Evening guys.I was wondering, how do you all connect your throttles to the potentiometers?Mine (4 engined) all pivot about a central rod, common to all levers, so I cannot use rotary pots as the pivot point.Was thinking of connecting the moving arm, via a link to a slide-pot?How have you guys all done it?Thanks!

I use a sliding pot , connected to the lever.This has one disadvantage , although it is quite easy to make.In the beginnig and the end of the travel of the lever, the lever moves more then the pot. In the midpart of the tract it is more 1 to 1, thats because you convert a rotating movement to a sliding one.See my site for pics how I made it,regardsNorberthttp://home.wanadoo.nl/norbert.bosch/

Just what I was looking for! Thanks mate, much appreciated.Just got to calculate where to mount the rod on the throttle arm now, so as the travel = the travel on the slide pot!I really envy your CNC panels too, would love to have access to a CNC/Laser Cutter. My panels are going to be 3mm clear perspex, with a vinyl "legend" stuck on it, ie, black vinyl, with the lettering etc cut out of it, allowing you to see through the perspex to the EL backlights....:D

Hello,in the buildup of my Dash7 home cockpit, I have had the same question to answer than you when I have tried to link my real Dash7 throttle to FS2004.The idea has been to build a dedicated set of aluminium levers with sliding potentiometers and to link these levers with the real ones through Bowden cables that you can find in RC-models stores.This was not so complex to do, just some hours to craft it correctly with wood, aluminium and basic electonics parts. The potentiometers are linked to a Beta Innovations Plasma Card and it gives me the 9 axis as a double joystick in Fs2004.Beta Innovation Plasma card is really a nice piece of hardware, the best on the market to create a throttle, in my humble opinion.Good luck.Philippe LSGG

Awesome! Thanks, thats pretty much exactly how our throttles were made!May I ask you both, the slide pots, obviously 10k or 100k pots, linear, but, what slide travel did you use? I only seem to come accross ones with 45mm of travel, I am sure thats fine, but just wanted to see what you guys used!Thanks

ANyone able to tell me what travel their slide pots have? 45mm or something else?

You can find 10K linear slide pots with a 10cm travel from Mouser.com. Their part number if you need it is 688-RSA0N11S9002 & they sell for $7.00 US a piece. They are not what I would call very heavy duty pots, but they are quite smooth and I think they will work quite well. I am using them to control the flaps in my 737 throttle assembly which I am currently building. If I was to do it again though, I would pick the pots available at Conrad Electronics in the UK. They sell much sturdier (& pricier) pots (20 Euros) as well (also with 10cm travel). They are used in audio equipment mostly but they have some with a linear taper. Do a search for slide potentiometers.http://www1.uk.conrad.comMaurice

I would>pick the pots available at Conrad Electronics in the UK. They>sell much sturdier (& pricier) pots (20 Euros) as well (also>with 10cm travel). They are used in audio equipment mostly but>they have some with a linear taper. Do a search for slide>potentiometers.>http://www1.uk.conrad.com>>MauriceYou can strike my earlier comment above. Conrad does not sell to the US or Canada. Conrad International sells to almost everywhere in the world except US & Canada as well. Some harebrained story about "high transport- and insurance costs and possible problems concerning product liability". Maurice

Thats ok dude, thanks! I'm British anyway ;)If you need to buy some, I am sure I can help you with getting them shipped to you (I assume your in the USA/Canada?)Cheers for the advice :D

>Thats ok dude, thanks! I'm British anyway ;)>>If you need to buy some, I am sure I can help you with getting>them shipped to you (I assume your in the USA/Canada?)>>Cheers for the advice :DI may take you up on this if I decide to change the pots I'm now using. As I said before, they work OK, but I'm a bit concerned about their durability.Anyway, thanks for your offer. I do appreciate it and this was what the Conrad folks suggested - ship to a friend in Europe and have the friend ship to Canada. Can't fathom why they won't ship to Canada though. I mean, we still have a picture of the Queen in our $20.00 bills :-)Maurice

Hi from Austria,my friend Tony built an throttle quadrant and connected all pots with snap-in ball connectors. Its a high quality/solid state throttle (still under construction) fully made from aluminium/steel.For more detail, you can see here 4 pics:http://www.mc-technik.com/Bilder%20AVA/PICT0831.JPGhttp://www.mc-technik.com/Bilder%20AVA/PICT0832.JPGhttp://www.mc-technik.com/Bilder%20AVA/PICT0833.JPGhttp://www.mc-technik.com/Bilder%20AVA/PICT0834.JPGIf you have more questions, pleas tell meBest regards from AustriaHermannAUA506

Hi,Why would you go through all the trouble of making an outstanding throttle only to put potentiometers in the throttle?Why not use Optical Encoder's?. They are Five times more percise than potentiometers, they will never wear out, and have absolutely ZERO jitter. Unlike in the case of potentiometers, there is no need to convert the analog signal to digital, which causes minimal "jitter" when the position of the pot is in-between readings. Encoders are a digital solution, and therefor do not produce any jitter whatsoever.Just wondering

>Hi,>>Why would you go through all the trouble of making an>outstanding throttle only to put potentiometers in the>throttle?Because for example USBAxis, MJoy, Plasma or such USB microcontroller based interface cards do filtering too. It's very much good enough solution. Sure, one could go even more "high end" with such things, but potentiometers do work just fine.//Tuomas

Hey Hermann,Are you trying to give us a heart attack?This is obviously a work of art - from planning to execution. Regarding pots vs. encoders.I imagine the guy used high-quality, long-life pots and not some $1 cheapos which would render the unbelievable piece of hardware (almost) useless.If I were him, I'd definitely go for that extra tiny step of investing in a good quality absolute encoder + suitable card. THAT would make the entire setup simply unbeatable - even under strict air-worthiness tests :-).These pictures are something to cherish! They are saved on my disk now for future reference for how this hobby can bring the best in some of us.Regards,Al

Hi Al,thanks for your very friendly comment. Yes, you are right, encoders would be better. We will discuss about and try to find a suitable card. In the moment we use the USB-Card series from OpenCockpits, but with the Mastercard and Encodercard we could realize this. Our first intention was to use only a stand-alone-solution w/o using the 'big solution' from OpenCockpits.RgdsHermnn