This is my first post.
I’m in the process of building a custom hitbox using the Tek-Innovations S1-B case and the Brook UFB. I don’t have the parts, yet, but i have a question regarding LEDs.
I would like to add an LED to the hitbox such that it turns on when the hitbox is plugged in. This is to have a visual cue that the usb connection is active. I like that feature in my current Razor Atrox.
If you’re getting a clear case youll already have a visual cue that the stick is powered on, since the ufb has a Blue LED that lights up when connected to usb.
Here are the notes I took when I did mine: http://imgur.com/r5i4g6u I cut a standard ethernet cable so I had to label all the colors in the top left.
On the UFB the pin order is : GND,D+,D-,VCC or 1,6,5,8
You’ll just need to make sure your cable to the console is wired the same way. Which is why I used focus attack as a guide(just in case I need to buy more usb-rj45 cables).
I also used dupont connectors to make my life easier.
ehh no, quit lying.
According to the video I linked, this is not true at all. 5/10 of the time the input gets delivered late enough for it to be a frame later game-wise. That’s actually pretty bad, even though the sample size was small.
Is this just a PS4 problem with it then, or what?
I’m late to the game, and just read the first 22 pages of this thread, so bear with me if the answers to this question are between page 23-33 and doesn’t show up in search.
The result of my skimming through this page is that in general the hardware seems great (no complaints means really good for me), the software is perfectible. Is this feeling of mine verified?
My point would then be: Why wouldn’t the software be open sourced (at least partially)? I didn’t read anything from the developers themselves on these topics.
Wouldn’t it be possible to open source some parts (like the firmware updater or all the code related to inputs handling - this way SOCD ppl can do their own stuff if they want) and keep some other parts closed?
IMO, open sourcing is something positive for the product. It could:
Split the work and use the community to get faster results (remember the SOCD things that were asked during New Year?) or software innovations. The software team could just then “integrate” the changes
Ensure the product will continue to survive without the current developers: you could still sell your product if your developers are hit by a bus (touching wood for the developers to not get hit) or are following another way in their life.
Make the community happy when Brook’s team will move on to something different…
Here the risk of the software failure is high, because I suspect there aren’t many developers, and they are quite busy.
There was a mention of being afraid of releasing in open source because of the risk of copying. Here is my answer:
The copy could happen, whether some parts are open sourced or not.
If you think the whole idea of this tool is its IP for feature “x”, you may want to release everything except feature “x”: you don’t lose market share that way, and if you play it well, you can even benefit from it (use gpl, and it will spread like a disease that will be forced your competitors to release their code).
The copying company would have to analyse the whole thing, and decide to copy for getting your revenues. With the small community we are talking about, it seems unlikely, I’d focus on something else.
You’d be the source of the product, so basically “the people who know stuff”, the reference! Who would prefer a cheaper solution when yours is working perfectly at a correct price? Or maybe that’s the issue?
I guess I can find a lot of other reasons, but I will stop there. I don’t see a strong point of closing the sources.
Basically, even if I’m interested myself by the PCB, I’ll never buy it the way it is now. I think this deserves being said, even if I’m the only one to think that. Open Hardware is the future.
Oh, i didnt know the UFB had a light on it, already. That’s good.
But, in my case, i ordered the top layer of the case in opaque black color, so there is a chance that i might not be able to see it.
For the sake of exploring posibilities, is it possible to add another power indicator LED to the board, which i could place in a different spot in the case?
Guys… End of the day, testing is up to interpretation. The Brook UFBs performance is damn good and keeps getting better with every update. It covers most of the bases the fgc needs today and they have a great support team that listens to the community. lets just leave it at that and keep it moving.
Just tap any of the VCC lines and GND. They are all 3.3V except the on on the screw terminals which is 5V. Make sure you get a resistor to put online with the LED to set the appropriate current.
Well his video shows that the UFB is currently laggy and not “fast”. That’s all I need to know for now.
And I’m calling you liar for saying that it performs even close to PS360+, and for that reason I might get PS360+ instead even despite the 8min problem.
Ok ill respond:
It seems you misinterpreted the results in johnyfrazes video:
You claim that the brook brook board delivers its input one frame later then ps360+ 5/10 times.
That is simply wrong.
If you watch the video agin youll see that on the latest firmware:
4 inputs out of 5 are delivered in 4 frames on the ufb
1 input out of 5 is deleivered in 5 frames on the ufb
5 inputs out of 5 are delivered in 4 frames on the ps360+
So on average its 0.2 frames slower (3.3ms).
Thats pretty fast. And Brook are further improving it.
If you want to get ps360+ instead go ahead. Nobody cares
Oh shit, i thought it was late one frame 3 out of 5 on the first time, and 2 out of 5 on the new firmware. My bad, on the new firmware it was 1 out of 5… which is still not promising.
Sample size of 5 is small and it’s hard to tell if the results were just lucky on the 2nd attempt or if the input delay was really fixed. It’s pretty dumb to even do averages based on a sample size as small as this, you’re going to get inaccurate results. (I thought this was obvious?)
Like I said, further testing would be nice, and what I’ll wait for before getting it.
Why would you need to get upset and hostile when someone is curious and critical about the product? Come the fuck on man, still in teenage years?
4/10? Do you plan on running both firmwares simultaneously? Its 1/5 on the latest firmware, period.
Its also worth noting that ps360+ was almost a full frame slower on 360 at one point, on older firmware. Do you take that in account in your decision to buy ps360 instead of an ufb?
Nice stealth edit. Im not upset. Its just boring having explain something as basic as interpreting results of a simple test. To make things worse youre calling people a liar for interpreting the data correctly. Now you claim the results arent accurate anyway, yet youve been complaining about the “laggy” ufb based on the very same test, proclaiming ps360 to be the better product.
For what its worth, Teyah tested the ps3/4 brook board a while ago, on an even older firmware, and it was 4.3 ms slower then ps360. Ufb should perform the same.
Personally i dont care about the lag of the brook pcb. Capcoms implementation in sfv introduced far more lag then even the slowest pcb could.
