Manny

NEO, thanks for sharing the info bud. I am glad to read the brightness of the LEDS can be turned completly off and Saitek thought of that for those not interested in lighting their sim area like it's Christmas. I can attest to the single spring design and the smooth, constant force of the X45 I own though I am having probs with friction at it ages. Glad to know the gimble is nothing like Courgar -- yuck. How smooth compared to the X45? Smoother? I will have to check one out on display at Best Buy or CompUSA.

Tally I feel your pain bro .. I too will reserve my next purchase to a CH only as I read the Cougar and Thrustmaster are best left alone and the X52 is far too stylized for a flight control system. Perhaps CH is all that remains for someone seeking quality, ease of use, and durability. Oh well, I will cross that bridge to CH when my X45 is ready to retire to HOTAS boneyard.

TH GOOD: The spring rate is fine once you get used to it. I never bought the X45 because I hated how heavy the spring was, but that's more personal preference. Is the spring similar to the X45 but Saitek redesigned the spring guide and plate such that movement is finer but there is still a stiff feel to a new X52? Twisty stick isn't as bad as I thought, at first I didn't like it. After getting used to it, it's okay because the tension is strong enough that you don't move it when you're trying to do something else. I am glad, based upon your comment further down, that I can disable the stick twist. I never liked it when I owned a Microsoft Sidewinder. The LCD is useful in that I can switch between different profiles in game (A10, Su25T, F15) pretty easily. Can yuo provide more detail on the LCD? It appears to dominate a majority of the base of the throttle. The Stick is more comfortable than the X45/36 Everything feels right where it should be, maybe because it's adjustable;) This is an interesting observation. It doesn't look more comfortable. Can you expound on the "Safe Mode" button you mentioned in your opinion works as it should now? ThE BAD: X45/36 Throttle to me is more comfortable (go figure, the stick gets better the throttle gets worse.) That is not a positive sign. There is a twisty stick Toggle switches to me are nice, but akward to get to. I always have to look at them to know which one i'm pressing. The precision slider is weird sometimes as well. When I looked at a picture of the stick, it appeard one would have to remove their hand from the stick just top manipulate certain features??? The detents aren't as strong as the X45/36 I always feel as though I never really know where the afterburner is even with the friction knob turned all the way up. This is not really a sticking point for me Mouse wheel doesn't work as well as I'd like Can you compare that to the mouse on the X45 please? The newer drivers/software can be a nightmare to get set up correctly depending on your system. Hmmm....this should be the easy part since it it easy on the X45. THE AWESOME: Price. For what you get it's hard to beat. Interesting Mounting holes to attach the controllers to to my chair made my life better. That seems kewl The mode switch is finally in a place that makes sense to me and since it has DIFFERENT color LEDs to signify what mode it's in, I don't have to try to read print that's on the stick. The SAFE button cover over the launch button finally works like it should have on the previous sticks. The fact that you lock out the twist function. When I get pedals again I have that option. That's all I can think of. Obviously most of this is personal preference, but I don't think I'm alone.

Tally, well done. Very useful info. This may solve my problem with friction build-up on the spring guide and retaining plate making very fine movement impossible and turning smooth analoguie control into digital steps.

Lol what did you do Rugg to go through 3 X45s in 1.5 years? Man you must have been overly aggressive at tryin to get that Tunguska kill with a Maverick or realized it was the X45 that was shooting your Mavs down instead and took out some frustration out on it .. LOL :icon_wink I still have my original X45 and what I appreciate about it so much is not only the most obviously easy programming experience one can ever have but the functionality of the throttle although, for you die hard Russian aviation buffs, the CH Pro Throttle slides forward and aft, very reminiscent of the aircraft we fly in the sim... Well, till then, I continue to read :icon_jook

This is getting interesting reading, more than the "whaaa my Maverick was shot down" thread. Well I have made my decision to never own a Cougar and have nothing to do with Thrustmaster ever again. I have a question for you Rugg: Which CH controller provides the smoothest, most accurate control, I can get my hands on without walking away after downing a buncha F-15s with Pop-Eye forearms?

