Thanks for following up on your previous video. I had read a whole bunch of reviews online and your previous vid had given me some concern, however there were plenty of other comments elsewhere saying the deadzone wasn't as noticeable as you had described, and perhaps your findings in this video go towards explaining those differences. After lots of toing and froing I went ahead and ordered one which I have had for a few days now and am very happy with it. Firstly I just went into the sim and it wasn't even apparent there was a deadzone without looking for it, which I did afterwards with DIView. I am still a bit surprised that the axes only have 256 positions, but from my experience so far it doesn't detract from my enjoyment of using the yoke.
4 года назад
Thanks for the update!, interesting and logical conclusion!
It took me a couple times, but I was able to eliminate my deazones (pitch and roll) by very precisely getting the centers in the exact same spot for each button press. Made a huge difference when flying straight and level.
@Almost Aviation Thanks for your detailed investigation of this. A few hours ago, someone from Honeycomb posted on their Facebook page the reason why some early yokes have large deadzones they should not have. Not surprised we could fix the calibration on our own, but they will not let us! Here's my thoughts on this I posted on Avsim: "OK, a person from Honeycomb recently posted on their Facebook page that the reason some yokes have a deadzone, and some do not, is that some of the early production units were calibrated incorrectly at the factory, giving them a deadzone they should not have. My yoke from the original preorder has a 5mm deadzone in elevator, and a 9° deadzone in aileron (5% of total rotation!). I am none to happy about this, as being a direct customer they could have easily contacted me about the mfg mistake, or they could have posted a notice on their website. It's not so bad I knew it was fault, I thought I just had to live with it. So to get it fixed, the customer has to realize on their own, with no communication from the manufacturer, that the deadzone is not intentional like most inexpensive yokes, and decide it is a fault, and "prove" it to the manufacturer that the yoke has a problem to get it fixed. Really is making me think twice, three times, about buying their throttle quadrant now."
Yes, I saw your Avsim post. Whose Facebook page was it? I have been emailing the Honeycomb person I was talking to asking if they intend to make the info public, but no reply as yet.
@@AlmostAviation It is the main Honeycomb facebook page: facebook.com/FlyHoneycomb/ under the post "THROTTLE UPDATE!" in answer to a question about the deadzone issue from Kris Brown. No name from the Honeycomb Aeronautical poster, so not sure if it is Nicki Repenning the owner or someone they have maintaining the Facebook page. I just submitted a support ticket asking them for the procedure on how to do the recalibration myself.
HAHA dude... "That's just given me another idea, which I haven't tried out yet... umm... HEH HEH." That HEH HEH is absolutely diabolical. :-) I see you posted another video about this, and I haven't watched it yet but hopefully you reveal the calibration method... cheers mate!
Not sure it's such a big problem. I came from a Logitech yoke that was awful with its detents. I did modify mine with elastic bands and the Leo Bodnar USB controller which made a huge difference, still no match for the Honeycombe. My real world Foxbat A22 aeroplane has some backlash in the yoke mechanism that would effectively be a deadspot but it doesn't matter, it remains perfectly controllable and becomes a characteristic of various real aeroplanes. I watched those pilots on Buffalo air flying the DC3's and I don't believe there is such a place as an aileron or elevator centre, the way they saw that wheel in all directions, it's just the way they fly. A very interesting video though, thanks for keeping the manufacturers honest.
Thanks for this; I’ve been following with interest. Your logic makes sense. I guess I’m still wondering: surely the (e.g.) Yoko Yoke has the same issues and it’s own way of overcoming them ? Does the Yoko just do better at returning to Centre? I’d be surprised, as the contents in the box look similar from videos I’ve seen. There’s also still the issue of why only 8-bit resolution, especially when those 256 steps are spread over such a wide arc in full 90 degree rotation, most of which isn’t normally used. Thinking out loud, I could see if both axes were equipped with optical encoders, a ‘constant’ Centre could be redefined by the system each time the yoke is left momentarily still at the centre point; re-zeroing the pots/Hall effect devices each time the yoke centers. Don’t know if Yoko does that. Probably too pricey for the Honeycomb.
