Not saying I can buy it, but just maybe...

Anyway, what's the consensus? CH products?

Do tell!

d.

Read the sig baby!

yeah, CH products.

Modded Thrustmaster Cougar with Force Pressure Kit will beat the precision and "plastic" feel of a CH stick.

See my signature -- Cougar+force mod. Prepare to spend "too much" -- as one nearly always does when one buys the best regardless of price. Still cheap compared to the highest end Intel quad and will last a decade longer

As for the best performance/price deal, also see my signature -- Saitek.

Bah!

Try not to spend to much buy something you dont have to mod to make it work right.

BTw I love Debby

yeah, if you feel like sacrificing blood, sweat, tears, and time, then cougar is great...me, i got tired to tweaking/repairing/troubleshooting it and just wanted to fly, hence my switch to CH.

reliability and ruggedness - CH all the way

feel and looks - Cougar, Saitek

I'm a CH man mainly because my HOTAS takes a beating; but I never have to worry about them breaking. I've used the same CH HOTAS going on 8 years and never have had something break/malfunction

I haven't had any regrets after buying my CH HOTAS.

Come again?

In otherwords dont waste money on something that you have to mod to make it work right

That depends on how you look at it.
If you want something that works properly straight out of the box then you would be right.
If you are willing to do some work yourself (and spend a bit more ) then the Cougar would just be a 'component' of your new HOTAS, the other component being new gimbals.

To answer the question of what is the best HOTAS you can buy, one's criteria should be defined first whether it be cost, durability, programmability, flexibility, number of physical button presses, number of hat switches, number of rotary switches, design, ergonomics, etc. or any combination of the above.

A modded Thrustmaster Cougar utilizing NXT and Hall sensors isn't the best if one's criteria is the total number of physical button presses, the HOTAS with the most number of hat switches and being able to bind a CH Fighterstick, CH Pro Throttle, CH Throttle Quadrant and CH Pro Pedals (or even the one of the CH flight yokes for bomber/civ virtual pilots) as a single device in the joystick control panel applet along with a more clear visual aid in what mode selection you are in.

I'm just citing this as an example as all the setups have their strengths and weaknesses. My ideal HOTAS would be the comfort and rubber textured grip of the Saitek HOTAS, the number of physical button presses and hat switches and quality engineering of the CH Products line and the metal construction and fidelity of a fully modded Thrustmaster Cougar.

If you define the criteria, then what is the best HOTAS for you can easily be determined.

CH fan here all the way. I had a Saitek X36 and a Saitek X45, but never had a real HOTAS. So a couple years ago, with the encouragement of a friend who shall rename nameless, I bought a Fighterstick, Pro Throttle, and Pro Pedals. Never regretted it for one instant and I'm still pleased as can be with it and the Control Manager.

Kudos to CH Products and Bob Church.

I also have had the TM Cougar, Saitek X45, X52, X52 Pro. Now I own CH products. They are simply the best bang for the buck.

Right now, I'm using a Thrustmaster HOTAS Cougar that came pre-modded with the original Force-Controlled Cougar, and some RCS pedals with a Hall sensor kit installed. It's pretty reliable thus far, though the Y axis of the microstick has a strange response when pushed up. (Of course, since the stick is modded already, I've never had to deal with the pot/gimbal problems many stock Cougar users encounter at some point.)

I used to own a CH Products Fighterstick and Pro Pedals, both USB. Very fine products, and the Control Manager is still unmatched for programmability-and yet I sold them when I was short on funds. Why? It all boils down to ergonomics-the Fighterstick handle just doesn't feel quite right, and the Pro Pedals are too closely spaced for my liking. Ergonomics are very important if I'm going to be having my hands and feet on these things for long periods of time. The other factor was that I specifically bought this particular Cougar for use with Falcon 4.0, as it's the most faithful of the consumer HOTAS setups to the F-16's controls. (The Fighterstick only has a single-stage trigger and no paddle switch, and the Pro Throttle doesn't even remotely resemble the F-16 throttle!)

