Using the TM Warthog Hotas with the Mustang

[bilbosmeggins]

.......... Or not!! Must say that I'm incredibly disappointed. I, like many others, bought the Warthog Hotas so that it would integrate fully with the A-10C. Which it does, magnificently. So, given this big user-base that ED have created, I kinda figured that there would be some sort of integration with the Warty HOTAS and the other modules. Now obviously there would be compromises as it is no longer tailor-made for the other craft. But there's just nothing. Tried the HOTAS with the Mustang earlier, and, apart from the actual joystick, nothing was mapped. At least not sensibly. Tried to apply the throttle and found that the flaps were moving. 99% of the other buttons were lifeless.

 

After digging around on these forums it appears that these profiles have to be configured individually. I'm not a software programmer and have no desire to be poking around modifying lua files and what not. I did just try to map the controls in the options menu expecting to just be able to press a control and have it assigned to whatever I chose like most other sims I've tried in the past, but no. It wants to know what each button and switch is called. Really? I know that these are study sims and I'm more than prepared to put in the time and effort. But study software? Am I missing something obvious somewhere? I was fully intending to splash out and fill the hangar on the 20th (sale date), but if it means having lifeless aircraft that I cannot commit to the skies without utilising the keyboard for all the input then it kinda kills it for me.

 

I know I'm probably in the minority here, as most of you lot are merrily programming away, and configuring things just how you like them. But I have neither the time nor the expertise to follow in your footsteps. What little time that I do have I was hoping to spend on flying. Please someone tell me that I'm wrong, and things are a lot more simple than they appear to be......:cry:

[cichlidfan]

I did just try to map the controls in the options menu expecting to just be able to press a control and have it assigned to whatever I chose like most other sims I've tried in the past, but no.

 

I am not sure what you are doing/not doing but the above procedure works. It can be finicky with how you set the toggle switches, pushbuttons should be straightforward, but that is TMs doing, not EDs.

 

Though I will readily admit that all the automatic useless axis assignments are a bit annoying.

[bilbosmeggins]

Well I did try both axis and switches, buttons etc and nothing was registering. I had double clicked on the action I was trying to configure but it was just lifeless. I shall try again later. I really do think that ED should spend some development time in this area, after all, if their modules were more accessible then people would be more inclined to buy them. And they are, after all, the experts. If they can do such a wonderful job configuring the A-10C then something like the Mustang should be a walk in the park for them, as opposed to an absolute sodding nightmare for me.

 

I can see me having to unplug the Warty HOTAS whenever I want to fly the 'Stang, and plug my old MSSW2 in. Not what I had envisaged at all. I had been planning to upgrade the BS to version 2, purchase FC3 and grab the Huey, but all I can see now is pain ahead and not pleasure. I appreciate your input though, I really do. :)

[tintifaxl]

.......... Or not!! Must say that I'm incredibly disappointed. I, like many others, bought the Warthog Hotas so that it would integrate fully with the A-10C. Which it does, magnificently. So, given this big user-base that ED have created, I kinda figured that there would be some sort of integration with the Warty HOTAS and the other modules. Now obviously there would be compromises as it is no longer tailor-made for the other craft. But there's just nothing. Tried the HOTAS with the Mustang earlier, and, apart from the actual joystick, nothing was mapped. At least not sensibly. Tried to apply the throttle and found that the flaps were moving. 99% of the other buttons were lifeless.

 

After digging around on these forums it appears that these profiles have to be configured individually. I'm not a software programmer and have no desire to be poking around modifying lua files and what not. I did just try to map the controls in the options menu expecting to just be able to press a control and have it assigned to whatever I chose like most other sims I've tried in the past, but no. It wants to know what each button and switch is called. Really? I know that these are study sims and I'm more than prepared to put in the time and effort. But study software? Am I missing something obvious somewhere? I was fully intending to splash out and fill the hangar on the 20th (sale date), but if it means having lifeless aircraft that I cannot commit to the skies without utilising the keyboard for all the input then it kinda kills it for me.

