Re: NASCAR HEAT controller problems

No kidding. What is the point of having all those different controller ID's in Windows if they can't be used? If a developer wants to maintain compatibility in the way Ed describes, why not have a secondary controller option that allows the user to access all controllers attached to the computer? I'm very disappointed in the NH controller setup. No pedals on consumer level controllers stack up against my home-built pedals, but I can't use them if the sims won't recognize them! -- Pat Dotson Gerry Aitken wrote: > > rrevved wrote: > > > Probably more like 99.999999% > > Looks like I'll have to move a side my new Redline pedals in favor of my > old LWFF ones to drive Heat :/. I think the way GPL sorts out the > controllers should be copied by everyone.

No... you cannot just wire "any" pedals to the primary controller. There are potentiometer value and travel issues IIRC. Remmember, NH takes calibration data from Windows, unlike GPL. Besides how are you going to do an analog clutch this way when WSC ships? Jan. =--- Gerry Aitken wrote...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Hi Ed > > All us hardcore lot can just wire in our controllers > (3rd party, home built, pedals ect) into the primary, > and Heat should see them....is that right??? > > Not a problem really, and great sim BTW. When's Heat > 2 due ;)

It has been mentioned before, but I second any patch suggestion for better controller support. I use a Logitech Formula Wheel (ID#1) with custom built split axis pedals (ID#2). This works fine with GPL, N3, and even with GP3. The NASCAR HEAT demo (and supposedly the final because its gone gold already) doesn't detect the pedals at all and I'm not able to calibrate them. I hope you can fix this with a patch. Many sims support axis on different controllers, it shouldn't be too problematic to add that. cheers, --- Alexander Marx mailo:[email hidden]

Well, actually, Seymour, I must disagree with you and I take offense to your remark. For NASCAR Heat, we decided to use Microsoft's built in game controller support in order to maximize support & compatibility across as many controller as possible. To be honest, it was a royal pain in the butt to use that because it's not exactly as "responsive" as it may be if we had written our own support. However, we felt that compatibility outweighed the easier route. The trade off for compatibility is that we are subject to what Microsoft gives us. Like them or not they are the operating system and they are the best way to assure compatibility. And while the human race still has 2 arms & 2 legs, making sure you can support all 16 of your controllers doesn't seem as important as making sure that past, present & future game controllers actually work with our game when attached as the primary controller to the system. "SeymourButts" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:uaTl5.864$[email hidden]... > This is a common complaint and it boils down to sloppy programming andlack

Quoted text (12 lines)

> of attention to detail, testing and understanding the controller market... > Unfortunately Game Developers seem to forget that there could be up to 16 > joystick devices attached - which is a reality with multi-ported gamecards > like PDPI L4 and USB devices... > > I think every racing sim developer should simply look at the way GPL has > done its controller configuration - simple yet powerful... I see this time > and time again - GP3 is another example... > > Alexander Marx <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:8n7v84$7rvq9$[email hidden]... > > It has been mentioned before, but I second any patch suggestion for

better > > controller support. I use a Logitech Formula Wheel (ID#1) with custom > built > > split axis pedals (ID#2). This works fine with GPL, N3, and even withGP3.

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > The NASCAR HEAT demo (and supposedly the final because its gone gold > > already) doesn't detect the pedals at all and I'm not able to calibrate > > them. I hope you can fix this with a patch. Many sims support axis on > > different controllers, it shouldn't be too problematic to add that. > > > > cheers, > > --- > > Alexander Marx > > mailo:[email hidden] > > > > > >

rrevved wrote: > Probably more like 99.999999% Looks like I'll have to move a side my new Redline pedals in favor of my old LWFF ones to drive Heat :/. I think the way GPL sorts out the controllers should be copied by everyone.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Wait, I couldn't have said it at all myself. BUT, knowing nothing about programming or directinput or gamedesign tradeoffs, common sense would seem to indicate that if MS provides support for x number of devices at once then a game that is using the ms stuff would also provide such support. The real question here is whether this is a MS limitation (16 ids but only one per game) or a NH limitiation (only picking up id1) I think Ed Martin rocks for being here and answering questions and talking strait (most average people don't know how much even one tech support call costs--avoiding them at all costs is crucial), however, I hope he's not just passing the buck to MS here. Chris --who should really be careful as he doen't know anything about game development at all :-) On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 16:53:15 GMT, "SeymourButts" <[email hidden]> wrote: <snip>

Quoted text (20 lines)