Ok Rugg come on now, admit it you have a large sign out front your place of residence that reads: Qualified CH Reseller -- Cater to Disgruntled Thrustmaster Users I may consider the CH Fighterstick. I enjoy the programmability of a controller and not sure if you can do the same with the CH product.

Well, in light of the information shared in this thread and what I have read over at Frugal's, I am certain to remain clear of the Thrustmaster brand for some time to come. It is unfortuante to read you spent money in your opinion was wasted on a product you had hoped would satisfy you. I am a former owner of an F-22 Pro so I am well aware of the many problems the high-end Thrustmaster product has experienced. I suppose CH will remain eminent in my mind for flight controllers since Saitek has gone off the deep end with its' futuristic whatever it is they made. I am interested in a stick, throttle, and rudder pair seen as "1" controller in Window$. It may come from a combination of many CH products.

Actually Yellonet I just thought of that as I re-read Goyas response. Apart from removing the spring and flying by seeking the center based on attitude, what else can be done?

I tend to agree rugg. The metal/plastic argument is weak at best considering ABS molded plastic is as durable as metal as well as cheaper. Automotive manufacturers know this for sure. Thus, metal does not smell fo JP4 to me. I am concerned with construction, trust, durability, and customer support and apprarently Thrustmaster has none at the momoent. Too bad cause when I owned the F-22 and need new POTs, I had em with days. My concern is I will purchase a Cougar and open 'er up to find a mess everywhere. I would have to rewrap and reroute wiring, clean up the insides removing debri, reloub, clean POTs, resolder poor joints, reattach loose connectors and fittings, clean the gimbals, adjust the spring constant and force, put it al back together to find a wire poped off a button or paint is flaking off (not a prob anymore I read.) That does not speak of a quality product worth using. It sure brings back memories of the F-22 Pro and POT debacle Thrustmaster went through.

Yellonet, I can not say either way for the Cougar since I do not have enough information regarding it. What I can say is from the outset, I am impressed from the previous product I owned, the F-22 Pro, but I am not impressed otherwise. I still can not get past the fact most users have modified their Cougar out of the box, speak negatively of Thrustmaster design and construction, and turn the HOTAS into something different, and in some cases totally different, than the manufacturer sells. This does not speak highly of Thrustmaster in my opinion. I can deal with high spring forces and the type of gimbal mechanism they use but if the quality of the product is deemed that low in the first place warranting a modification, that does not escape a certain reality regarding Thrustmasters product. I mean granted some of the mods are outright clever such as fixing the stick in place and translating force applied to movemnt or changing the pots to Hall effect sensors ... thatkinda stuff, apart from the HOTAS itself is unique and speaks less about the construction and design. The stuff speaking more to the construction and design are mods to the gimbals, tracksa, rods, plates, etc. It appears too F-22 like and I am having second thought on purchase. The highest appeal is metal construction. The lowest appeal are all the mods. Well CH Pro PEdals have had the worst construction and design in my opinion as an owner and I have modified that as much as the F-22 Pro I had to repair at times. The toe brakes still dont work on my pedals as I am too lazy to resolder wires again and again and simply removed them entirely. I have had no problems with the CH Flight SIm Yoke and have used it in combat sims like IL2. Because of the non-centering and light forces, the stick is dead accurate with slight mods to the sensitivities in-game. I am a bit frustrated because other than tyhe yoke, I have not found low-force, smooth controller yet. I thought of the X52 but Goya seems to indicate I should stick with my X45... hmmmm decisions decisions :icon_roll

Hey that is interesting Goya. I have never considered compression. I have considered removal of the base plate/spring guide since lubrication does nothing to remove friction. Of course that will soften the spring to unusability for centering. I suppose I will never find the perfect application but to build my own or buy a Cougar and mod it .. yuck

