Spd-brk and DogFight-Knob assembly incorrect

Hi Jonah I'm in the middle of building a DIY pit and have been going through your files to make a diy throttle and I've noticed that the Spd-Brk and DogFight-Knob would not be able to function as they are? They look to firstly be oriented incorrectly inside the slider housing but with the knob itself being somewhat "twisted" (if that makes sense? - the top of the knob appears to be oriented 90 degrees out compared to the bottom of its own part), plus the slider housing does not allow for any "sliding" motion? I'm viewing these with Fusion 360 in order to prepare for 3D printing parts that I require. There is also a "possible" problem with the Ant-Elev assembly too, in that it does not sit flush with the BottomBody without clipping where the collar is. Is there perhaps any design reasons for these or do these need to be amended? I can alter these for my needs using Fusion, however I would not be able to submit the changes in the same file type as I do not use Solid Works (I'm pretty new to Fusion as it is). Thanks

Not sure exactly which files you are talking about. However, if you are talking about some assembly files. Then you might want to know that somebody said "... only Solidworks knows how to deal with Solidworks constraints correctly..."

Take SpeedBrake as an example. Screen Shot 2019-10-16 at 7 13 57 AM

The above is a section view of the assembly inside SolidWorks. See the groove key match? Anyway, what I am trying to say is that when viewing SolidWorks assemblies, you might want to pitch in a large pinch of salt. The constraints and alignments might not be processed correctly.

The following screenshot is what they look like in final assembly (some screenshots on my website actually have the wrong orientation, and I am too lazy to correct them). Screen Shot 2019-10-16 at 7 05 43 AM

As to the Ant-Ent, you are correct that the bottom of the Ant-Inner-Block does extend out and collided with the Collar. It should have been flush with the Collar and extend upward slightly. I did remeasure the real parts. The the dimensions are correct. So, you might want to dig a little recess in the Cap to accommodate that (I think I lost the original cap, so I might have BS'd on this one), or sand the Inner-Block a bit, particularly if you 3D print them. No idea how fat the nozzle you are going to be using.

Note that, these 3D models are "as measured." They are not plans for manufacturing or even prototyping. You inevitably will have to modify them to fit your manufacturing process and materials.

Anyway, I haven't gotten that far of replicating the knobs yet. I am only this far in casting it in Bronze. The black one in the following picture is the real F16A TQS for your reference.

You might wanna check with Corki here, https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:3447345. He printed some of those knobs and seem like he got them fitted together.

Hi Jonah

Thank you very much for the in-depth reply. I very much appreciate your time and the images and details you have provided. I especially value the time you have spent on this project and the willingness to offer the information and details you have garnered in doing so too. It was only after I submitted this, that I then saw your website and then learned of the problems you had faced with people using your work for their own gains, so after this I honestly didn't expect a response, so I thank you again.

I think it is just indeed an orientation problem to be honest after seeing the details you have provided. I clearly misunderstood the way that the speedbrake and dogfight switch operated and (wrongly) assumed that the "cap" and the "barrel" were supposed to slide inside the "mason slide adaptor" - meaning I had started to modify this to have an oval hole rather than a circular one, and that the tab on the bottom of the "barrel" would then actuate a switch. I can now see that this is incorrect. It was after checking Corki's example that you kindly pointed me towards that I realised the barrel is not supposed to be a solid object as but needs adapting. I was aware the throttle body would need adapting to create mounting points for internal hardware but hadn't considered the "knobs" to need adapting in this way.

I have the F16 in DCS and have tried using VR to get as many cockpit details as possible to re-create it, but there are only so many details that can be seen animated in such details and without having to contort into strange positions to see - what I must look like while doing this I have no idea.

