This has been silly from the beginning in case you haven’t noticed. You came to this forum not to really ask a question from us the users (who could give you some real feedback/opinion) but instead you have been trying to convince everybody here that the QR is very important (sorry but we cannot all have the same opinion) and that Simucube needs to bring a new product solely for a new QR. Did you really expect a definite response from Simucube on this in order for you to make an informed decision?
None of us claimed that the current QR is up to today’s standards and we would obviously expect an updated one more up to standards for the SC3 (when it comes). I don’t think anybody disagreed on that.
I also find your comment “its too difficult to talk about a product that people…” kind of insulting considering that a lot of people here spent time to respond to somehow help you out on your decision. But because we do not exactly agree with your opinion/wish, you lost interest… Ah well, sorry…
What did you really expect to achieve, that everybody here will start pushing Simucube to hurry and bring a new wheel with a new QR?
To put an end to this, all of us who have invested in Simucube, did it for: 1. the superior FFB, 2. quality & 3. support. If these 3 matter to you, you will get an SC2 now or wait for an SC3 (unknown when), otherwise look elsewhere. In any case, despite what you think, we are a welcoming community here in this forum trying to actively help people with their simucubes and their issues/queries, etc.
I’m with Panschoin here. You make blanket statements as if they were self-evident. But to many of us, they’re not.
I have 2 wheels, one of which I only keep as a backup. So, for me, the current QR is more than good enough.
And somehow the discussion has shifted. Initially it was about helping you decide between SC2 now, Asetek now, or wait for SC3. We now know that SC3 is not coming anytime soon. Which QR system it will use is pure speculation at this point.
To summarize, SC2 QR is what it is, and SC3 QR is unknown. So what do we gain by harping on the fact that SC2 QR is not cutting edge anymore?
What else are you trying to get from this discussion? A commitment from GD that they’ll implement a QR that you like? An agreement from all of us that SC2 QR is not good enough? You’re not going to get either. So, yes, maybe it’s time to move on.
i replaced the sc2 qr with either xero play or D1 spec qr’s, i have both available. the default sc2 qr is solid but is too clunky and getting a wheel off sometimes needs a bit of “persuasion”, i’m much happier with the D1 spec i’m currently using,
someone needs to make a universal qr that works on all things, i’m fed up with all the propriety crap sqeezing it’s way into the dd market
Regarding the QR, I can comment that there is no such thing as standard QR for simracing, and likely never will be. All manufacturers want to keep their component supply close to them. Its always best to produce one’s own components with one’s own drawings and one’s own tooling and suppliers, that way the supply and lead times are always known. And the fact that some want to use a proprietary protocol (Fanatec) with mandatory wheel side part that communicates so that even FFB will work (vendor lock) where as others do completely different electrical connector scheme on the QR, is the key thing that makes standardization impossible.
You should not worry too much about our plans for the QR; we know what to improve and where the other ones are going. The lead times and prototyping iterations for QR are one thing that one would maybe start a wheel base design project without actually starting to design a new wheel base…
And one thing is sure: a Simucube 2 QR doesn’t offer a wheel to come off the base, it’s just impossible. It therefore is the safest solution. It has a quite simple job, to attach the wheel to the DD, not more not less.
Out of a reflex I initially thought this is about help, but it is about convincing to admit something. I won’t, until it’s correct.
It takes 5 seconds to take off a wheel, and 3 to attach it. The difference comes from one time removing the pin, one time inserting, which is a bit easier
Just one recent example of customer struggling with SC QR.
I have tried OEM QR when I got my SC2 Pro, did not like it a bit, and switched to Q1R I’ve used with OSW for years as soon as could get my hands on 70mm adapter.
Thanks to SRG for detailed instruction on how to upgrade.
I completely understand GD position though, they could only ship the product with QR design of their own or no QR at all.
The design is novel and, as we could see with Asetek, can be improved upon to become one, if not the best QR on the market.
I just wish we could stay with standard USB protocol, when you can just use the same wheel with detachable USB cable or having USB communicate via QR.
All these proprietary solutions do not pass the test of time, happened before and will happen again.
Just look at Logitech proprietary wireless protocol for example, history now in favor of standard BT.
Or desupported Accessory port on SC or even proprietary wireless BT protocol now requiring Simucube Link dongle to use outside SC ecosystem or even with SC3, solution to the problem that could have been avoided if standard BT was used instead.
We also did investigate the available QR options when we designed Simucube 2. Q1R was one of the worst ones due to looks and sensitivity to tolerance between unit to unit, requiring adjustment, so it was discarded quite early on. Stacking several sheet parts on top of each other will cause tolerance stack-up. This is not to say that the QR that we eventually developed, is totally immune to all tolerance issues, but its much better in that regard. Also if we wanted to source the Q1R from its manufacturer back then, the supply just wasn’t estimated to be up to it (but I don’t know if we ever asked or not). And we didn’t want to copy it either, thats not the right thing to do.
There is no standard USB protocol - every manufacturer then has to have their own custom software that has a custom way to configure e.g. clutch paddles calibration and bite point on the wheel.
This port is not a fair comparison. We never intended to make it any sort of an industry standard. The reason we put the Accessory Port on the device at all was that we wanted to make those few hardware manufacturers (and DIY people) that were already making devices for Simucube 1 and also sold Simucube 1 happy without leaving them without a solution when the market was estimated very quickly to switch to Simucube 2. Which was a good right to do, the market did switch very quickly.