Interesting. I was reading in the Thrustmaster Cougar thread that has gone into overtime how it requires modification right out of the box (F-22 PRO did not) and how the gimble mechanism and psring tension is still poorly constructed. Then again, I can not say the X45 is any better with lower forces but still a gimble and psring.guide mech that does not allow the smoothest of flight. The mods folks were mentioning are pretty unique in scope and putting hall effect sensors in place of pots in a stick is a novel idea. Questions why Thrustmaster has not simply purchased the rights to the best mods and simply re-made the Cougar... hmmm Well price wise $500+ to have a good stick is worth flying lessons and that is too much. I suppose the CH Flight SIm Yoke will remain king without the need for a center detent, low, very low spring forces, and flies great.

This is good and useful info but does this modification void the warranty and thus Thrustmaster will not suport this joystick?

I can attest to this when I owned the Thrustmaster F-22 Pro but then again, I am certain the same potentiometers are found in other HOTAS producst as well. I am certain it depends upon if the manufacturer protects them from foreign object debri or not. Saitek has done a good job with that. Thrustmaster has not but the Cougar appears to be better constructed. I recall replacing poorly soldered wires and a potentiometer or two not because of failure but because of the material Thrustmaster applied to them that served as a vacuum to FOD. The first recommendation after purchase was to open the HOTAS and clean the pots entirely. Now this was no easy feat since it involved disassembly of the entire POT. I am a bit hesitant because of my experience with the F-22 and I do not want to go through that again. Apparently, some of you are still going through those problems.... rather disappointing. As for the springs, Thrustmaster still hasn't gotten em right so you end up with Pop-Eye forearms and a good workout after play.... hmmm disappointing. Out of the box mods should not be necessary but the metal construction and other bonuses seem to outweigh the trouble.

For you Thrustmaster Cougar owners/users, I am interested in your opinion of it. I once owned the Thrustmaster F-22 Pro and though I enjoyed it, I did find spring tension and forces a workout for my wrist. Of course this HOTAS was mostly plastic with metal bases and I read the updated feature list for the Cougar... I am impressed to say the least. Chime on in....

I would like former X45 owners/users and present X52 owners/users to chime in about the differences primarily in the flight control precision, i.e. the gimbal mechanism and the spring constants, forces, and overall smoothness of the flight controller. As a current X45 user, I have noticed the spring guide resisting a smooth, analogue, and slow motion instead, through age, degrading into a coarse, digital movement as friction builds between the spring guide/retainer and the base it slides on. I observed the same configuration used in the X52 and can not believe the flight controller to be any more precise as it ages. I have tried lubricating the X45 spring guide/retainer to no avail and know removing the spring (I have not done on X45 but have on other joysticks) will solve the problem. To date, the only flight controller that is non-centering and still provides a very clean, crisp analogue movement is the CH Flight Sim Yoke USB. The only flight controller that is centering I have ever owned offering that crisp, smooth analogue feel was the thrustmaster F-22 HOTAS. Spring tension was an issue and Thrustmaster never got it right though admitted it tends to be a prob resulting in user modification of either thinner springs or complete removal. Removing the spring is ideal but not under all conditions. One certainly can not remove a hand from the flight controller or certain peril will result. Thus, spring removal is only an option as a very last resport. I am just curious what users of the X52 have to say and whether Saitek has resolved this issue as precision in my X45 has gone the way of the DoDo bird and no matter what I do, I can not achieve it. Considering removing the spring and guild. On a lighter note, I do see improvements to the X52 but they appear more bell and whistle eye-candy than real improvements. Some of the button arrangements look aweful and seem to require that your hands are taken off the controllers to manipulate a function... not true HOTAS. Chime in on that as well. Also, the fact they removed the rudder from the throttle and put it in the flight controller seems odd. How do you manage to operate the flight controller to the 4 cornerns and twist in it too? This arrangement was in the Microsoft Force Feedback Joystick I used to own and I could never appreciate the twist.

