USB standard doesn’t go anywhere, only gets better.
Why bother with proprietary protocol when 99.99% of sim rigs are a hodge-podge combo of components from different vendors with only common denominator that they all use USB.
Now to connect wheelbase I’d need to use ethernet hub AND USB port. 
Yeah I don’t quite understand the benefit of Simucube Link other than to Simucube for vendor lock-in. Maybe I’m missing something, but this isn’t exciting to learn.
1 Like
USB bandwidth “limitation”
- USB 1.1: The maximum bandwidth is 12 megabits per second (Mbps).
- USB 2.0: The maximum bandwidth is 480 Mbps.
- USB 3.0: The maximum bandwidth is 5 gigabits per second (Gbps).
- USB 3.1: The maximum bandwidth is 10 Gbps.
- USB 4: The maximum bandwidth is 40 Gbps.
To get to USB4 speed with Ethernet you need Cat8.2 heavy gauge rigid Ethernet cable with each conductor foil shielded.
Powered USB hub is all that is needed for all even the most demanding applications.
Add to that that bandwidth will still be limited by single upstream USB port that Ethernet Hub will be connected to.
If anything, USB has become more unstable over the years. People are putting all kinds of devices in increasing level of complexity on the PC. USB is based on grounded signaling and is not designed to tolerate EMI and ground loops very well - and those are an issue, sometimes more so than not, when one puts high powered actuators on the rig. Manufacturers have to try to make things work the best they can, but still people have issues. Sometimes grounding has to be cut with a USB isolator in some random point, sometimes things just work until suddenly they don’t. Simucube sees a huge opportunity here to improve the reliability and usability of the sim racing rig components. In the ethernet based network devices can also talk to each other which is a major advantage.
its not any kind of vendor lock-in, nobody is forcing to suddenly switch over from USB to something else.
But lets end this speculative discussion here. I just wanted to end false hopes of us implementing a USB pass through into a speculative next gen wheel base.
1 Like
Ethernet cable is not immune to ground loop issues.
And how do you transmit power via ethernet cable, sounds like even low power devices would require separate power source vs. powered by USB.
I also find it funny that we are now seeing this discussion when we already have a well working, proven Simucube Link based device on the market, and nobody has complained about the Simucube Link architecture there.
1 Like
I think nobody here (not there) realized that proprietary solution used for ActivePedals is going to be new Simucube standard going forward, even for wheelbase only users.
Sorry for caring about future product direction, at least you find it entertaining, so not all is lost.
You can transmit power over ethernet, from ~12-70 watts on current standards. No idea if this is what Simucube will do though 
I’m going to reserve judgement until I see any new theoretical product announced. But one of the biggest issues in sim racing hardware right now are the countless proprietary quick releases, and those that are powered + connected aren’t as good as they could be, and/or are proprietary.
I think many of us were hoping that Simucube could be a leader in solving this problem by building an open QR standard (one that was actually good) that everyone could use. There is precedent for companies doing this in other industries (look at NACS for the North American EV market), and the same thing is sorely needed for sim racing QRs.
Maybe an ethernet-based solution is the way to go given the issues that Mika cites. I just hope it could be opened-up to become a market standard (if so).
1 Like
Yeah, learned about PoE today. Knowledge is power. 
They seem to feed power separately from data feed into ActivePedals
https://docs.simucube.com/ActivePedal/Cabling.html
BTW, where does it put Simucube Accessory port, are you completely abandoning this standard, there were vendors using it for some peripheral, like pedals.
There were some vendors for accessory port. Namely, Sim-Tag, Racewerk, and to lesser extent NSH Racing and Sim-Demon (formerly Simtech Racing) used to make pedal sets and shifters for it. Outside of those, the accessory port wasn’t really adopted as much. I don’t believe the first two of those vendors even operate anymore, and the numbers of devices made by NSH Racing and Sim-Demon were very low (I haven’t even seen any devices they’ve made, only rumours).
That’s unfortunate, but not unexpected when going proprietary route, they should have known better.
I think they all had possibility for the customer to get either the cable to connect to the Simucube 2, or a USB controller. Racewerk had rather capable software also for their pedals when used with USB, I don’t know about the others.
I think Racewerk had special dongle to simulate Accessory port via USB.
Why go Accessory port in the first place?
Ain’t it a good idea to use the DB15 port which is available anyway? Instead of using another USB device and port?
TD offers the possibility to combine a sequential shifter with the paddles of a steering wheel (that of course runs with the Granite wireless protocol). The port can be used with a shifter alone aswell .
So what I can say about USB isn’t necessarily positive either. If GD also invents something for the studio and home recorders, the company in Tampere will become a pilgrimage site!! 
And speed isn’t everything, especially since we sim racers don’t need that much. Well, if I’m right, even ridiculously little! @Andrew_WOT
I’m just guessing that the torque value is accurate in 1024 values. That would be 11 bits. There is also one bit for the + or -. So whether the torque comes from left or right. So 12Bit and that would be excessive accurate for us!. At a sample rate of 400Hz and a bit depth of 12bit.
This results in 4800Bits/s = 4,8KBits/s = 0,0048Mbits/s
Is that correct? @Mika
I have posted that because “limited USB bandwidth” was listed as one of the reason for using Ethernet in Simucube Link.
I don’t care if it’s just another proprietary protocol like now dead Accessory Port as long as it does not require wheelbase only users (which is probably 99.99% of userbase) jumping through the hoops with installing additional contraption in between USB and wheelbase.
Ideal scenario is USB only to wheelbase and if you need extra things from Simucube ecosystem (like ActivePedals or whatever else is in the pipeline), you use RJ45 connector on wheelbase itself, just like accessory port today. You can also plug in Ethernet hub if you need more than one port.
But I am sure by the time this will be a thing, market will look quite different with even more choices to decide if Simucube is the right brand. With Asetek at play it’s not cut and clear even today.
In general standardization is what keeps us vendor lock-in free. Really wish GD used standard BT like CubeControl in their new wheels, this way I could keep all my wheels which otherwise would need to be utilized somehow. Textbook “vendor lock-in”, “a situation where the cost of switching to a different vendor is so high that the customer is essentially stuck with the original vendor”.
Another example is bolt pattern of wheel base hub, why it’s not standard 70mm?
the bandwidth though that many motherboards have is indeed limited.
If you feed Ethernet hub from USB, how exactly you lift that bandwidth up, you are still limited by upstream speed, no?
Another thought, how about using ActivePedals or other GD peripheral with different wheels, with non standard protocol you will be locked into Simucube only ecosystem.
Or would have to use (if GD is nice enough to provide one) some converter dongle similar to what Racewerk had to build for their “Simucube” pedals.
The Simucube Link hub is just another USB device. I don’t really see it and devices behind it any differently than a bunch of USB devices, and you can still use all other peripherals via USB.