lxsapper

I understand that a people may like the microstick, but I stand by my opinion that's it's one of the weak things in it's design. It works reasonably well with the A-10C but it could be better, on the AU-25T or the KA-50 yes you can play about with deadzones and curves but it's hardly anything better than useable. Ypu can tell the HALL sensor in it it's probably very accurate but without an accurate means of commanding it (travel variance) it doesn't ammount to much. I've never used the CH microstick but COUGAR one was a million times easier to use, until it went spiking to hell and needed a replacement. TARGET software driver is a bad design call. By the way I'm very much aware I don't need to program anything to fly the A-10C, but that's irrelevant when talking about TARGET. And from a technical view point it's the DCS A-10C software that works out of the box with the controler and not the other way around. The reason I say TARGET is baddly designed, imagine you want to program the Flap lever to something other than the A-10C, you have two choises use LUA edits tu program the switch off positio as well or you can use TARGET. I know how to do the LUA edits (I have a lot of people I fly with that are not so keen on it) but my first choise would be TARGET it's easier and faster. But if I use TARGET everytime I wish to change planes and yes that goes for that multiplayer session that you wish to alternate a little, every single time! YOU HAVE TO EXIT THE GAME! That goes for any sim that you wish to use a diferent setup for multiple aircraft. Then if that wasnt enough TARGET design made another mistake by making it more apropriate for legacy games than modern ones. See they didn't think that I might want to program my WH in TARGET but instead of keyboard commands I might wanna keep it all DX commands for various reasons. But you are not going to be able to because you will have one single virtual controller and only 32 DX buttons to play with.

The WH is a great consumer market controler, I think it's main flaws are: 1- as pointed before the microstick. 2-The wobbly throttle leavers when unlocked, this is however a matter of feel as in no way affects their ability to be moved percisely and to stay in place and has mostly to do with the detents mechanism, wich brings me to the 3rd flaw. 3- Maybe not exactly a flaw, but I would have prefered a diferent way to activate/deactivate the AB detent, maybe a lever you could switch similar to the Throttles lock. 4- TARGET Software... TARGET is easy to use and quite powerfull, but the decision to make the controlers virtually disconnect and connect a single virtual controler even though it offers advantages in a legacy situation is damaging in most present day uses.

I belive the A-10C module does not export the caution panel in the same way BS2 does. EMC does not provide any exporting options by itself it just configures luas to enable the exports and eases the creation of a costum dysplay lua, by letting you graphicaly set the position of the items you wish to enable exporting.

Like several people have stated. If the new collie is also not working the problem is down below. It may be soldering or pinched wires you'll have to check for this. I would recomend a multimeter.

Looking at it id say, try to take off the screews in bettween the throtles (on the right one only obviously :) ) and also the little screew in front of the Mic switch. See if that allows you to open the right throtle without having to removi it from the base. I'm thinking that maybe the back cover (the curve part where your palm rests may come off.

Do you have measures for that seat pan that you can share?

Because the A-10C has a clicable cockpit you need the mouse and it's clicks to control cockpit functions. However you can alternate between that behavior and mouso look, I think the default is LALT+C to toggle it.

It's not a problem, since that's the correct behavior. But yes, it's a workaround that behavior. In the video above you are using the CCIP cross, but you are in guns mode.

I supose you could mount it so that it started to lift the seat after it was extended somewhat. I'm sure the remainder displacement would be satisfactory.

I,ve seen a build (can't remember it it was here or on viperspits) that the guy was using on of those. Preaty simple, the seat raised on the seat rails, he just added some metal suport part for the jack to push the seat.

Actually you could build a sort of dome with the material. Much like military simulators, but the only portion beeing rendered would be where you had your eye. That would actually bring a GPU/CPU workload advantage.

I'm interested in knowing the resolution on those tiny projectors. what kind of image defenition can we expect?

Very likely. There's play in my car steering wheel. :) And most cars that aren't top brand/model or spanking new. However on the HW the stick actually inputs inside this play zone, every displacement no mater how small translates into input from the stick. I'm confortable with this, but I undestand if people are more confortable with a 1% or so deadzone. But I do quite a bit of flying (straight and level stuff) inside this play area without actually pusshing the stick spring system. With mechanical linkage there is usually no response to movement inside the playzone because no control surfaces, or steering column (in a car) are beeing dispaced.

The point of a dead zone is two fold 1 compensante for input variation arround the center of the controler and 2 to stop yourself from accidently making an input when you want you stick to be centered. The reason why I don't like them (but like I said this is tottaly personal preference) is one my controler is very precise (WH) any deviation from center I correct by trimming (like real pilots do) if I do an accidental input it will be minimal 1-2mm movements around the center translate to a minimal input wich is easely (and constantly) corrected, it's not error it's just piloting. But what I personaly hate about dead zones is the fact they they lead me to error, without them I know when my stick moves there will be response from the aircraft, but with a deadzone that response will only beguin somewhere offset from the center and that makes me "bump" the controls. I can understand people who like them but I think that after 1-3% they stop beeing usefull and become a waste of axis travel. You may even find you need less curve if you use less deadzone. As for the curves I know people use them to gain precision arround the center of the axis, but that leads to less precison on the extremes, I rather keep my controls linear so a given amount of movement translates to an equal increase of response throuout the axis. It's ok to tell people "I like this, try it", I only tought you shouldn't have said "you need to" because that's not the case at all.

