Serious question ( Crazy system comparison )

RCHeliguy · Dec 5, 2019

After watching this, I looked at the overall Price, weight, and capabilities.
Then thought about how this is an experiment that was over the weight capacity of the traction loss base and would void the warranty.
Then I thought about the separate systems working independently and overall software support.

Suddenly the beast below seems like a sane solution.
Sure it's 28,000 Euro which is actually less expensive than the system above, but it could hold a loaded up Sim-Lab P1 system with driver and be at half it's weight limit.
It has a much better range of motion.
The power requirements are 220V 12A which is certainly doable compared to most DIY actuator systems.
Not only that it supports every Sim title that anyone cares about with a single integrated interface.

I realize that either of these systems is pie in the sky to the vast majority of us. But in an apples to apples comparison, this actually seems like "The One" if I could have anything and had the room for it.

PS-6TM-550

Motion platform PS-6TM-550 offers 550kg payload, ±130 mm heave, ±17° pitch, ±15° roll, ±17° yaw, -120 +190 mm surge and ±150 mm sway.

motionsystems.eu

This is in the fully lowered position.

Cyberbug · Dec 5, 2019

The jcl system is really expensive, the only thing is the form factor and space required.

but this would be cool, if you have the space and be able to mount monitors and everything on it

Tronicgr_6DOF · Dec 5, 2019

RCHeliguy said:
After watching this, I looked at the overall Price, weight, and capabilities.
Then thought about how this is an experiment that was over the weight capacity of the traction loss base and would void the warranty.
Then I thought about the separate systems working independently and overall software support.

Suddenly the beast below seems like a sane solution.
Sure it's 28,000 Euro which is actually less expensive than the system above, but it could hold a loaded up Sim-Lab P1 system with driver and be at half it's weight limit.
It has a much better range of motion.
The power requirements are 220V 12A which is certainly doable compared to most DIY actuator systems.
Not only that it supports every Sim title that anyone cares about with a single integrated interface.

I realize that either of these systems is pie in the sky to the vast majority of us. But in an apples to apples comparison, this actually seems like "The One" if I could have anything and had the room for it.

PS-6TM-550

Motion platform PS-6TM-550 offers 550kg payload, ±130 mm heave, ±17° pitch, ±15° roll, ±17° yaw, -120 +190 mm surge and ±150 mm sway.

motionsystems.eu

This is in the fully lowered position.
View attachment 337607

Or you can make a recessed version of this 6DOF with AASD servomotors and a planetary gearboxes, for even less... perhaps around 3000-4000USD:

RCHeliguy · Dec 5, 2019

Sorry, but all that stuff looks extremely flimsy and the software to drive it, which is critical for it to do anything worthwhile is not nearly at the level of the Motion Systems stuff.

If it can't support a serious rig that weighs 300lbs + driver weight, there are too many compromises in terms of the controls, mount points and ability to handle the power of a direct drive steering system.

The idea is cake and eat it. You get to keep your solid chassis and have it move well, otherwise you are taking steps backwards.

RCHeliguy · Dec 5, 2019

Cyberbug said:
The jcl system is really expensive, the only thing is the form factor and space required.

but this would be cool, if you have the space and be able to mount monitors and everything on it

The point I was making was that the JCL system on top of the Traction Loss system that was not designed to handle that much weight was an experiment, not a long term solution.

That's why I mentioned the 6 DOF Motion Systems rig which can support plenty of weight while having better range of motion and a single integrated motion software package to drive it that has supports almost any titles that we care about.

It's slightly less expensive, but much more powerful and made to handle this kind of load easily.

BTW I'm not suggesting that it is something feasible for most people either in terms of price or having a large area that you can drive a fork lift into. This thing requires head room and a ladder and it is obviously not something that is home friendly.

My guess is that anyone considering something like that would use part of a garage or large shop with drive in access and a solid 220V circuit. ( For the record I have no room in my current home to support anything like this even if I were ready to order one right now )

Tronicgr_6DOF · Dec 5, 2019

The idea was I trying to give is that you can easily make a rigid 6DOF with the compact size of this:

Sure if you have €28000.00 that the MotionSystem platform costs, you could have a workshop cut you parts for 10 rigs of the small 6DOF platform I suggested... Or even copy the metal-cut arms of the MotionSystems platform...

RCHeliguy · Dec 5, 2019

Why would I want 10 wobbly systems that can't support high quality controls?

As a starting point if it can't support my rig, I couldn't care less how cheap it is. Otherwise you are taking a good experience and ruining it vs. improving it.

Thanos I appreciate the work you are doing, but look at the first post in this thread and see the products being compared. You are pitching the absolute wrong product. It's like a Yugo vs a Corvette.

Take the picture below, remove the NLRv3, casters and a couple of the transducers. Once you have a system that can handle what's left with me in the chair, then we have hit the absolute minimum criteria. The flight controls would be removed under normal driving operation, but ideally it could handle that weight too.

Tronicgr_6DOF · Dec 5, 2019

Oh no, I think you misunderstood... the Full Motion Dynamics video that shows the wobbly motion is because of the higher latency smart servo motors they used, which was not really accurate and clearly under-powered... This was shown just for example.

The 6DOF can be solid stable using the AASD15A servomotors... See this one here, DIY and cost only a quarter of the price of the MotionSystems platform:

RCHeliguy · Dec 5, 2019

Thanos, I've watched your Discord channel for a while.

