Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
#3593984 - 06/19/12 02:55 AM TARGET vs. DirectX  
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 75
Yurgon Offline
Junior Member
Yurgon  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 75
Germany
I'm baffled. The Thrustmaster HOTAS Warthog comes with 7 axes and 51 buttons, right (*)?

DirectX (DirectX 11 as of the writing of this post in June 2012) is limited to 8 axes and 32 buttons per controller.

TARGET combines all physical controllers that it's used on into one virtual controller.

With the HOTAS Warthog alone, 19 physical buttons cannot be mapped to DirectX buttons within TARGET, and we've only got a single axis left (rudder pedals connected to the HOTAS Cougar base, anyone?). Whoops, there go my toe brakes.

Baffled, part 1: Okay, this is going to be an anti M$ rant. It's not like this is 1970. It's not like we're limited to 640K of memory. Gaming rig CPUs operate at 3 or 4 MHz or maybe even more. Why, the [unintelligible] is DirectX limited to 8 axes and 32 buttons per controller?! Is this the [unintelligible] stone age or what?!

Baffled, part 2: Okay, looking back on part 1 and the fact that these stupid DirectX limitations do exist, how on earth could Thrustmaster come up with the idea of combining all phyiscal controllers into a single virtual controller? Could it not have been more obvious to them that we would run out of DirectX buttons and axes in TARGET sooner than later? That's like introducing IPv4 in 2011. What the heck?!

Baffled, part 3: DCS: A-10C illustrates the problem just perfectly. If we plug in our wonderful (and mightily expensive) HOTAS Warthog and fire up DCS A-10C, we see two controllers: "Throttle - HOTAS Warthog" and "Joystick - HOTAS Warthog". Two controllers with a maximum of 8 axes and 32 buttons each. If we tried to use TARGET to create a new profile for DCS A-10C, we'd have to map no less than 19 buttons on throttle and/or joystick with their keyboard equivalents because Windows/DirectX wouldn't even be able to see/register them as pure DirextX buttons.

Now, that's quite doable. However, coming from the F-16 FLCS and the HOTAS Cougar it is my philosophy to program the controller and not program how the controller works in a sim, i.e. I don't even want to touch the game's key mapping, I want to do all of the mapping in my controller's software. Thrustmaster put that way of thinking in my head, and I think it's an entirely perfect way to do it, it has a lot of inherent advantages. But with the way that TARGET currently works, they not only break compatibility with their earlier way of thinking. It's inherent that, currently, TARGET couldn't even make the HOTAS Warthog work in DCS A-10C as it currently does out of the box.

Again, the real problem are the ridicoulus constraints currently imposed by M$ and DirectX. But these restrictions aren't anything new. So I'm completely baffled by Thrustmaster's way of doing things. IMHO they could hardly have come up with worse choices in terms of combining controllers.

The good thing is, (AFAIK) it's entirely a software problem. At the risk of breaking old profiles, Thrustmaster could work around the DirectX restrictions by turning each physical controller into a virtual controller. Heck, they could even turn a single physical controller into multiple virtual controllers so a Warthog V2 could include the AHCP in the physical device but pretend to be 2 or more devices so that the Windows/DirectX limit of 32 DX buttons per controller wouldn't be exceeded.

But seriously, unless I hugely misunderstood the concept behind TARGET and the "Thrustmaster Combined" controller, I think this is a huge mistake.

(*) 7 axes and 51 buttons:

19 buttons on the joystick and 32 buttons on the throttle according to http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=81222.

7 axes:
  • Joystick X
  • Joystick Y
  • Throttle Right
  • Throttle Left
  • Throttle Slew Control X
  • Throttle Slew Control Y
  • Throttle Friction Control


"War is much more fun when you're winning!"
General Martok, Star Trek DS9 6.3 "Sons and Daughters"
Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#3594273 - 06/19/12 06:19 PM Re: TARGET vs. DirectX [Re: Yurgon]  
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,508
Teej Offline
Member
Teej  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,508
1: I'm not going to defend MS...especially on this.

2&3:

Well, gosh, this is kind of a loaded question that I could spend a week answering.

However, you contradict yourself: If you want to "program the controller and not touch the game's key mapping", then TARGET is the only way to do it. Let's assume for the sake of argument that A-10C didn't come pre-programmed for the Warthog. How would it know that DX27 on controller X was autopilot 'PATH' mode, DX28 was ALT mode, and if neither DX27 nor 28 were pressed, you wanted ALT/HDG mode?

