I don't know about buggy. The STT software and these pr0 format files seem less sophisticated to me than the original dat system for the X52. Saitek had all sorts of promises about how sophisticated the programming would become. Look at my original EECH dat profiles. Holy crap, dude. I'm proud about how they turned out. It's seriously aggravating as hell trying to get anything near that complexity on this new STT. Even the time quantization doesn't work the same for advanced commands. It seems like theoretically it's the exact same features on the STT without a single added one, yet it's more clunky and harder to figure out to get it to do what I want. Like, how do I have a button do one thing with just a quick press and do something else when I hold it for a half second? I've done a few that appear to be doing what I want like that, but it's not easy to achieve and involves tricking the STT to quantize a bunch of the same commands to different values and then pasting them around to where I need, deleting the keys with the wrong time. I just swap them around and keep trying until it does it. Weird. It almost seems like it's an attempt by another group of people to duplicate the original programming but by a bunch of coders that didn't quite know what they were doing. Did MadCatz not get the original dat STT code when they bought Saitek?
The stick and throttle itself are really not buggy hardware, as far as I can tell. USB, midi, and ps/2 cables need ferrite choke cores on them, especially when it comes to controllers at the 10 and 14bit resolutions. I don't know what the x-65f is, but it's clearly some very fine, low-intensity, highly intricate electrical signals going through. There almost needs to be balanced XLR connections going through these, with DSPs translating the signal back to what the computer can use. I wonder if this is why Logitech programmed in the "hysteresis" into the G940, as a sort of signal redundancy to prevent interference from altering the signal parameters. It would have added few bucks to the cables, tops. It's just those little cylinders you see on computer cables, is all. Until I moved from DJing on vinyl and CDs back in Vegas to buying my first computer DJ controller (10bit, then a 14bit one), I had no idea what those things were. They can be the difference between hell and perfect operation. In the case of the X-65f, one single large rubberized ferrite choke core for a couple dollars will likely fix the issue for users. Wrap the stick end cable around it a few times, plug it into the stick. Another single clam-on at the end of the one that goes into your computer would be a nice insurance just in case there is other interference I didn't notice in the rest of the cabling.
A word on the deadzones: they don't function like you'd normally think. They are just a pressure buffer. They reject a portion of the initial force before deflection starts to register. Since there's no stick movement at all, it's not like substantial deadzones are unnatural or show dead play in the middle of the stick's motion. It's just hand pressure that can occur -- like your palm just resting on the hand rest -- that doesn't do anything. So deadzones are absolutely necessary. Unless you've got them in the sim, there has to be something in the Saitek control panel set for this. As the interference has been reduced drastically with the choke cores, I can make these deadzones smaller. It's also important to point out that the deadzones do not scale in width as you change forces with the F1-F4 console panel box. A setting to change the width automatically might actually be nice (1.0:1.0 to 2.0:1.0 from F1 to F4), but as it is you just need to realize that while a very small deadzone is required at F1 (even when I have it reduced further, especially in the twist force), you'll need to be extra careful when you drop the force down on-the-fly. Conversely, if you start out at F4 or F3 with a more substantial deadzone and then later change to F1 while in-sim, you're rejecting a lot of initial pressure unnecessarily. So right now you either have to compromise or optimize the deadzone for the particular force you will mostly be using. And like I said, my deadzones are finally getting down to reasonable ones.
I'm still considering getting rudder pedals, but that's now because of axis pollution and unintended deflection of X & Y when trying to yaw in helo sims when I have hover hold turned on. To be fair, I believe even the RAH-66 had a pinkie button on the SAC related to yaw for the purpose of trimming and axis isolation. So it's not just endemic to force sensing on the X-65f. With the interference issues finally being obviously mitigated (the changes with the choke cores are not subtle), my issues with force sensing are general now to the technology as a whole. I don't think much of it for general flying purposes in fixed-wing aircraft. I doubt Airbus 300 series aircraft will ever move away from normal joysticks to force sensing. It does help with aiming the gun in aircraft that don't require constant stick pressure to maintain attitude, but just simple aerobatics and landings are more sloppy. Aiming is surreal under the aforementioned circumstance, but AFCS Trim Update helicopter flying is definitely where this pressure/force sensing thing comes into its own. While I can see why a little bit of deflection was added on the F-16 and RA-66 sticks to help with axis pollution, it really works wonderfully mimicking this AFCS chopper stuff regardless.
The perfect implementation would have adjustable throw AND pressure sensing for a helo attitude hold/ attitude command side stick. That way, when you go to a Wings Leveling flight law for landing, you could have a lot of throw, low sensitivity, and the stick would behave almost like a conventional joystick so that stick position reflect aircraft attitude. When you were in normal flight, it would have little or no throw. But that's asking a lot. Pressure sticks can do things normal joysticks cannot as-is, and vice versa. And I suppose the same is true with force feedback joysticks, as well. For the price I paid, I’d really like to try the G940 to have a better sense of what that actually means, but that apparently has some severe issues that require serious modding to remedy, and it does not appear that resolves all of them. Considering my interest in GlovePIE/PPJoy for this helo auto trimming stuff, I think I will keep the X-65f and simply eventually have my X52 sent to me from storage for situations where it is not appropriate: driving sims, Search & Rescue 4, etc. Hopefully, my JFA-18 traps improve. But I was fine with the X52 on that. Probably has something to do with the real flight laws of the Superbug when gear is down. Not identical to, say, an F-16’s in holding attitude.
I think I'm mostly done with modding someone's F4AF profile and created a single-mode EECH profile. The latter is still missing a few things like time acceleration I think, but most of what I want is on there. I haven't bothered trying to figure out pinkie-shift with the STT software. A S&R4 profile is about 2/3 the way finished, but I don't know if I'll get around to completing it with the trim button (num 0?) not functioning and the odd mention of turning the AFCS off without a command to actually do it. Seems like an unfinished stinker. I still need to do profiles at least for JFA-18, Flaming Cliffs 1, Comanche Gold, and WWII Fighters (easy).
Two more days with JFA-18 and I'm starting to get the hang of traps with this. Maybe Janes does attitude hold to 1G with the gear down? The key is no deadzones within Janes. Deadzones reduced quite a lot in the Saitek panel. They're minimal, now. One notch of nonlinearity in Saitek panel for X, Y, and twist (I use it for every sim, probably not necessary with Janes). The ferrite choke cores. And lots of practice. I also have the stick tilted back with something under the front of it a little over an inch tall (Boxer screw/hex set red/black) that forces it to center offset so hand pressure doesn't cause as much back Y without me trying. The very gentle internal axis curve of JFA-18 works quite well as-is with pressure/force sensing and this configuration.http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/3718/x65fdeadzones.jpg
Here's what I settled on for forces a week ago:
Kgf & N m
F1 (great for Time Accel)
F3 (just trapped fine three times in JFA-18)
Edit: Made the axiis totally linear. Found I didn't have enough authority at low pressures in WWII Fighters. A reset button for those would be nice.