| Main > Main Forum |
| Decent MAME Spinner? |
| << < (9/11) > >> |
| Fozzy The Bear:
--- Quote from: spystyle on December 11, 2006, 11:56:14 am ---I have it figured like so: 1" knob with 1" wheel = 1:1 rotation 1" knob with 10" wheel = 10 encoder wheel rotations per 1 knob rotation. --- End quote --- No Craig.... The encoder wheel is on the same shaft as the knob..... There's no gear ratio to calcluate here. 1" knob with 1" wheel = 1:1 rotation 1" knob with 10" wheel = 1:1 rotation 1"knob with 200foot wheel still =1:1 rotation. and in reply to your other question, No the mouse board I found to be a good one had no manufacturer marks on it. Although I still have the box for it and that just says PC Compatible classic scroll mouse PS2. You might be able to get the manufacturer from the technical support address they included on the box. http://technical.philex.com also try: http://www.philexproducts.com/mice_and_accessories.html Best Regards, Julian (Fozzy The Bear) |
| spystyle:
. |
| RandyT:
--- Quote from: spystyle on December 11, 2006, 11:56:14 am ---I have it figured like so: 1" knob with 1" wheel = 1:1 rotation 1" knob with 10" wheel = 10 encoder wheel rotations per 1 knob rotation. --- End quote --- Craig, you are off base here, or at least are presenting your thoughts in a very misleading way. 1 revolution of the knob always equals one revolution of the encoder wheel. The sizes, more likely than not, have more to do with the ability of an individual (or laser cutter) to create the number of "teeth" in the selected medium and do it accurately. If the minimum size aperture you can create is .100" , then it stands to reason that a 72 aperture encoder will need to have a circumference of (72 x 2) x .1 or 14.4". If I still remember my geometry, that comes out to a diameter of a little over 4 1/2". However, if you use the same pitch on a larger diameter, you will obviously be increasing the resolution of the wheel, and sending more data per revolution. But the ratio will always be 1:1. The problems come when you use very fast movements with slow mouse circuitry, or exceed the original aperture count (resolution) of the mouse encoder. If you are looking for mice to hack, look for ones that claim to be "high-resolution", and stick with newer ones rather than some very old junker from the dark ages. And while projects like this one can be fun, unless you have a lot of time on your hands and very little money, you may find that end result is a little disappointing based on the effort required to do it. Those who place value on their time will likely want to look for a different solution. FWIW, RandyT I see Julian also chimed in. Too slow again :) |
| spystyle:
. |
| RandyT:
--- Quote from: spystyle on December 11, 2006, 01:30:27 pm ---Thanks for helping with the math! --- End quote --- No problem. --- Quote ---This project is in keeping with the spirit of the forum. --- End quote --- Absolutely. And FWIW, I wasn't even suggesting my own products. eBay is a great source for usually inexpensive spinners that can be used with MAME with the proper interface / mouse hack. At minimum wage, the do-it-yourself spinner would probably cost $35 in labor plus parts. For not too much more than that, one can get a well-used, but functional true arcade spinner, which would probably be much nicer at the end of the day. It won't be up to par with some of the latest commercial offerings, but still better than homebrew. There are also less time-intensive ways to make encoder wheels than trying to cut one by hand. Laser transparencies and so on. Even using the original encoder from the mouse could be a far better solution. The mouse encoder will normally be higher res than you can cut by hand and take up much less space. It will also already be the right size for the geometry of the sensor layout. One of the most interesting methods I saw for doing this was drilling a hole centered in the end of the spinner shaft that was just large enough for the shaft of the mouse encoder to go into. --- Quote ---and you don't yet offer an "eco" spinner :) --- End quote --- I'll have to think about that one. I have seen at least one person put the ceiling at $40, so I'm not sure what can be done there. People tend to expect far more in terms of durability and performance from a commercial product than one they build themselves, so it may not be possible to do it in a way to make people happy with the result. RandyT *edit to address your edit* --- Quote from: spystyle on December 11, 2006, 01:30:27 pm ---BTW: It is not admirable to dissuade people from "building their own arcade controls" in a forum called "build your own arcade controls" --- End quote --- I'm not trying to "dissuade" anyone from anything. But I do know the quality of the end results from these endeavors because I have done every one of them myself. I wasted a lot of time on these types of projects and was never happy with the results. Even when done well, they are mostly sub-par performers when finished. It's important that this is noted when presenting this type of project (especially one as ancient in premise) so that new individuals do not have unreasonable expectations on the return for the time they invest and walk away from the hobby in frustration. As I said, it can be a fun project to do just for sake of doing it. But there are other methods of getting from A to B that may have a better return for far less investment. And that does not automatically mean you have to purchase a "plug and go product" either. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |