Naming convention for (some) control assignments?

[scoobie]

(Please excuse me if this was discussed before. These forums ARE huge.)

 

Currently there's no naming convention for things like "if you hold this button, master arm is arm, if you release it, it goes safe" or for axes that are "absolute" (where position of the hardware control directly translates to an in-game axis position) or are "incremental" (for minijoystick-like controls which "shift" the in-game axis at the rate proportional to the displacement of such control from its neutral position).

 

Such button assignments (let's skip axes for a second) are sometimes called "(joystick special)" (really? it says exactly nothing), sometimes it's "Master ARM (hold) / SAFE (release)". Sometimes it's "Master arm MOMENTARY".

C'mon guys - programmers are expected to be more consistent!

(It's not their "fault", but team leads could look into it).

IIRC there are other ways of naming such bindings in ED modules, these are just the ones I could come up with off the top of my head.

 

So now... how about if ED devs looked into or maybe even considered accepting (for new modules, that is) the Heatblur's system, found in Viggen, which I think is very explicit and dead easy (BTW - kudos for the smart dude in Heatblur):

 

1. "else" as in "Master ARM else SAFE". If you see "else", it always means "it does this when held ELSE it does that" (never ever the other way round!).
By the way - the extra bonus to this system is when you have a 3-way toggle switch. For example (A-10C autopilot): "Autopilot PATH else ALT/HDG", "Autopilot ALT else ALT/HDG" - now you know you can use a single ON-OFF-ON toggle switch to combine both assignments (just as in real Warthog). If you named them "Autopilot PATH MOMENTARY" and "Autopilot ALT MOMENTARY" it wouldn't say it - you wouldn't know so you'd have to plunge into .lua file to see for yourself.

 

2. "(absolute)" as in "Flood light (absolute)" - this is for axes. This may and I think should be skipped as a default, provided there's no ambiguity in a particular case*).

 

3. "(incremental)" as in "Pipper depression (incremental)" - for things like pipper depression axis in F-5E (it is incremental, not absolute). These are rare and could be marked as such.

 

Just paint it on the door so devs can see it and Bob's your uncle

 

Yeah, it's not the biggest problem in my life, but it's kind of funny that every guy in ED comes and names these bindings in his own personal way, and then the crowd of users have the privilege to discover and make sense of yet another new "system" (the sixth one in a row)
Sober and easy conventions cost nothing (in the long run they actually HELP devs, I guarantee that).

Mess costs devs time and nerves.

 

No offence, just a simple idea!

 

*) The particular case is where you have TWO types of binding for one axis, e.g.:
Pipper depression (absolute)
Pipper depression (incremental)
Other than that "(absolute)" would be just unnecessary clutter as the vast majority of axes are "absolute". You expect that, no use elaborating on it. I guess.