5 ms·

That's a really cool project. The choice of joystick is disappointing though - an arcade stick? Those are digital only, usually either 4- or 8-way. Kerbal woul

That's a really cool project. The choice of joystick is disappointing though - an arcade stick? Those are digital only, usually either 4- or 8-way. Kerbal would be better controlled with a real analog joystick. But I guess the game probably doesn't support analog input.

moron4hire 10y ago
No, it supports analog input. I have to say, though, if you're building a custom digital controller, it's usually easier to just crack open a cheap USB keyboard and repurpose the PCB. They are small, support lots of buttons, and already have drivers on your PC.
- sandermvanvliet 10y ago
  Now that's a clever idea, never thought of that.
  - moron4hire 10y ago
    The pin-out on every PCB is different. I've even seen two apparently identical keyboards have completely different pin-outs. But it's not very hard to figure out the mapping. Just open up a text editor and test out combining two different pins. Usually, there are three "long" pins on the ends of the PCB and about 30 short pins in the middle. You combine a long and a short pin to make a key code. This is where N-key rollover problems come from, so if you want your controller to support multiple button presses, you'll have to be creative in your selection, which means you will only be able to use it in apps where you have arbitrary control over key bindings.
- AstroJetson 10y ago
  Or use this device https://www.adafruit.com/product/1535 https://www.adafruit.com/product/1535 It lets you put 12 switches on it and then acts like a keyboard. I've used it for a couple of custom input projects and it works well, nothing to do on the PC. Using a digital joystick would then be the way to go. I like his choice of that input device. But, like Quequau, I've never been able to get into Kerbal. I guess I could go whip a panel up, but at the end of the day not sure that it would be enough to catch my interest.
  - moron4hire 10y ago
    Yeah, that works if you've planned your project out and junk like that :) I'm usually just slapping junk together at the last minute and cannibalising whatever I have laying around (and for some reason, I have a lot of keyboards laying around). If you were writing the consuming app, you could get analog support with an ADC into a decoder into individual or combinations of keys. I say you'd have to be writing the app because I don't know many existing apps that support that sort of key binding (though I do seem to recall MS Flight Simulator doing it, at least for throttle).
    - AstroJetson 10y ago
      Yea, how I fail the "True Maker test". I tend to plan stuff out, dig through a pretty well stocked set of parts. Then China markets for parts for projects that I can wait on, Digikey for a project I want to build tomorrow. I do refactor parts (I've done the keyboard thing mentioned above) but now since I'm older I realize I don't have the time to dork around with a dodgy keyboard (ummm is that the reason I tossed it into the junk bin?) and want things to work after I fix my design errors, not after I fix a broken part. I'm more a pragmatic Maker. Can I run to Home Despot and buy wood, fasters, plan, cut, assemble and install shelves? Yes. Can I go to Ikea, buy something close and make it fit that then looks really nice? Yes. With 400 linear feet of shelving in the robot lab, sometimes Ikea wins. Likewise, some nifty Adafruit board is the quicker way to win.
munchbunny 10y ago
It does support analog input, but using analog input only marginally improves gameplay. Analog input usually isn't that important because the inertia of the thing you're rotating typically overpowers your system's ability to generate torque by a fair amount. So fine-grained control of orientation/rotation isn't as critical as being able to turn at all.
martiuk 10y ago
It's listed as a 3-axis translation joystick, so (I assume) it's being used for RCS control in space, of which digital switches would be better, for accurate control.
throwanem 10y ago
It probably does, but to the best of my knowledge, no one makes anything analog that you could use as a three-axis translation controller without some serious rework. A digital device is much easier to work with. Also of note: while I've never played Kerbal, years ago I was very seriously into Orbiter, which is a somewhat more rigorous simulation. Especially when maneuvering in close proximity to another vehicle, you actually wanted to avoid analog control of RCS thrust, because that's hard to control precisely and it's very easy to find small errors compounding and your ship getting away from you. So you'd put the RCS in what I want to say I remember being called "vernier" mode, where each control input regardless of magnitude or duration produces a specific, calibrated quantity of thrust, which can be precisely counteracted by the opposite control input. So at this point, you're effectively treating an analog control device as digital - which works, but something like the three-axis controller detailed here would actually be a lot more comfortable to use for vernier control. If I still played Orbiter at all, I'd be asking OP for more details on the parts he used and how he put them together, so I could build something similar for my own use.
- TylerE 10y ago
  > It probably does, but to the best of my knowledge, no one makes anything analog that you could use as a three-axis translation controller Huh? There are plenty of twist-handle joysticks that give you 3 analog axes. Some will even give you 5 or 7 (One or two mini-sticks)
  - throwanem 10y ago
    No one is disputing that there are analog joysticks with three or more axes; the matter under discussion is how to get the right axes. The idea behind a controller like the one under discussion here is that its three axes are, first, all translational, and second, all in direct correspondence with the motion they impart to the spacecraft. With such a device, no mental mapping between control axes and motion is required. You just push the controller in the direction in which you want to add thrust. If it's still unclear what that means, look at this diagram [1] of the Apollo translation controller. Disregard the limited rotational capability for which I have been unable to find documentation. Observe the translation axis diagram alongside the handle. Note the three degrees of freedom it depicts. Consider their correspondence with the three degrees of freedom in which a spacecraft may experience translational motion. To provide a matching capability, the joysticks you're talking about would need to allow for pushing the handle into, or lifting it out of, the base. I doubt anyone makes a joystick like that, because it would not be a very useful capability to add, and the engineering requirements and effect on retail price would be significant. [1] http://nassp.sourceforge.net/wiki/Image:THC_diagram.jpg http://nassp.sourceforge.net/wiki/Image:THC_diagram.jpg

moron4hire 10y ago

No, it supports analog input. I have to say, though, if you're building a custom digital controller, it's usually easier to just crack open a cheap USB keyboard and repurpose the PCB. They are small, support lots of buttons, and already have drivers on your PC.

