Joe

Definitely T.16000M. It uses the same hall sensor as the $500 HOTAS Warthog, as LawnDart says. It is also programmable in T.A.R.G.E.T., giving you 6-layer capability in a $30 stick, something that has never been possible before.

And if it doesn't happen, a bit of T.A.R.G.E.T. scripting can set up a flag to keep track of the sensor zoom level and adjust the slew axes response on-the-fly to manage things.

There are a few reasons to install T.A.R.G.E.T., whether you have a Warthog or a Cougar. Clearly DCS: A-10C is set up to use the Warthog to much potential without any programming software. But that's just DCS: A-10C. For any other sim, including FC2 and DCS: Black Shark, you'll probably want to program your HOTAS. I understand that many people like ot forgo HOTAS software and just program the stick with DX button pushes inside each individual sim. Nothing will stop you from doing that with the Warthog. However, consider this: the Warthog throttle panel has a number of 2- and 3-way toggle switches, which means one part of these switches is always "ON". There is also a DirectX limit of 32 buttons + POV hat for a controller. The Warthog throttle alone has over 50 button and switch positions. Thrustmaster thought carefully about this during HOTAS design, and the end result is that a number of these switch positions do not send a DirectX button press. However, every single position of every single switch and button is programmable through T.A.R.G.E.T. That means that T.A.R.G.E.T. offers more programming flexibility in any given sim. And of course that's only when the HOTAS is programmed with a single layer of commands. If you wish to have the typical 6 layers (shift + up/middle/down) you need to use T.A.R.GE.T. as well. (EDIT: I see that DCS: A-10C can also be set up to program a HOTAS with modifiers in-game, so that last comment does not apply to DCS: A-10C.) There are also nice features such as when the throttles are pulled over the idle detent, they send a "button press" to T.A.R.G.E.T. This "button" is programmable in T.A.R.G.E.T. (it could be programmed to activate speed brakes or wheel brakes, for example, without any complicated programming). This type of thing is completely transparent to a sim and could never be programmed without T.A.R.G.E.T. If you only own a Cougar and never plan on getting a Warthog, there isn't a lot of reason to switch from Foxy to T.A.R.G.E.T. There are some nice things the new software can do that Foxy can't, since T.A.R.G.E.T. has the ability to do math. However, most people don't need or want this sort of stuff. I would urge people to try this software out; it can be downloaded for free from the Thrustmaster website. It's unfortunate that people are having installation problems with it, but it really is nice software when it's running properly. Check out this possible troubleshooting step as well: http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3124095/TARGET_GUI_fails_to_launch.html#Post3124095

Hi guys, sorry for being almost two years late to the party. :) If you guys ever need to have some triplehead-specific questions answered, please PM me at SimHQ. I don't visit here regularly so I will almost certainly miss threads like this. ggg87, thanks for spearheading this effort. You have gotten the F-15 view limits looking better than I ever managed. What I'd like to know is if there is a list of settings for every Lock On 1.1 aircraft to achieve the best view flexibility.

Ah, good point. I'm so accustomed to the thinking "split axes = good, shared axis = bad" from racing sims that I forgot that rudder input should be on a shared axis. I don't know if you can assign the right and left rudders in FC to independent axes. I have old CH gameport rudders connected to my Cougar, and I always use them in flight sims, so I've never tried to assign split axes.

Just use the throttle pedal and the clutch pedal.

Haha, lots of fun. I love the "cascading damage model". :) I got all 15 targets with my cannon after being hit with a missile and losing a wing.

The "mercenary" storyline has been tried a few times. In Strike Commander (oldie but goodie) it worked. Strike Fighters: Project 1 tried the same thing. AFAIK nobody really uses the feature. Strike Commander forced its use because that was the only storyline - you are a member of a mercenary F-16 squadron: make money or die. I think most of us prefer a well-concocted miltary combat scenario.

Who is the community manager? You or somebody else?

1. A single core of an Intel 6600 CPU @ 2.4 GHz is faster than a single-core Pentium 4 2.8 GHz. The newer Intel chips do more per clock cycle. 2. The FSB is much higher on that 6600, resulting in greatly increased memory bandwidth for higher performance. 3. The newer Intel CPUs have greater cache sizes. In almost all circumstances a new CPU, using newer architecture, will beat out one that is 4 years old. This situation is no exception.