Same holds true for anything else DX button based...in the case of 2-pos switches on the Warthog, one position has a DX button pressed, and the other has no button pressed. 3 position switches (like the autopilot mode switch) have 2 buttons, with the third position indicated by neither being pressed.

Where you could even do it...in most cases, you'd have to tell the software "OK, DX26 is my AP toggle." Or you could program TARGET to hit the LSHIFT+A when you hit the ap eng/diseng button, since that's what A10C expects to see.

I've written some pretty complex profiles in TARGET involving the use of the stick, throttle & 2 MFD Cougar panels (another 56? buttons each). Haven't run into problems mainly because I make _very_ limited use of DX buttons - I find them too inflexible.

Rudder & Toe brakes? Hardly news. You could never use all 10 axes with the Cougar, either. (2-stick, 1-throttle, 2-antenna knobs, 2-microstick, rudder, 2-toe brakes) You had to omit 2 for the same reason. Now, however, you could choose to still run the Cougar software and use that for your rudder & toe brakes.

If you say "But the software only reads one controller, so I have to run the rudder through TARGET" then your gripe is a > 10 year old gripe with MS. Even if TM allowed you to designate multiple virtual controllers, it wouldn't fix issues with software that can only see 1 controller. Even if DirectX 17 were released tomorrow that could let you use 150 controllers with 400 axes each, it wouldn't help you on games that were coded around the current system.

While I agree it is conceivable I might want to use more DX buttons on a title, and it would therefore be nice to have the option to do so that is currently missing in TARGET...I realistically haven't had any difficulty thus far.

If you can point out an _actual problem_ you're having rather than hypotheticals, some of us here might be able to help you work around them...and if there's truly no workaround, then maybe it could be used to convince TM. However, "what if I wanna...." type "problems" aren't productive.


#6 - Opposing / Left Solo
Virtual Thunderbirds, LLC | Sponsored by Thrustmaster
#3594283 - 06/19/12 06:35 PM Re: TARGET vs. DirectX [Re: Yurgon]  
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 658
Bluedeath Offline
BS 62 "Pegasus" CAG
Bluedeath  Offline
BS 62 "Pegasus" CAG
Member

Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 658
I might be wrong but it could be the HID standard that does nol allow more than 8 axis 32 buttons and one POV on a single controller


"When you plan revenge best dig two graves" Confucius
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" Benjamin Franklin
#3594465 - 06/20/12 12:20 AM Re: TARGET vs. DirectX [Re: Teej]  
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 75
Yurgon Offline
Junior Member
Yurgon  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 75
Germany
Originally Posted By: Teej
1: I'm not going to defend MS...especially on this.


Didn't think anyone was going to. :-)

I should commence by disclaiming that my beef with TARGET is indeed 95% hypothetical. Plus, while the 32 button limit is kind of annoying, it's the 8 axes were I see more real and actual problems.

Originally Posted By: Teej
Where you could even do it...in most cases, you'd have to tell the software "OK, DX26 is my AP toggle." Or you could program TARGET to hit the LSHIFT+A when you hit the ap eng/diseng button, since that's what A10C expects to see.


I don't quite get your point here. Do you mean that most sims don't currently have a default DX button mapping so I'd have to tell TARGET that AP ENGAGE/DISENGAGE should send DX26 and at the same time configure my sim so that it uses DX26 for AP ENGAGE/DISENGAGE?

In other words: I couldn't simply program the Warthog with TARGET to use that many DX buttons, I'd also have to configure the sim so that the two mappings work together (and I specifically said I only wanted to program the Warthog but not configure the sim). Is that the contradiction you were pointing out above?

I agree there's a valid point in that a sim couldn't preset more than 32 DX buttons (unless it was already pre-configured for use with multiple controllers) - which in turn means I'd never be able to exceed the 32 button limit in TARGET unless I also re-configured the sim. Point taken.

Originally Posted By: Teej
I've written some pretty complex profiles in TARGET involving the use of the stick, throttle & 2 MFD Cougar panels (another 56? buttons each). Haven't run into problems mainly because I make _very_ limited use of DX buttons - I find them too inflexible.


In my experience, DX buttons cause less problems than keyboard keys. For instance, I've had a problem with my Cougar's microstick that would randomly activate as if it was pushed to the lower position. Once I'd activated my Black Shark profile (where the microstick acted as a digital device to send the keys required for Shkval slew control), all kinds of applications would receive tons of colon and/or semicolon keypresses.

