Tazintosh

Andrey last answer on the question "Why don't you update the license system of A-10C?" --> because this is very old product and already many keys were sold out.

Would be nice Rudel. But it also would worth Andrey F. from the support team to be aware of it (or share it). We already discussed back and forth 10 times: Beside being absolutely unpleasant and playing on words to say that us customers are stupid, and them DCS are right, nothing went much out of the discussion. When I explained the issue on VM, he considered that saying that A-10C works “like it intended initially” was a valid answer. Well no, specially when no legal term are specifically pointing the fact of not using VM :(

Hi folks, I've recently upgraded my hardware to the next level (meaning, it's a gamer computer available over internet that gives you 60fps of high quality streaming). It's called Shadow (https://shadow.tech). It's a virtual PC, but with a dedicated graphic card. There are many benefits on this (for my work, my games, my wallet, the flexibility, etc.), but debating it is not the point of this topic. I've installed my games on it, among DCS of course. Sadly, I discovered when launching DCS that my activation often failed because on a virtual PC the hardware can change. With such a behaviour, I've wasted 4 activations before understanding the above and I have only have 4 left on my A-10C module :-/ Registry fixes do work well. But it uses another activation out of the 10. I could also deactivate my module after playing using the DRM section in the Modules Manager but this is also limited to 10 uses. Then, once my 10 activations will be reached, I'll only be able to run DCS once a month (If I understood it well). As example, A-10C was out in 2013, I'm pretty sure (even not speaking Virtual PC), that multiple legit owners did changed a piece of their hardware 10x. Why don't DCS update the license system of StarForce modules? Did really DCS just took the money and let it's customer down?

Hey dimebug — or should I say "bonjour" since looks like we both live in the same country ;) Thanks for this information with is quite interesting. I did tried it and it's working (except the "Profils" folder fabrice352 is talking about doesn't exist for me). Everything is located into the "scripts" folder of TARGET (which has also a different content). Anyway, this has worked and when running the script from TARGET and using the device monitor tool, we can clearly see 120 published DX buttons. I still have to finish analyzing what solution I'll pickup to best program my HOTAS. BTW, from my first tests, note that it's still possible to use TARGET GUI. Sadly, you cannot for the GUI access or set any DX > 32, so the only requirement is to first create a trigger for all buttons, save and quit, then edit the /Users/myUser/Documents/TARGET Configs/myTARGETConfig.fcf with the DX from 33 to 120 you want for each button. Save, relaunch TARGET, and enjoy. All those "custom" DX will appear on the UI for your programmed button. Looks like there is no need the manual edit this .fcf while you don't plan to change your DX mapping.

So even DCS is smarter than a dedicated TARGET software, good to know :beer: This is one opinion :) A simple Capslock key for example, automatically behaves as a toggle and instantly provides a complete remapping of all Warthog buttons, hats, etc. Thanks for all your inputs Svend, appreciated.

Do you also prefer to use one more dedicated software (to install, update, hope for no conflicts) for each piece of hardware you could have (Thrustmaster TARGET only for TM devices and so on), whether they are GUI or not, rather that having one unique software to "rule them all"? Quick question: Can I with TARGET, set a modifier key located on another hardware (ie. as basic as my keyboard) and have it available to remap all my Warthog?

This, I've no doubt about… But in 2016, I simply cannot understand why people would need a deep coding knowledge to simply "use" in a sightly enhanced way, a piece of software they bought (not cheap!) 11 years ago, people with CM were already enjoying a rich and smart node based UI to do the same. I don't think it's "normal customer behavior" having to digg into code to enjoy your piece of hardware. Being all lover of aerial stuff, what we should do is enjoy flying no? And doing so, to me, means being able to program fast my devices, without head ache, because it's visual, playful and makes everything obvious. :pilotfly:

I can understand using such powerful small piece of hardware when building your own cockpit etc., but I my case, I bough an HOTAS Warthog and MFG Crosswind to get something of good quality out off the box. Buying a new piece of hardware and having to digg into how it's engineered, etc. would exacerbate me :( Guys, I'm not a master of Windows environnement at all, but by reading all your answers, looks like you're (I am too) all stuck expecting —finally— for an incredible controlling software to exist. This forum have a huge amount of users that could (let's hope) make Ken (ControllerMate developper) consider porting it's app (if technically made possible by Windows). Why not you folks send him a kind e-mail? I've been quite often in contact with him, it's a very nice guy. http://www.controllermate.com/support/ If you have not yet done it, you should give a look to ControllerMate Go to Documentation and Examples sections, you'll see how incredibly simple and yet ultra powerful the concept is (I'm not trying to give you fake hope here :doh:) Don't give a precise look to the compatibility section, it's not up to date (and this would be hard because virtually everything USB HID is compatible). For instance, Warthog are not on the list and yet I can fully control them (but the lights). I'll send Ken an e-mail right now. Take care Could we consider creating a sticked and dedicated poll on this forum to get an idea of the amount of users that would be interested into a real piece of software to control any USB input plugged?