 

I know I'm probably in the minority here, as most of you lot are merrily programming away, and configuring things just how you like them. But I have neither the time nor the expertise to follow in your footsteps. What little time that I do have I was hoping to spend on flying. Please someone tell me that I'm wrong, and things are a lot more simple than they appear to be......:cry:

 

Configuring the HOTAS for use in DCS-51D is pretty easy and straightforward. If you want you can use mine. :joystick:

DCS P51 Thrustmaster Warthog.zip

Edited June 17, 2013 by tintifaxl
unintentional smiley

[tintifaxl]

 

I can see me having to unplug the Warty HOTAS whenever I want to fly the 'Stang, and plug my old MSSW2 in. Not what I had envisaged at all. I had been planning to upgrade the BS to version 2, purchase FC3 and grab the Huey, but all I can see now is pain ahead and not pleasure. I appreciate your input though, I really do. :)

 

You can keep all joysticks connected. No need to disconnect any of them.

[bilbosmeggins]

Configuring the HOTAS for use in DCS-51D is pretty easy and straightforward. If you want you can use mine.

 

 

Thank you. That is most kind of you. I shall try it out as soon as time permits. I've got to go to bed in a mo' as work beckons in the morning unfortunately. I still think it's a poor state of affairs though that users have to rely on each other to offer such essentials as control methods. ED really should have this covered as standard. Then sure, users can deviate and customise to their heart's content, but there should be at least a common starting point.

 

Anyway, apologies as I seem to have gone into moaning mode tonight. I must be tired, lol. Much appreciate your time and file usage though. I shall deffo try it out :)

Edited June 17, 2013 by bilbosmeggins

[bilbosmeggins]

You can keep all joysticks connected. No need to disconnect any of them.

 

Depends how many usb ports you have begging ;)

[bilbosmeggins]

Configuring the HOTAS for use in DCS-51D is pretty easy and straightforward. If you want you can use mine. :joystick:

 

 

Hi. Right, I've downloaded the file, now where do I extract the file to? Don't want to make my install even worse than it is, lol.

 

Cheers in advance :)

[bilbosmeggins]

Slight breakthrough. What I hadn't realised is that you have to move the required axis ALL the way through it's range in order to get it recognised as an input. I'm making some slight progress now, armed with this hard-earned knowledge. Still think there ought to be "base profiles" for each and every one of their modules though. ED obviously use the product themselves, so why not just integrate their personal profiles into the sim. We can always modify/delete if we're not happy with them. But nothing? Come on.............

[Foul Ole Ron]

I've never come across a flight sim where the base profile was even close to my requirements. I've always had to completely make one from scratch. It's not hard and is often even instructional as it gives you more familiarity with the functions in the sim.

[bilbosmeggins]

I've never come across a flight sim where the base profile was even close to my requirements. I've always had to completely make one from scratch. It's not hard and is often even instructional as it gives you more familiarity with the functions in the sim.

 

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. When the aircraft being modelled are very complex, until you are utterly familiar with them it can be very difficult and frustrating deciding what needs to be mapped to the control system. You get half way into a mission only to discover that your priorities were way off the mark. Ok, something like the planes in RoF maybe, or IL2, then I whole-heartedly agree with you. But not the DCS planes and 'copters and the degree of complexity that they bring.

 

If you are experienced enough to know, from the very outset, EXACTLY how you want every dial, switch , rotary and axis assigned then great. Programming the HOTAS will be an enjoyable breeze for you. But for people who are wanting to just dive in and and actually fly the things without several years of experience behind them then it can be one hell of a barrier. As I've said before, I'm more than prepared to put the hours into learning the inner-depths of the various modules, but just don't want to spend the little precious time that I have by finishing off ED's project.

 

As regards the base profiles not being to your liking.... I'm not just talking about personal preferences here. I'm talking basic usability. The "base profile" for the Mustang actually had the rudder being operated by the throttle, and the throttle mapped to the keyboard. I dived straight into the quick mission Landing Approach, went to throttle back a little and the plane yawed viciously sideways, stalled and hit the ground shortly afterwards in a ball of fire.

 

I appreciate that many people have many setups. But I can absolutely guarantee you that all have their throttle assigned to the throttle, and the flaps assigned to the flaps etc. The absolute basics. And they are not in place.

 

The TM Warthog is practically ED's love child. They know that many, many people have bought it for the A-10C. So why not let people enjoy both it and their modules in perfect harmony? Sorry, I'm ranting again...

