Quick CF sensitivity question.

[Darth Morbius]

Hey there, long time no see eh? :rolleyes:

Anyway, I am currently finishing up a project for someone, and I am having a hard time getting the sensitivity set for it.

Now before I start, I do realize that the CF is designed to rest as near the pommel as possible. However, due to the design of the saber, and making things accessible, I have to put the CF "In hand" (Grip area) . This is because wiring and the recharge port do not allow for a lot of room, and the easiest way to get the board to sit solidly in the hilt is to use the Stock MR housing for the Luke ROTJ FX to hold the board and switches into place.

As you probably have guessed this is an MR ROTJ that is being converted to a V2 using the TCSS kit, CF 2.63, 2X Lc14500 Ultrafire LI-ions, Recharge port (Under cone knob) and a Premium speaker.

The main issue was the recharge port getting in the way of the board.

I wanted to make it accessible as possible, but I also wanted to make sure that everything was secure, and safe from shorting out.

The way I fixed the first set of issues, was to trim the legs of the recharge port tabs down a little, solder the wiring perpendicular to the port, and then wax potting them to ensure that nothing can ground out. This left me plenty of room for the small battery pack, and enough room to run the switch wiring back from the CF and out to the clamp ends.

However, The saber is either too sensitive, or not enough on the swings.

Now, I have this set up so that once the sound fonts are loaded and configured, that's it... The saber is pretty much going to stay that way. I also did this so that If the new owner wanted to change the settings, they could, but it would require a partial tear down, hence making the usage of quick disconnect wiring a Must.

My question is: Does anyone have any advice on getting the sensitivity settings a little more accurate with the board higher n the hilt than recommended? It doesn't have to be perfect, but close...

[xwingband]

If you make a craddle to hold in there should be plenty of room to stack the port and board together... I know, I did it. Then you can fit loads more batteries too. It's accessible too. I wired Roys Blues' saber that way with an 8.4V AAA NiMH pack so it was great. That was actually one of the easiest hilts I ever did.

[Master Dru-Er]

I've been thinking about a similar issue with planning my hilt out. Placement of the board seems imperative to how much motion your board will recieve. heres a lil pic i got
http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/92/example2ot8.png
Lets say the blue rectangle isa the board and your saber spinning away using the choke point. the board is in a pretty tight pattern probably not "feeling the G forces".
If the board were moved towards the pommel it would recieve more motion but not if your only using the rotj choke point as the center of the spin(can't think of the technical term).
If you were to spin it more towards the bottom i would think it would make it more sensitive depends on how far up the CF is.

[Novastar]

re: sensitivity in CF

First off, as long as the board is not DIRECTLY underneath the fulcrum point of the saber (read: "I put my CF directly under where the forward hand goes"), it should behave just dandy fine. Besides, it's fairly impossible to do that anyhow, as the blade holder + LED area is GENERALLY nearest to or underneath the forward hand.

Secondly, you could slightly (and I do mean slightly) tweak the defaults swing and clash parameters:

hc=255
lc=90
hs=65
ls=12
sc=9
ss=6

Change them by carefully studying Erv's .PDF in order to better configure your saber.

There is also the "noise" parameter, which figures in for a certain amount of signal noise from the battery source and/or sound and/or if you put a vibration motor in there! Again, make small corrections.

Other than that, there is almost no reason why it should not behave well by default. But... everyone has their preferences!

[eastern57]

If your internal set-up is decided, then this might help:

In my experience, the V2.63 in particular, is LESS sensitive to swings than to the V3+. [everyone else, jump on my all you want, it's just my experience].

In order to get more response, I would recommend dropping the low threshholds for the swing and clash to about (ls) 9-10 and (lc) 80-85, respectively. In any other set-up, that would be annoyingly sensitive, but you're working against BOTH board placement and a LESS sensitive sensors.

edit: Gah - novastar, you're too quick...

[xwingband]

In my experience, the V2.63 in particular, is LESS sensitive to swings than to the V3+. [everyone else, jump on my all you want, it's just my experience].


Yup, it was a hardware switch on the sensor between those versions.

[Darth Morbius]

Okay, after a little juggling, and the addition of a spacer between the blade holder and the cradle, I think I have it close enough.

The ranges on the settings are really close to what I am using already, it was just a matter of pushing the cradle back (and keeping it there).

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t45/DarthMorbius1977/V2-Picture2-JPEG.jpg

Green area is board, and red area is battery placement.

The tail end of the board now sits at the end of the ribbed section where the booster section and clamp area screw on. the batteries sit just slightly aft of the midpoint of the clamp and are held in place with a half sleeve that is stopped on the recharge port. Everything seems tight and the saber is much more responsive.

Thanks guys!

[Novastar]

No problem! As it is... I've recently made some changes to my red Flange III saber (which had a motor), and it's starting to register "phantom" swings due to the motor. Which it didn't before...

This probably means that somehow the board is in "better contact" with the vibration on the hilt or motor. I don't know *WHY*, but... it changed from working well to not so well... :)

Anyhow, I'm off to adjust sensitivity settings! :) Hopefully I'll be able to get something acceptable! I wonder what changed...