Multi-million dollar simulators don't handle exactly like real life. No matter how many equations you are using, you won't have a 100% complete physics simulation, maybe one day with quantum computings. But what you can have is a close enough aproximation that is good enough to be called realistic. And if it's close enough that it even has training value, then you know you are on to something. Real pilot input is invaluable, but only after a lot of other things have been extablished, like the physics involved, flight envelope curves from telemetry data, etc. The pilot won't be able to give you that, he can only tell you if it feels like it's handeling properly and even then there may behaviors that are quite off and he may miss it or even feel it's not important for the simulation (because he is not expecting the simulation to be 100% like the real deal). Most people here take EDs word that it is very close to real, from the data they had access and the pilots they used in the development. You have to decide if you are going to be one of them or remain a skeptic. But if you remain a skeptic, why belive the A-10C is correctly modeled or the huey or the P-51 or any other aircraft in this simulation. Take the P-51, there's very few airworthy remaining, very few people left alive who fly them or have flown them, gatering of data back when the aircraft was first flown and tested was much less precise. I don't know if there's been new tests to the data with remaining aircraft, but assuming there weren't, what does it take to make it a realistic simulation? The fact that we know that it handles 100% like the real thing? Or maybe settle for a reasonably realistic behavior from all that is known of the aircraft, in witch realistic, flight parameters and limitations that lead to realistic tactics apply? DCS level aircraft are not fan made fiction (maybe if an F-35 of F-22 comes to DCS as most data will be gess work), they are made backed by real world data even if in the end there are slight diferences that even real pilots will have a hard time telling. If this level of fidelity is still not enough for you, your only alternative may be giving up flight sims entirely, or freeze yourself in cryogenic sleep and come back in a couple of hundred years to see if we are there yet! ;)

Don't try to enforce your preferences on other people. I fly with 0 dead zone and no curves. I hate deadzones and like the linear response. Don't tell people they have to anything, when it's not true.

I also had an Afterburner two, it was very pleasent until the pots went spiky. But I've tested one recently and the percision was nowhere near the standards I now must have. Can't speak fot the FS X specificaly but unless it has updated electronics and it's not just a rebrand I'd stear clear. Never tried the T.16000 but it has a great reputation, it has HALLs instead of pots and the gimball mechanism is similar to the Warthog. Of the warthog I can speak, it's a great Gimball sistem AFAIC. Not perfect but very good, it has a bit of play in the center but it has the best center feel I ever tried in a spring centered stick, smoth transition with no bumps.

Contact thrustmaster they are usually very helpfull with that, purchased a replacement microstick a while ago for a cougar I was selling when the unit arrived to the buyer the ANT Pot had broken somehow, TM also provided that no sweat. Funny thing though is when you contact them instead of giving a part catalog of sorts they direct you to this page (http://cougar.flyfoxy.com/warranty_parts.php) on cougar's world, (wich is an outside page) for you to consult the part you need and give them the number. Beats me why they don't have a similar page or PDF or whatever of their own. But in any case if on your first contact to them you include the parts number you need from that page you can probably shorten your exange of emails with them by 2 or 3.

It can only be done in target. But you could alternatevely get/build an extension for your WH and physicaly twist it like that.

It's because it's not a hud at all, just a colimated targeting sight. But it does allow for some advanced functions. Eg. projection of impact point (laser on required for acuracy) for various weapons, laser guided missiles aiming, etc.

That didn't stop us from having to add to or delete our input assignment files recently when the A-10A and SU-25 got new default commands.

I also don't know, but 3 is likely to be Max speed it's just after plane starts shaking. 2 might be cruise. Stall speed is way below 1, so it can't be that, maybe best climb?

Edited my post, my sometimes half dyslexic me, had wrongfully writen DTZ instead of TDZ. :) And you are correct St3v3f the touchdown should be at the TDZ not the threshold, but I belive in DCS the glides for ILS are also misplaced guiding you to half way down the runway instead of the TDZ.

Has Molevitch done the mod? Sorry I didn't realize that, my answeer was oversimplified then.

Anti-Skid is like an ABS on a car. It prevents Wheel locking in case of to much braking power beeing used. Using Anti-Skid is not a bad habit it's a safety measure. The system won't even engage in a proper landing, where you break gently and gradualy, using every decelerating resource at your disposal, eg. aircraft properly configured, speedbrakes, keeping your nose up after touching main landing gear and touching down on the TDZ to give yourself pleanty of stoping space. In real life a hard landing on the breaks can lead to overheating of the landing gear, tire preasures rise and can blow up, hydraulics can catch fire, etc.