I checked this out now and it seems the Yoko doesn't have any detectable dead zones. But predictably, this means you need to set up software null zones because it doesn't return to centre with complete precision. The net result is about the same.
@@AlmostAviation Ah, interesting. Coming back to simming after a 15 year break, I'd assumed all the current hardware would operate at least as well and with at least the precision of my old SideWinder FF2 (which is now spoken of with a mythical reverence). I just ran DIView on it and immediately you break the beam near the grip, without touching it, it centres perfectly and repeatedly to the resolution of each axis - which is 10 bit on pitch and roll, and less than that but still overkill on the other axes. (Accepting that DIView oversamples, the return number is identical each time, and the physical movement to snap is tiny.) That's one of the beauties of optical encoders and feedback. It seems that if the Honeycombs are each given their own personal calibration in manufacture, it's a matter of luck whether you get one with a small or larger deadzone: depending how the elastic in that particular one is twanging on the day. But you're right, if they didn't do it this way folks would complain about permanent trim offsets developing in each axis. Personally, I'd rather have no deadzone at source like the Yoko, and trim as necessary. There's always the Brunner ($$).
@@communicatescience I'm not sure it's luck, this is an engineering endeavour and I would guess all the Honeycombs are in the same neighbourhood. I still wonder if any of this really matters, as as a flight yoke is by no means a precision controller anyway. As for FFB, at the current state of the art I have yet to be convinced it's much more than a novelty.
@@AlmostAviation The vibrations and bumps, and even increase of control force with velocity change associated with FFB, I'd agree are more of a novelty, but the way any non-FFB device handles trim is fundamentally inaccurate. i.e. In real life, I pull back on the yoke and trim off the pressure, but the yoke stays pulled back (same with FFB sim); but with a non-FFB device, I pull back on the yoke then have to gradually release it against the spring pressure towards the central position as I apply trim. For gaming and more procedural training it's not a big deal. I noticed Austin Meyers of X Plane conceded this limitation in one of his video appearances, likewise the importance of resolution for trimming at high speed.
Yes, Honeycomb has now made its recalibration routine public. But really there never was anything to fix - see my later video on how to recalibrate and why there is a dead zone.
As a pilot, can I just say that an airplane does not have a deadzone and yes you will have to trim all the time? It's part of flying. Having a deadzone in the system is the most frustrating thing since straight and level flight is no where near as realistic as it should be and could be!
Any update on this? I would quite like to buy one of these, but not whilst they keep the calibration fix withheld. The fact the manufacturer denies the issue (which has clearly affected hundreds of users) puts me off.
@@AlmostAviation Thanks very much for your quick help and great information! Going to buy one now for FS2020, shame they don't advertise this though as they might sell more units. They should give you commission :) Can't wait till FS2020 implements VR soon, but it's going to cost me a lot of money on new hardware :/
So many people have an issue with this yoke, this is a fucking $250 yoke and something like this is not acceptable they should be sued for selling damaged yokes, yes if something cannot be calibrated by software it means it's broken.
I think that's a bit of an extreme position, as you can always return it. But in the long run if it's a big enough deal people won't buy it. That said, people continue to buy the Saitek radios panels and yokes, so unfortunately it seems the market's standards aren't very high.
Well okay, but I hope you persevered a bit longer than that to make sure. That first impression is the same as any time I've sat in a new car or ridden a new motorbike, it takes a while to get accustomed. Of course, in time you get a sense of the bigger picture.
@@AlmostAviation I've used flight simulator since 1982, and I've owned every version. The Logitech X52 Pro was reasonably good, but the dead zone killed that for me as well. The yoke felt cheap. Having been in the real thing, I felt lied to...it's not even close! Nope...it's going back. Something that expensive should feel more responsive. It had ZERO control surface feedback, and the piston felt as mushy as a 1990 Hyundai's steering!
@@jitkundough Not sure what you mean by feedback, but if you just bought it then returning is a good option as they are reportedly shipping the Alpha XPC from today. Time will tell if that works better.
