Storm of War:Battle of Britain - DevicLink Improvements

[FCIProject]

Hello

First of all I would like to thank Oleg and his team who added the DeviceLink Protocol to IL2. Over the last three years I have used this interface to learn Java and create the FCIProject software; http://www.ge-tec.co.uk/FCIProject/ Progressively sophisticated versions of my software has helped me develop my Java skills further and further.

With the up and coming release of Storm of War: Battle of Britain I am hoping there will be improvements and additions to the DeviceLink Protocol. My main hope is the removal of the restriction on using the protocol while flying online.

There are a other changes I would like to see with DeviceLink;

1) Instead of 'toggling' the state of parameters, such as the engines, it would be useful to be able to set the state on On or Off. And be able to interrogate the state of parameter. This is the other most important change I would like to see.

2) The data for the Vertical Speed Indicator should be representative of the virtual VSI. At the moment it is not and I have to 'smooth out' the telemetry. This is the same for the Slip/Turn coordinator.

3) The fuel level never goes down when reading the value from DeviceLink.

4) The fuel mixture settings are completely missing and need adding.

5) A better way of representing the time data (20) should be found. The current way seems incorrect (or I haven't figured it out properly).

There are two new sets of telemetry values I would like; Force Feedback levels and sound levels, split into separate channels. These telemetry values would be useful for motion platform systems, such as gSeat-2;

http://ge-tec.dyndns.org:8080/UKCock...s/show/11.page

I will add other enhancements and additions to this post. If anyone has used the DeviceLink Protocol and would like to add their own requirements, please do so.

I trust Oleg and his team will look at these changes to DeviceLink and add them to Battle of Britain

[Skoshi Tiger]

I really hope they do!

After seeing some of your work on the web, I can only hope that sooner or later some of the things your developing filter down to the commercial market.

Cheers and keep up the good work!

[FCIProject]

I am hoping to make the FCIProject a marketable product soon. The first 'commercial' module I will release will be for controlling www.flightillusion.com instruments. Another module will be for www.simkits.com.

The other module I would like to release is a virtual instruments module, on the lines of an improved UDPSpeed.

Skoshi Tiger I have a marketing question for you; how much would you be prepared to pay for this type of custom, add-on, software?

[Zoom2136]

A software module for controlling a motion platform is great. But I would not pay for such a thing... This is due to the fact that I could buy the thing and possibly never get it to work due to my limited knowledge of electronics... As I understand it, one would also need to build such a motion platform.

What exactly would your module include... Only the software or the software and the required electronic modules (prefab) and a complete set of plan to put such a motion platform together... If this was the case I would pay upward of 750$ for such a thing as my downside risk is low... I only have to connect part A with part B...

You will have to figure out the best "package" in order to reach the maximum of clients... Having something to complex will seriously limit your market (due to the average guys having well... average knowhow)... On the other hand, having a "turn key" system will probably make such a system prohibitive in terms of $$$$. So you will have to figure out a way to balance it...

[FCIProject]

Hi Zoom2136

Thanks for your comments. The FCIProject is not just about controlling motion platforms. The original idea for the software was to control simulated flight instruments. This is the primary reason for the project. Because the FCIProject is modular it can be used to control any hardware one wants to work with the simulator.

The Flight Illusion and SimKits modules are the standard parts of the software. However, the FCIProject lends itself to custom modules such as gSeat-2.

I believe a virtual instruments module would be the one most people would be interested in, i.e. a replacement and enhanced version of UDPSpeed. This is a module I am going to work on soon, but I would need to learn graphics programming

Gauging the price for this type of bespoke programming is not easy. I believe $30-40 per module would be reasonable. I am not trying to get rich. I want to earn a little bit of money so I can buy more kit for my SimPit

[310thDiablo]

FCIPRoject....your idea sounds great. As an offline user of UDPSpeed I woould love to see an improved and better functioning product. I also think that virtual guages and assesories would be best for most people. As botox has done I would recommend the ability to or to fashion custom pits representing specific aircraft. ie. P-47 D-10,22,27, Late.

[Zoom2136]

Originally Posted by FCIProject

Gauging the price for this type of bespoke programming is not easy. I believe $30-40 per module would be reasonable. I am not trying to get rich. I want to earn a little bit of money so I can buy more kit for my SimPit

Well you see I'm a business man... I beleive that I should get a decent return on my investment (it being time or $$$). That is why I charge my client 300$ per hour for my services. You should market your idea based on $$$ for comparable products... or based on the price that your intended custumers are willing to pay... In a way to maximize your profit... this is only good business pratices... Also more money could finance more interesting project... It's not just to get rich.... (though that would not hurt...)

[FCIProject]

Originally Posted by 310thDiablo

FCIPRoject....your idea sounds great. As an offline user of UDPSpeed I woould love to see an improved and better functioning product. I also think that virtual guages and assesories would be best for most people. As botox has done I would recommend the ability to or to fashion custom pits representing specific aircraft. ie. P-47 D-10,22,27, Late.

Thanks for the encouraging words. I will hopefully work with DDastardly and Bolox to create the artwork needed for individual aircraft instruments.

Please keep in mind I am going to have to learn graphics programming. I am going to order this book;

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Computer-Gra...0682413&sr=1-2

And make a start soon

[hugso]

Firstly a big thank you for developing such a fantastic flight sim as IL2.

I have developed a pneumatic motion platform which I am very pleased with (gSeat-2), but is obviously complicated and expensive.

Prior to this, to give added immersion, I added bass-shakers to my seat and rudder pedals. Initially this was simple audio, but later I used the FFB signals to give the bumps and thumps on landing and taxiing and vibrations when gear down and near stalling and so on. This feels really good and would be a really simple thing to do if there was an output from IL2 giving this FFB signal as an audio output which could simply be fed into an amp. Maybe this could be done through DeviceLink. At present I have to physically break into my FFB joystick and pick up the signal and use a complicated filter system to remove the "stiffness" signal which causes spurious rumbles.

Believe me, the the extra immersion created by feeling these vibrations through your hands and feet and seat is really worth while.

So, my suggestion is that the bumps and thumps information which is sent to FFB joysticks is also sent to DeviceLink as an analogue audio signal.

Once again, thanks for brilliant flight sim.

[bolox]

improvements to devicelink i would like to see in BOB:-

first off would be a complete set of GET commands for all the parameters that don't have one but have a SET command- gun/bombsite, cockpit lights etc- would be rather useful for us pit builders. radiator position and mixture also need to be added(assuming BOB uses a similar engine management structure) if the tools are there we will use them

online ability is another thing that has long been requested but constantly runs into accusations of possible cheating. in the past it has been suggested there be a sever side switch to enable/disable the 'blocked' devicelink parameters. this is one way round this. i have another suggestion for how to make it cheat proof, add some additional devicelink parameters that read the instrument reading from the plane, not the plane's 'physical state'. this would mean you can't display information not available in the real aircraft and as a bonus would give 'smoothed' readings identical to the ingame dials- vsi is instantaneous in devicelink whereas ingame it appears to be quite heavily damped for instance.
this method i think reduces/eliminates the cheating potential even further but it would disable G readings for motion platforms but it does have a possibility of 'damaged' instruments

fuel and oil pressure readings would be nice also ammo counters where available, basically if the game engine calculates it i'd like to display it (realistically

sending separate channels of ffb info as a readable parameter sounds iinteresting... now what would that lead to

you can find my devicelink pits here
http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com...14809&start=30
if you haven't seen them yet