Another problem would be the trigger, again with Black Shark. Let's say TG1 is cannon (SPACE) and TG2 is "Release weapons" (R_ALT + SPACE). So I now have:
Key down: SPACE (TG1 pressed)
Key down: R_ALT (TG2 pressed)
Key up: R_ALT
Key up: SPACE (both when TG2 is released and we're back at TG1)

(No key up event happens when TG1 is released).

That's a case where DX comes in handy. Generally speaking, with DX there are a lot less problems with intermixing key up and key down events, especially with complex key combinations like the ones ED make heavy use of in the DCS series (but I think I've had problems in that regard dating back as far as Tie Fighter).

All in all, I'd say it's mostly a matter of choice whether one configures the controller and the sim to make use of DX or to make use of keyboard keys. Currently I tend to prefer DX over keyboard, but in most cases there's no actual need to use DX.

Originally Posted By: Teej
Rudder & Toe brakes? Hardly news. You could never use all 10 axes with the Cougar, either. (2-stick, 1-throttle, 2-antenna knobs, 2-microstick, rudder, 2-toe brakes) You had to omit 2 for the same reason. Now, however, you could choose to still run the Cougar software and use that for your rudder & toe brakes.


"2-antenna knobs" should have read "2-rotary knobs" cheers

But seriously, what's the point here? "It used to be bad, so don't expect things to improve"?

Well, actually I do expect things to improve, and that expectation is not limited to the hardware (which is definitely and improvement over the Cougar) but includes the software without which the hardware is little more than a paper weight.

With rudder pedals and toe brakes (and without even using the friction lever), I've got 9 DX axes that I want to use in DCS A-10C. I simply cannot do that with TARGET.

Originally Posted By: Teej
If you say "But the software only reads one controller, so I have to run the rudder through TARGET" then your gripe is a > 10 year old gripe with MS. Even if TM allowed you to designate multiple virtual controllers, it wouldn't fix issues with software that can only see 1 controller. Even if DirectX 17 were released tomorrow that could let you use 150 controllers with 400 axes each, it wouldn't help you on games that were coded around the current system.


Okay, so now we have different specifications:
  • Software A can only handle one controller
  • Software B can handle multiple controllers

TM's choice with TARGET is to go for the first option so that the Cougar and the Warthog can be used with older titles. However, the multitude of possibilities that come with the second option remain extremely limited with TARGET: 32 DX buttons and 8 DX axes, no matter how many controllers the software supports.

Why should TM make that choice? Why not make it up to the TARGET user just how many virtual devices the profile creates?

Originally Posted By: Teej
If you can point out an _actual problem_ you're having rather than hypotheticals, some of us here might be able to help you work around them...and if there's truly no workaround, then maybe it could be used to convince TM. However, "what if I wanna...." type "problems" aren't productive.


As i said, I don't have an actual problem, especially none that I couldn't work around one way or the other (or I would probably come here and ask for help). duck

You've made the point that there's usually a way to work around problems and that most people in most circumstances won't even notice how we're limited by the DX limitations. That's all true, and I admit that working around the one task I actually have (9 axes in DCS A-10C) is quite simple by not using TARGET or excluding some of the controllers from the TARGET profile.

My point, on the other hand, is that TARGET doesn't allow me to work around the DX limitations. These limitations do exist, and I could come up with tons of hypothetical scenarios where we would at least get a lot closer to having actual problems. And so far, you haven't explained that TARGET's way of doing things actually makes sense, you've just said how it doesn't usually hurt.

Originally Posted By: Bluedeath
I might be wrong but it could be the HID standard that does nol allow more than 8 axis 32 buttons and one POV on a single controller


I don't know either, but I don't think it's that important. M$ have proven time and again they're ready to do anything they please - as long as they please to do so. If they really thought DX12 should allow for more buttons and axes per controller I'm fairly convinced they would just do it and if that didn't comply with whatever standards there are they'd find themselves another standards organization and declare it a new standard (sorry about the rant, but I'm really not a fan of M$).


"War is much more fun when you're winning!"
General Martok, Star Trek DS9 6.3 "Sons and Daughters"
#3594479 - 06/20/12 01:19 AM Re: TARGET vs. DirectX [Re: Yurgon]  
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,508
Teej Offline
Member
Teej  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,508
Originally Posted By: Yurgon

I don't quite get your point here. Do you mean that most sims don't currently have a default DX button mapping so I'd have to tell TARGET that AP ENGAGE/DISENGAGE should send DX26 and at the same time configure my sim so that it uses DX26 for AP ENGAGE/DISENGAGE?


I might write additional responses to some of your other points later on...don't have time right now to go through everything. But in this case, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Software generally doesn't know what you've got for joysticks, nor where in the "list" of input devices they show up.

If you wanted to map the stick yourself, directly, in (let's say P-51 or FC2 since neither is preprogrammed for the Warthog like A-10 is) such that pushing that button activated the auto pilot...then you'd have to go into the game, into the controller setting, hit the function that assigns an input to the autopilot, and then finally press the button on your Warthog throttle. At which time, the software would then remember "OK, Button DX26 on joystickID #2 should be used for autopilot". It has no way of knowing this in advance.

Worse, suppose you reboot your system and have a different set of things plugged into it. Your Warthog throttle might now be device #3 and the mapping would no longer work.

How could games possibly have DX buttons assigned for hundreds of inputs when
- they can only accept 32 buttons per device
- they have no way of knowing in advance how many devices will be plugged in or in what order

Heck, in BF3, if my Warthog throttle is plugged in, I can't drive tanks without changing the game's controller settings. I'm not the only one either - I only figured out that was the issue because many other people on the net had the problem before I did...and that's without even having _tried_ to set TARGET up to drive BF3. Target wasn't even running. BF3 just said "Oh, you have a joystick plugged in, let me see how I can ruin your day!"


#6 - Opposing / Left Solo
Virtual Thunderbirds, LLC | Sponsored by Thrustmaster
#3594481 - 06/20/12 01:24 AM Re: TARGET vs. DirectX [Re: Yurgon]  
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,508
Teej Offline
Member
Teej  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,508
Originally Posted By: Yurgon
I don't know either, but I don't think it's that important. M$ have proven time and again they're ready to do anything they please - as long as they please to do so. If they really thought DX12 should allow for more buttons and axes per controller I'm fairly convinced they would just do it and if that didn't comply with whatever standards there are they'd find themselves another standards organization and declare it a new standard (sorry about the rant, but I'm really not a fan of M$).


Heh. No doubt. I was playing with developing a USB device once.

MS violates the spirit of the USB handshaking standard they helped write, if not the letter, as soon as you plug in a device and before it's recognized by Windows.


#6 - Opposing / Left Solo
Virtual Thunderbirds, LLC | Sponsored by Thrustmaster
#3595571 - 06/22/12 02:26 AM Re: TARGET vs. DirectX [Re: Teej]  
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 75
Yurgon Offline
Junior Member
Yurgon  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 75
Germany
Originally Posted By: Teej
Worse, suppose you reboot your system and have a different set of things plugged into it. Your Warthog throttle might now be device #3 and the mapping would no longer work.


That sounds like a problem - but isn't this particular problem 100% independent of TARGET?

I have to admit that I'm not sure how DirectX detects and enumerates devices, and I'm also not sure how applications can try to keep track of devices. My natural instinct would be to assign unique IDs so that a particular device, once detected by an application like A-10C, will keep it's mapping (by which, in more technical terms, I mean that the application will be able to remember this particular device and, in turn, remember the keys mapped to it). In that case, it wouldn't matter if new devices were plugged in or if devices changed their order (e.g. by replugging them to different USB ports).

But even if the order of devices could change with just a reboot, wouldn't this affect just about any controller setup?

In other words, if TARGET was able to create multiple virtual controllers, I would surely expect it to enumerate the devices the same way every time and to assign the same IDs to the same controllers every time so they could be identified just as reliably (or unreliably) as if they were physical controllers.

Originally Posted By: Teej
Heck, in BF3, if my Warthog throttle is plugged in, I can't drive tanks without changing the game's controller settings. I'm not the only one either - I only figured out that was the issue because many other people on the net had the problem before I did...and that's without even having _tried_ to set TARGET up to drive BF3. Target wasn't even running. BF3 just said "Oh, you have a joystick plugged in, let me see how I can ruin your day!"


Yeah, when I started up "Dead Space", I thought it was an odd design choice to have the view keep on rotating all the time. Until I figured out the game assumed my rudder pedals (or even one of the toe brake axes, not sure anymore) were to be read as Joystick X axis. :-)

Originally Posted By: Teej
Heh. No doubt. I was playing with developing a USB device once.

MS violates the spirit of the USB handshaking standard they helped write, if not the letter, as soon as you plug in a device and before it's recognized by Windows.


