Simple Additions to Options Menu

[Leadbottom]

I do not know if this has been suggested, but it would be very helpful if the DCS programmers could make a couple of additions and changes to the "Options" menu. Specifically, the ability to rename the buttons on the "SYSTEM" tab currently named "Custom1, Custom2 and Custom3 and the ability to move the columns on the "CONTROLS" tab.  Being able to move the user's device columns to the order of placement would be of great help.

 

Edited July 6, 2022 by Leadbottom
Adding of text

[upyr1]

both would be great, while it isn't on the list I would love to see a graphics configuration wizard. Something that would bench test DCS by running through differning configuations to give you a balance between performance and appearance 

[SharpeXB]

9 hours ago, upyr1 said:

I would love to see a graphics configuration wizard. Something that would bench test DCS by running through differning configuations to give you a balance between performance and appearance 

This is something you can do yourself by simply running a replay track and measuring performance with a tool like Fraps. Whatever balance you desire between performance and appearance is up to you. 

[upyr1]

On 7/7/2022 at 7:34 AM, SharpeXB said:

This is something you can do yourself by simply running a replay track and measuring performance with a tool like Fraps. Whatever balance you desire between performance and appearance is up to you. 

Something built into dcs could do this automatically 

[SharpeXB]

30 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

Something built into dcs could do this automatically 

I think this type of hardware detection and presets require more resources than ED has. 

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

I think this type of hardware detection and presets require more resources than ED has. 

The bare minimum requirements would be a wizard that runs a track and records the performance using a utility like Fraps that automatically changes the system settings. Starting with low hanging graphics fruit then moving on to system killers. A database might be nice but a wizard would be the first step I would be happy if it's the only step 

Edited July 11, 2022 by upyr1

[SharpeXB]

8 hours ago, upyr1 said:

The bare minimum requirements would be a wizard that runs a track and records the performance using a utility like Fraps that automatically changes the system settings.

I can’t say I’ve ever seen something like this in any other game so I’m not sure how or why DCS would do this. Some games just detect your hardware and apply a preset. Or they have a benchmark track that simply runs and displays a frame rate min, max and average. But it they don’t automatically change your settings. 

[upyr1]

4 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

I can’t say I’ve ever seen something like this in any other game so I’m not sure how or why DCS would do this. Some games just detect your hardware and apply a preset. Or they have a benchmark track that simply runs and displays a frame rate min, max and average. But it they don’t automatically change your settings. 

I don't care if you haven't seen that any place else, You stated earlier that you don't think ED has the resources to maintain a database to configure DCS based on autodetected hardware, so I suggested the wizard which would automatically adjust the settings as DCS would then only need to be concerned about your system. It doesn't matter if this is the first time ever in the history of the universe where this sort of thing has been written. Though I believe back in the 1990s there were a few games that had something like this even if I'm wrong the fact you haven't seen something like this is not a good argument against a graphics wizard so please try playing some DCS and crank the graphics up too high

Edited July 11, 2022 by upyr1

[SharpeXB]

45 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

It doesn't matter if this is the first time ever in the history of the universe where this sort of thing has been written.

It would matter if it’s a drain on resources that could be used for better things. It’s not so difficult for players to select their own graphic settings. The fact that no other game does this should be a sign that it’s not feasible or practical. 

Edited July 11, 2022 by SharpeXB

[_Hoss]

The GUI Radio button on the Right VPC Stick column would have a selection for move this column Left/Right so your "Right VPC Stick" and your "Left VPC Throttle" are side by side?.  I would like my TMWH "Combined" to be the first controller I see on the left and not the last controller on the right. Good idea, Thrustmaster TARGET lets you do that in it's GUI screen with commands moving them up or down in sequence.  Good idea!

Cheers

Hoss

p.s. Nice Hijack job guys.. LOL

Edited July 11, 2022 by 352nd_Hoss

[Tippis]

9 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

I can’t say I’ve ever seen something like this in any other game

Your lack of experience with first-person shooters from, oh, the late '90s and onwards is not an argument against anything. You'll find “recommended settings” detection in any number of old Bethesda games, in a bunch of modern UBI games, in a number of games with built-in time demos (Crysis series, Serious Sam, hell even the OG Unreal flightcastle scene was effectively this).

4 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

It would matter if it’s a drain on resources that could be used for better things

Good thing that it wouldn't really be, then. Your “fact” is anything but — it's simply yet another one of your reality-defying assumptions and has no bearing on, or basis in, anything except your contrarian urges and desire to keep DCS from ever evolving, improving, or developing in any way.

In actual fact, games do this, showing that it's quite feasible, contrary to your fallacious argument from incredulity.

 

As for the OP, you sort of can do those things already, but it requires a fair amount of Lua fiddling and/or USB reassignment and/or registry editing. As such, it's also immensely brittle and will not last very long. So yes, some good old customisation and just drag-and-drop sorting would be a significant improvement.

Edited July 11, 2022 by Tippis

[SharpeXB]

31 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Your lack of experience with first-person shooters from, oh, the late '90s and onwards is not an argument against anything. You'll find “recommended settings” detection in any number of old Bethesda games, in a bunch of modern UBI games, in a number of games with built-in time demos (Crysis series, Serious Sam, hell even the OG Unreal flightcastle scene was effectively this).

You realize that’s 30 years ago… right?  I do play FPS and other games. And yes I know games have hardware detection that automatically apply presets. Or benchmarks that run a track and show performance numbers. But that doesn’t sound like what the off-topic request is asking for. I don’t think any of these games are running a “Wizard” and doing calculations. It’s just applying presets that were developed for the game based upon your hardware stats. 

Edited July 11, 2022 by SharpeXB

[SharpeXB]

34 minutes ago, Tippis said:

your contrarian urges and desire to keep DCS from ever evolving, improving, or developing in any way.

Oh I definitely want DCS to keep evolving and improving. Just in more important ways that are better uses of the limited resources available to it. This is a tiny niche game. Even something common for larger studios such as this type of hardware testing and such are probably beyond the reach of ED. 

[Tippis]

19 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

You realize that’s 30 years ago… right?  I

…and you realise that suggesting that something that was pretty commonplace 20 years ago — and which never went away — equates to “no game does this” demonstrates a fundamental lack of experience or understanding of the functionality and of the area in general, right? And that we're not five years in the future?

19 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

But that doesn’t sound like what the off-topic request is asking for.

It's exactly what he's asking for. Same as the myriad of other games that do just that.

 

19 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

t’s just applying presets that were developed for the game based upon your hardware stats. 

Would you like to venture a guess as to how those hardware stats are calculated?

12 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Oh I definitely want DCS to keep evolving and improving.

LMAO no. If you did, you wouldn't be in this forum, shooting down every single idea that is put forth towards that goal and argue against any request that would make it less of a niche game. Oh, and once again, if you don't want things to go off topic, why do you always ignore the OP and instead drag the discussion that way rather than follow the suggestion the moderators have offered you time and time again in relation to ideas you don't like…?

Edited July 11, 2022 by Tippis

[SharpeXB]

42 minutes ago, Tippis said:

and you realise that suggesting that something that was pretty commonplace 20 years ago — and which never went away

I get what games do, I’ve had tons of them over the years. None do this Wizard thing. And I usually don’t like the results that the auto config sets. Those things aren’t prefect. Most people would do it better themselves. 

42 minutes ago, Tippis said:

It's exactly what he's asking for. Same as the myriad of other games that do just that.

No he’s not asking for that because he just disagreed with my telling him that. 

42 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Would you like to venture a guess as to how those hardware stats are calculated?

Game testing. I participated in just this for another flight sim a few years ago. 

Edited July 11, 2022 by SharpeXB

[Tippis]

17 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I get what games do

Clearly not, since you haven't noticed the wizards some of them use. This is just you making faulty generalisations from too small a sample.

17 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

No he’s not asking for that because he just disagreed with my telling him that.

That's not actually what he said, now was it?

17 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Game testing.

Nope. They're calculated by running a wizard that checks the performance off of a benchmark and applies settings — in bulk or individually, depending on how much effort the developer can be bothered to put into it — based off of the score. You can certainly collect data through game testing as well, but that is not the only way and it's not until pretty recently (relatively speaking) that that was even an option. Just because some games use that methodology doesn't mean all of them do — some other games do the very thing you claim they don't, and your argument from incredulity only ever ends up trying to contradict reality. As always.