Of course, there's a new player in the market that very few of us can really comment on at the moment, that being the Logitech G940. I'm hoping to get one to complement (NOT replace) my Cougar, as the deflecting FFB stick will lend itself better to prop jobs (the FCC mod in my Cougar makes it very stiff with little deflection) while the split throttle is better-suited for dual-engine aircraft. I'll switch between sticks and throttles depending on what feels right for the aircraft I'm piloting at the moment, basically.

Ya forgot about the money bit

My choice of stick is currently a stock Cougar too, and it was my first proper HOTAS too, purchased on the grounds that I won't be able to break a stick at the base if it's made of metal. Like many of the other guys here, I've probably gone through the same issues; misaligned speedbrake/dogfight switches on the throttle (I don't know what it's like with the later batches) and the usual pot problems, and the existing stock gimbal system has a much larger throw than I'd prefer.

I think that if you want something that works out of the box, go CH. If you want a system that you can turn into something very professional, then Cougar + mods, but obviously this has a high overhead.

Going on a tangent slightly, how does Foxy compare to the other stick programming software kits that you get with Saitek and CH?

I like my CH setup. It may be plastic, but it's durable. It worked great right out of the box. Very accurate.

Owned an X45 in the past and stopped working correctly pretty quickly. I had read that a lot of people had issues like that with the X45, and with some more of the same with the x52 models, so I decided against purchasing Saitek stuff again.

Cougar, while it looks neat, is just too much work. I didn't like the idea of being required to spend a lot of money modding a joystick just to get it to work properly.

Yep, Cougar with FSSB R2 here, new dogfight and speedbrake switch sliders and hall effect mod in the throttle...

On a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being non-programmable and 10 being that your HOTAS fetches the morning paper and makes coffee for you, software for the four high-end HOTAS manufacturers ranks as follows:

Saitek / SST: 6; macros, digital axis programming, three modes, etc.

Logitech / Logitech Gaming Software: based on E3 discussions, probably about 6.5; it will do everything SST will do plus swap axes. It remains to be seen, however.

Cougar / Foxy: 8.5 - macros, logical functions, swappable/reversable axes, axis curves and deadzones (on-the-fly if you want), etc.

CH / Control Manager: 9.8 - all of the above plus something no other software suite has, the ability to do math. The ability to calculate lets CM do just about anything you would want in a programmable controller interface.

Great info fellahs. Thanks.

To me, it's a decked-out Cougar with FSSB R2 or FCC-2, Hall sensor-upgraded throttle with UMT bushings (even better if an actual metal throttle arm gets made), and Simped F-16/C pedals at this point, even if logical programming has nothing on CH's Control Manager Scripting.

My Cougar only has the FCC-1 mod, though, along with +HS-modded RCS pedals. The throttle still has the stock pot and a very iffy Y-axis on the microstick, while the stick has a big patch of paint rubbed off. (Paint on the Cougar sure comes off easily!) However, I sold the CH Products Fighterstick and Pro Pedals that I had (both USB) because they just plain didn't feel ergonomic at all. The Pro Pedals were too closely spaced, and the Fighterstick felt like it was digging into my palm somewhat. (No, the light feel and use of plastic didn't put me off-the shape and feel in my hand did.) That, and a FCC/FSSB-modded Cougar is probably the best match for Falcon 4.0 short of getting a real F-16 HOTAS and somehow making it work with any old PC.

That said, I want a Logitech G940 because the stiff, pressure-driven feel of the FCC doesn't really work well for IL-2 and, well, anything that isn't a modern jet or perhaps a helicopter. That, the G940 is a high-end HOTAS with true force-feedback for once, it has a split throttle, and its pedals have toe brakes. Whether I'll have 300 US$ to spend on it by the time it releases is another question, however. Also, I'm waiting for reviews given Logitech's infamous track record with reliability, proper axis response, and the like.

Nameless, for stuff like IL-2 I bought an 80$ Saitek AV8R stick. Few buttons, but light easy stick, twin throttle, twist axis for rudder - plenty enough for prob sims.

Obviously if you want FF, the Logitech would be the better choice, but for me I never considered a second "real" HOTAS, just something for then the Cougar is too strong.

If the AV8R had that stiction around the center due to the spring-loaded disc contacting the base like my old Cyborg 3D Gold, I'm not sure I'll like it.