Hey og_wolf, thanks for the answer. I've no doubt TARGET can be powerful. It's just a shame, in 2016, that it's still require users to learn coding, while a "node" concept UI like ControllerMate is insanely more smarter and accessible to everyone. Last time, I was looking on how to pulse a led on the forum… knowing how damn simple it is with CM… really, it's beyond me. The worst, in the end, is that even considering the power TARGET could have, the created virtual device is still ridiculously limited (32 buttons, one hat, etc.). My idea was to look if it was possible to run two configurations at the same time, one only for the Warthog joystick, and another only for the Warthog throttle. Can we run two instance of an app in Windows? So each one could create a run a virtual device. (Question is, if all of this was possible, will the app be smart enough to create a different name for each virtual device). And BTW, no communication between a device to the other (ie. to set a modifier) would be possible. Anyhow, TARGET could be very nice if (and only if), it was not remapping every single button. Let me explain: In ControllerMate, the app interact with the native button and add it's own layer of information. This means, that if you attach the key G the button 03 for instance, then this button will obviously always trigger G, but if you don't attach anything to a button, it'll keep is native behavior… so JOY_BTN03. In Target however, this is not possible. From my test, if I run a config with button without any action, they will be deactivated.

Looks like your answers confirm what TARGET really is… Understanding how such big companies can be so awful in software development is beyond me… There are so many wrong things in the concept, UI, etc. of the app, it's really sad :( Specially when we know for how long this tool exist. If only ControllerMate was existing on PC… Do you guys have any recommendation for a software that could be close enough to program a device?

Hello everyone, I'll would like to make sure I'm not missing something trivial with the TARGET software… I own a TM Warthog. As you know, the joystick has 19 button and the warthog has 32 buttons (in both case, I'm even not counting hats, etc.) Without the need of TARGET, both are natively supported by OS (full support on Mac or PC without drivers). So in DCS, any button action is given by the button name, ie. JOY_BTN24 And here comes TARGET, this weird —official— software that once a configuration is set, creates a virtual game device, that offers only 32 buttons, one hat, and the axes… Are they kidding? Come on, we're in 2016! I read the TARGET manual and at the very beginning, they are stating that basically, 80% of all configurations would be keystroke based… Are they really trying to tell us it should be a valid reason? For me it's not. Why ever, we could not just want all buttons and hats to keeps their own default behavior while we would enjoy programming lights etc. They are many reasons where being able to access 32+19 "DX" button through TARGET would make sense. I would love someone to tell me that I misunderstood everything, really I would… But whatever powerful this tool could be, I don't think such a behavior with the virtual device buttons limitation has anything powerful. When I see what can be done with an application like ControllerMate with the same TM Warthog, I just turn crazy about TARGET…

Glad you see the potential like me guys ;) Bearfoot, the plate is made of steal. All can be done at home, but I bet steal cutting tools are not in all homes, neither the necessary to drill ^^ Still you need to be very precise on drilling else, you'll not be able to place the plate. Using a pillar drill is probably a very secure solution. Holes are 6mm (threaded). The precise space between hole can be found here http://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=64877&d=1334670526 cichlidfan, this tripod is a little to "small" for my gear, so I've a bigger carbon one that can support among other, my 405 gear head (all same brand). This one have been "saved" by "surgery" ^^. One of the third section leg has broken, so I've reduced it to a two sections tripod :D

Hey folks :bye_2: It has been quite some times since my slew mod! Today, I just would like to share some DIY I've made to support my Warthog Throttle. Here is the situation: My desktop is my working area, not a cockpit and nothing close to a dedicated playing area. So basically, when not flying, I want everything to be put away, out of my view. But when I decide to take a brake, I want everything to be easily placed. I've have a smaller tripod I'm using rarely, it's not my main work photography tripod. So I decided to build a plate for an ultra quick mounting / unmounting procedure for the throttle. What's very nice with the tripod is that I can place it exactly as I want, the orientation, the height, etc. None of the work I've done modified any part of my tripod, the throttle plate I've made is fixed to the standard camera mount plate of the tripod. Easy to remove if I need to use it back, easy to mount again, etc. Putting the throttle on the plate is a matter of 2s: grab it, place it. Boom, it's that simple. Perhaps this will gives you ideas guys. I'm really happy with it. Regards,

Hi FlyingHighAU As said on the beginning of the tutorial: "…but unlike simple adaptations where people paste a substitute on the original stub, I wanted to make a change similar the original model…" :smilewink: Sdmccorm, thanks for your comment! About dimensions, I don't perfectly remember then, but just open the 3D files: everything is on scale so you should get any information you need. Cheers!

When I'll find time, I could prepare another 3D model for you guys, but I'll definitely not have the time to get it printed and tested for the moment.