Your whole tired old stance that it's not something ED could afford doing relies on it being done in a very specific way, and on the notion that it cannot possibly be done in other ways even though there is a decades (plural) long history of games doing it in other ways (also plural).

Edited July 11, 2022 by Tippis

[SharpeXB]

1 minute ago, Tippis said:

Clearly not, since you haven't noticed the wizards some of them use.

Explain what this is then because it hasn’t been explained yet. 

2 minutes ago, Tippis said:

That's not actually what he said, now was it?

I had said that games already have benchmarks and presets. He didn’t agree and wanted something different. 

3 minutes ago, Tippis said:

They're calculated by running a wizard that checks the performance off of a benchmark and applies settings — in bulk or individually, depending on how much effort the developer can be bothered to put into it — based off of the score.

But the developer is doing this, not the player. I’ve never seen a game I own do that. 

[Tippis]

31 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Explain what this is then because it hasn’t been explained yet.

20 hours ago, upyr1 said:

The bare minimum requirements would be a wizard that runs a track and records the performance using a utility like Fraps that automatically changes the system settings. Starting with low hanging graphics fruit then moving on to system killers.

Or, if you like, an example in the wild.

31 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I had said that games already have benchmarks and presets. He didn’t agree and wanted something different. 

Again, that's not what he said, now was it? He simply quite correctly stated that your having not seen it doesn't really matter and that if if your anti-suggestion was infeasible, it could be done in other ways.

 

31 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

But the developer is doing this, not the player. I’ve never seen a game I own do that. 

And as mentioned, whether you have seen it or not doesn't really matter. Arguments from incredulity (and from ignorance) are considered fallacies for a reason.

Edited July 11, 2022 by Tippis

[SharpeXB]

3 hours ago, Tippis said:

Or, if you like, an example in the wild.

“Behind the scenes, the benchmark returns a performance index for CPU and GPU with a reference of 100.0 for “average good CPU/GPU”. 

Ok that’s what I mean by “hardware detection”,  it’s “behind the scenes” setting the graphics automatically 

And that’s not what the post was asking for but: “a wizard (something that you run on command and not behind the scenes) that runs a track (not a hidden benchmark) and records the performance using a utility like Fraps” the first part of that is normally found in games just not the second part:“automatically changes the system settings” which is what you linked but doesn’t require a replay track. 
 

Edited July 12, 2022 by SharpeXB

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Oh I definitely want DCS to keep evolving and improving. Just in more important ways that are better uses of the limited resources available to it. This is a tiny niche game. Even something common for larger studios such as this type of hardware testing and such are probably beyond the reach of ED. 

You stated that you believe that a utility to detect and configure dcs would be out of ed's capabilities. Which is why I suggested using a wizard to do it. As I believe it would take less corporate resources and probably get better results. The fact you have never seen such a wizard is not an argument against one. Nor is the fact you don't plan to use it. It would be up to Eagle to decide if it is worth the effort. 

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, Tippis said:

Clearly not, since you haven't noticed the wizards some of them use. This is just you making faulty generalisations from too small a sample.

That's not actually what he said, now was it?

Nope. They're calculated by running a wizard that checks the performance off of a benchmark and applies settings — in bulk or individually, depending on how much effort the developer can be bothered to put into it — based off of the score. You can certainly collect data through game testing as well, but that is not the only way and it's not until pretty recently (relatively speaking) that that was even an option. Just because some games use that methodology doesn't mean all of them do — some other games do the very thing you claim they don't, and your argument from incredulity only ever ends up trying to contradict reality. As always.

Your whole tired old stance that it's not something ED could afford doing relies on it being done in a very specific way, and on the notion that it cannot possibly be done in other ways even though there is a decades (plural) long history of games doing it in other ways (also plural).

 

At one point  Isuggested a hybrid approach where the wizard tries to look for your hardware in a database then runs the wizard if it can't be found. Anyway back to more simple options. I would love a profile named standard helicopter and standard plane. So that when you install a new mod or module it populates the most common functions

[SharpeXB]

34 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

You stated that you believe that a utility to detect and configure dcs would be out of ed's capabilities. Which is why I suggested using a wizard to do it. As I believe it would take less corporate resources and probably get better results.

