Hi,As far as interfacing switches, rotary encoders, buttons and such, what experience have builders had with the two products. I've read a great deal about each, but I'm interested in what you experienced folks would recommend for the multitude of switches, dials and controls in my Lear 45 simpit. What are the pros and cons, and experiences, with each?Thanks a BUNCH!MT

Check out IOCards as well, www.opencockpits.com - click the US/UK flag on the right column first, it helps :)The SIOC programming language is pretty nice for making logic etc..Imagine, a few years ago we did not have anything like this difficulty of choosing the interface hardware :)//Tuomas

That right, TuomasEven 3 years ago the choise was between keyboard and hacked keyboard ;) Almoust like that so we do have some progress , lol

The good thing about the gammaray is it can handle up to 256 inputs, including rotaries.Which is a lot of overhead switches.Currently the gammaray only will sendkeystrokes which FSUIPC can interpret into offsets, but its a bit clunky.I am waiting on a new release of the BIFS software from Betainnovations, which Leo has said should contain the ability to directly send offsets.I use opencockput for LED displays, some LED lights, and some rotary inputs (position of the cards re overhead/PFD)CheersChris

As you certainly saw on my Lear 45 site, I've done my homework quite well and ignoring the irrelevant noise in the thread, I would say that you cannot compare EPIC with BI GR256. EPIC is a sophisticated I/O solution which requires literally TONS of programmng experience and learning a relatively "new" language (quite similar to C in some respects).GR256 is a digital input card which caters well for supporting zillions of digital inputs and rotary encoders WITHOUT any programming (or DYI stuff tha ppl tend to brush aside too conveniently). I am happy with it - it is built like a tank and seems to be able to go on like this until the USB interface is replaced with a more advanced one.

[ snipped irrelevant noise ;-) ]>EPIC is a sophisticated I/O solution which requires>literally TONS of programmng experience and learning a>relatively "new" language (quite similar to C in some>respects).>>GR256 is a digital input card which caters well for supporting>zillions of digital inputs and rotary encoders WITHOUT any>programming (or DYI stuff tha ppl tend to brush aside too>conveniently). I am happy with it - it is built like a tank>and seems to be able to go on like this until the USB>interface is replaced with a more advanced one.Yeah, I think it boils down to the question: do you need to simulate some *logic* in your setup?With EPIC or SIOC (with IOCards) one can emulate a LOT of the system logic in aircraft: Click this button, start adding to a variable's value, twist this needle accordingly, light up this led once the variable value is over 100, play this sound chime and you have a very crude emulation of an APU (auxiliary power unit). Many people start with the mindset of "Which add-on aircraft can I use in my simpit that has good systems simulation" - but it is also possible to do a lot of this stuff with Epic or SIOC. Sure, it's a lot of programming, but it's still a possibility worth considering.Switch -> Keystrokes works fine if you use Level-D with Nico's FSConv, because then all the logic is taken care for you. But keystrokes fall short if you need to do stuff yourself. There's some things you can do by hacking the fsuipc.ini by hand (the advanced fsuipc SDK docs explain this) but it's not easy either.Just to give some more food for thought :)//Tuomas

LOL! Learn SIOC and EPIC? Why don't you try Visual Basic for a change? If you really enjoy programming you will find Visual Basic + BI SDK WAY better, more flexible and powerful than ANYTHING EPIC, OA or any other existing "language" out there. And behold - it comes straight from Microsoft.There is a really good chance that there are more ppl out there who already know VB than those who know SIOC or Epic, so if it is flexibility and customizability you're looking for, you can't go wrong with the VB + BI SDK combination - not by a long shot :-).Now - having solved the "flexibility and programmability" issues, why don;t we remind everybody abouthow much a digital input (or output) would cost using other solutions and now manyu cards one would be using to even start to get close to the port count BI is offering. But I feel that we (again) go the well trodden dirt-road we've taken so many times in the past and I'm asking myself again - why?

>LOL! Learn SIOC and EPIC? Why don't you try Visual Basic for>a change? Because I don't know VB and have zero interest in learning it? SIOC was pretty easy to learn and works quite well for the task, works nicely with IOCards that has very nice set of expandable modules for a reasonable price, so it made a pretty nice choice for me. The thought of "It's not visual basic" really did not even cross my mind. Now, if I could program this in Perl, it'd be a different case ;-) And with the IOCP protocol the opencockpit guys have been developing as well, it might be a possibility even - but I am not sure if I want to go that far.I'm just saying I am pretty happy with how my setup works and what possibilities it gives me. I'm sure Betainnovations stuff is just as fine, but I dont understand why you jump around in flames everytime someone mentions there might something else just as good or even more suitable for their needs than what you have? :-)//Tuomas