> >Again, isn't DirectInput supposed to isolate you from past, present & future >game controllers? Sure you are never going to support everything out there, >but in the end of day a joystick is simply a bunch of axis & buttons (and if >its FF, a little more work). > >Regardless whether the device is assigned to ID1 or ID16 whats the >difference from a programmers perspective? I mean you enumerate each >attached device, ask for its capabilities, decide whether you can support it >and if not continue to the next device... In the end you end up with a list >of devices DIDEVICEINSTANCE, each with a set of axis, buttons etc. You map >these to your Steering, Gas etc etc, store away your mapping somewhere >persistent, and only poll those devices that are in the mapping... >Technically, quite easy stuff... > >Ed, I may be wrong, but I think the real reason you only support ID1 (ie. >the primary joystick) is a due to a software design limitation in that you >only hold one pointer to an instance of a DirectInput device object (might >want to run that by your development team to confirm my conclusion)...... >

Pat Dotson wrote:

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > No kidding. What is the point of having all > those different controller ID's in Windows if > they can't be used? > > If a developer wants to maintain compatibility > in the way Ed describes, why not have a secondary > controller option that allows the user to access > all controllers attached to the computer? > > I'm very disappointed in the NH controller > setup. No pedals on consumer level controllers > stack up against my home-built pedals, but I > can't use them if the sims won't recognize them! > > -- > Pat Dotson

Just had a thought! All I have to do is wire the Redline ones into the LWFF, and I'm away <G>.

Hi Ed All us hardcore lot can just wire in our controllers ( 3rd party, home built, pedals ect ) into the primary, and Heat should see them....is that right??? Not a problem really, and great sim BTW. When's Heat 2 due ;)

Jan Verschueren wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > No... you cannot just wire "any" pedals to the primary controller. There are > potentiometer value and travel issues IIRC. Remmember, NH takes calibration > data from Windows, unlike GPL. > > Besides how are you going to do an analog clutch this way when WSC ships? > > Jan.

So taking the wire and pots from my LWFF and putting them in the Redline won't work then :(? In effect, won't I just be throwing away the LW plastic and replacing it with Redline metal? I know the LW pedals have the power supply in them, but that can still be used, can't it?

On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 12:38:48 -0500, rrevved <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 16:53:15 GMT, "SeymourButts" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >>Sorry I offended you Ed - my apologies. Nascar Heat is a fine game, and >>generally speaking it will support 98% of controller configs out there by >>only supportiing ID1... > >Probably more like 99.999999%

Damn, I belong to that 0.000001% then... Andre

I was going to suggest the same thing to you. I didn't like the LWFF pedals so I took the pedals off of my old Thrustmaster T2 and just took the wiring off the LWFF ones and wired up the T2 ones, works like a dream! "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (23 lines)

> > > Pat Dotson wrote: > > > > No kidding. What is the point of having all > > those different controller ID's in Windows if > > they can't be used? > > > > If a developer wants to maintain compatibility > > in the way Ed describes, why not have a secondary > > controller option that allows the user to access > > all controllers attached to the computer? > > > > I'm very disappointed in the NH controller > > setup. No pedals on consumer level controllers > > stack up against my home-built pedals, but I > > can't use them if the sims won't recognize them! > > > > -- > > Pat Dotson > > Just had a thought! All I have to do is wire the Redline ones into the > LWFF, and I'm away <G>.

Do you get a 1 to 1 relation between the travel of the pedal and the indicator in the LWFF properties? Jan. =--- Vintook wrote... > I was going to suggest the same thing to you. I didn't > like the LWFF pedals so I took the pedals off of my old > Thrustmaster T2 and just took the wiring off the LWFF > ones and wired up the T2 ones, works like a dream! > > <snip>

This is a common complaint and it boils down to sloppy programming and lack of attention to detail, testing and understanding the controller market... Unfortunately Game Developers seem to forget that there could be up to 16 joystick devices attached - which is a reality with multi-ported gamecards like PDPI L4 and USB devices... I think every racing sim developer should simply look at the way GPL has done its controller configuration - simple yet powerful... I see this time and time again - GP3 is another example... Alexander Marx <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8n7v84$7rvq9$[email hidden]... > It has been mentioned before, but I second any patch suggestion for better > controller support. I use a Logitech Formula Wheel (ID#1) with custombuilt

Quoted text (12 lines)

> split axis pedals (ID#2). This works fine with GPL, N3, and even with GP3. > The NASCAR HEAT demo (and supposedly the final because its gone gold > already) doesn't detect the pedals at all and I'm not able to calibrate > them. I hope you can fix this with a patch. Many sims support axis on > different controllers, it shouldn't be too problematic to add that. > > cheers, > --- > Alexander Marx > mailo:[email hidden] > >

