STECS STEM & UCM

[Stonehenge]

I would be interested in the new STECS, but only under certain circumstances:
I decided in favour of the UCM years ago. And I was honestly speculating on a certain modularity. NOT in terms of joysticks and throttle, but in terms of these "external modules". Like this STECS STEM! So the STECS Mini would simply be too big for me in terms of depth. It just wouldn't fit in my space. But the functions would probably be too small for me if it were just the Mini. And now to my actual question:
I would really like this STECS STEM as an extension! But I would like to have this module mounted on my UCM. So I would like to remove one of the blocks and use this module instead! I would actually celebrate THAT!!! THEN I could just mount the STECS Mini on the left, but would still have this module, just in a much better place Is NOTHING really to be expected in this respect?

[Ron61]

You can try making a cable to connect the STEM module installed on the UCM. Naturally, installation and manufacturing will be your responsibility, such as your own modernization, DIY. Need JST 1.25 8 pin. This installation was not planned and the results of the work are unknown, but it should work.

[Delta]

I am getting confused by both your posts. I think one of the minis was supposed to be a standard or max.

The mounted config of the Max, as seen in some photos of the UCM, shows how much more compact a STECS can get if the STEM is not attached directly to the STECS base (via standard base plate or MFH. All that is required is a STEM with back cover (standalone purchase, Max bundle or Standard bundle plus separate back cover) and a long Type-C bus cable.

Do note that ATEM, if used, must be attached to the STECS base, not the vertical STEM. Attaching ATEM in any place other than immediately aft of the STECS base will require custom-fabricated cables as seen in Ron's post. I have done that (see here), and let me tell you, those 1.25 mm connectors are a pain to hand-crimp with generic crimping pliers.

Side note: The connector used for ATEM is a Molex PicoBlade. While it looks very similar to JST connectors and frequently mislabelled as such, the only 1.25 mm connector designed and manufactured by J.S.T. is the JST-GH connector, which is used for grip connections and button modules on STECS, and for grip connections on GNX.

[Stonehenge]

That makes me quite sad. I am a craftsman, but more in the rough direction;-) So I really wouldn't trust myself with such a "project". And I think it's a real shame that the potential of the UCM wasn't taken into account. Because in my opinion, the UCM is predestined for such "extensions"....

[Delta]

Just for the record, if it is only the STEM you want to make vertical and not the ATEM, that ought to be rather straightforward with a STECS Max mount. Might need a STEM back cover if you bought the standard.

this setup requires no custom fabrication:

[Phoenix]

Which cable do you use to link the STECS to the STEM ?

I would like to have that kind of configuration, but USB C cable doesn't work.

[fallout9]

USB C to USB C cable certainly works if you want to externally connect the STEM to STECS.

[Phoenix]

THX.

Someone gave me the link in another post. I ordered it.

But why didn't you use a standard usb C cable ?

I'm not sure that 40cm is long enough for the configuration I want to make. A 1m or 1.5m cable would have been better.

[Delta]

VKB uses an internal bus sytem for their grips and gunfighter bases. It runs on 3.3 V and UART serial - that is most widely supported across various chips, especially the STM32 line VKB uses, and works with a very low pin count that keeps connectors small. Since all VKB sticks already have that interface, it was the most sensible choice for modules.

On the other hand, USB uses a vastly more complex protocol that is really designed for fully-fledged computers on one end, and it runs at 5 volts. Using USB for those interfacing needs would have added complexity and cost to every device in the setup - not only would you need much more complex chips everywhere, you would need additional protective and voltage regulation circuitry as well.

Now, the VKB bus interface uses only three pins of the USB plug - surely that would have fit in the four wires present in USB2 cables? Sure, but remember, the bus runs at 3.3 volts, USB at 5 volts. Feed 5 volts directly into one of the controller chips and the magic smoke leaks out. And with a plug that is indistinguishable from USB Type C, someone would plug a module into a USB port and fry it. Probably fry a whole lot of gear connected to it as well. A warranty service nightmare. A proprietary wiring with carefully chosen pins minimizes the risk of that.

Now why USB-C in the first place? The GNX modules can be run with two different interface boards, either as a bus device or as a USB device. The USB-C connector is the most straightforward way to allow both to fit into the same footprint.

And while USB2-rated cords are out, USB3-rated cords usually have the spare pins needed. However, they often have bulkier plugs that are not designed to fit the same tight spots official VKB cables use (which admittedly is less a STEM problem than it is a GNX problem), and the USB protocol and the cables are made for each other, which you cannot say about single-wire UART.