Don't know anything about that in particular, but yeah, that surely sounds like M$. :-)


"War is much more fun when you're winning!"
General Martok, Star Trek DS9 6.3 "Sons and Daughters"
#3595740 - 06/22/12 02:31 PM Re: TARGET vs. DirectX [Re: Yurgon]  
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,508
Teej Offline
Member
Teej  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,508
Some software will keep track of more specific info on which device it's looking at. IIRC, the DCS series is pretty good at that - it knows which controller to listen to and won't screw up because of different sets of plugins.

iRacing, on the other hand, isn't as smart about it. I have to make sure I have exactly the same controller configuration when I load it up or it prompts me to "configure controls". Annoying as hell.

What I'm speaking of in terms of the USB thing is this....Despite being a "serial" bus, USB functions more like a cross between a networking protocol and a card you plug in to the motherboard (plug 'n' play and all that).

Roughly, when you plug something in to USB, the USB controller is supposed to issue a request for your 18-byte device descriptor, which gets sent back from the device in 8 byte chunks (or less). Once the system has the descriptor, it gives the device an address, and tells the device to reattach itself using that address. When that happens, the negotiation process continues.

What Windows does is interrupt after the first 8 bytes and tell the device to reattach with its address, then it ends up requesting the whole descriptor again. Legal under the spec, just not the "expected" behavior.

Last edited by Teej; 06/22/12 02:32 PM.

#6 - Opposing / Left Solo
Virtual Thunderbirds, LLC | Sponsored by Thrustmaster
#3598715 - 06/28/12 02:53 PM Re: TARGET vs. DirectX [Re: Yurgon]  
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 83
Nicu Offline
Junior Member
Nicu  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 83
The TARGET virtual joystick is not limited to 32 buttons, it supports up to 256 buttons.

#3599527 - 06/30/12 02:31 AM Re: TARGET vs. DirectX [Re: Nicu]  
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 75
Yurgon Offline
Junior Member
Yurgon  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 75
Germany
Originally Posted By: Nicu
The TARGET virtual joystick is not limited to 32 buttons, it supports up to 256 buttons.


Just so we're on the same page:
Originally Posted By: TARGET_SCRIPT_EDITOR_basics.pdf
DirectX limits
Whatever the number of devices inside the virtual controller, this controller will never be able to declare more
axes and DirectX buttons than the official DirectX limits (32 buttons and 8 axes). This simply means that if you
have more than 8 axes available on the real controllers,you cannot use all the buttons and axes programmed in
the DirectX mode. Any unused axes and buttons in DirectXcan be used as digital axes and keystroke generators.


The whole point of my original post is that these DX limits are plain stupid, but at the same time I think TM should have thought of a way to work around them with TARGET.

I am fully aware that I can have the virtual device issue digital keystrokes (even for axes), but that's not my point.

Let Joe Keefe do the talking (I just stumbled across that article and obviously couldn't agree more):

Originally Posted By: Programmable HOTAS Systems - Update 1

This means that even if the 19 supported axes on T.A.R.G.E.T.’s four supported controllers are present (WARTHOG stick: 2, WARTHOG throttle: 5, Cougar: 8, T.16000M: 4), only a single virtual controller with 8 axes is presented to a sim; the other 11 axes can only be programmed digitally. However, it is possible to exclude a controller from incorporation into T.A.R.G.E.T. entirely so the controller’s axes and buttons remain present to a sim as a second controller.

Hopefully T.A.R.G.E.T. will be modified in the future to allow creation of multiple virtual controllers.

[...]

T.A.R.G.E.T. overall is the most capable HOTAS programming software out there, but while it is full of impressive features, its glaring lack of ability to create more than one virtual controller is something that CH Control Manager can surpass easily.


BTW, that article is dated December 2010, and although TARGET has matured to 1.0 there seems to be no improvement in this area.

Again, while I don't have an actual problem, I still think it's rather shortsighted that TARGET doesn't allow for multiple (virtual or real) programmed controllers.

Last edited by Yurgon; 06/30/12 02:35 AM. Reason: Typo, grammar

"War is much more fun when you're winning!"
General Martok, Star Trek DS9 6.3 "Sons and Daughters"
#4329046 - 01/17/17 12:27 PM Re: TARGET vs. DirectX [Re: Yurgon]  
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 102
Vierzinger Offline
Member
Vierzinger  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 102
Denmark
FYI
I just requested an increase from 32 to 128 DX buttons at Thrustmasters support (https://support.thrustmaster.com/en/product/hotaswarthog-en/). It might help if more owners do in order to show them that there is a demand for this feature.


