Weapon Select sequence bind frustration

[Brainfreeze]

If having to use push buttons for gun/SRM/MRM select the bindings make it mandatory to push the SRM if one wants to switch from MRM to Gun or Gun to MRM.   Guess that is not realistic.   would rather have a button that switches me to MRM or Gun directly regarless of what weapon is selected.   

[draconus]

23 hours ago, Brainfreeze said:

Guess that is not realistic.

This is realistic because that's how that 3-pos switch works - you have to go through the center position. Check manual, p. 293.

[jaylw314]

23 hours ago, Brainfreeze said:

If having to use push buttons for gun/SRM/MRM select the bindings make it mandatory to push the SRM if one wants to switch from MRM to Gun or Gun to MRM.   Guess that is not realistic.   would rather have a button that switches me to MRM or Gun directly regarless of what weapon is selected.   

Just bind your 3 buttons (A, B and C) to SRM.  Then bind [button A]_OFF to MRM, and [button C]_OFF to GUN.  Now, when you press A, it first goes to SRM, then to MRM when you release.  If you press B, it goes to SRM and stays there.  If you press C, it goes to SRM first, then GUN on release.  Profit.

Edited July 6, 2023 by jaylw314

[Brainfreeze]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

This is realistic because that's how that 3-pos switch works - you have to go through the center position. Check manual, p. 293.

Yeah so what is your point? ... you are suggesting that applying religiously a realistic setting to an unrealistic throttle hardware is the right thing to do? ... because this is a sim and people use joysticks that are multipurpose and not the exact replica of the hardware.   What the sim wants to do is replicate the behaviour.  Not pretend that it would be the correct behaviour if you had the proper hardware. 

59 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

Just bind your 3 buttons (A, B and C) to SRM.  Then bind [button A]_OFF to MRM, and [button C]_OFF to GUN.  Now, when you press A, it first goes to SRM, then to MRM when you release.  If you press B, it goes to SRM and stays there.  If you press C, it goes to SRM first, then GUN on release.  Profit.

 

Brillant idea!!  I'll do that.  Did not think about it.  thanks

Edited July 6, 2023 by Brainfreeze

[draconus]

21 minutes ago, Brainfreeze said:

Yeah so what is your point?

My only point was to explain to you that it is indeed realistic, that's all and I was replying only to that part. I wasn't commenting on how users or devs should deal with it.

[Brainfreeze]

4 minutes ago, draconus said:

My only point was to explain to you that it is indeed realistic, that's all and I was replying only to that part. I wasn't commenting on how users or devs should deal with it.

yeah sorry.  i got triggered a bit .  My point is that this is not satisfactory because most users will effectively not be able to experience the realistic behaviour unless they have the exact type of switch on their joystick.   Bindings are here to allow users to recreate the realistic behaviour on different hardwares.  The way this one is implemented is not optimal and not even intuitive given how it is labelled in the settings    

Edited July 6, 2023 by Brainfreeze

[draconus]

Imo there's enough options to bind it using any 3 buttons, 4-way hat or 3-pos switch but jay's smart solution is cool way to deal with it even if I, personally, don't like such workarounds. Part of learning the aircraft is also about HOTAS and how it works.

[some1]

It's not realistic, it just plain stupid. Even with a proper 3-pos switch, if you move it too fast, DCS can sometimes skip the middle position and it will break Razbam's implementation.

Real M2000 also has a 3-pos switch on the throttle (CNM), yet Razbam's own M-2000 does not require you to go through the middle pos.

Real F-16 also has a 3-pos switch on the throttle, yet DCS F-16 does not require you to go through the middle pos.

Real A-10C also has a 3-pos switch on the throttle, yet DCS A-10C does not require you to go through the middle pos.

Real JF-17 also has a 3-pos switch on the throttle, yet DCS JF-17 does not require you to go through the middle pos.

Only Razbam's F-15 does that. It adds nothing to the simulation.

[draconus]

18 minutes ago, some1 said:

does not require you to go through the middle pos

It's unrealistic so it takes aways from simulation, imo. If there's an option, I'm fine with people using it, same as with special option "weapon selector needs a press before moving to the gun position on F-14 stick". All such details add to the simulation, not the other way around.

[KlarSnow]

It is not unrealistic. In the real jet you do one actuation and movement that takes from MRM to GUN, clicking through SRM in one motion. it does not require you to push in to SRM on the way and steps thorugh it instantly. Having to push the center position as a separate push just to get from one to the other is unrealistic if you dont have a switch that matches the real thing.