Maybe because I don't really like the "subtle" smear campaign some are so keen in maintaining - and thrown at unsuspecting newcomers - which is a clear disservice to the community? Maybe because for a change I'd like to see some "honest" attitude around here? Maybe because thread highjacking is something that is generally not appreciated around forums?Please regard my "going up in flames" as a "balancing act" nothing more. But don't let me bother you with my rants - keep on doing what you've been doing. I am just here for the show.(Sorry RW-CFII - this is off topic and will be my last post on the subject)

Hi all,Wow...I just opened a can of worms...all over myself! Didn't mean to spark such a heated discussion, but believe it or not, I learned a lot. Al, I'm building a Lear 45 pit too, and would love to correspond with you on how things are going, and commiserate on the problems and solutions! Perhaps we could correspond by email, or on my Lear 45 blog (just about ready to go up). If you'd like to, let me know.I have been programming for quite a while, and sort of do it for a living. I'm familiar with Java, C++, C, VB, JavaScript and SQL. The code for the EPIC didn't seem that intimidating, but I love the idea of not being REQUIRED to code stuff all the time (like at work). I'm sure it is possible to use a combination of EPIC and BI modules.....I plan to connect my flight controls via straight USB, but to control all other aspects of the sim with realistic knobs, rotaries, momentary switches (K1 type), and whatever true-to-Lear that I can find.That said, anyone have a spare Lear 45 POH and Flight Training Manual around? None on Ebay at present....MT

>Switch -> Keystrokes works fine if you use Level-D with Nico's>FSConv, because then all the logic is taken care for you. Hi Tuomas,This is a misunderstanding. I think you know better, but to be as clear as possible to other readers of this forum: FSCONV has nothing to do with Keystrokes! FSCONV is a program 'sitting in between' the Level-D SDK and FSUIPC. That's why I sometimes call it a 'liason officer'. It enriches FSUIPC with new and powerful offsets for the Level-D767.How you communicate with FSUIPC is out of scope, but the normal (prefered) way of course is digitally. I use SIOC for that, but FSBUS, EPIC, Phidgets and even VisualBasic are also possible candidates and I'm happy we have a choice; competition is good.I agree completely with you that one should try to stay away from Visual Basic as long as possible ;-). VB is something that should be kept in a Museum, its not really the right tool for real time programming (IMHO). SIOC with its event driven approach is much more suited to the needs of real time programming of logic for aircraft systems. Yes, FSCONV offers the Level-D SDK which is a very powerful interface, but even then I use SIOC to add logic, like a Lights Test, Cold and Dark Cockpit support, dimming of displays and advanced control of display values. Cheers!Nicowww.nicokaan.nl

From my understanding, EPIC is old news and isn't that great of a solution any more unless you need to build a 747 sim. It is expensive and with a small user-base (not many decided to take the EPL plunge or didnt have deep enough pockets and the major guy who did deicded to update his hardware as it was a little slow - Ron). The major aspect of it is that you can have 4 main units per computer, with those main units connected to sub-units that will give you more inputs than most other units combined. I believe the total number of inputs is somewher near 1000 inputs and just as many outputs. It was a wonderful idea. For my 737 sim, I was looking at EVERY switch, not just the ones we can emulate inside FS and thus most solutions such as IOCards and Betainnovations fell a bit short of the mark.A Lear45 cockpit doesn't have nearly as much of an overhead/MCP/Pedestal interface, so these solutions may all be within your grasp of what will suffice to your needs, should you decide to animate EVERY switch in your cockpit. My first instinct would be to total all the inputs and outputs of your system, including any emergency sim stop switch or sim startup switch (if the ability is with your finally selected solution) and then go around and figure out which solutions don't have the ability to handle that many inputs/outputs. Then, the ones that are left, figure out which ones are more cost effective for the number of cards you'll need, how much customization you can do with the hardware (if your displays have a mode select knob and your displays aren't in flight simulator, how will you talk to them to change their mode - Project Magenta VIA FSUIPC offsets - Other programs via specific interface), and also consider the customer support base. How many other people out there can help you when you get stuck in a rut? How good is their customer support? How fast do they respond to inquiries?There may be other factors you will want to consider to eliminate certain hardware solutions. For myself, I am choosing FlightDeckTechnology's SimBoards (www.f-d-t.com). Visual Basic script interface for programming the custom stuff that doesn't talk to flight simulator (good for controlling my softwre displays) and an easy click-click GUI for getting the sim-ready lights and dials working. They're working on expanding the software to include stuff for their vbScript engine to allow for programs to talk to the command software via Windows Messaging and a few other means. Customer support was quick, asking if something was possible took 2 hours with a FULLY DETAILED reply about how they would be implementing it. The downfalls I've noticed is their main interface board is almost never in-stock and when their main page updates to tell you when it will be in-stock, they change it again to a later date. This has been happening for 3-4 months now, but for me, I will wait.IOCards, for me, wasn't the way to go a while back due to the fact that their hardware is limited per-computer and I needed the entire cockpit to run on one computer and all my display (PFD/ND/EICAS) to run on 2 computers connected for FO/CPT operations. I wanted everything modular and the limitations on IOCards made them not what I wanted. That was the deciding factor to not use them. They appear very functional, a HUGE user base, decent software advances and a very active forum with tips already on how to do things and cheap boards to build. I just didnt like the limitations on hardware, so I decided to look elsewhere.I hope nobody decides to flame this post as I tried to make it as unbiasded as possible, thus as helpful as possible.

