Sorry for my late reply...
I hope you will understand that I don't have much time to participate in forum discussions, but I do my best.
@ Corsair8xI'll ship industrial Velcro pads in future batches as soon as I source them. We will see what customers say.
Again, I belive it's best to make a proper attachment of the pedals...as one part of velcro will have to be glued to your floor anyway...or not if you have carpet. Can work for some, not for others.
For O-zone pit I don't know, but you might be out of luck. Read what I've wrote to LukeFF here and check dimensions of your pit.
@ LukeFFOverall width of pedals base is 38 cm. I belive that's what you want to know.
Standard pedals width : 49.5 cm ( overall with foot plates )
By using "width adjustment plates set" ( extra cost 19 eur) width is adjustable to
narrow - 46.5 cm
wide - 52.5cm
Watch this video about it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mrSWkC_1Hk@
Sokol1 and
HomeFries- It's not only "Product ID" alone that need to be added. I belive both TM Target and CH Manager use some kind of "virtual joystick device" to work their magic. Warthog consist of two separate usb devices which suddenly "disapear" and new virtual joystick called "Warthog combined" apear...if you like it that way. So, beside Product ID Target software communicate with firmware to alternate it's behaviour and send raw data to target software instead as HID joystick driver. Not sure how CH works, but probably the same.
- With Thrustmaster's permission it would be possible to integrate Crosswinds in TARGET... but I did not ask them. By looking at software policy of TM and CH I don't belive it's in their interest.
Saitek is now also starting to bring their own software with X-55 stick.
I strongly belive that this is a matter for a much larger and separate discussion. I belive both CH and TM invested their money in such software and will not give it out for free to be used with other controllers. I understand them completely. However, such practice leave us combat simmers as a "second row citizens" compared to FSX, Xplane and Prepar3d fliers.
I will elaborate a little, not to go too deep in this thread...I belive only solution is to force hardware companies to comply to new software standard for all controllers. Such standard already exist...and as you probably know it's called Simconnect. Software that use it is called FSUIPC. Controllers that comply to such standard are able to connect to XPlane, FSX, Prepar3d..maybe others, I am not such expert on that matter to know more.
But, very strange if I may add....No combat simulator comply to such standard, not that I know of. ROF, IL2, DCS... none. This is why is so difficult to bring advanced hardware for combat use !!!. For example...if someone build a Force feedback controller he will probably target integration with FSUIPC interface...only logical solution. To make separate interface for DCS or others is not practical
In the end... I belive community should stimulate such "virtual joystick" software development with integrated programmability of controllers and actually "force" software and hardware manufacturers to comply to standard.
If you don't know what i'm talking about think of "joystick curves" software, but on a much more comprehensive integration scale.
http://www.xedocproject.com/forum/index.php?/topic/3-joystick-curves-development-version/Why "virtual joystick" you might ask...why they use it in a first place. It's not only to combine multiple devices into one virtual...but becouse of PC's compute power is much larger than microcontroller power inside game device.
Game device's most likely (not all) use 8 bit controller up to 48Mhz speed. Your PC is probably multicore 64bit and few Ghz per core. Computing exponential and logarithmic functions ( curves) is much faster as well as other things like scripting.