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?