Nealius Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 Introduction DCS has a standard mouse-switch interaction logic. The problem is that it isn't actually standard. The logic is inconsistent across modules, and is inconsistent even in the same module. This causes frustration via making the wrong right/left click because the user expected a certain switch to behave like all the other switches, only to find that it doesn't. I tested all my modules to see which switches in which modules do not follow the standard. Current standard 2-way switches: right/left click function the same 3-way switches: right click moves switch up/right; left click moves switch down/left Rotaries: right click moves rotary CW; left click moves rotary CCW Findings I tested all my modules because I know some of them get really weird with switches due to not following the standard described above. I'll start with the modules that follow the standard, then describe the ones that don't follow the standard. Modules that follow the standard Bf 109 F-16C F-5E F/A-18C Fw 190 A8 M2000C** Mi-8** Spitfire UH-1** Modules that do NOT follow the standard Under each module I will list the offending switches A-10C** IFFCC Laser ARM Master Arm GUN PAC arm Land/taxi lights Anti-skid Inverter Mag Var Windshield rain remove Position flash/steady Flap switch SAS switches Autopilot PATH/ALT/HDG Seat height AJS-37 Trim switches Weapon rotary Interval rotary AV-8B ARMT switches (all) HUD REJ HUD night/day F-86** Rudder trim switch Red switch (unlabeled; starter?) F-14B (Pilot) Baro altimeter reset switch Master light rotaries (RIO) MSL OPTIONS STA 1 and 8 armament Mech Fuze Baro altimeter reset Upper radar panel switches Instrument/console light rotaries JF-17 All 3-way switches (rotaries follow standard) MiG-21 Everything MiG-19 Homing switch - right click INOP P-51D Mixture Yak-52 WNPOTA (can't read Cyrillic) panel - all switches Conclusion The mouse-switch logic is quite inconsistent. I've always been frustrated with the A-10's switchology in particular, and I can clearly see why after testing all of my modules. I marked some modules with (**). There's an additional issue where a switch or rotary will jump to max opposite position if you continue clicking past its maximum travel. For example, if a 3-position switch is at its uppermost position and I right-click it again, the switch will jump to its lowermost position. Same applies to rotaries. This is particularly frustrating with the A-10's IFFCC switch because it follows reverse logic. If I want to move the IFFCC from ON to the middle position to change a setting, I left-click because I expect it to follow standard logic. Instead it goes straight to OFF and I've just shut down all my avionics. The modules marked with (**) experience this issue with some or all switches and/or rotaries. Proposal Enforce the standard across all switches/rotaries and across all modules. I would also like to see the (**) addressed. If a switch is at its max up/down or left/right position, subsequent clicks in that direction should result in zero movement. The same should also apply to 2-way switches: If a switch is up and you right-click, it should not move. If a switch is down and you left-click, it should not move. Same applies to rotaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawgie79 Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 Actually, I believe the Radar Altimeter switch in the F-16C is also the other way around. If I remember correctly, that is. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Py Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 Yes PLEASE do this, it's a very simple change but has a huge impact on usability (and user frustration). Especially the A-10C needs to be updated for consistency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonne Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 Why not change the three modules that have reversed the former standard (F-14/16/18), instead of all others? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nealius Posted February 25, 2020 Author Share Posted February 25, 2020 Why not change the three modules that have reversed the former standard (F-14/16/18), instead of all others? Because those did not reverse a non-existent "former standard." It also does not address the modules that have mixed standard/non-standard switch interaction, such as the A-10C, where nearly half the switches follow one logic and the other half follow a reversed logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonne Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 Because those did not reverse a non-existent "former standard." It also does not address the modules that have mixed standard/non-standard switch interaction, such as the A-10C, where nearly half the switches follow one logic and the other half follow a reversed logic. There was a former standard: -Rotaries right click clockwise; left click counterclockwise -Three position switches left click forward or upward; right click back or downward -Two position toggle either right or left click The MiG-21 completely follows that logic, as does the JF-17, the MiG-15, the MiG-19, the Viggen (although that one does not have any three position AFAIK), the Yak-52 and probably a lot more that I don't own. Its the three teen fighters which are wrong in my oppinion. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nealius Posted February 25, 2020 Author Share Posted February 25, 2020 (edited) There was a former standard: -Rotaries right click clockwise; left click counterclockwise -Three position switches left click forward or upward; right click back or downward -Two position toggle either right or left click The MiG-21 completely follows that logic, as does the JF-17, the MiG-15, the MiG-19, the Viggen (although that one does not have any three position AFAIK), the Yak-52 and probably a lot more that I don't own. Its the three teen fighters which are wrong in my oppinion. That is objectively incorrect. Any previous standard would have been set by the first two ED modules: Black Shark and A-10C. As you can see with the A-10C there was no standard. As I said before, half the switches seem to follow one logic while the other half seem to be reversed in the A-10C module alone. Furthermore, why should 16 modules have their entire logic completely reworked to your proposed "former standard" when only a few switches across a few modules could be reworked to the established standard in the first post? Edited February 25, 2020 by Nealius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonne Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 That is objectively incorrect. Any previous standard would have been set by the first two ED modules: Black Shark and A-10C. As you can see with the A-10C there was no standard. As I said before, half the switches seem to follow one logic while the other half seem to be reversed in the A-10C module alone. Furthermore, why should 16 modules have their entire logic completely reworked to your proposed "former standard" when only a few switches across a few modules could be reworked to the established standard in the first post? What established standard? Your list alone shows that this is not an established standard. Three modules have introduced a reverse logic of the three position switches. Why should all others be updated to that (unintuitive) new way. All other modules may have inconsistencies, but all general follow the old, left click fwd/up logic. By the way, your assesment of the MiG-21 is even wrong, as right click will give you a clockwise motion of all rotary switches. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nealius Posted February 25, 2020 Author Share Posted February 25, 2020 (edited) What established standard? Your list alone shows that this is not an established standard. Three modules have introduced a reverse logic of the three position switches. Why should all others be updated to that (unintuitive) new way. All other modules may have inconsistencies, but all general follow the old, left click fwd/up logic. By the way, your assesment of the MiG-21 is even wrong, as right click will give you a clockwise motion of all rotary switches. Reread my first post. There are more than three modules that follow what you claim is the "new standard." Of the 19 modules I tested, There are 9 that follow it fully. There are 7 that follow it mostly but have a few odd switches that don't. There are only two that fully follow your "standard" and one of those is the newest module, the JF-17. Then there's the A-10C which is just a mess. That means that 84% of those 19 modules mostly follow the right-click-up standard. Numbers don't lie. Edited February 25, 2020 by Nealius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReardonMetal Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 Wow. Great work. This is quality UI testing right here. This is especially frustrating when a mis-click can restart a lengthy BIT or INS Alignment. Simple to fix and goes along well to feeling like a polished product. Again, great work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agg Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 I agree, this needs to be fixed - it's especially annoying in modules where left clicking one switch will move it to the up position, but left clicking the switch next to it will move it to the down position. I quite like how it's done in X-Plane where scrolling up on the mouse wheel moves a switch to the up position, and scrolling down moves it to the down position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pikey Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 Great topic. What is the right way or the wrong way is less important than a standard because your muscle meory really get's crippled with the current all over the place design. The times I've hovered over a switch that was semi important wondering if my first guess was wrong, what would happen and having to overthink literally every button press. It should be instinctual, standardised and much more important than it appears to be. ___________________________________________________________________________ SIMPLE SCENERY SAVING * SIMPLE GROUP SAVING * SIMPLE STATIC SAVING * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tidy Dave Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 (edited) This would be a nice change to improve user experience. From a code perspective, I'd say it'll be a lot of fun refactoring the codebase to use the GoF strategy pattern and have the third-party devs code to it. Imagine the amount of coffee that would need to be consumed... But in all seriousness, this would be a great achievement. Edited February 25, 2020 by Tidy Dave me no english gud Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts