oemlegoem

Hello avgas2much Thanks for the info. I think a single linear bearing has an advantage compared to laterally spaced dual bearings. Because the friction produced by the bearings induce less torque when compared to a design with laterally spaced bearings. Hence less risk for jamming. The Yoko yoke also uses a single bearing, as far as I can see. It helps to have a better balanced spring or bungee load. What I like is that Diagma uses closed, shielded bearings in the last shown design. My impression is that the Yoko yoke uses recirculating bearings which are open to the environment and dirt, and which should be relubricated after some time if proper engineering standards are kept (note: impression). My advice to Diagma would be to increase the size of the single bearing, space permitting, compared to the dual bearing design size.

Have a look at this forum, especially the comment by philipp regarding the width of the pedals: https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/150972-new-high-end-rudder-pedals-from-thrustmaster-announced/

The video gives the impression that there is a problem with the Bodnar board. But that board is a quality item and has a good reputation. The Yoko yoke uses or used the same Bodnar board, as far as I know. I also used the same board to make a yoke , using all the analog and digital channels, without any problems. There is another thread in this forum, where it is reported that Diagma is changing the internal design of the yoke. So, in my opinion, the yoke was released too early, but don't write it off yet. We also still have to see how the Fulcrum will turn out. Edit2: at 10:45, you can see a detail of the Bodnar board. Diagma uses a version of the board without connectors, and then add their own USB connector. That might explain how badly the USB cable attaches to it. My own experience of the Bodnar board with original USB Bodnar supplied connector attached, is that the USB cable attaches very well to it, not being loose at all.

6700K @4.7 as well, with a 1070Ti. I am waiting for the technology change to 7nm Nvidia GPU and 10nm Intel CPU.

I have used the position sensor from TT-Electronics as well. Also the Bourns AMS22B. But you should have no problem with a normal potentiometer (if it is not the ultra cheapest). I have used potentiometers with the Leo Bodnar card as well. Are you sure you have a potentiometer problem?

There are two linear bearings, on two rails. The bearings are positioned side by side, perpendicular to the motion. That is fundamentally wrong position to counteract the torque induced by the bungee spring.

But with some fundamental weaknesses. E.g. the bungee acting as pitch spring is mounted on the side. This puts a torque on the linear bearings. Not a good starting point.

@avgas2much Thanks for giving the first report on the yoke, and for the pictures. I have a few more questions: How much max force is needed in the pitch axis? E.g. compared to a previous yoke you might have used. Or pushing a kitchen weighing scale against the yoke handle. How is the feeling (friction, notchiness) of the pitch movement when you use both hands, compared to one hand operation?

I wonder what the 2 vertical shafts, 4 flange bearings and 2 gears wheels are at the front of the yoke (on the side of the yoke handle).

Mattias: carefully consider the remarks from Mark. I also looked at the Saitek quad. It was a while ago, but the pots are not normal pots. I remember they incorporate a switch function. Together with the built in processor controller, they simulate the reversal function. The pots in the yoke can be connected straight to the Bodnar board. However, for the switches in the yoke handle, you have to find out which wire at the controller end has a signal function or common ground function. I played around with this but I gave up. My advice is: play with a multimeter first or do not start at all. Even with a multimeter, it is a dog's job.

I found this website with an interesting video (in the review section of user Ghostrider, near the bottom of the web page) . Even without understanding French, the very clear video shows a lot of interesting details. http://www.checksix-fr.com/test-thrustmaster-pendular-rudder/

The yoke can be tested next Saturday at SimWare Simulations in Belgium. Anyone has a chance to go there?

I am looking for spare parts for my Saitek Pro Flight Combat Rudder Pedals. Over the years, I sort of developed a love-hate relationship with said pedals. The hate part coming from the knowledge that things could break down. But the love part wants me to keep my feet softly caressing on the pedals. So I am looking for another rudder pedal that I could use for spare parts. In order to make it economical, the pedals should be defective, or near defective, so that the owner would like to get red of it, for a reasonable fee. Any takers?

During a small flightsim event in Switzerland, Aerosoft had the yoke on display. Could well be that it is the same yoke that Ray saw in Cosford. The yoke could be ordered with delivery from April 2019. As in Cosford, the yoke did not have the special attachment membrane. Trying out the yoke movement, I have two concerns: The yoke has a lot of friction in the pitch axis. I tried moving the yoke in one direction, and releasing it slowly until it stops, Then the same in the other direction. The difference in the stop position was about 10mm. So, a lot of friction. Doing the same for the roll movement, I could see the same effect, but less noticeable than for the pitch movement. In order to get a defined neutral pitch position, the Saitek yoke uses a scissor mechanism. This causes a detent, which is disliked by many. However, you get a defined neutral position. The Flyhoneycomb yoke does not have a detent. I have the impression that in order to reduce the dead zone range, the spring force was increased, which makes for a stiff yoke, as Ray had noted. Without the stiff springs, the dead zone would be even larger. The total pitch travel was about 100mm, 4". This is far different from the 6" that is advertised on the Flyhoneycomb website. I had noted already in an earlier post that I expected that the pitch range would be 100mm, because Flyhoneycomb shows pictures where the pitch movement is measured by a linear potentiometer. And commercial available linear potentiometers are 100mm max. This is a prototype. So we have to see how the final product turns out. But if it is the same as the prototype, then I fail to see the benefits compared to other entry level yokes.

From the technical drawings on the Virtual Fly website, I estimated that the Ruddo total back-forward movement is about 65mm. The Thrustmaster TPR and Brunner CLS-E both have 150mm. That is quite a big difference. That makes me wonder which ones are closest to real world planes.