sandermvanvliet 10y ago
Now that's a clever idea, never thought of that.
- moron4hire 10y ago
  The pin-out on every PCB is different. I've even seen two apparently identical keyboards have completely different pin-outs. But it's not very hard to figure out the mapping. Just open up a text editor and test out combining two different pins. Usually, there are three "long" pins on the ends of the PCB and about 30 short pins in the middle. You combine a long and a short pin to make a key code. This is where N-key rollover problems come from, so if you want your controller to support multiple button presses, you'll have to be creative in your selection, which means you will only be able to use it in apps where you have arbitrary control over key bindings.
AstroJetson 10y ago
Or use this device https://www.adafruit.com/product/1535 https://www.adafruit.com/product/1535 It lets you put 12 switches on it and then acts like a keyboard. I've used it for a couple of custom input projects and it works well, nothing to do on the PC. Using a digital joystick would then be the way to go. I like his choice of that input device. But, like Quequau, I've never been able to get into Kerbal. I guess I could go whip a panel up, but at the end of the day not sure that it would be enough to catch my interest.
- moron4hire 10y ago
  Yeah, that works if you've planned your project out and junk like that :) I'm usually just slapping junk together at the last minute and cannibalising whatever I have laying around (and for some reason, I have a lot of keyboards laying around). If you were writing the consuming app, you could get analog support with an ADC into a decoder into individual or combinations of keys. I say you'd have to be writing the app because I don't know many existing apps that support that sort of key binding (though I do seem to recall MS Flight Simulator doing it, at least for throttle).
  - AstroJetson 10y ago
    Yea, how I fail the "True Maker test". I tend to plan stuff out, dig through a pretty well stocked set of parts. Then China markets for parts for projects that I can wait on, Digikey for a project I want to build tomorrow. I do refactor parts (I've done the keyboard thing mentioned above) but now since I'm older I realize I don't have the time to dork around with a dodgy keyboard (ummm is that the reason I tossed it into the junk bin?) and want things to work after I fix my design errors, not after I fix a broken part. I'm more a pragmatic Maker. Can I run to Home Despot and buy wood, fasters, plan, cut, assemble and install shelves? Yes. Can I go to Ikea, buy something close and make it fit that then looks really nice? Yes. With 400 linear feet of shelving in the robot lab, sometimes Ikea wins. Likewise, some nifty Adafruit board is the quicker way to win.

munchbunny 10y ago

It does support analog input, but using analog input only marginally improves gameplay. Analog input usually isn't that important because the inertia of the thing you're rotating typically overpowers your system's ability to generate torque by a fair amount. So fine-grained control of orientation/rotation isn't as critical as being able to turn at all.

martiuk 10y ago

It's listed as a 3-axis translation joystick, so (I assume) it's being used for RCS control in space, of which digital switches would be better, for accurate control.

throwanem 10y ago

It probably does, but to the best of my knowledge, no one makes anything analog that you could use as a three-axis translation controller without some serious rework. A digital device is much easier to work with. Also of note: while I've never played Kerbal, years ago I was very seriously into Orbiter, which is a somewhat more rigorous simulation. Especially when maneuvering in close proximity to another vehicle, you actually wanted to avoid analog control of RCS thrust, because that's hard to control precisely and it's very easy to find small errors compounding and your ship getting away from you. So you'd put the RCS in what I want to say I remember being called "vernier" mode, where each control input regardless of magnitude or duration produces a specific, calibrated quantity of thrust, which can be precisely counteracted by the opposite control input. So at this point, you're effectively treating an analog control device as digital - which works, but something like the three-axis controller detailed here would actually be a lot more comfortable to use for vernier control. If I still played Orbiter at all, I'd be asking OP for more details on the parts he used and how he put them together, so I could build something similar for my own use.

TylerE 10y ago
> It probably does, but to the best of my knowledge, no one makes anything analog that you could use as a three-axis translation controller Huh? There are plenty of twist-handle joysticks that give you 3 analog axes. Some will even give you 5 or 7 (One or two mini-sticks)
- throwanem 10y ago
  No one is disputing that there are analog joysticks with three or more axes; the matter under discussion is how to get the right axes. The idea behind a controller like the one under discussion here is that its three axes are, first, all translational, and second, all in direct correspondence with the motion they impart to the spacecraft. With such a device, no mental mapping between control axes and motion is required. You just push the controller in the direction in which you want to add thrust. If it's still unclear what that means, look at this diagram [1] of the Apollo translation controller. Disregard the limited rotational capability for which I have been unable to find documentation. Observe the translation axis diagram alongside the handle. Note the three degrees of freedom it depicts. Consider their correspondence with the three degrees of freedom in which a spacecraft may experience translational motion. To provide a matching capability, the joysticks you're talking about would need to allow for pushing the handle into, or lifting it out of, the base. I doubt anyone makes a joystick like that, because it would not be a very useful capability to add, and the engineering requirements and effect on retail price would be significant. [1] http://nassp.sourceforge.net/wiki/Image:THC_diagram.jpg http://nassp.sourceforge.net/wiki/Image:THC_diagram.jpg