Your point only stands if you have hardware that matches the real throttle. if you don't have hardware that matches the real throttle, then the current implementation is wrong because it prohibits you from actuating GUNS or MRM correctly, which is in one movement. Yes it clicks through two positions when you do it, but its one "actuation" if that makes any sense.

Accounting for the fact that people dont have the same hardware as the real thing is not a concession to realism. its making it function properly.

You do not get "stuck" at SRM every time you try to go to GUNS in the real jet, nor do you have to think about and remember to go back to SRM before you go to GUNS. That's the unrealistic part of the current implementation.

 

Edited July 6, 2023 by KlarSnow

[some1]

13 minutes ago, draconus said:

All such details add to the simulation, not the other way around.

It does not. If you have a matching hardware, then regardless of this option, it will behave the same way. If you don't have the matching hardware, then the current Razbam's implementation makes it unrealistically difficult to switch between modes. Either way, there's nothing to gain.

Plus as I said, DCS sometimes won't register the middle position of a switch if you move it too fast, so even with a "realistic" throttle the current implementation can mess you up in the middle of a combat.

[draconus]

13 minutes ago, some1 said:

Plus as I said, DCS sometimes won't register the middle position of a switch if you move it too fast, so even with a "realistic" throttle the current implementation can mess you up in the middle of a combat.

Then that's a bug and should be reported.

[bfr]

1 hour ago, some1 said:

It does not. If you have a matching hardware, then regardless of this option, it will behave the same way. If you don't have the matching hardware, then the current Razbam's implementation makes it unrealistically difficult to switch between modes. Either way, there's nothing to gain.

Plus as I said, DCS sometimes won't register the middle position of a switch if you move it too fast, so even with a "realistic" throttle the current implementation can mess you up in the middle of a combat.

Agreed. Seems silly to not have an alternative way of operation when 3 way switches aren't exactly common on PC controllers.

[shagrat]

vor 6 Stunden schrieb some1:

Even with a proper 3-pos switch, if you move it too fast, DCS can sometimes skip the middle position and it will break Razbam's implementation.

With a "proper" 3-pos switch you need to use the "OFF else ON" special commands. That's what they are for. 

E.g. the HOTAS Warthog Throttle has the boat-switch. Center = no button pressed (OFF), Forward = button A constant on (A else OFF), Aft = button C constant on (C else OFF). If the boat switch moves from either A or C position to the center (both A & C OFF) it triggers B.

The problem is, most other HOTAS did not use the more realistic switches, but only momentary push button type 3-way, 4-way or 5-way hats. 

[jaylw314]

2 hours ago, shagrat said:

With a "proper" 3-pos switch you need to use the "OFF else ON" special commands. That's what they are for. 

E.g. the HOTAS Warthog Throttle has the boat-switch. Center = no button pressed (OFF), Forward = button A constant on (A else OFF), Aft = button C constant on (C else OFF). If the boat switch moves from either A or C position to the center (both A & C OFF) it triggers B.

The problem is, most other HOTAS did not use the more realistic switches, but only momentary push button type 3-way, 4-way or 5-way hats. 

That's probably why ED implemented the button_OFF bindings.  Otherwise, they'd have to cater to all the various 3-way switches, like ON-OFF-ON, ON-ON-ON, ON-OFF-(ON), (ON)-OFF-(ON), ON-ON-(ON), (ON)-ON-(ON) and (ON)-(ON)-(ON), the last one being a hat switch.

[some1]

2 hours ago, shagrat said:

With a "proper" 3-pos switch you need to use the "OFF else ON" special commands. That's what they are for. 

With a proper "proper" 3-pos switch you can simply use a different command for each position.  3 positions, 3 assignments, simple as that.

The off-else-on special commands are only a workaround for hardware like Hotas Warthog which does not report a button press for the middle switch position. At least by default, because this can be fixed with a script. The off-else-on commands are not required with Winwing, each switch position sends a different button press to the sim.

Edited July 6, 2023 by some1

[shagrat]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb some1:

With a proper "proper" 3-pos switch you can simply use a different command for each position.  3 positions, 3 assignments, simple as that.

The off-else-on special commands are only a workaround for hardware like Hotas Warthog which does not report a button press for the middle switch position. At least by default, because this can be fixed with a script. The off-else-on commands are not required with Winwing, each switch position sends a different button press to the sim.

 

Yeah, but didn't you mention the issue with moving the switch too fast? That's what will not happen with the OFF_else_ON concept.

