Hello to all builders,I have recently started to do some research for building a home cockpit.First of all I must say that I am very impressed by the work done by some builders - some people are very talented....I hope I can build something that looks and feels as real as that..Anyway, since I have some background in H/W design, I wanted to hear from other builders (that is if I am considered a 'builder' though I haven

Hello,1. I've purchased full IOCARDS modules2. To design yourself an interface and the corresponding software is certainely not cheaper than IOCARDs and SIOC programming software.Guess the 100th of hours you'll spend in designing something that is still designed ... The price for an IOCARD is quite the production price ... very low for an industrial PCB. I've tried to make my own FSBUS PCB's but the quality and reliability is very far of and doppelside Opencockpit's card ...3. SIOC permit to programm and configure every systems of your homecokpits even to emulate some extras devices which don't exist in FS. It's easy to program but it's really powerful ...Have funBOB

Thank you for your answer Bob,The IOCards option is really interesting.have you compared it with other types of cards (phidgets / EPIC ...)?may I ask which plane are you flying?CheersYaniv

Hi Yaniv,I use www.betainnovations.com hardware. You may want to check them too.BTW, what cockpit do you plan to build? There are many options from general aviation and up to heavies. If you are a beginner, you should think well before you make the first step - if the step is wrong, all the following ones can be frustrating and quite costly :-)The tempatation to go for a full Boeing/Airbus setup is tempting (if you have the $$, time and space) but if this is your first cockpit, I suggest you research well before you begin. I planned for two years, and built my cockpit in 6 months.

The Simboards (http://www.flightdecktechnology.com/) looks like a new kid on the block. While they definitely are more expensive than most others, the setup software is one of the best I have seen so far.I'd probably go with them if I had to start from scratch right now. I naturally do not have first-hand experience with those since I have just tried the software without any hardware attached, but it seems like a very good solution if those card work as well as the software.SIOC is indeed very powerful too, and the IOCards cards are very nicely priced for the manufacturing quality.Just do some research and do not rush the decisions too fast, that pays off in the end.//Tuomas

I build a generic biturboprops 2 seat close cockpit (like a kingair) with pedestal and overhead.I use 4 mastercard, 1 USB expansion card, 3 displaycard, 4 USBservocard, 1 USBsteppercard, 2 USB axis card, 2 USB Relay card.analog simkits gauges and a 20X4 LCD with FSLCD.I've some FSBUS (3 led modules) for the annuciator a relict of the beginning of my project.2 years ago I've start with FSBUS , (Opencockpit was not so developed like today) but the reliability of FSBUS is not very good. You've to make the PCB yourself and it stay like prototyps with lots of false contact problems ....I've start to buy< a single IOCARD mastercard in kit to mount yourself and was surprise by the quality of the industrial PCB's.Soldering the elements was really piece of cake.Now with the advaced program SIOC I can do everything I dream ...So I start to order other cards. and my project become bigger and bigger ....Tell us what kind of cockpit you wanna build, and try to figure how much inputs and outputs you'll need for it ...count large. You'll certainely add new extra functions during the project ...Have funBOBBOB

Well Yaniv....6 months ago I started to project my own modular system based on USB instead of Parallel Port or the obsolete Serial Port.But when I was going to build my first beta-PCB I've read about IOCards...studied it for a while and since it was matching what I was thinking for my system I stopped developing (for now) my system and bought the Master Card (I will soon buy the Expansion USB).In just two days I programmed my first SIOC source (engine start and gear lever with led indicators of gears position/transit).Like Bob I'm building a bi-turboprops aircraft (ATR72-500) cockpit.Regards,Bob (Roberto)

Hi Guys,Thank you all for your replies.A friend and I are building a full 737ng cockpit (it seems to be very popular these days... :) )We have started doing the research a few months ago, and so far we are learning a lot, though I wish I could spend more time on that, as I am doing it all after I'm back from work, done with the kids...etc... ;-)I will definitely check all the H/W options you all mentioned, as you sayed - I'm trying to do a lot of reseach before I actually build anything.I am aware that any system I'll chose will need to support many many inputs/outputs, I'm currently working on that I/O count...and I was also thinking that I don't really need to know exactly how many I/O's to support before I start building, as long as the system is modular and more I/O's may be added later.BTW, I don't think that the serial COM's are dead - they are quite reliable and easy to use, thus make a good interface option.Cheers,Yaniv

Hi Yaniv - it really does not mater what you think about serial ports :-)- fact is that it becomes more and more difficult to find serial devices and in a very nbear future all you'll see is Firewire and USB. The trend started with many notebooks (no parallel ports anymore) and IBM must know something that it stopped shipping their Thinkpads without COM ports. If I think well, my latest mobo has only a COM OPTION :-). Printer manufacturers too must know something - ALL the new printers come with USB 2.0 interfaces. Parallel interfacing option (in lieu of USB 2.0) is given only for printers which are assumed to be operated in a legacy-ridden corporate environment. Take their cue.If you want to build a cockpit and connect hardware which will be supported by future PCs to which undoubtedly you will have to upgrade sometimes, you will do yourself a big favor by deciding on the most modern interfacing method and for now, that is the USB 2.0. Ignore any "advice" saying that you can use COM, Parallel, USB 1.0 just as well, and that high speed is not important for FS input devices - that is wrong. Those arguments are routinely used by manufacturers who either are not able or not interested in moving forward. I wouldn't say that your interest is high on their agenda.The fact is that at some point everybody complains of "missed rotary pulses" or delays which on paper should not be there, but these are an unfortunate result of using low bandwidth, high latency OLD protocols. The problem becomes more acute if you decide to use closed-loop setups for motorized auto-throttle etc.If you want to save yourself a lot of $$ and frustration in the long run, go for USB 2.0 and up interfacing.

Actually, the hardware count is somewhat critical. For every switch and knob to function (not the rotary encoders mind you) My count is in the 320-370 count, the window being that I may have missed a push-light or push-knob function somewhere. I'm going back through and making sure that my list matches that of the switches reported in the FMC Guide 737NG handbook. I am finding that some switches like on the Generator Bus Control have self-centering switches that I thought were on/off (but are (mom)/off/(mom) switches. Same count of switch posiions, different part required.Some systems such as IOCards have a limit as to the number of mastercards with input cards attached. IOCards support up to 288 switches per computer, but they allow you to run your cockpit on separate computers as if they were connected to one. I only want one hardware computer and as few display computers as I can manage. This makes IOCards out of the loop.Phidgets is another wonderful solution, but it takes many many cards to attach all the switches and rotaries and lights of the computer seeing as though their largest input board is a 16in/16out.BetaInnovations products are looking pretty nice, now that they have a 256 input board, but they still lack an output board and, the limiting factor for me, is they don't support custom software, only flight simulator and keyboard hits.I have been on the EPIC bandwagon for some time, but have recently jumped off due to many people warning that it is powerful, but takes a lot to get even a basic project started. So now, I'm looking at SimBoards by FlightDeckTechnology. They already have hardware that is pretty decent in size (64 input, 64low/32high powered output, 256 LED output, 32-digit 7segment output) so 100 boards aren't required and you don't have a lot of unused slots and the hardware is easily attached to flight simulator and configured as well as the option of some custom program that isn't an advanced language (VB-Script is one of the more basic languages).I hope this sheds some light as the good and bad of the more common hardware interfaces.

Can you call yourself a builder yet? Well, it's seems you have been caught by the bug already (there is no going back now) and at some point you will build something that is visualised in your mind at the moment. So the answer is YES of course you are.I use the classic FSBUS which I have built myself and not had many problems with it.After reading Al's opinion on USB vs Com argument, I am thinking of changing. Very valid point Al! FSBUSNG is still COM interfaced. Why did Dirk not go to USB?Good luck with your building.David

Yes I agree that COM ports are fading out of most of the PC and consumer products, and it’s better to think about the future, which is USB, for now.But on the other hand sometimes it’s not realistic to connect so many USB devices just to manage all your H/W switches and different IOs, cause’ if you can only handle 20-30 IOs per ‘device’ than you’d need at least 10 USB connections to cater for all the required IOs…?I think that it is ok to plan for USB connection to the PC, but possibly a different interface for the rest of the H/W system, something like what the IOcards are doing with the USB expansion cards and the master cards. Why not use serial as the interface between them…somehow…?One more thing about serial COM – you can always use USB-to-serial converter – these are relatively cheap.Well it’s not like I adore the serial COM port, but just thinking of the alternative to USB ;-)Aaron, thanks for your thoughts, as I said, I’m currently working on the IO count for our 737ng, maybe we can compare notes when I’m done, though it might take me a while… :(I got the impression that SimBoards are a bit expensive.On the same IO topic – I was wondering about toggle switches – when trying to figure out how many inputs for e.g. are needed for on/on/on 3-pos toggle switch – this is simple, 3 inputs, one for each toggle position; but for things like (on)/off/(on) – is it true you’d only need two inputs? One for each momentary position? Or does the ‘off’ state usually need an IO? It may be a dumb question…Since I am not really familiar with any interface card, I don’t know how they treat it, (I know how _I_ would do it…)BTW liked your ‘signature’ Aaron (“737ng planner…”)Yaniv

actually, you wire up the first on position as switch 1 and the second on position as switch 2. When you flip the switch from the off to on position, the hardware reacts in one way and when the switch goes back to off (in-between), the switch reacts in the switch off event (turning on sets a 1 to offset 0xABCD and turning it off sets a 0 at 0xABCD). With the second switch, it reacts in exactly the same way, but with a different offset.The other solutions are FSUIPC or keyboard dependent. They either send a FSUIPC offset change or they send a keyboard command to the active window (if your other software is not active, then your software will not receive the keyboard commands).IOCards can indeed be talked to directly or be read by another program, but the documentation is sparse and in spanish. I am hoping the SDK for SimBoards comes out soon. I am just interested in getting the hardware to talk to my software and my software talks to either other software I've designed or it talks to FlightSim via FSUIPC itself.If you're going with Project Magenta as you display software, you can use any system you want. PM uses offsets built in FSUIPC for all of its function.Since my software is a cheap (free) attempt at replacing PM for the 737NG series, I don't have access to the PM offsets and have to have my software store all of their variables elsewhere in memory. My Systems software, for example, looks at FSUIPC for information as to what the aircraft is doing, but at startup, it is cold and dark. Once it connects to FSUIPC, it sets all systems to off to start with (engines off, all lights off, fuel valves off...). Once you start the appropriate systems and flip the proper switches, it turns on the right system in FS (since Flightsim is so basic in the systems side, my software waits until all situations are met before allowing you to turn something on or off in flight simulator - that engine switch in FS stays off until the APU is running and the bleed air is moving and the appropriate fuel valves are on - then it goes to start when you command it).Hopefully I'll have an official news release on my software soon, but the FMC will not be functional for some time and the ND is still wholely unfinished. I also aim to get the documentation more informative for the novice person (being a programmer, writing documentation for someone who knows nothing of programming is hard).If you are unsure of which software you'll use, then keep your options open and get the system that allows free reign of communication. The one thing that many builders have done at one point or another is to scrap something they've either spent a lot of time on or a lot of money on. In this business, time is experience, money is hard to come by. Plan wisely and spend even wiser.

Using a keyboard emulator such as the Hagstrom products require that the switch be an ON-ON or at least an ON-OFF-ON. The card does not recognise the OFF event of the switch if the same keystroke turns something on and off.I found this out quite early while experimenting and had to replace several switches in my overhead.

Cheers David,I guess you are correctYaniv737ng builder