[howie87]

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. When the aircraft being modelled are very complex, until you are utterly familiar with them it can be very difficult and frustrating deciding what needs to be mapped to the control system. You get half way into a mission only to discover that your priorities were way off the mark. Ok, something like the planes in RoF maybe, or IL2, then I whole-heartedly agree with you. But not the DCS planes and 'copters and the degree of complexity that they bring.

 

If you are experienced enough to know, from the very outset, EXACTLY how you want every dial, switch , rotary and axis assigned then great. Programming the HOTAS will be an enjoyable breeze for you. But for people who are wanting to just dive in and and actually fly the things without several years of experience behind them then it can be one hell of a barrier. As I've said before, I'm more than prepared to put the hours into learning the inner-depths of the various modules, but just don't want to spend the little precious time that I have by finishing off ED's project.

 

As regards the base profiles not being to your liking.... I'm not just talking about personal preferences here. I'm talking basic usability. The "base profile" for the Mustang actually had the rudder being operated by the throttle, and the throttle mapped to the keyboard. I dived straight into the quick mission Landing Approach, went to throttle back a little and the plane yawed viciously sideways, stalled and hit the ground shortly afterwards in a ball of fire.

 

I appreciate that many people have many setups. But I can absolutely guarantee you that all have their throttle assigned to the throttle, and the flaps assigned to the flaps etc. The absolute basics. And they are not in place.

 

The TM Warthog is practically ED's love child. They know that many, many people have bought it for the A-10C. So why not let people enjoy both it and their modules in perfect harmony? Sorry, I'm ranting again...

 

+1

 

Surely some of the ED devs must fly with this stick anyway?

 

Always confuses me why they don't include a default mapping for any aircraft other than the A-10C.

[-MadCat-]

In my oppinion, mapping the joystick yourself is the best thing you can do for several reasons:

 

1. In the process of thinking about what controls to map to what buttons/switches etc, you already learn about the aircraft and its systems.

2. You have a hotas setup tailored perfectly to your needs.

3. Once the profile is ready, the biggest part of learning is already done and you know exactly what all the buttons and switches on your joystick do.

4. It is a fun process (at least for me it is).

 

Yes, this will take time and your first take off may be delayed somewhat.

For me this usually takes some days, but I am not the kinda "quick, take off, blow s**t up" guy anyway.

So far for all modules I have had the first ground engine and system runs either on the day of purchase or the next day.

It is a lot fun for me to "work" my way towards the first take off.

And even if you are done with your profile, you will most likey do little tweaks now and then anyway.

Have had a look at T.A.R.G.E.T. already ?

I know many people say it is better to not use it and modify .lua files instead.

I say it is incredibly powerful and does things for me I could not achieve without.

 

As previously said, this is my oppinion and I think putting time into that will pay off big time.

 

MadCat

[bilbosmeggins]

In my oppinion, mapping the joystick yourself is the best thing you can do for several reasons:

 

1. In the process of thinking about what controls to map to what buttons/switches etc, you already learn about the aircraft and its systems.

2. You have a hotas setup tailored perfectly to your needs.

3. Once the profile is ready, the biggest part of learning is already done and you know exactly what all the buttons and switches on your joystick do.

4. It is a fun process (at least for me it is).

 

Yes, this will take time and your first take off may be delayed somewhat.

For me this usually takes some days, but I am not the kinda "quick, take off, blow s**t up" guy anyway.

So far for all modules I have had the first ground engine and system runs either on the day of purchase or the next day.

It is a lot fun for me to "work" my way towards the first take off.

And even if you are done with your profile, you will most likey do little tweaks now and then anyway.

Have had a look at T.A.R.G.E.T. already ?

I know many people say it is better to not use it and modify .lua files instead.

I say it is incredibly powerful and does things for me I could not achieve without.

 

As previously said, this is my oppinion and I think putting time into that will pay off big time.

 

MadCat

 

As I said before, mapping your own configuration is a fine and dandy thing to do, and there is much merit in what you say. But, you are missing the point here. That point being that there should be SOME sort of a basis from which to build. If I were to go test drive a car I would not expect the seat to be "just so", the fluffy dice to be hanging at my preferred angle and the air freshener to be my all time favourite. These things I would configure at a later date to suit. But if I turned up and the salesman said "Careful how you go mate, none of the dashboard is wired up, the lights don't work, the brake pedal is now operating the clutch, and we've taken the steering wheel off. Think it might be in the boot..... You did bring a spanner with you didn't you? And a workshop manual?", I don't think I'd be too impressed.