Quote:
Dear Support
This request need to go to the developers of the T.A.R.G.E.T script Editor.
Target version: 3.0.16.615

I would like to request support for more DirectInput/DirectX buttons than the currently 32.
It is my understanding that the API currently supports 128 DirectInput/DirectX buttons.

The stick and throttle have a lot more than 32 physical buttons and with the Boatbay and Nosewheel-steerings-switch combined users would get a lot more than the 128 buttons.

Such a feature would free up a lot of keybord buttons from pure flight related functions (which is unnecessary redundant), as well as not having us to conserve DX buttons in game for use in external applications like Teamspeak, Fraps, TrackIT, etc. Since DX buttons works across application and unlike keyboard buttons which are reserved for the application which are in front/active window.

Respectfully,


Will we EVER get a real Rainbow Six game again. One for the real Tactic fans? A WWII sim with a dynamic campagn. Games with deept?
#4342012 - 03/04/17 11:51 AM Re: TARGET vs. DirectX [Re: Yurgon]  
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 14
Thermal Offline
Junior Member
Thermal  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 14
There is a hack floating around that already increases Target to 128 DX buttons. Modifies one of the core Target config text files (pretty simple hack, you can roll it back).

Once you've done that then you just have to hope the game isnt hard-wired to only recognize up to 32 dx buttons.

In saying that, I am hard pressed to think of case where you need all of them.

I thought for a new game, your Warthog setup workflow would be something like this:
1. Get the keyboard shortcut pdf for all the new game's commands.
2. Decide where they should go (map them) onto the Warthog buttons
3, Write a Target Script that assigns all the keyboard shortcuts to Warthog physical buttons

You just do not use directx buttons usually. Each game has all the commands assigned to keyboard keys already, so use them. Generally - you should not have to re-assign any functions in-game.

(This holds whether you use the GUI or the script editor).

#4342082 - 03/04/17 11:08 PM Re: TARGET vs. DirectX [Re: Vierzinger]  
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 75
Yurgon Offline
Junior Member
Yurgon  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 75
Germany
Originally Posted by Vierzinger
FYI
I just requested an increase from 32 to 128 DX buttons at Thrustmasters support (https://support.thrustmaster.com/en/product/hotaswarthog-en/). It might help if more owners do in order to show them that there is a demand for this feature.


(Somehow I didn't get a notification about your post, hence the late reply)

Great idea! cheers



Originally Posted by Thermal
There is a hack floating around that already increases Target to 128 DX buttons.


Interesting! Anything about the amount of axes?

Originally Posted by Thermal
In saying that, I am hard pressed to think of case where you need all of them.


Honestly, I decided TARGET is a waste of time and ceased to use it after peaking at it.

While I occasionally miss some of its features (or rather: features I actually used with Foxy and that I suppose TARGET also has), I started tweaking the joystick.lua files in DCS to allow proper mapping of 2- and 3-position switches on the throttle and created small JSGME compatible mods out of them. Starting with Razbam's M-2000C, new modules tend to include proper 3-position-switch mappings right away and thus don't even require this type of workaround (big hooray to Razbam and Leatherneck, yay! salute ).

Nowadays I just assign all axes and buttons in DCS (a big kudos to ED for adding the ability to do that in-game and even in MP, totally underrated feature! smile2 ). Why bother with TARGET at all? This way, all button assignments are pure DirectX assignments and I never run the risk of stuck keys or modifiers. Not sure if that's still a thing, but as I wrote before it used to be a hassle in earlier days and I don't intend to go back there.


"War is much more fun when you're winning!"
General Martok, Star Trek DS9 6.3 "Sons and Daughters"

Moderated by  RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
Carnival Cruise Ship Fire....... Again
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:58 PM
Baltimore Bridge Collapse
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:51 PM
The Oldest WWII Veterans
by F4UDash4. 03/24/24 09:21 PM
They got fired after this.
by Wigean. 03/20/24 08:19 PM
Grown ups joke time
by NoFlyBoy. 03/18/24 10:34 PM
Anyone Heard from Nimits?
by F4UDash4. 03/18/24 10:01 PM
RIP Gemini/Apollo astronaut Tom Stafford
by semmern. 03/18/24 02:14 PM
10 years after 3/8/2014
by NoFlyBoy. 03/17/24 10:25 AM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0