You do realize the reasons why we wanted to go proprietary on this, right? The reasons have been described many times previously on this forum, but I can repeat them here if you forgot them:
Windows BT was quite a lot more unstable back then. Windows 7 had still market share. But the BT on Windows 11 is much better now - but is it good enough?
No hot plugging support
All kinds of issues with random BT dongles and their buggy drivers, which would have meant a support nightmare for us. Has this improved enough now? Have you actually done the tests with hundreths of different hardware combinations to support the claim?
With our solution, the whole code path through to the packet that contains button data that gets sent to the PC, is known to us. (adding: Without any 3rd party device drivers, that is the important part!) And we can have custom packets going the other way as well to configure functions on the wheel, which is not possible with BT standard game controller device as far as I know.
While none of the protocols are completely error prone, including SC proprietary solution, the BT issues you have listed are blown out of proportion. It’s widely adopted industry standard everyone is using these days for all sort of peripherals and wireless audio.
Yep, you are right. There have been countless times when Teams meetings have been ruined by BT headset issues.
Is the Simucube Link Hub so bad compared to a USB BT dongle that you would need on your PC? What is the difference exactly? With the Link Hub you can also position it in better place with regards to the rig/PC which you can’t if your PC has some type of integrated BT.
I have so many Bluetooth problems with Windows 11, and had them with Windows 10 too.
While my soundbar from Sonos, which is in the living room, does get recognised/listed (always) my soundbar from Panasonic won’t show up to 90 percent. This, with a wheel, an absolute nightmare…
All PCs, laptops, and phones these days come with integrated BT. No dongles.
Anyway, what’s done is done, no reason to cry over spilled milk.
Was just naively hoping that GD learned the lesson.
this is simply only true for laptops and phones. I’ve never owned a motherboard with a BT on it, and likely will not unless at some point I start to buy prebuilt PCs.
how much does the simucube link cost? i asked before if you would ever do a dongle for SC wirless wheels in case i ever needed to change wheelbase, i guess this is the option for that going forward
The missing features of SC QR is no power and no data. So the actual only missing feature is no power for wheels with screens as everything else can be handled wireless with a battery (well lights are not going to last for ever…).
I welcome the possible improvements if and when they eventually come, but my initial purchase of SC base was affected very little by its QR. If I was not satisfied with it, I could replace it with another relatively easily but I have no reason to do so.
I have nothing but bad experience with BT btw. Even with the built in ones. Only BT that works without hiccups are my ruuvi tags that communicate almost perfectly with a Pi3.
Communication with a PC and Android phone to transfer files for example is just hopeless, streaming music to headphones of speakers cuts down regularly etc.
I know the SC wireless module is like BT, but it still works better than any other BT device I have connected to my computer.
If MB comes with integrated wireless, BT is also included. I am big fan of Asus ROG MBs for my builds, and they all had it included. They come with antennas connectors on the back, you can also connect external antenna to reposition if needed for better reception.
I have also recently added PCI-E wireless/bt card to one of my older PCs to upgrade to wi-fi 5/6, same concept, either antennas bolted to the back or external one.
File transfer and audio require higher bandwidth, and BT is not really meant for that sort of things.
BT Audio why improving on Windows is still not as good as on Android when you can get hi-res protocols like LDAC. Reception stability is highly depends on TWS / BT DAC and codec you are using.
I for instance had nothing but great experience with Technics EAH-AZ80 TWS and FiiO BTR7 with Optimized for Audio Quality 909/990kbps LDAC, you need to flip to that higher quality/bandwidth in Developers settings or use app like BT Codec Changer. Technics is jaw dropping stable even at longer distances from the phone.
I transfer bigger files through cloud services anyway, but sometimes a quick small file should be easy to move between devices. But it’s a luxury if succeeds with my desktop windows machine and phones.
The point being, SC wireless has been hassle free, but other similar type of connections have not (on my desktop).
You are not comparing apples to apples.
SC wireless is the same low bandwidth HID BT profile as BT mouse or keyboard (unlike file transfer or audio), which are almost bullet proof (with the few exceptions as always).
And while I didn’t have any issues and happy with SC wireless in general, unlike some users that reported one issue or the other, which always will be the case no matter what solution is in place, experience on standard BT stack could probably be the same, after all SC wireless is still running on the same BT network protocol, with the advantage of not being locked to SC wheelbase. They could even have shipped wheelbase with USB/BT dongle for users who did not have solid BT in their systems for instance, giving the option use integrated or provided dongle BT.
But I understand that this has not been a top priority for GD when designing proprietary BT profile locking users to wheelbase.
It’s in rear view mirror anyway, what’s done is done.
At least it sounds like we might be able to use our SC wheels with other systems via Link Hub, hopefully it won’t cost arm and leg when released. Wondering if it’s possible to achieve the same with the SW driver instead of hardware piece, probably not.
but everyone is free to use whatever connection for the wheel.
SC users can change whatever QR and BT or usb cable to connect their wheels to their computers. Unlike for example Fanatek customers.
So yeah, they lock compatible wireless wheels to their base if there’s only SC wireless module in them, but no one is forcing the customers to buy those locked in wheels in the first place.