Uh, isn't that what I said? :) BTW, in case anyone cares, I too would like to make an F-14 study sim. But I think Wags has the better shot at it...

Jane's F-18 Digital Integration Super Hornet Precision Strike Fighter / OIF / etc. iMagic F-18

Thanks, Matt, and thanks for being so active on the forums these past few days answering everyone's questions. I've been quite critical of ED's PR efforts in the past and it's nice to get information from the source. I hope things continue along these lines.

Wags stated on SimHQ a few years ago that he would like to make an F-14 study sim with backseat/frontseat multiplayer capability. Personally I think if ED is looking to do backseat/frontseat and develop study sim aircraft, the F-14 is a great choice because it hasn't been done before, nor has anything come close, and it is multirole. Unfortunately it doesn't mesh well with ED's commitment to military contracts and training software, so we probably won't see it. That's where ED is making their money and we get the side benefits, though...

Yep, that's me, the SimHQ mod. Can't get my sig working on the new board... Ivibe would be nice as well. Lock On already does LUA scripting well, which I imagine will be quite useful to home cockpit builders when the technology makes it over to DCS: BS. All of these "little" technology add-on bits aren't too important, but when they all exist in the same title you potentially have something much more enjoyable than "just" a study sim. EDIT: ah, there's my sig...

Hello Eagle Dynamics, Now that you have publicized the information that Black Shark will be a standalone sim, I would ask that proper attention be given to how the game will play using triplehead resolutions. In the last 18 months the popularity of the Matrox TripleHead2Go and the modifications done by the SoftTH fileset have greatly increased interest in triplehead gaming. Typically this is done on 3 screens of equal resolution for an output of 3840x1024 (triple 5:4), 3072x768 (triple 4:3), or 3840x800 (triple 16:10). Lock On seems to limit the maximum FOV when gaming at a triplehead resolution. Whether this has to do with the actual pixel count or just the apsect ratio of the image I do now know. However, it results in difficult gameplay in triplehead resolutions. There is more info (and screenshots) here. I hope that this issue can be improved upon for the release of Black Shark.

That is the first triplehead cockpit I've seen and it looks great. Any serious cockpit builder should invest in a TripleHead setup, especially if they are spending lots of money elsewhere. I wouldn't be surprised to see a very expensive triple projector cockpits come from Hi-Rev sims or Clark's Precision Machine & Tool soon (if they don't already have them). Just as a note, my triplehead Lock On woes continue with troublesome FOV issues, but I'm getting closer to solving them.

You must have missed the link on the previous page to my 13-page review on SimHQ. :) http://www.simhq.com/_technology/technology_065a.html

Reading: NATOPS

The reason trim is important is real aircraft is that it places the control stick in the proper position and removes the force required to keep it there. For a real pilot holding 30 pounds of force to maintain a control position, trimming that force out is a big deal. For a virtual pilot, it doesn't much matter in that regard, but the trim can still be used to stabilize flight. FYI, the F-18E/F stick does not move when the pilot trims. I wonder what other aircraft are like this.

I checked the view zoom in-cockpit in the Su-25T and the F-15. They both behaved the same. From feedback elsewhere I have learned that LOMAC 1.02 exhibited this same limited zoom with a Parhelia. This is contrary to what Matrox told me, but if so it appears that the issue may be persistent and will be harder to fix. Once I gather enough information I will start a new thread with the intent of bringing it to ED's attention in an organized manner. All I know about release is that I was told the product should be available at the end of April.

An understatement, to be sure. Did you see the full-size (3072x768) shots? Sorry, no Nascar2003 because I don't own it. :)

Thanks. Now that I can show you, here is my max view zoom out: I've gotten some suggestions here about how to potentially fix them, but I'd like to here anything else you have. Lock On is not flyable like this; you can't see anything. If I can get this working, man would it be cool...

TripleHead2Go review now available Here you go, guys. http://www.simhq.com/_technology/technology_065a.html

Why would the frame rate not be high enough, especially at 800x600? If you read the SimHQ review you will see that the author got some serious "wow" factor with the Z800 and a TrackIR.