I have two potential candidates for an IL-2 stick already:

-Logitech WingMan Strike Force 3D
-Logitech WingMan Interceptor

The former needs a gimbal redesign to eliminate pot play. It's bad enough that physical movement in only one axis will still induce a small change in the other due to how the pots are coupled to the gimbals. Not good. The latter needs a full-on brain transplant with a BU0836 or something similar to get around the digital gameport.

I personally prefer the Interceptor design (more switches on stick, VERY ergonomic, and a smaller base that takes up much less desk space), but the Strike Force 3D already has USB and force-feedback.

The bigger question is "Do I have the time to modify them to meet my requirements?" If not, is there someone who is willing to do the modifications for me, perhaps for a fee?

Well, Foxy is where Control Manager was at v2.0. Control Manager 4.51, well makes (still) CH Products the most programmable controllers on the planet.

Oh really? Knowing both intimately, I'd question the facts behind such a statement, as well as the depth of your knowledge of the two softwares. Do you even own a Cougar yet and know Foxy intimately to make such a statement? The answer's "No" isn't it?

Nutty

let the games begin...

James,

I know both softwares, and Ghost's statement is accurate. So if you want to drag posts up that are almost 3 months old, I suggest you don't select arguments for which your preference is on the unfavorable side.

Suffice it to say that Thrustmaster and CH both have HOTAS hardware and accompanying software that have much to offer to their fan base, and that's a good thing.

I take it Frugal's is still down? LOL

If Nutty wrote foxy, of course he is gonna:

a: be offended

b: understand the software to a level that HIS knowledge makes Foxy as usable as Control Manger... the average user, not so much.

I prefer TM but, it has certainly frustrated me to the point that I have, literally, thrown my sticks across the room.

I do not look forward to the day I have to chose a new HOTAS because the TM option is no longer available.

Why is the TM option no longer available? Just curious...

I prefer TM in feel over CH, have used TM almost exclusively since about 1992, although in that time I have used both CH, Saitek, and Suncom sticks, and I know Foxy very intimately as well. I was actually one of the users who BOUGHT a copy of Foxy, way back in the day before it was standard issue with TM equipment. I would say it is more difficult to use than CH's Control Manager, but not overly so. I just think that CH's CM software has a more refined UI.

It will be interesting to see the new HOTAS (Warthog) due out from TM.

-Skater

I just figured they would get out of the HOTAS market at some point. I did not realize they had a new product in the works.

Well, all I know is that while the Control Manager is indeed very powerful, CH could really use a boost in the ergonomics department. If you're going to be playing a serious flight sim for a few hours straight, you want controls that feel comfortable to use, right?

I'm not trying to say that CH makes bad stuff-the Fighterstick and Pro Pedals, while I had them, were pretty reliable and dead-on accurate. It's just that the former kind of dug into my right palm while the latter didn't have the pedals spaced out far enough. I also got to try out some CH USB yokes (the kind with triple levers for throttle/mixture/prop pitch, but NOT the Eclipse; that came later), and even the handles on those didn't feel quite right.

I don't really care that they're made of plastic instead of metal or lack much resistance/tension by default-it's when the controls feel even slightly discomforting to hold/use that I get concerned. I never got that with Thrustmaster, Suncom, Saitek, or even Logitech (though, in that case, I can't vouch for the G940, just their older sticks like the WingMan Interceptor and Strike Force 3D).

(Now, if I could just get a product that combined CH-class scripting with TM-class ergonomics...)

I'm sure Ghost can speak for himself and answer my questions directly.

However, if you truly believe that "Foxy is where Control Manager was at v2.0" then by all means, let's discuss. You are both mistaken and I think that's because neither of you understand what Foxy offers.

Let's pick up on the statement: "Foxy is where Control Manager was at v2.0." which I questioned the factual basis of.

How can it be?

Can Foxy hide controllers from Windows and create virtual devices? No.
Could it ever? No.
Will it ever? No.
Does Foxy dictate the programmability of the Cougar? No.
Can a user program his Cougar fully without Foxy installed? Yes.
Now can a CH user combine his controllers into one and program them without Control Manager installed? No.