The thing is it is virtually impossible to have a "perfect" keybinding solution, close to the real controls, if you need to accommodate multiple different HOTAS concepts, which on the hardware side don't mimic the real controls.

This is amplified by the fact, we can't typically buy a "replica HOTAS" for each module.

We need to compromise or work around the discrepancy to make it work with our setup, most of the time.

The Virpil software (or WinWing etc.) allows for some neat button configuration, but still it has mostly momentary buttons where often some would be actual switches IRL. The Warthog on the other hand has some of those, but not always in the right place, not enough and lacks other things, like the radar elevation control for example.

I personally already pretty happy most modules these days come with a lot more "special" key binding options, but my guess is, we will never have the perfect one-fits-all solution.

[some1]

This thread is not about how many different key bindings a module provides, but rather how it artificially blocks a certain sequence of key presses from working.

It's like having a 3 pos flaps switch, that would prevent you from going flaps UP unless you press flaps TO first. If the way Razbam implemented that switch on the throttle is so realistic, then why they didn't use the same logic for lights switch, or any other 3pos switch in the cockpit?

Edited July 7, 2023 by some1

[bfr]

On 7/7/2023 at 6:28 AM, some1 said:

This thread is not about how many different key bindings a module provides, but rather how it artificially blocks a certain sequence of key presses from working.

It's like having a 3 pos flaps switch, that would prevent you from going flaps UP unless you press flaps TO first. If the way Razbam implemented that switch on the throttle is so realistic, then why they didn't use the same logic for lights switch, or any other 3pos switch in the cockpit?

 

Agreed and having the discussed 'b can only be selected after a or c' constraint seems unnecessary if you did actually have a 3 way switch to map to. And its not like offering alternative ways to map things and/or change behaviours hasn't happened in other modules.

Edited July 10, 2023 by bfr

[shagrat]

vor 55 Minuten schrieb bfr:

Agreed and having the discussed 'b can only be selected after a or c' constraint seems unnecessary if you did actually have a 3 way switch to map to. And its not like offering alternative ways to map things and/or change behaviours hasn't happened in other modules.

 

If you have a realistic 3-way switch that sends ON(a)-ON(b)-ON(c) use the ON else OFF binds for a and c. That's what they are for. Simply ignore the center key press (b) and have it as (a) and (c) is OFF.

In this case your switch in the forward position (a) bind to "MRM else SRM" and switch in the aft position (c) "GUN else SRM".

If you have a momentary 2-way switch (On)-OFF-(On) that sends three button presses (a) forward, (b) OFF and (c) aft you need to either bind "cycle aft" and "cycle forward", or "Weapon switch FWD (MRM)" and "Weapon switch AFT (GUN)" plus an additional button for "Weapon switch CNT (SRM)".

Alternatively you can use a single button to cycle through"GUN-MRM-SRM-GUN-MRM..." with the Cycle Loop bind.

[bfr]

50 minutes ago, shagrat said:

If you have a realistic 3-way switch that sends ON(a)-ON(b)-ON(c) use the ON else OFF binds for a and c. That's what they are for. Simply ignore the center key press (b) and have it as (a) and (c) is OFF.

In this case your switch in the forward position (a) bind to "MRM else SRM" and switch in the aft position (c) "GUN else SRM".

If you have a momentary 2-way switch (On)-OFF-(On) that sends three button presses (a) forward, (b) OFF and (c) aft you need to either bind "cycle aft" and "cycle forward", or "Weapon switch FWD (MRM)" and "Weapon switch AFT (GUN)" plus an additional button for "Weapon switch CNT (SRM)".

Alternatively you can use a single button to cycle through"GUN-MRM-SRM-GUN-MRM..." with the Cycle Loop bind.

Yeah. I think I just found what was possible a bit confusing. I'd initially set up 3 push buttons (one each for MRM, SRM and GUN) and didn't realise you had to step through them. I'll probably change it to either two buttons with Forward/Aft or 1 button to loop through as you suggest.  Part of the battle working through available bindings on new modules is knowing what you can do and how the different options behave, so thanks for that bit of education.

[shagrat]

vor einer Stunde schrieb bfr:

Part of the battle working through available bindings on new modules is knowing what you can do and how the different options behave, so thanks for that bit of education.

No worries mate. It definitely is confusing.

In addition the naming convention and options differ between modules. Though it got way better and more standardized over the last years.

It doesn't help, either, that HOTAS and their switches come in different configurations and can often be adjusted and configured on top of the DCS controls setting... it allows for a lot of flexibility, but it isn't exactly easy or obvious how.

Edited July 10, 2023 by shagrat