I see lots of great stuff going on and the trajectory you are on may eventually lead to something I'll be interested in, but I haven't seen anything that I would spend money on, yet.

Sorry. I'm very impressed with what is going on, but at least to me it isn't soup yet.

I haven't seen a hex solution that will support a "real" rig yet.

BTW I supported you getting your thread back. Please don't make me regret that support.

Tronicgr_6DOF · Dec 5, 2019

Dear Mark,

I'm sorry, I don't make or sell these motion platforms... These are just DIY from gamers in the motion simulation community. Sorry I mentioned them. Obviously the price is not burning matter here.

I'll leave you to the commercial products. No worries. I'm sure you will find a lot of these around.

Thanks
Thanos

Mr Latte · Dec 5, 2019

The whole hardware section underneath the P1X could be placed in a base below the Next Level motion and used as a plinth/platform to house all those electronics needed. Just have the actuators attached to the P1 and this would also greatly reduce the weight. Apply a much lighter and neater solution for the surge.

It looks rather awkward the way Barry stacked the hardware like a Club Sandwich.

No doubt however it was a lot of fun and immersive to experience. Someone with plenty of money is likely going to copy it in some form but maybe add in a GS5 with some nice tactile.

The question is how long to d.i.y motion mimics this front and rear traction loss?

RCHeliguy · Dec 5, 2019

I agree that his P1 Chassis could be unburdened of the D-Box electronics.

Still the questions I was wondering about is what if anything a hex system with very well designed software that can really orchestrate motion would be missing.

My first thought is that you would "might" need a seat belt tensioner, but I'm not sure about that.

Mr Latte · Dec 6, 2019

RCHeliguy said:
I agree that his P1 Chassis could be unburdened of the D-Box electronics.

Still the questions I was wondering about is what if anything a hex system with very well designed software that can really orchestrate motion would be missing.

My first thought is that you would "might" need a seat belt tensioner, but I'm not sure about that.

Maybe it depends, if you want a motion system to thrill and entertain or be focused on usable feedback on what the car is doing to improve the driving. Barry has had motion seat and dBox experience yet it was with this new Next Level motion being used he was able to improve his personal best lap time.

The traction loss feedback it gives and the surge should help with braking and help to reduce moments of loss of traction. It appears Barry was able to get a feel for this and it improve his own racing. This system IIRC won an innovation award for motion cockpits in 2018 at the Sim Expo. Its still room-friendly too.

RCHeliguy · Dec 6, 2019

Next Level Racing has impressive software driving their hardware which I think is just as critical as the hardware.

What their traction loss system doesn't list are it's yaw specs. Their large hex box has +/- 15 degrees at 250 degrees per second. I believe it would have a faster reaction time than the dedicated traction loss system.

I realize that a mortal can assemble their traction loss system and bring into any room in their home which is important.

If the Traction loss system had a supported weight of 600lbs instead of 512lbs it would have crossed an important threshold and would have allowed a lot more people to use them.

OTOH the 1200lb load of the larger hex system is a bit overkill. Granted it is aimed at commercial markets.

So I think they are missing a sweet spot.

Beef36 · Dec 6, 2019

RCHeliguy · Dec 6, 2019

What I'm seeing is ZERO interest in the integrated Hex option and a focus on finding a way synchronize multiple systems together to create a solid 6 DOF system.

From the standpoint of a solution that more of us could fit into our home, that makes complete sense.

It seems that NLR has hit on something that works very well with their traction loss system. The problem is that is only part of the solution and there is no holistic solution yet that allows everything we want. But their traction loss is very smooth and the way it operates is smart in terms of both the software and design.

I've seen a number of DIY projects that attempt to do this using linear actuators. Typically they use one actuator and have a single pivot point mimicking the way SimExperience has been doing this for years. I haven't seen any that handle traction loss nearly as well as the NLR system does.

I've also seen a number of surge systems. The JCL system that leverages seatbelt tension allowing more effect with less motion seems like a good compromise between purely motion based systems or systems with seat belt tightening motors. It may also be the optimum solution for a home system. However as shown in the review the JCL system by itself is not nearly as rigid as the Sim-Lab P1 platform.

After spending the last nearly year modifying my rig, I've been extremely happy with how flexible my P1 chassis is. I've modified it over and over and over again. I think for most of us it is the benchmark of what we want to have because of it's rigidity and flexibility.

So what did Barry do? He modified the JCL system to fit his P1 chassis and put all that on the NLR traction loss system. He attempted to create a cake and eat it platform. I think the D-Box software and magnetic actuators may have also helped, but I know giving D-Box any credit in these forums is hard.

At this point I consider any viable solution one that starts with a Sim-Lab P1 chassis or equivalent as a starting point. If it can't support that, it's not got an icicles chance in hell of gaining serious traction.

Tronicgr_6DOF · Dec 6, 2019

I find it interesting Barry is using PT-ACTUATOR foot caps on that platform... where did he find them? LOL

Apart from the joke, its hard to find commercial 6DOF systems that are ready to go for home use. Either too big, or too complicated...

RCHeliguy · Dec 6, 2019

Like it or not this was a DIY system. Barry was finding ways to attach things together in ways they were not designed to do. Also notice the aluminum brackets that he fabricated and used 8020 corner braces to attach to the frame in that same picture.

Why is it funny that Barry used those brackets to capture the transducer feet? They are parts he had on hand. I understood that he was planning to do a review at some point on a DIY motion system. I would think you would be happy about that.

My suggestion is that you take a step back and and try not to see everything as something that you have to be in competition with.