So I ask you ... how can these two ever be equivalent, either then or now?

Therefore the statement:

"Foxy is where Control Manager was at v2.0." cannot possibly be true, and it follows therefore that the statement "I know both softwares, and Ghost's statement is accurate." by definition is not true. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Where users make such comparative errors is in their use of Foxy to describe the programmability of the Cougar. If they want to make a statement based on the capabilities of CH controllers vs. the Cougar, then they show their ignorance of the facts by using CM vs. Foxy as their comparators. You could equally compare CM vs. Notepad for what that's worth.

So it would seem that I'm happily denigrating Foxy here. Not at all. What Foxy does, it does very well, and I've not used any controller software that offers anywhere near the number of features Foxy offers. If they did I wouldn't have bothered developing Foxy



In general my online time is spent either with the 87th StrayDogs or directly with Thrustmaster on upcoming projects. The only forums I review regularly are those of the squadron I fly in and to a lesser extent, Viperpits and Frugal's forums. So I only picked this post up recently when searching for something else. However, knowing SimHQ prides itself on forums containing accurate information, I felt the need to rectify a statement that wasn't correct. It may be a case of dragging posts up for you, but some of us don't have the time to dedicate to forum watching as others do.



Foxy ... which side would that be on other than my own side given I am its developer?

Anyway, please don't feel the need to suggest how I select my arguments bud. As a word of advice to you, you generally only want to offer to do that for people less intelligent and less knowledgeable than you.




As do Saitek, Logitech, RealSimulator, Microsoft, Suncom ... all having produced great products for simmers .... but to CH fans, it's always just a CH vs. TM thing.

Nutty

My interpretation of the statement is that Foxy and CM v2.0 offered roughly the same capability to their respective hardware, not that each application offered the exact features of the other. Your picking apart of this is unreasonable.


While this is of course technically true, why would anyone want to use notepad when Foxy is available? Foxy is a good program that makes programming the Cougar easier. Again, it is unreasonable to quibble over the semantics of such statements when it is clear that people really mean "Cougar capabilities vs. CH capabilities" when they say "Foxy vs. CM".

I understand, but it seemed the main focus of your post was not to correct misinformation.

Of course you are on Foxy's side; were you not I would be very confused. My point was that I feel the latest version of CM makes CH controls more capable than the latest version of Foxy makes the Cougar. Ultimately this is the crux of this discussion, and I hope I've worded that to your satisfaction so that we can have a meaningful discussion instead of you picking on one's semantics.

Thanks, I appreciate your opinion on my intelligence.


For a while the Cougar/Foxy (or notepad, if you insist) combination provided simmers with the hands-down no-contest most versatile and programmable HOTAS there was, despite the fact that CH was selling the Fighterstick, Pro Throttle, and Pro Pedals. But over time, developments in Control Manager meant that the CH hardware/software combination allowed these CH controllers to do things that the Cougar could not (and cannot, since Foxy hasn't changed). So it's only reasonable to pit CH against Thrustmaster in this situation, because no one else comes close for versatility and programmability (including Saitek products that existed years ago and Logitech's new G940). It is unfortunate that some fans of CH (certainly not all) seem to take joy in pointing out the deficiencies of the Cougar.


Since you took the effort to point out that Foxy does not govern the capabilities of the Cougar, are there things that the Cougar can do that aren't easily or nicely implemented in Foxy? I'm sure we'd all like to hear about them if there are. If there aren't, I'm not sure why bringing up the fact that Cougar code can be written in notepad is relevant at all.

Also, do you feel that the Cougar is capable of everything that Control Manager makes CH hardware capable of?

Joe, you clearly didn't understand my post. Go back and read it, and have a read of my manual, and all will become clear.

Cheers

Nutty

I think it might be time for a SimHQ article where the 2 camps go head to head.

How about a SimHQ series where the 4 (HOTAS) camps go head to head?

How about a very well illustrated series of SimHQ articles on female mud wrestling?

To what manual are you referring? The Foxy manual?

Yeah, you're right. That does sound more interesting.....

"Does Foxy dictate the programmability of the Cougar? No."