The only things I have available currently (and only recently acquired - so still learning here too) for manufacturing my parts are a couple of 3D resin printers (one bottom up and one top down) and a large format co2 laser cutter / engraver and this is the first project of this kind that I am attempting along with my 10 year old son and so far I am hooked. So far, we have the panel engraving down to an art form using 3 layers of acrylic for back lighting purposes, so while I am getting on with the design and artwork for those, I am also trying to learn Fusion 360 and get to grips with some 3D modelling of which I have only very basic previous experience of using in Blender. - This leads me to thank you once again because you have provided me with a fantastic platform of which to learn off of your work and start by modifying things and learning as I go on. I think if I had to start from the ground up then I would have a much much (MUCH) longer road ahead of me with not much of a clue where to start.

Also: I don't wish to anger you, but it's confession time as I believe that honesty up front is always best: I AM from the EU, however not out of choice. I'm in the UK and we voted to leave the EU in 2016, but alas down to corrupt politicians and people who cannot accept the outcome of votes, here we are still remaining in the EU (hopefully not for long). Again, I only learnt of your stance on EU copyright law after I had already gotten your work from GitHub and before reading your website, so I do apologise. I have absolutely no intention of selling or otherwise distributing any work of yours, or my own for that matter, so I please ask that you make an exception on this occasion. However, if not then I will happily delete the files that I downloaded and respect your wishes.

Thank you once again

Kind regards Steve

On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 at 19:15, Jonah Tsai notifications@github.com wrote:

Not sure exactly which files you are talking about. However, if you are talking about some assembly files. Then you might want to know that somebody said "... only Solidworks knows how to deal with Solidworks constraints correctly..."

Take SpeedBrake as an example. [image: Screen Shot 2019-10-16 at 7 13 57 AM] https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/2838714/66927537-d06e9200-efe4-11e9-85d9-642a83d36ce5.png

The above is a section view of the assembly inside SolidWorks. See the groove key match? Anyway, what I am trying to say is that when viewing SolidWorks assemblies, you might want to pitch in a large pinch of salt. The constraints and alignments might not be processed correctly.

The following screenshot is what they look like in final assembly (some screenshots on my website actually have the wrong orientation, and I am too lazy to correct them). [image: Screen Shot 2019-10-16 at 7 05 43 AM] https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/2838714/66928786-cbaadd80-efe6-11e9-8c44-e58f626517fa.png

As to the Ant-Ent, you are correct that the bottom of the Ant-Inner-Block does extend out and collided with the Collar. It should have been flush with the Collar and extend upward slightly. So, you might want to dig a little recess in the Cap to accommodate that (I think I lost the original cap, so I might have BS'd on this one), or sand the Inner-Block a bit, particularly if you 3D print them. No idea how fat the nozzle you are going to be using.

Note that, these 3D models are "as measured." They are not plans for manufacturing or even prototyping. You inevitably will have to modify them to fit your manufacturing process and materials.

Anyway, I haven't gotten that far of replicating the knobs yet. I am only this far in casting it in Bronze. The black one in the following picture is the real F16A TQS for your reference. [image: IMG_1176] https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/2838714/66945129-60233900-f003-11e9-9762-69842c010ca0.png

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/JonahTsai/F16/issues/1?email_source=notifications&email_token=ANQDPSU3GLYPLSBDVK334F3QO5K3NA5CNFSM4JBKVDH2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEBNOEMI#issuecomment-542827057, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ANQDPSWQSRAG3ZPKNEDHDXTQO5K3NANCNFSM4JBKVDHQ .

Seriously... what I said on my website about retracting or limiting the license is simply an impotent symbolic protest against the EU link tax law etc. I can't legally take it back or void the license. The license is CC Non-Commercial Intl... it sticks like a mallusk. There is just no taking it back. So, don't worry about it. I have no intention of cutting my EU friends off.

Think about it. CC license allows you to republish copyrighted works, at least on the same terms. All you have to do to republish it is retaining the the copyright notice/license. So, what happens if you republished my works? Or republished before I attempted to revoke it? That publication is now under your name. What rights do I have to retract your legal publication? Moreover, think on the practical side.... Even if I could, my only recourse in such "dispute" is to sue you if you disagreed. Ah... I have to spend my hard earned money to defend my give-out-for-free hobby works? Hell no! Even though I have no kids to feed, I still don't want to allocate my money on such BS.

One of the main points of OpenSource licenses is to prevent such thing from happening -- I can't take it back, so you don't have to worry about using it, even after I regret publishing it. Not that I regret publishing it, I just regret being called a thief for publishing these works. Yes, some internet troll did call me a thief for using a caliper to reverse-engineer LMCO's designs, in order to justify their thieving -- using CC Non-commercial works in commercial settings. He claimed that because I steal from LMCO's F16 design, thus they are not stealing from me. That logic doesn't even compute! You know, the classic dishonest behavior.... when cornered with their faults, shift attention by claiming the opposition's fault, no matter how ridiculous the claim is, put the other side on defense. And it angers me!

But you might have noticed that I haven't published anything after the TQS. What the trolls failed to understand is that if you want more, you have to satisfy my demands -- you can't make me publish my unpublished works.

I whole heartedly agree. Even if someone's "law" allows such things, I believe that there is a moral compass that people should live their life by. You are correct in saying that under EU law, someone can take a design that was offered to them, change a small amount of it, and then pass that design as their own. We did have UK laws that would make such things illegal, however they were then overwritten by EU law which is one of the sticking points of why we wish to leave the European Union. A small way around these EU laws is to sell the designs with stipulations applied that by the act of exchanging monies puts the purchaser in a contractual agreement of your stipulations. But then this does not solve any problem of you having to chase them through the court as you have indicated, it would just make the end result easier to obtain because you can prove their agreement.

What these trolls have done is used the word "theft" very liberally as if to say "do as to be done by" to excuse their own behaviour. An admittance of guilt if ever there was one I think.

On Thu, 17 Oct 2019, 17:45 Jonah Tsai, notifications@github.com wrote:

Seriously... what I said on my website about retracting or limiting the license is simply an impotent symbolic protest against the EU link tax law etc. I can't legally take it back or void the license. The license is CC Non-Commercial Intl... it sticks like a mallusk. There is just no taking it back. So, don't worry about it. I have no intention of cutting my EU friends off.

Think about it. CC license allows you to republish copyrighted works, at least on the same terms. All you have to do to republish it is retaining the the copyright notice/license. So, what happens if you republished my works? Or republished before I attempted to revoke it? That publication is now under your name. What rights do I have to retract your legal publication? Moreover, think on the practical side.... Even if I could, my only recourse in such "dispute" is to sue you if you disagreed. Ah... I have to spend my hard earned money to defend my give-out-for-free hobby works? Hell no! Even though I have no kids to feed, I still don't want to allocate my money on such BS.

One of the main points of OpenSource licenses is to prevent such thing from happening -- I can't take it back, so you don't have to worry about using it, even after I regret publishing it. Not that I regret publishing it, I just regret being called a thief for publishing these works. Yes, some internet troll did call me a thief for using a caliper to reverse-engineer LMCO's designs, in order to justify their thieving -- using CC Non-commercial works in commercial settings. He claimed that because I steal from LMCO's F16 design, thus they are not stealing from me. That logic doesn't even compute! You know, the classic dishonest behavior.... when cornered with their faults, shift attention by claiming the opposition's fault, no matter how ridiculous the claim is, put the other side on defense. And it angers me!

But you might have noticed that I haven't published anything after the TQS. What the trolls failed to understand is that if you want more, you have to satisfy my demands -- you can't make me publish my unpublished works.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/JonahTsai/F16/issues/1?email_source=notifications&email_token=ANQDPSUEWZS4XZFCMZMBXULQPCJENA5CNFSM4JBKVDH2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEBQYQUY#issuecomment-543262803, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ANQDPSQC62U6NTOUQESQ24TQPCJENANCNFSM4JBKVDHQ .