Kid, you still don't get it do you? It matters not what happens in the real world. Consider the real to be apart from and outside a three-diemensional cube that suspends around you whenever Lock-On is loaded on your computer. You exist in that space and claims of an Army Sergeant, debates, and postulates whether Mavericks can be shot down or not do not exist in your three-diemnsional space. Once you exit Lock-On, all those factors again are up for discussion but there is no discussion about it in the simulation. THE FACTS ARE UNDENIABLE! EXPECT YOUR MAVERICK TO HAVE A PROBABILITY BUBBLE AROUND IT OF BEING DESTROYED! Anything not clear regarding the above statements, please seek further clarrification. ..... This is a recording

Honestly Yellonet, I cannot believe obtaining tech manuals, pictures of instrument panels, etc. could at all be difficult if not impossible for ED considering their access to these aircraft (Russian) in their country. If not, then Janes publishes entire volumes of information on just about anything you wanna know about military aviation.

I agree with Erdem. The fact is that attempts will be made and Mavericks will be shot down. This is undeniable and remains true in the Lock-On simulation. Until ED indicates otherwise, consider this standard. Either adjust for this fact or do noy but discussing whether this is possible or not in the real world and if it should be changed is a rather mute topic of debate. It has already been stated by others the Russian A2G weapons are equally susceptible to the same treatment in the presence of Tunguskas.

Did you know Enemy Engaged:Comanche vs. Hokum featured cooperative, multiseat play via an internet connection? IL2: Forgotten Battles + Ace's Expansion Pack + Pacific Fighters also has cooperative, multiseat play via an internet connection. If ED focused on implementing this ability, especially since they are developing the Ka-50 HOKUM add-on, a definite multiple-crew aircraft, that would bing Lock-On to a new level of realism and enjoyment. Wether single or online play, a second, intelligent crew member would certainly add appeal to this game. I am operating my Hokum as my WSO is engaging the baddies and dispensing countermeasures.... Ummm I can almost taste it now... can you ED? Even games such as Wings Over Vietnam that do not feature a user capable station has a semi-intelligent WSO for the multiseat aircraft that will assist in combat and give that "feel there" sensation. Certainly the AI need not be complex or sophisticated. A simple functionality allowing the player to fly and weapon deployment decisions left to the player but the AI is busy workin in the back. For the Hokum, Enemy Engaged: Comanche vs. Hokum is the defacto standard for this helo sim and it would serve ED well to familiarize themselves with the work Razorworks has done for that most beautiful of helicopters.

Lol! Yellonet. Why? Do users of Falcon 4.0, the only aircraft correctly modeled for that simulation being the F-16, think they have the best combat simulation? Just remind them that what they presently use is based off stolen Hasbro Interactive source code for Falcon 4.0 that was subsequently modified illegally and distributed without permission of Hasbro who then sold their non-interest in the simulation to someone else. Frankly I am surprised Hasbro didn't make a killin goin after those who used their Falcon 4.0 source code.

Well, at least good news for those who have not purchased the TrackIR system yet though unfortunate for me since I already purchsed the TrackIR3 Pro with the reflective cap and currently awaiting its' delivery... :icon_frow The TrackIR website mentions nothing about the TrackIR4. Was this pulled from the forums?

Guys, give it a rest ... the debate rages on >>>>>==|====|==> Apart from the inevitable interception as modeled in Lock-On, I am quite pleased A2G is not always as simple as load, lock, shoot, next. There is an element of challenge. I am certain if not at all possible, ED would not include it in their simulation. Notice this is not the case in any other simulation to date. There is no self-defense or protective measure. It's all load, lock, shoot, next....boring! Emloyment of tactics is what interests me. If one desires to just line up a buncha dumb AI and drop bombs on em well, visit titles such as Falcon 4:Allied Force.

The FAB-5000: It is modeled in IL2 deployed from a Russian Petlyakov Pe-8 (TB-7) heavey bomber. I saw a picture of this weapon and it looks Pre-atomic. When dropped in IL2, the detonation is akin to a mushroom cloud. Man talk about fright when 5 tons of bomb goes off overhead or nearby :rolleyes: