GregP

Ah, well, if you're on vacation, then sure, give it a try! :) Here's my config.SoftTHconfig: [main] renderResolution=5430x1080 nonlocalFormat=RGB16D keepComposition=1 smoothing=1 debugD3D=0 zClear=1 vsync=0 tripleBuffer=0 screenshotFormat=bmp dllPathD3D9=auto dllPathDXGI=auto dllPathD3D11=auto [overrides] forceResolution=0 antialiasing=0 processAffinity=0 FOVForceHorizontal=0 FOVForceVertical=0 [head_primary] sourceRect=1355,0,1920,1080 screenMode=1920x1080 [head_1] ; Autodetected as \\.\DISPLAY2 at NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 devID=1 sourceRect=3350,0,1280,1024 transportResolution=1280x1024 transportMethod=auto noSync=0 [head_2] ; Autodetected as \\.\DISPLAY5 at NVIDIA GeForce 8400 GS devID=2 sourceRect=0,0,1280,1024 transportResolution=1280x1024 transportMethod=auto noSync=0 [head_3] ; Autodetected as \\.\DISPLAY6 at NVIDIA GeForce 8400 GS devID=3 sourceRect=4630,0,800,480 transportResolution=800x480 transportMethod=auto noSync=0 [head_4] ; Autodetected as \\.\DISPLAY7 at NVIDIA GeForce 8400 GS devID=4 sourceRect=4630,480,800,480 transportResolution=800x480 transportMethod=auto noSync=0 And here's a[n admittedly poor] picture of my setup where you can see the alignment difference between the side and center monitors: If there's anything that'll get me more FPS in DCS, I'll give it a try. Thanks!

I think I didn't explain it adequately -- by 'image mismatch', I meant that I'm trying to squeeze 1080 vertical pixels into the 1024 that my display actually has, and so even tho the info bar would now appear at the bottom of all monitors, a point-for-point comparison between the L/R monitors and the center monitor would show that the images don't match as you move down from the top (currently, the tops of all my monitors are aligned, with the L/R bottoms being about 25 mm above the middle monitor's bottom bezel). Wow--rereading the above I'm not sure that explanation helped clarify it at all. :) In other words the L/R monitors' images are compressed vertically compared to the center monitor's image and so as your eye moves from the center monitor outward, you notice a discontinuity in the vertical position of say, the canopy frame. If I want to keep everything proportional and I can't move my L/R monitors down such that all 3 monitors' lower bezels are aligned ... my only choice is to just leave things the way they were and give up on seeing the info bar.

A quick, simple answer -- thanks again, PeterP! I tried that and you're right, that does it. Problem is, of course, that my images don't line up across the 3 monitors. Ideally I'd just physically lift/drop my monitors such that their bottoms line up, and then I could just cut the 56px off of the top of the L and R monitors ... but unfortunately my current setup makes this minor change extremely difficult to implement. Thus my only real choice would be to deal with the image mismatch across monitors, and in the end, seeing the info bar isn't as important to me as having a consistent image across my monitors, so for now I'll just forget about the info bar. Thanks for the quick answer though!

I'm hoping one of the guys who've developed the multiplayer and comms menu mods will be able to solve this one too -- I run a 3-monitor config with smaller left and right monitors. The info bar (when in external views) never shows up properly because my L/R monitor heights are 1024 whereas my main monitor is 1080, i.e. the info is being shown outside my viewable area at the bottom of the left monitor. I can see the gray info bar on my center monitor, but I presume all the text is either over on the left monitor or on both the left and right monitors. I've looked through the FUI folder and don't see anything related to the info bar. Has anyone else come across it?

Nice job, looks great!

There is indeed a 3-position toggle, for example here. These are what I used on my AHCP.

Fantastic work here, icemaker, but I think you're missing a critical 'f' above. :)

The DCS Wiki does a pretty nice job of explaining CCIP/CR modes and at least for me, clears up a bit of the ambiguity in the manual.

Agreed! I made these two changes last night and WOW, what a difference, totally worth the 1-2 FPS I think I lost. Thanks Kuky! Regarding 'clutterMaxDistance', though -- after I exit the game, I see that DCS has set it back to 500. Kuky, did you make your file read-only so that it wouldn't do this?

I can't immediately find any prices for it online, but have you thought about making your own, i.e. buying a 22" monitor and getting a touchscreen overlay separately? I did that for a 17" -- bought a new monitor cheap, got a touchscreen off of eBay, slipped it under the monitor bezel, and viola, I had a 17" touchscreen for about 60% of the cost of a native touchscreen.

No, no backlight with the 54-key version. Not really an issue for me, as I never fly with all the lights out. In terms of multiprogrammable, I think what you mean is something like a shifted and unshifted state, or different modes, and I believe the answer to that is no. Although I haven't delved that deep into the MacroWorks software, I'm pretty sure there's just a single definition for each key for each profile created.

The 270.51 drivers have given me a nice healthy 18% FPS boost, which brings me right back up to where I was at with Beta4 (for some reason the release version dropped my FPS by the exact same amount).

I'm using the 54-key X-Keys Professional and it works very nicely: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=70378

No offense taken, I'm in complete agreement with you. That's why I debated for so long, and did so much research on the net, before finally settling on the X-Keys. I wasn't at all happy paying $200, but, given that I imagine I will use this in sims for quite a few years now, and it's so easy to program, and is not sim-specific, I decided to just do it.

I've been debating for awhile whether it was worth buying or building something that could work as a UFC in DCS:W, and finally settled on one of the simplest solutions: buying a 58-key X-Keys Professional. At $200 it's a bit pricey, but its versatility will hopefully make up for it -- an important point for me, as I didn't want to put too much money into something that would be too DCS:W-specific. Programming it is fast and easy, and the keys have removable clear covers under which you can place labels. I used a template from their website and copied little thumbnails of the UFC/CDU/etc. keys I wanted from a DCS:W screenshot I took, then printed it out and cut them up. I've got the entire UFC, the CDU's FSKs & FA & CLR (pretty much all you absolutely need because so many of the UFC's buttons also control the CDU in FUNC mode), all the Navigation Mode Select Panel buttons, the LASTE autopilot function buttons, and the IFFCC switch (which I couldn't fit on the AHCP I made using TigersharkBAS's instructions in this forum). All in all I'm quite pleased with it. Simple, versatile, and feels fairly realistic.

Not only is it a good idea, but for me, was required to stop DCS from crashing to desktop.

This is hugely helpful, thanks! Might you also post your final Excel sheet with the key assignment matrix? That was actually more useful to me because it provided an easy way to determine what keys were still available for assignment to the UFC, CDU, etc.

TigersharkBAS, why not just build one? It ain't THAT hard. :)

No, it's a little bit different, a little further back, higher, and less panned down: Default: Snap[11][13]["y_trans"] = -0.041336805555555564 Snap[11][13]["x_trans"] = 0.36 Snap[11][13]["hAngle"] = 0 Snap[11][13]["viewAngle"] = 75.0 Snap[11][13]["vAngle"] = -23 Snap[11][13]["rollAngle"] = 0 Snap[11][13]["z_trans"] = 0 Mine: Snap[11][13]["y_trans"] = -0.046597290039063 Snap[11][13]["x_trans"] = 0.370751953125 Snap[11][13]["hAngle"] = 0 Snap[11][13]["viewAngle"] = 131.448216 Snap[11][13]["vAngle"] = -19 Snap[11][13]["rollAngle"] = -0 Snap[11][13]["z_trans"] = -0.001983642578125

Well guys, I've fooled around with this for a few hours and still haven't gotten it to my satisfaction, however, this is the best I've come up with so far. The viewangle parameter is probably way too high for single-monitor users, but looks good on my 3-monitor setup. It's not much of an improvement in terms of side panel visibility, but does significantly cut down on the 'skewed' look of things in the default view, with the HUD frame and MFCDs appearing more vertical instead of angled. My settings: Snap[11][13]["y_trans"] = -0.046597290039063 Snap[11][13]["x_trans"] = 0.370751953125 Snap[11][13]["hAngle"] = 0 Snap[11][13]["viewAngle"] = 131.448216 Snap[11][13]["vAngle"] = -19 Snap[11][13]["rollAngle"] = -0 Snap[11][13]["z_trans"] = -0.001983642578125 Default: Mod:

Right -- there's no doubt that this is a tough design problem, and we can be fairly certain that ED knew what they were doing when they designed it as is, and had good reasons for doing so. Nonetheless, it does indeed seem that having the eye viewpoint further back not only feels more natural, but leads to less fisheye effect. Seems worthwhile, therefore, to see if we can get all the HUD info to compress inside the new visible HUD area.

OK, I just tried the LWin+KPx method last night, and found that those key combos need to be held down, unlike the {RCTL KP0} DELAY(50) KPx method, which toggles them. It seems to me that toggling is better than holding down, because with the latter you can press other keys/buttons in the sim and have them be recognized, whereas in the former (I'm pretty sure, from past experiment) you cannot.

I tried Cayenne's settings and I too agree, they feel much more realistic than the defaults. I would, however, shift the view upward enough so that the top of the CDU is visible -- this reveals a lot more of the bottom of the HUD and doesn't seem to adversely affect anything else. I completely agree that the eye viewpoint would more intuitively be placed nearer the seat back, rather than the front edge, and doing so makes a tremendous difference as you pan around the cockpit -- the 'fisheye lens' effect is significantly reduced, and the visibility of the side panels seems much more realistic; I've always been frustrated at my inability to read the side panels right-side up -- they always appears almost upside down since with the default viewpoint, you're really looking REARWARD to see the bottom 60% of the side panels. But, as everyone has noted, the HUD gets messed up and is only minimally visible when you move the viewpoint rearward. There are a bunch of LUA files that control HUD format here: C:\[game]\Scripts\Aircrafts\A-10C\Input\HUD\ And I tried playing with a bunch of different parameters in (I think) HUD_definitions.lua, but couldn't get it working correctly. I was able to drop the font size, but have yet to find a way to compress the HUD symbology to fit into the smaller area of the new viewpoint's HUD. But I would guess that our answer lies somewhere in that folder.

By the way, I think I also read recently that the release version has added LWin+KPx as being equivalent to RCTL+KP0 and then KPx, which would be a simpler way to solve your problem above.

If I understand you correctly, I've got the functionality you're looking for in my Cougar profile simply by combining the 'snap view toggle' command with a delayed 'specific snap view' command. Try this in your button assignment in the TMM file, using Left MFCD as an example: Zoom_left_MFCD = {RCTL KP0} DELAY(50) KP4 Cockpit_panel_view_toggle = {RCTL KP0} And this in your TMJ file: BTN H3U /O /T Zoom_left_MFCD /T Cockpit_panel_view_toggle It's not a perfect solution, as sometimes pressing H3U will only do the 'snap view toggle' command instead of both that and the KP4 command ... you have to sort of 'nudge' H3U again after pressing and holding it up in order to get the KP4 part to work. Might be easier to use method below, actually, now that I think more about it.