One of the main points of OpenSource licenses is to prevent such thing from happening -- I can't take it back, so you don't have to worry about using it, even after I regret publishing it. Not that I regret publishing it, I just regret being called a thief for publishing these works. Yes, some internet troll did call me a thief for using a caliper to reverse-engineer LMCO's designs, in order to justify their thieving -- using CC Non-commercial works in commercial settings. He claimed that because I steal from LMCO's F16 design, thus they are not stealing from me. That logic doesn't even compute!

I was in discussion with a friend some days ago, and the topic of your website came up. My understanding of US copyright law is that a design of something cannot actually be copyrighted. If its a physical thing, you can apply to have a patent applied to it, and the actual papers you drew up are automatically protected by copyright, so long as those papers show sufficient artistic expression as to constitute a copyrightable work.

If I observe an Abrams tank, and sketch it, the design of the tank doesnt belong to me. The sketch does, however. I used my senses to create an artistic interpretation of the physical medium, and this is what copyright aims to protect. Similarly, if someone uses their senses to observe a throttle (say, using an aid to the senses, like a set of calipers), and creates a work that describes the throttle (say, a CAD file), they dont own the design of the tank, but copyright DOES protect their ownership of the work (in this case, the file).

Copyright assigns to the author of a work, the exclusive right to reproduce the work, and to distribute the work. This is where it gets interesting. As far as Im aware (and Im no expert), there isnt yet a consensus in law over how copyright applies to CAD files of designs. New Media Rights argues here that CAD files can have copyright applied, but only if the design is original (constitutes an original work of authorship, rather than consisting only of uncopyrightable material).

I understand the F-16 airframe is actually patented. Whether thats the case for the cockpit components, Ive no idea.

Generally speaking, OS licensing depends on copyright to enforce license terms. In the event your work constitutes either an original work, or a derivative work (both copyrightable), your license would prevent people from lawfully being able to use either the files themselves, or physical products produced directly by the files (in say a 3D printer), outside the terms of the license. As you noted, it would require a court ruling on whether each case constituted copyright infringement, and that could be difficult depending on the jurisdiction.

In the last few days, Ive gone back and forth on my personal opinion, on whether your works would constitute a copyrightable work. Its been an interesting thought exercise, and largely has shown me that I dont know as much as I thought I did about copyright (only having used the GPL for my stuff for years and all).

How does Apple sue Samsung for that ridiculous rounded corner of the phone and won the case, if physical designs cannot be copyrighted? You are not claiming the iconic Jonny Ivy Apple iMac designs cannot be copyrighted, are you?

You are confusing patent and copyright.

If you sketch or photograph an Abram tank, you can "claim" the copyright of the sketch/photo for its unique artistic expression/composition. You don't get to claim the copyright of the Abram tank design, of course. In fact, the copyright does not protect the files, nor blue prints, nor the sketch/painting/photo, i.e. the medium. It protects the artistic/unique composition. IP is what the copyrights protects. IP is the not the paper and ink, it's how you put ink down on the paper.

Some of the clueless/lazy media lumped and abused the term CAD files...

There are millions of different ways to construct a non-trivial 3D model. Some better, some just plain shitty. What I am claiming copyrights is for the unique composition of the Solidworks operations I put down, and you would replay to reconstruct the final 3D model when you open them. Whether you agree my novel is the best way of putting down English words or not to describe a particular subject matter I can still claim copyright of the unique composition of the words I put together, just like I am claiming copyright of the unique composition of the SolidWorks operations. I have users telling me that they learned a lot on how to constructing this stuff by studying my Solidwork files because they get to drag that "bar" up to the beginning and drag it down one step at a time to see exactly what I did to construct those 3D models, i.e. how I translated the image/design in my head or what I see with my eyes into Solidworks operations. This is my way, my composition.