 

When I purchase a new plane for any system, the first thing I want to do is start with it airborne and just throw it around the sky a for a while without having to learn a complex start-up procedure. And certainly not for programming/inputting a complete control interface. That will come later. Day one is for seeing how my new baby performs. How it responds to throttle input, what she rolls like, the turn radius. How she sounds and feels. I don't think I'm being overly unreasonable in wanting this to be covered in it's most basic of forms, "Out of the Box" so to speak.

[Ali Fish]

not everyone has your prefered peripheral. what you ask is simply unfair for everyone bar yourself. everyone got used to it.

 

in its most basic and "out of the box" form, every module has a preset axis configuration for as you have stated the most basic form of setup. dont forget that covers everything mutually possible for all setups. from xbox controller to warthog.

 

there is not a single plane in DCs world you can not simply jump in and fly. if a joystick is detected its axis are detected and applied in the most general format given the sheer scope of the peripherals on offer. Where this does not occur is down to the peripheral itself. and that is out with anyones control but the peripheral owner.

Edited June 19, 2013 by Ali Fish

[bilbosmeggins]

I am not talking about some obscure peripheral that some people may or may not have. I'm referring to the TM HOTAS that ED have pretty much been solely responsible for 99.9% of total sales generated. I don't think it is unreasonable to have a profile for each module for said device. I'd also take it a step further and say that they could include the more commonly used ones as well, for the Saitek X52 etc. ED are using these modules themselves, would it really hurt them to include their profiles? Even on a download page if they didn't want them embedded in the code for some bizarre reason.

 

And I also refute that each module has a basic setup. Rudder mapped to the throttle out of the box? Really? It's not like I'm asking ED to do any extra work. These profiles already exist. They are using them themselves. Just share them out and make the modules more accessible. More accessible=more sales. In the car analogy I provided above, I WOULD NOT have bought the car.........

 

To put it another way..... If I were new to flight simming, which I'm not, and my first taste of DCS was a plane that spiralled to the ground if I adjusted the throttle I would probably not think "Mmm, this need some adjustment, I'll tweak the control mapping". More likely I'd be thinking "Arses to this, it's broken. What else can you show me?". I'm not knocking ED's achievements here. The level of flight fidelity, and systems modelling they are offering us is probably unparalleled. It's just that it is not a complete, rounded package. And that's not good for drawing in new customers. And, whether you like it or not, that's bad for us all. Yourself included. The more viable DCS is, the the more buoyant it will be. It would be a shame for the whole thing to die a slow, painful death just because it was more inaccessible than strictly necessary.

Edited June 19, 2013 by bilbosmeggins

[Ali Fish]

you do have a few good points! my feeling is let the community take care of it. Ed could implement a peripheral setup help section on the forum and there could be some sort of initial setup download option handled by the community, we already have this as an option really but as i said earlier "Everyone got used to it". I think some emphasis would be a tremendous idea for the forum section. It is the only idea i can think of to help you in this matter.

 

my personal feeling is that i realise without setting it up myself i just wouldnt be learning about what iam setting up, its a subtle and subconcious learning routine i actually appreciate.

 

I am not talking about some obscure peripheral that some people may or may not have. I'm referring to the TM HOTAS that DCS have pretty much been solely responsible for 99.9% of total sales generated. I don't think it is unreasonable to have a profile for each module. I'd also take it a step further and say that they could include the more common ones as well, for the Saitek X52 etc. DCS are using these modules themselves, would it really hurt them to include their profiles? Even on a download page if they didn't want them embedded in the code for some bizarre reason.

 

And I also refute that each module has a basic setup. Rudder mapped to the throttle out of the box? Really? It's not like I'm asking DCS to do any extra work. These profiles already exist. They are using them themselves. Just share them out and make the modules more accessible. More accessible=more sales. In the car analogy I provided above, I WOULD NOT have bought the car.........

Edited June 19, 2013 by Ali Fish

[cichlidfan]

 

And I also refute that each module has a basic setup. Rudder mapped to the throttle out of the box? Really?