Since they use their own custom game engine it’s a safe assumption that they would need to create this utility as well. So it’s still work they’d need to do at the expense of other things. The return on features like is no doubt lower than on products that can actually sell. 

Edited July 12, 2022 by SharpeXB

[Tippis]

3 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

“Behind the scenes, the benchmark returns a performance index for CPU and GPU with a reference of 100.0 for “average good CPU/GPU”. 

Ok that’s what I mean by “hardware detection”,  it’s “behind the scenes” setting the graphics automatically 

And that’s not what the post was asking for

Yes it is. You see, the two are doing the exact same thing. And what you're describing, with your focus on “hardware detection” (which is not what this method does) and “presets” (which is not what's being used here) is a very different thing. It does not correspond to your conception of something massively complex matching system that takes an enormous amount of effort.

3 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

a wizard (something that you run on command and not behind the scenes) that runs a track (not a hidden benchmark) and records the performance using a utility like Fraps

You mean like the example provided, which is run on command (the “behind the scenes” mentioned is from the programmer's perspective, who doesn't have to care about the scoring system to call the functionality) and which runs a “track” (that's how you do a benchmark) and then automatically changes the settings (which is a feature found in many games). You're the one who brought up some perceived need for a track replay, remember? He was simply using your suggestion to hone in on a possible easy implementation.

The point is, how you said it's never done is in actual fact how it is commonly done, to the point where, as the example shows, it's a built-in feature in many engines and does not actually require a ton of work. Your core assumptions and the conclusions you draw from this are just factually incorrect.

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Since they use their own custom game engine it’s a safe assumption that they would need to create this utility as well.

The functionality already exists in the game. This is why you — in particular — should be very wary of relying on your assumptions.

The return on QoL features is increased QoL, which helps sell products.

 

3 hours ago, upyr1 said:

Anyway back to more simple options. I would love a profile named standard helicopter and standard plane. So that when you install a new mod or module it populates the most common functions

That sounds more like a bind thing, though, as opposed to the actual game settings — since those would have to cover both since there is nothing to stop you from flying both in a single sitting. What settings are you envisioning that this would entail? I suppose, if the profiler was quick enough, it could apply “high altitude detail” vs “low altitude detail” on demand, but again, that would also run afoul of those instances where you'd want both and where you do both in the same session.

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, Tippis said:

That sounds more like a bind thing, though, as opposed to the actual game settings — since those would have to cover both since there is nothing to stop you from flying both in a single sitting. What settings are you envisioning that this would entail? I suppose, if the profiler was quick enough, it could apply “high altitude detail” vs “low altitude detail” on demand, but again, that would also run afoul of those instances where you'd want both and where you do both in the same session.

That is a binding issue, I was changing the subject to other ways to improve the menu. What I am asking for with this would be a pair of controller profiles called "Common controls helicopter" and "common controls air plane" where we will set pitch, yaw, roll, trim, breaks, right throttle, left throttle, targeting curser, triggers, pickle button and the like. So when you install a new module you won't have to go through and configure everything just set the curves and the module specific stuff. 

[Tippis]

11 hours ago, upyr1 said:

That is a binding issue, I was changing the subject to other ways to improve the menu. What I am asking for with this would be a pair of controller profiles called "Common controls helicopter" and "common controls air plane" where we will set pitch, yaw, roll, trim, breaks, right throttle, left throttle, targeting curser, triggers, pickle button and the like. So when you install a new module you won't have to go through and configure everything just set the curves and the module specific stuff. 

Ah ok, yes that makes more sense. I know three idea had been around since forever. It would definitely be neat, especially if you could set your items defaults (since the module ones are, at best, pseudo-sensible for three TMWH and little else. Not having to convince two dozen airplanes that, no, I don't want to use button 1 on half a dozen devices to fire weapons, especially not on my rudder pedals, would save a non-trivial amount of time.

The problem there would rather be to strictly, harshly, and - above all - retroactively enforce an input naming scheme for a set of default controls that all modules must adhere to. I can see the module makers breaking out in cold sweats already.

Edited July 12, 2022 by Tippis