There is even a court case that says that "CAD" files like STL just verbatimly describing other people's copyrighted design, adds no value nor creative components, thus is not copyrightable. But that doesn't mean all CAD files! Please note that a lot of media dropped the "CAD files like STL, describing other's copyrighted works" and was often over-simplified as just "CAD files." That is a gigantic error in dropping the qualifier.

I mentioned somewhere else that Solidworks files are in the category of what we called Constructive Solid Geometry. A Solidworks file records from nothing, step-by-step all the operations in order to get to the final 3D model. If you just open any of my SolidWorks files, you would be replaying my unique composition of Solidworks operations from nothing to finally constructing the final 3D model. There are many different composition of operations to get to the same final 3D model... I am "claiming" copyright of MY UNIQUE composition. Note that, I am not claiming copyrights of the files.... digital files themselves cannot be copyrighted, nor could blue prints, i.e. the medium. It's idea/IP described by the files that is protected.

So, technically, I cannot claim copyright for the two TQS cover and bottom body parasolid files I published. Parasolid files are like STL files. If they describe other people's copyrighted material, since they don't add anything, they is nothing to copyright. Those two files are theoretically and technically in the public domain. I can claim whatever copyrights on those two, you can just ignore me on that one. And I can guarantee you I won't sue you, as I know I would lose on that one. And the courts would cite precedence and throw out my case.

Note the word "claim" I use. That's how copyright works now... I claim... or even if I register it with the gov, If you disagree... and violate my claimed copyrights, my only recourse in a civilized society is to sue you in court.

My position is very simple. Whether you agree with my claim of copyright or not, it's very uncool to violate the OpenSource license chosen by the author(s). I mean, stealing from non-profit/charity works? The effect of such uncool behavior is rather "chilling." I won't publish any more. Remember, OpenSource license is not just designed to protect users from authors changing licensing terms... it is also there to encourage more sharing. But if everybody violates the agreement they implicitly agreed by the act of downloading and using the files, who would share?

In fact, I have a lot more genuine F16 parts unmodeled and more F16 3D models unpublished. And some more of my own designs, like optical 8 way HAT switch, mini-Hall stick, Networked Altimeter, RudderCore (been working on it for over 10 years, multiple complete redesign, no center play, no backlash, no sticktion, electronically programmable force generation) etc... both in hardware, electronic design and software... I won't publish.

Why should I publish more?

Im not asking you to publish anything? I was merely sharing my earlier discussion on copyright.

Based on your description of solidworks files, it seems to me (again, not an expert) like that would be a good argument for your files being fair use of the aircraft design, and not themselves be just a derivative work.

Okay, separate discussion point. I do argue against your view regarding claims of copyright. I believe that whether I agree with your claim of copyright or not is crucial to whether or not its 'uncool' to violate your chosen license. Were I to agree, I would also have to side with copyright/patent trolls. Were I to claim copyright over your works and assert myself as the original designer of the F-16, you would probably (rightly) laugh. But you would also be violating the license terms I made it available under (I didnt really, making a point here).

I do note that downloading the files is something you could do without any implicit agreement whatsoever. Its a CC-BY-NC license, it gives people the right to modify and distribute the copyrighted materials covered, so long as they comply with the license terms. Copyright would normally prevent people from being allowed to distribute the copyrighted material.

You are choosing to distribute the copyrighted material. By making it available for others to use, you are the one distributing it - not the folks who download it. If they then share it onwards, they are infringing your copyright, IF they are not complying with the license terms. But downloading it? That is not breaking your right to control the distribution of your work.

Now, by using the files for a commercial purpose, they are (IMO, and once again, not an expert) not complying with the license. But just downloading the files isnt something they need a license for permission to do. Using your work to make hardware they are selling access to, I would imagine would definitely be something you would need permission (in the form of a license) to do.

So, I think I do agree with you on a number of points, but not all. I can sympathise - Id be pretty upset if my (GPL) works made their way into commercial software.

JonahTsai / F16

Spd-brk and DogFight-Knob assembly incorrect #1