:-)Forget the can of worms and concentrate on the fish - LOL. Yes, C++ is also suitable for the BI SDK (if not more so) so the knowledge you have is certainly still useful :-).Re. K1 switches - I used P. Cos' products and I liked both the quality and the service.Re. "spare" Lear 45 POH and Manuals - they seem to be made of Gold - or better said, of Platinum. I might be able to help though - send me your contact details via the PM system and we'll continue off-line.

>IOCards, for me, wasn't the way to go a while back due to the>fact that their hardware is limited per-computer and I needed>the entire cockpit to run on one computer and all my display>(PFD/ND/EICAS) to run on 2 computers connected for FO/CPT>operations. I wanted everything modular and the limitations>on IOCards made them not what I wanted. That was the deciding>factor to not use them. They appear very functional, a HUGE>user base, decent software advances and a very active forum>with tips already on how to do things and cheap boards to>build. I just didnt like the limitations on hardware, so I>decided to look elsewhere.Hi,For your information:That was a while back indeed. Today there are no hardware limitations, you can connect up to four Master cards to a USB expansion board and you can connect a usb expansion board per computer. Networked computers can work together via the IOCP protocol.In the software there are also no (real) limitations: you may define up to 10.000 variables in a SIOC program.Note I'm not related to Opencockpits, I'm only helping to give the right information. Best regards,Nicowww.nicokaan.nl

>This is a misunderstanding. I think you know better, but to be>as clear as possible to other readers of this forum: >>FSCONV has nothing to do with Keystrokes! FSCONV is a program>'sitting in between' the Level-D SDK and FSUIPC. That's why I>sometimes call it a 'liason officer'. It enriches FSUIPC with>new and powerful offsets for the Level-D767.DUH! Of course. What I meant was, basically "switch -> offset" direct mapping. The point was, you don't really need to ponder the systems logic yourself, just "map" each switch directly to the corresponding fsconv function. And there's a function for every single switch, warning light and button.With SIOC, you can start with the default 737 or King Air, and you can implement the same logic yourself. It's a different approach. Sure, it takes more work, but then again, SIOC seems powerful enough for implementing quite a lot of different things.>SIOC with its event driven approach is much more suited to the>needs of real time programming of logic for aircraft systems.>Yes, FSCONV offers the Level-D SDK which is a very powerful>interface, but even then I use SIOC to add logic, like a>Lights Test, Cold and Dark Cockpit support, dimming of>displays and advanced control of display values. Yeah. I seem to hit a small flamewar every time I mention something in a thread where Alex is also posting - for some reason my comments are not at all meant to flame or cause harm, but something "clicks" on our communication and it always seems to end in a mess like this :) Wacky.. In any case, I find SIOC to be a very interesting tool for logic programming in a simulator, it is not a procedural programming language at all, and thus very very different in the idea how it works. It's an event driven system that is pretty cool once you figure it out. I really do not think programming with VB and a SDK is much easier or better way. That's of course my own opinion and experience with SIOC. I wonder if Alex has actually ever used iocards?One of the things I want to eventually implement is a real fuel system. In FS, turning off the fuel valve kills the engine instantly. This is not at all realistic, as in a piston engine, there is still quite a bit of fuel in the pipes and carburettor/injection pump/whatever between the fuel valve and the engine. I think it is possible to "fix" this with SIOC, by defining a variable that corresponds to "fuel in carburettor", that, stays "full" when the fuel valve is open, and starts to get smaller (the rate of subtraction derived from the current fuel flow), until there is nothing left. Then turn off the FS fuel valve, which actually shuts down the engine. This is the kind of stuff I meant what SIOC or some other programming system is good for.//Tuomas