Sorry I offended you Ed - my apologies. Nascar Heat is a fine game, and generally speaking it will support 98% of controller configs out there by only supportiing ID1... I have some observations about your comments and would like to explore some of them in depth a little.. I'd be interested in your comments. > For NASCAR Heat, we decided to use Microsoft's built in game controller > support in order to maximize support & compatibility across as many > controller as possible. Agree. DirectInput is well documented API and it's easy to use (you are using DirectInput and not the older Multimedia API's - you must be b/c you support FF). > To be honest, it was a royal pain in the butt to > use that because it's not exactly as "responsive" as it may be if we had > written our own support. However, we felt that compatibility outweighedthe > easier route. Not quite sure what you mean here as far as "responsive". (You may want to elaborate here). I mean if your talking about a standard analogue gameport (0x201 emulation provided by VJoyd.vxd) and MSAnalog.vxd, then yes, I agree you are pretty much open to all sorts of issues because of the gameport and its design and the polling method used, but I think in part these are hardware related . Writing your own support for all possible devices means you have to rewrite all sorts of stuff hidden by DirectInput like HID support for USB devices and other digital devices. > The trade off for compatibility is that we are subject to what Microsoft > gives us. Like them or not they are the operating system and they are the > best way to assure compatibility. Agree. Thats the whole idea behind DirectInput, to isolate the game developer from the various hardware implementations - thats what the OEM joystick manufacture job is to do - provide the best interface to their product... > And while the human race still has 2 arms > & 2 legs, making sure you can support all 16 of your controllers doesn't > seem as important as making sure that past, present & future game > controllers actually work with our game when attached as the primary > controller to the system. Again, isn't DirectInput supposed to isolate you from past, present & future game controllers? Sure you are never going to support everything out there, but in the end of day a joystick is simply a bunch of axis & buttons (and if its FF, a little more work). Regardless whether the device is assigned to ID1 or ID16 whats the difference from a programmers perspective? I mean you enumerate each attached device, ask for its capabilities, decide whether you can support it and if not continue to the next device... In the end you end up with a list of devices DIDEVICEINSTANCE, each with a set of axis, buttons etc. You map these to your Steering, Gas etc etc, store away your mapping somewhere persistent, and only poll those devices that are in the mapping... Technically, quite easy stuff... Ed, I may be wrong, but I think the real reason you only support ID1 (ie. the primary joystick) is a due to a software design limitation in that you only hold one pointer to an instance of a DirectInput device object (might want to run that by your development team to confirm my conclusion)...... Ed Martin <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:%tTl5.26916$[email hidden]... > Well, actually, Seymour, I must disagree with you and I take offense toyour

Quoted text (7 lines)

> remark. > > For NASCAR Heat, we decided to use Microsoft's built in game controller > support in order to maximize support & compatibility across as many > controller as possible. To be honest, it was a royal pain in the butt to > use that because it's not exactly as "responsive" as it may be if we had > written our own support. However, we felt that compatibility outweighed

the > easier route. > > The trade off for compatibility is that we are subject to what Microsoft > gives us. Like them or not they are the operating system and they are the > best way to assure compatibility. And while the human race still has 2arms

Quoted text (11 lines)

> & 2 legs, making sure you can support all 16 of your controllers doesn't > seem as important as making sure that past, present & future game > controllers actually work with our game when attached as the primary > controller to the system. > > > "SeymourButts" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:uaTl5.864$[email hidden]... > > This is a common complaint and it boils down to sloppy programming and > lack > > of attention to detail, testing and understanding the controller

market... > > Unfortunately Game Developers seem to forget that there could be up to16 > > joystick devices attached - which is a reality with multi-portedgamecards > > like PDPI L4 and USB devices... > > > > I think every racing sim developer should simply look at the way GPLhas > > done its controller configuration - simple yet powerful... I see thistime

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > and time again - GP3 is another example... > > > > Alexander Marx <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:8n7v84$7rvq9$[email hidden]... > > > It has been mentioned before, but I second any patch suggestion for > better > > > controller support. I use a Logitech Formula Wheel (ID#1) with custom > > built > > > split axis pedals (ID#2). This works fine with GPL, N3, and even with > GP3. > > > The NASCAR HEAT demo (and supposedly the final because its gone gold > > > already) doesn't detect the pedals at all and I'm not able to

calibrate

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > > them. I hope you can fix this with a patch. Many sims support axis on > > > different controllers, it shouldn't be too problematic to add that. > > > > > > cheers, > > > --- > > > Alexander Marx > > > mailo:[email hidden] > > > > > > > > > > > >

It's not a MS limitation... Its Nascar Heat - it can only see one DirectInput device at a time... I fail to understand Ed's comments about DirectInput and lack of responsiveness. It's not DirectInputs fault if the underlying hardware is trash ie. your gameport. Digital devices such as USB provide a much better hardware implementation. Ed also talks about writing their own joystick support like other game developers have... Ok, but at least they gave you a choice between DirectInput and their own driver ie. GPL, Nascar99, Nascar3... From a design perspective the Nascar Heat techo's have done the right thing and used DirectInput for maximum compatability for all devices. The only thing they failed to do is support more than one device, which I think is due to an underlying design issue with their controller code. <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (22 lines)