Does this matter? No.


"Can a user program his Cougar fully without Foxy installed? Yes."

Does this matter? No.


"Now can a CH user combine his controllers into one and program them without Control Manager installed? No."

Does this matter? No.

Soooooo, anyways, what's the scoop on the new (?) Logitech HOTAS?

SimHQ review of the Logitech G940:
http://www.simhq.com/_technology2/technology_155a.html

Depends on the sim

Back on topic...

What's the BEST HOTAS? Well, I've already got it IMO. But...

Bob's workin' on that last .2 Joe

James, please, we both know the history of both softwares. And they both began with one man. He just decided to switch camps and you picked up the ball and took it to where Foxy is today. Nothing wrong with that, matter o' fact I'm quite sure Cougar owners all over the world admire and thank you for what you've given them. But, be honest with yourself, has Foxy kept pace with Control Manager?

Ghost, your bias toward CH Products if world famous. So much so it makes me sick, so sick that every time I've thought about buying some CH gear, I stop myself. Your rabid fanboi act has gone to far for some.

Sooooo stating the truth about [insert brand name HOTAS] is bias, and makes you ill. May I suggest actually looking into what I've posted? I've tried and liked some features of brands X, Y and Z. I just happend to settle for nothing less (for me) than the best. The best in regards to, programability, support, ruggedness. Oh, and they're modable too CH Products Fanboi? Okay, I'll wear that badge proudly! Ask anybody that knows me here, (and I'll say this again) I could care less what you fly with, be happy with your decision.

OK well here is my take on it....again. First off I do not work for and I am in no way affiliated with TM. I have recommended many Cougars and have three of my own. My Uber 2NXT MODDED and FSSB modded Cougars beat the living hell out of any CH period. I should not even mention those in the same sentence as CH. Those MODS of course cost an awful lot more than a stock kitty or a CH so let’s move on to that point next......

There is a lot of incorrect, overstated, exaggerated and outright misinformation being posted by the CH camp (also again and as usual). Stock Cougars are every bit as good as any stock CH. Yes I have opened the stick and I know the internals pretty well. I have also used 50 cents worth of Mylar and two staples to alleviate the potential wear/increased center play over time issue that many exaggerate as a disastrous defect that will cost you hundreds of dollars to MOD. That is a LIE! It is simply is not the case.

For the many stock Cougar owners out there that I know and have recommended the product to none of them, absolutely none of them are dissatisfied with their Kitty’s and many have owned them for a number of years. The potentiometers in the Cougars are nowhere near any type of serious issue and rarely need to be replaced, again many I know with stock Cougars have never had to.

Programming:
The CH does indeed have more in depth programming capabilities but Foxy leaves you wanting for absolutely nothing in that department. Both Foxy and CM are far more than any one will ever need in advanced programming capabilities.

Also the Cougar is all metal and ergonomically beautiful, massive and substantial, cold and cool. Don't believe everything you read.

I can’t wait to see the A-10 warthog HOTAS.

Out

Is it just me or is this CH vs Kitty debate looking alot like Rock-em Sock-em Robots! lol

I have both and I like.................................

I purchased a Uber 2NXT MODDED Cougar. I did not like it. I tried.. SO HARD I tried to like it after I spend the money I did. It just did not have the precision teh CH Setup had out of the box. If I had not used a CH prior I probly would have liked it. It did look cool as hell.

CH is not perfect but for precision and durability it is second to none from my experience. So the kitty has been sold and teh CH is back on the desk.

Funny about this eternal "What is the best HOTAS" (a hardware) question around forums is every time end in "the best software" discussion.

Sokol1

Ladies and Germs, the thing I like (and dislike) about simmers is how passionate and opinionated we are. I count myself in there as well.

We each have our own perceptions, our own biases, our own opinions. That is as it should be. It doesn't make one "right" and the other "wrong". I don't mind sharing interests and those perceptions, but any animosity needs to be checked at the door.

Hey Ghost, what I meant was who cares if the Control Manager is installed? It's not like it has any negative level of overhead and anyone who is going to buy a HOTAS setup isn't exactly going to operate it like it is a 2 button stick or something.