 

This part I agree with entirely. There is no justification for the sim mapping axis and buttons to controllers that don't even have them. Hook up a Saitek Trim Wheel if you want a *chuckle*.

 

The problem is that it is not a bug but a poor design choice. It will never show up in the 'bug tracker' so it is unlikely to be addressed.

[bilbosmeggins]

you do have a few good points! my feeling is let the community take care of it. Ed could implement a peripheral setup help section on the forum and there could be some sort of initial setup download option handled by the community, we already have this as an option really but as i said earlier "Everyone got used to it". I think some emphasis would be a tremendous idea for the forum section. It is the only idea i can think of to help you in this matter.

 

my personal feeling is that i realise without setting it up myself i just wouldnt be learning about what iam setting up, its a subtle and subconcious learning routine i actually appreciate.

 

Please don't get me wrong, I fully appreciate the merits of personal setups. It's just that, for the absolute newcomer, the sim "out of the box" is not really usable. I've been around flight sims for many, many years on and off, and I shall put the time in to get the control side of things sorted in DCS. I believe the end result will be worth it. But I have to say that I shall resent every minute of having to configure it. My fun begins when the engine's fire up, not when a dialogue box needs filling in. I've had a long, stressful and strenuous day at work. Apologies to all. I really don't mean to vent my frustrations on you lot :)

[bilbosmeggins]

Hook up a Saitek Trim Wheel if you want a *chuckle*.

 

 

I daresn't even imagine what havoc that would inspire :lol:

[bilbosmeggins]

To the op;

 

 

....... So why bother?

 

 

 

IMHO!

 

And if you had never used a flight sim before and this was your first taste? Why have obstacles in place? Do you honestly believe that the developer's don't have profiles they use? I'm guessing that you are one of these people that like things to be somewhat elitist, so that it keeps the rabble out and you can feel somehow superior. It's in EVERYONE'S interest to have things as accessible as possible. Alternatively..... "Why bother?"

[MegOhm_SD]

And if you had never used a flight sim before and this was your first taste? Why have obstacles in place? Do you honestly believe that the developer's don't have profiles they use? I'm guessing that you are one of these people that like things to be somewhat elitist, so that it keeps the rabble out and you can feel somehow superior. It's in EVERYONE'S interest to have things as accessible as possible. Alternatively..... "Why bother?"

 

Hmm..... cant get the modules to work and too much trouble to map controllers...I see a pattern here :music_whistling:

[Ali Fish]

Please don't get me wrong, I fully appreciate the merits of personal setups. It's just that, for the absolute newcomer, the sim "out of the box" is not really usable. I've been around flight sims for many, many years on and off, and I shall put the time in to get the control side of things sorted in DCS. I believe the end result will be worth it. But I have to say that I shall resent every minute of having to configure it. My fun begins when the engine's fire up, not when a dialogue box needs filling in. I've had a long, stressful and strenuous day at work. Apologies to all. I really don't mean to vent my frustrations on you lot :)

 

wow! and i dont mean to be cheeky. seriously! but this is bonafide pro-games console argument. a good one too. this realm isnt really like that. We prevail in the exactly opposite attitude because this is deep enough to be a hobby. a fulltime hobby. One that exists over all our great age ranges.

[bilbosmeggins]

Hmm..... cant get the modules to work and too much trouble to map controllers...I see a pattern here :music_whistling:

 

You saw a blip. You never had any niggles with PC software? As it was I got it sorted pretty pronto and it is now working fine. :)

[bilbosmeggins]

wow! and i dont mean to be cheeky. seriously! but this is bonafide pro-games console argument. a good one too. this realm isnt really like that. We prevail in the exactly opposite attitude because this is deep enough to be a hobby. a fulltime hobby. One that exists over all our great age ranges.

 

Not entirely sure I get your point. I love flight simming, I don't enjoy configuring computers. I love car racing. I don't enjoy getting covered in oil, whilst taking out a gearbox. Where is the line drawn? There are loads of people on here for whom the standard skins/textures are not up to par, so they make their own, and some do amazing jobs out of doing so. Because of this possibility would you be happy if all the aircraft were sold to you without skins/textures, and you were left to go paint them yourself? Probably not. I know I wouldn't be too chuffed.