more. I switches not so long ago from my ISA EPIC to a USB version. EPIC is still THE system for me. I can do everything with it I want. Once you have mastered the beast you can do everything with it. I have written my own program to interface with FS2004 and still expanding that. Have a look at my website at 'Boeing Cockpit Project' Software page (http://home.hccnet.nl/r.v.d.wiele/). But I combine it with some Phidget boards for controlling the LEDs and the servo's.Best, Rob van der Wiele (Netherlands)

EPIC is still alive and well, although like an earlier poster said, it's the folks that have some programming background, were an early adapter or just simply marred by insanity.My EPIC journey began in November 1997 and hasn't stopped. I have to think that if there wasn't any programming involved that I might be finished with my sim project. I had to learn from the ground up.On the other side of that argument, I have tried a few other systems and have always gone back to EPIC. I tried Phidgets once for all of the overhead switch lighting, but when I discovered that I couldn't use the "777 Overhead Lamp Test" switch, I went back to EPIC. EPIC is great for pretty much everything you need to do.. I think there's nothing that EPIC CAN'T do... but the tradeoff is a LOT of programming.FDS is introducing a line of Plug and Play modules, which I think is great because all of the system logic is placed in the module's firmware. The only issue I see with that is how scalable is USB in a typical computer system: Can you actually connect perhaps a few dozen USB modules to build out an entire cockpit and still have everything work and be in sync with the sim software and with each other?The other problem this introduces is minor, but worth considering. If I find a bug in my EPIC code, I can usually resolve it within a few minutes with a cold beer or some other similar libation. Waiting for a firmware update may take days, even weeks and makes one dependent on the MFR.I will probably be an EPIC fan for the next decade or so, simply because of it's extreme flexibility (Cost was never really a factor, but I understand that is a very real consideration for most). I just wanted what would work and be the most flexible.However... what I am discovering is that my arguments for being such a die-hard fan are becoming weaker and weaker as new technology emerges that makes this hobby easier for everyone....and there are times when I wanted to chuck the whole lot off the nearest cliff, but I suppose that goes with any complex system.

That's where I get blurred 'bout the EPIC.Rob, if EPIC USB can do anything for ya, why still add Phidget boards ?Aaron, if PHCC can handle 1024 switches/buttons and the software is C++ or whichever language you can handle. PHCC got servo, got USB or serial, got stepper, got led, got keys, got a lot of analogue input, got digital input and output, got relay card ...Well .. still project under development but it will get there.I'll use it cuz it's the only thing I hear about that will be able to work with LCD's.So, knowing all that .. why is EPIC still better ? I don't get it.

The reason for using a few Phidget boards are quite simple, costs. For the rest once you know one system very well and can do everything you want with it within your own software (to address the EPIC) you stick with it. Specially when it is working ok for you. Why be dependent on somebody else when you can do it yourself ? For me that is part of the hobby (writing my own interface software). That is also why I don't buy my panels but create them myself, it just gives me much more satisfaction. This is just the way I fill in this hobby. And that will be different for everybody who is taking part in building his own dream (cockpit) I think.Rob

If it's about writing software, other than PHCC there is also Photon. I write my own software for that. Ok, it only supports led and key/btn ...Still either way, PHCC will be A LOT cheaper than EPIC and will have all functionality you want and will be possible for you to program own soft.I know what you mean on own soft. It gives you total control indeed.

Hello Philippe,Exactly, if you want something special in the software you just change it. When I bought my EPIC system it was the only system around, now you have lots of options, just go for the system you feel comfortable with. But as I said before why switch when you already have a complete system, waste of money.

That depends I think on if you could get your old system sold ;o)If I like the PHCC, I might sell my Photon stuff to someone else and get the keys and leds boards from PHCC. Then I can integrate all software into 1 exe.

I can't disagree with Ray and Rob.... Philippe, you were eager to learn how to program EADI/EHSI interact with OpenGL. How did you feel when you accomplish this? Did that make you feel good because you knew you are able to do it? So was we, the EPICUSB users. We felt good! What I can say is, there are a lot of Sim Builders who look for a easy-way-out buying a cheap I/O card so they can build their bird fast because they want to fly it so bad. But, yet when they find some I/O can't do something such as APU or Lamp Test, they would end up spending more money on something else that can work. while using EPICUSB, you spend expensive cost on card and save $$$ because I can guaranteed you, EPIC will have what you need.

No offense guys I know you have worked a lot on your EPIC projects but you guys are all electronic geniouses!! I had a hard time wiring one single switch on my MCP LOL!! I

That's what I am telling you. Photon gave me that feeling. Absolute freedom of programming. Only it is limited to keys and leds (and displays). But PHCC will be just the same with so much more options. Still a lot less $$$s.

No doubt EPIC does it all and is flexible. But i can't understand why some people still think it is the only ultimate flexible, do it all system out there. For me to be convinced like that, I have yet to see a concrete example of anything that only EPIC can do. EPIC may be that until sometime, but i believe there are equally flexible and less expensive alternatives availabe these days like IOCards and FsBus. I don't know much about FSBus, so can't speak for it, but IOCards certainly can. I am a confident programmer and IOCards user. I can imagine accomplishing everything that for example Aaron listed in his post above with IOCards (some of it has got nothing to do with the underlying interface system anyway! :-). IOCards even gives you it's own network communication protocol, if you wish to write your own client-server software as you mentioned Aaron. So, for some facts:Myth: only EPIC can handle entire functions in the cockpit and others fadeout around 200 functionsFact: Not really. IOCards system can easily handle it all and more..Myth: Only EPIC can handle all kinds of hardware devicesFact: apparently iocards can handle all that is needed in a cockpit too. Myth: If you are a real programmer, only EPIC gives you the hands-on joy of programming. Fact: Not true. IOCards gives you two levels of complexity options. If you are a non-programmer, you can simply map offset functions to I/O connections and be done. But if you love the coding challenge and want to simulate complex functions, by all means, you can do that too with their SIOC programming interface. I am a professional programmer and love the coding challenge and plug-n-play solution is not for me. I have total control of the cockpit functions behavior with IOCards SIOC programming. Myth: Only with EPIC, you can simulate complex overhead logic like APU.Fact: Again, i know atleast one IOCard user who has simulated entire overhead including APU. A lot of it i guess is peception. The truth is..products doesn't have to be the most expensive and complex for to be the best. "You get what you pay for" doesn't always apply, atleast in the opensource arena if Linux and Apache projects are any acceptable examples. I have seen examples of bothsides in recent times - people insanely in love with EPIC and going back, on the other hand, long time EPIC uses switching to other systems like IOCards in frustration. Both can get the same job done with a varied degree of complexity ofcourse. I don't mean to say EPIC is history or it is not the best. It is not the only the best anymore and no reason to consider superior. If EPIC is something you happen to fallen in love, by all means, enjoy it. Also, if you happen to believe EPIC is the only one that can do what you are currently doing..that is ok too..because anyway it doesn't really matter for the guy whose complete overhead logic is running on IOCards (or FsBus) at much cheaper cost :-)Seriously.. I too am interested in learning and growing from experience. So, if you know of a complex function that can only be simulated with EPIC, can you please post it. I would like to try programming that with IOCards SIOC and check it out myself. regards-srinihttp://projectsri777.blogspot.com