> I couldn't have said it better myself. Wait, I couldn't have said it > at all myself. BUT, knowing nothing about programming or directinput > or gamedesign tradeoffs, common sense would seem to indicate that if > MS provides support for x number of devices at once then a game that > is using the ms stuff would also provide such support. The real > question here is whether this is a MS limitation (16 ids but only one > per game) or a NH limitiation (only picking up id1) I think Ed Martin > rocks for being here and answering questions and talking strait (most > average people don't know how much even one tech support call > costs--avoiding them at all costs is crucial), however, I hope he's > not just passing the buck to MS here. > > Chris > --who should really be careful as he doen't know anything about game > development at all :-) > > On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 16:53:15 GMT, "SeymourButts" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > <snip> > > > >Again, isn't DirectInput supposed to isolate you from past, present &

future > >game controllers? Sure you are never going to support everything outthere, > >but in the end of day a joystick is simply a bunch of axis & buttons (andif > >its FF, a little more work). > > > >Regardless whether the device is assigned to ID1 or ID16 whats the > >difference from a programmers perspective? I mean you enumerate each > >attached device, ask for its capabilities, decide whether you can supportit > >and if not continue to the next device... In the end you end up with alist > >of devices DIDEVICEINSTANCE, each with a set of axis, buttons etc. Youmap > >these to your Steering, Gas etc etc, store away your mapping somewhere > >persistent, and only poll those devices that are in the mapping... > >Technically, quite easy stuff... > > > >Ed, I may be wrong, but I think the real reason you only support ID1 (ie. > >the primary joystick) is a due to a software design limitation in thatyou > >only hold one pointer to an instance of a DirectInput device object(might > >want to run that by your development team to confirm my conclusion)...... > > >

Jan Verschueren wrote: > Besides how are you going to do an analog clutch this way when WSC ships? I'll sort somthing out, I always do. That's the neat thing about owning a tool kit ;)

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > Jan. > =--- > Gerry Aitken wrote... > > Hi Ed > > > > All us hardcore lot can just wire in our controllers > > (3rd party, home built, pedals ect) into the primary, > > and Heat should see them....is that right??? > > > > Not a problem really, and great sim BTW. When's Heat > > 2 due ;)

Cheers... I'll have to try that. If and when I can put aside an entire day to tinker with that stuff. Jan. =--- Wayne Bradley wrote... > I do! I wired my TSW pedals into the LWFF. I attached > the wiring harness off of the LWFF pedals directly > (the same) to the pots in the TSW pedals. AWESOME. > NEVER had a compatabilty problem at all. > > Wayne Bradley

I do! I wired my TSW pedals into the LWFF. I attached the wiring harness off of the LWFF pedals directly (the same) to the pots in the TSW pedals. AWESOME. NEVER had a compatabilty problem at all. Wayne Bradley "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> Do you get a 1 to 1 relation between the travel of the pedal and the > indicator in the LWFF properties? > > Jan. > =--- > Vintook wrote... > > I was going to suggest the same thing to you. I didn't > > like the LWFF pedals so I took the pedals off of my old > > Thrustmaster T2 and just took the wiring off the LWFF > > ones and wired up the T2 ones, works like a dream! > > > > <snip> > >

YES! You should have NO problems. Use the POTS that came with your redline pedals and just wire the entire (minus the POTS) LWFF wiring harness to it. Matter of fact you should NOT have to do ANY soldering. Just slide the LWFF harness connectors right over the redline POTS lugs. Remember you must remove any wiring that was in the redline pedals, by remove I mean isolate the redline wiring from the redline POTS There seems to be some sort of digital calibration in that it can take almost any value of POT or throw and it will still mantain its 1:1 relationsship in the profiler. Wayne Badley "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > > Jan Verschueren wrote: > > > > No... you cannot just wire "any" pedals to the primary controller. Thereare > > potentiometer value and travel issues IIRC. Remmember, NH takescalibration > > data from Windows, unlike GPL. > > > > Besides how are you going to do an analog clutch this way when WSCships?

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > > Jan. > > So taking the wire and pots from my LWFF and putting them in the Redline > won't work then :(? > In effect, won't I just be throwing away the LW plastic and replacing it > with Redline metal? > I know the LW pedals have the power supply in them, but that can still > be used, can't it?

Wayne Bradley wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > YES! You should have NO problems. Use the POTS that came with your redline > pedals and just wire the entire (minus the POTS) LWFF wiring harness to it. > Matter of fact you should NOT have to do ANY soldering. Just slide the LWFF > harness connectors right over the redline POTS lugs. Remember you must > remove any wiring that was in the redline pedals, by remove I mean isolate > the redline wiring from the redline POTS There seems to be some sort of > digital calibration in that it can take almost any value of POT or throw and > it will still mantain its 1:1 relationsship in the profiler.

Thanks Wayne, I was never in any doubt that it would work <G>.