And being able to combine all of the controllers as a single device is one of many reasons why I went the CH Products route. I simply don't view having to have the CH Control Manager installed as being a negative.

Ok let's clear something up here Ghost. You have no idea about the history of the softwares. So let me educate you. Fox 2, from which Foxy is ultimately derived began before I knew Bob. The work we did together subsequently was great fun and very educational for me. My history with TM controllers and the controller community predates what you and your ilk have become synonymous with. Why you continue to deride my work, or make comparisons when you've never used it, has me confused. It's not an intelligent thing to do, so why persist? If you're so impressed with the CH and its software, then let them sell themselves on their own merits. Why do you and the CH camp continue with this underhand and childish behaviour across the forums?



Kept pace? Are you joking me? I see you still have no clue as to what Foxy is and what the Control Manager is. You make comparisons with no experience or knowledge of Foxy but you continue to deride it. How can you make statements about Foxy with no knowledge of it? You and others still think Foxy defines the programmability of the Cougar. The features of Foxy and its applications are extensive. Go and see what it can do and you will see an extensive list of features absent in other software.

But best of all, just grow up and stop all of this crap once and for all.

Nutty

Hey guys... Can we stop the back and forth barbs here now? Not only is it bad form here, but it is pointless... CH and TM BOTH make excellent products. Some prefer one over the other. Others like both. Both companies are winners in my book. End of story.

Seriously, it's reminding me of the old Combatsim.com in here right about now...

-Skater

James, if you could answer my technical questions I think we all might gain a better understanding of the Foxy/Cougar combination. You've said multiple times in this thread that Foxy does not define the programmability of the Cougar. As zcaa0g said: "Does this matter? No." It doesn't, because everyone that's programming their Cougar uses Foxy (just like everyone that's using their CH hardware in its complicated form uses Control Manager).

So, why make statements like this without giving the readers of this thread any information about why you are making such statements? I'm trying to learn something and it's not working out very well.

I see my well intentioned advice got passed right over. You guys just cannot help but dig into each other.

My finger is hovering over the button on this thread. Prove me wrong and respond with civility.

Maybe as the OP i should have said "what is the preferred Hotas to us with BS" out of the 3 that i have already mentioned.

I don't have the time to go into a long detailed answer, and with so much history between Bob and myself, I'm loathe to get dragged into such a debate for educational or other reasons.

So I hope this clears this up.

The issue is that you are defining Foxy by the programmability of the Cougar. Then statements are made about Foxy being somewhat behind in features compared to the CM based on this.

I take issue with that. Especially when it is presented from people who've never used it. As its developer I have a right to pick up on those statements and challenge their authenticity.

The programmability of the Cougar is defined by and effected by the TM software, drivers and firmware.

Foxy is used to help create the programming files that can be passed to the TM software for compilation and transfer to the Cougar. And it does this very well indeed with a whole set of supporting features to facilitate this. But Foxy is MUCH more than this.

It is this additional feature set of Foxy that is being ignored in comparitive statements, even though these are currently unequalled by any Windows controller software. Therein lies the issue.

I have only the greatest respect for what Bob has created with his drivers and software. Even the ability to wrap it all into one installer is exceptionally clever. There's no way Foxy can do what all of his software can do, because I cannot write drivers, and they're an integral part of CM. But above that driver level, when you look at the Windows features, I'm good.

I'm sure he won't mind me saying that because really, what defines the CM is not its Windows features, but it's capabilities at driver level. It's a good Windows GUI, but it's an exceptional driver layer. That's the hard stuff and way out of my league.

Hope that helps.

Nutty

It does, thanks.

Thanks James.

Thank you James.



Is all I was trying to say, with little to no time here to say it. You said it beautifully. Again thank you.

I'm delighted to accept your apology Ghost, along with your promise to stop posting about Foxy. A great result for all concerned.

Nutty

Does this mean that the old TM-vs.CH HOTAS wars (or more like Foxy-vs.CM wars) I'd always end up reading about over at Frugal's will finally come to a close at long last? I'm relieved.

I hope so bud. I truly do.

James

Thank you for your reply to my PM and assistance in getting the cougar up and running again.
Much appreciated.