Who would like a motion system by Granite?

Hey guy’s, it’s been a while since my last visit here.

To answer my own question: i would :smile:
Sure i know about sfx100 and although it would be a nice project i’d rather have a plug and play system for a reasonable price and with the Granite Devices quality and passion.

1 Like

That would be great.

First they make it open source and let everyone build their own rigs.
Then when it becomes stable after everyone done bug reports and commented how to make things better they make it closed source and make you buy a specific rig.
The rig will then come with many nannies so you don’t die.

There are some blockers:

  • SFX-100 software and hardware licensing terms prevents us from taking direct advantage from it
  • Their usage of Mige servo drives is something that we cannot currently match in cost
  • D-Box owns the patents related to some types of linear actuators.

However, we are constantly looking at things…


Según lo veo hicieron un estudio total en el que todos salían beneficiados y ahora hacen un producto específico para poder entrar en el mercado de volantes y que otros no se lleven todo el beneficio, y además siguen dando soporte a sc1/ion/argon , todos deberíamos estar contentos y alegrarnos de que existan más opciones para el usuario medio.

Google translate:

Is this a reply to me? If so please write in english from now on.

Yes It is , apologize

Well… I don’t understand how it is an answer to my post!?

Don’t be silly, if you like the product, buy it and use it, if you don’t, move on. You have the freedom to use the OSW, I have posted many work logs over the past 5 years of how to use different servos with mmos FW, or the original SC1 GD FW :wink:

Technology advances, not sure why it should sit in limbo for guys like you who refuse to progress. Do you still run Windows for Workgroups 3.1, or are you at least on NT4.0 now?

Pardon my sarcasm, but before you verbalise your thoughts, perhaps go STUDY the history of OSW, from Argon to the Simucube1…you might come to realise a few key important facts, and find your comment above is pretty displaced and inaccurate :wink:

1 Like

I am free to believe what I want. Am I not?

You can believe what you want, but if you make silly comments, don’t be surprised if you’re called out.

And your above comments are very much off-color and uncalled for, tbh. If you have something to contribute, please do do in a positive way, otherwise just move along, not sure why you want to troll.

Silly to you maybe, but the nannies are hindering me to buy SimuCUBE 2.
Moving away from Open Source makes it impossible for me or anyone else to remove that nanny.

Keep up with the times. Changes are coming :wink:

If it was affordable for the masses and worked well id be in. Some of the options like the latest traction loss are great but the price is insane.

1 Like

Some time ago (well before SC2 was released) during one of my visits to GD HQ in Tampere, I briefly raised this topic with Tero and Team, but like Mika says above, there are several challenges to overcome. It will be technically possible to adapt the current SC2 controller to a smaller (more suitable for motion-rigs) servo, but a lot of software dev will be required to do the game-interface…

This only my personal opinion…fact is, the current sfx diy solution is quite good, but a lot of work, plus done headaches, reminiscent of the old Arhon OSW days… X4…

On the other hand, d-box is prohibitively expensive, for the same money they ask for a 4-actuator system, I can build a new 2000hp-capable long-block engine for my Mustang. Guess which one I will pick :slight_smile:

Hopefully one day, GD will revisit this and offer a solution, patents allowing, as certainly, it will be significantly more affordable than that sell-your-organs d-box setup.



Yes, maybe I’m too old to keep up. That may be true.
They should never have implemented the nannies in the first place. Idiocy.