QOL suggestion: "Default" controller mapping

[upyr1]

3 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Yeah lots of the preassigned axis settings aren’t right. It would seem the only reliable axis settings to preassign are pitch and roll. Not everyone has a separate throttle or rudder pedals. But auto assigning pitch and roll from any connected device results in dual mapping. So honestly the best solution is to have DCS not apply anything.

The problem is that if dcs sees an x or y axis it is automatically assigned pitch and roll. The common commands profile would allow you to tell DCS that device 0 is your stick or cyclic device 1 is your throttle or collective and device 2 is your rudder and assign them correctly.

3 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Check again, many modules actually don’t have much of these all in common. And the trouble is that just having common commands isn’t the issue. It’s the actual controller layout you need. I can’t imagine having a similar layout for a P-47 and Hornet or Apache, that doesn’t seem practical.

A module doesn't need to have all the controls listed in the common command profile in fact I mention controls that are only applicable to a particular group of modules such as nose wheel steering. The common commands profile won't replace the individual module profile so you will still have the option to change them as needed. 

 

3 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Everyone is different so assuming this is a big help to all may not be the case. For myself if I tried to have a default throttle arrangement, the only common commands would be the throttle axis itself, which is preassigned, and zoom in and out and zoom normal

Right now dcs tries to assign your  rudders to your throttle axis as well as your throttle so the ability to tell DCS that your rudder is your rudder is one less thing that needs to be done. 

 

3 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

to. There are other flight sims with common aircraft commands but these are either mid fidelity and all of the same era

Again no one wants a single profile for everything. You aren't the first person to run this strawman through. I am asking for a common commands profile which will auto-populate as many commands are applicable for a given module and then the user would be able to adjust as needed on the module's profile. So if you don't want your rudder pedals to be pitch ,roll and throttle which is the current default you could assign them to rudder and toe brakes. If a given module doesn't have toe brakes then they are set as blank for that module.

 

3 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

And again, it’s not a great idea to redo the whole system and screw up everyone. So it is what it is. 

No one wants to redo the whole system just refine it. You need to stop with the strawman arguments Toto is getting really upset and the tinman hates picking up the scarecrow 

[SharpeXB]

26 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

No one wants to redo the whole system just refine it.

In some ways a common controls menu makes sense. My guess as to why DCS doesn’t do this is that it would mess up everyone’s current profiles and third parties would have to update their modules. If that wasn’t a concern why wouldn’t they? But a common menu isn’t going to solve much. You’ll still have this large selection of aircraft specific systems to assign and to reassign if you ever get new controllers, PC etc. 

[upyr1]

23 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

In some ways a common controls menu makes sense. My guess as to why DCS doesn’t do this is that it would mess up everyone’s current profiles and third parties would have to update their modules. If that wasn’t a concern why wouldn’t they? But a common menu isn’t going to solve much. You’ll still have this large selection of aircraft specific systems to assign and to reassign if you ever get new controllers, PC etc. 

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The common commands profile or anything else isn't going to solve everything but it will reduce some steps. 

[twistking]

i know that the community is advised not to argue against a wishlist item, but i want to give some feedback anyway. i understand that key bindings can be a chore soemtimes, but i think that this solution isn't the most efficient one.
if you think about what is difficult about key binding, it's not the shared or common keys, is it? to set up a new aircraft with the most important keys, just to give it a spin, is a matter of seconds. idk. maybe minutes... since you already know what's important (main control axis, trim, gear, speedbrake...) you just use the search field to quickly skip to the binding and set it up. sure, this could be automated - but be honest - it's one or two minutes max per module.

the difficult and time-consuming part is setting up the controls that are not common/shared between aircraft. first of all you have to know what controls are important to be mapped (not easy to know when mapping a modern jet with complex hotas), then you have to know what the command is actually doing (for complex hotas mostly). this means that you either have to know the aircraft quite well before mapping, or that you will certainly redo some mapping as you grow more familiar. for me these factors also complicates remapping and refining controls setups on aircrafts i already know well, because maybe i have forgotten the correct name for a specific hotas control, or i have forgotten an additional function a hotas button can have, that might have a big impact on where i want to map it.
i think these aspects take the most time by far, whilst mapping common controls is a quick affair.

therefore i suggest, not to focus on making common controls easier to map, but to improve the user ecperience when mapping aircraft specific controls.

-> for example i would like to have all "important" aircraft specific controls highlighted and searchable. of course what's "important" would have to be a developers decision, but generally i would say it should have aircraft specific controls that should be on a hotas and/or should be very accesible and easy to reach.
-> i would also like the option to automatically have the keyboard bindings for those deleted - since you want them on your hotas anyway.
-> then i would like to see some tooltips for aircraft specific keybinds, that in a few words describe what the keybind is used for in the aircraft. useful for modern hotas mostly. these tooltips should be searchable, so if you type in "laser", the search would show hotas commands assosciated with firing the laser, even if laser is not in the actual name of the button.
-> maybe have the option to rename your physical hotas buttons, so instead of "button 4" it would show "lower 4wayswitch aft" or whatever...
-> with this in mind, add the option to mark certain keybinds (that you struggle with, or that you simpyl changed recently and tend to forget about) and have those marked keybinds populate a "cheatsheet" autoamtically. this could be a autoamtically generated page of the kneeboard, or another window that you bring up with a button. it would list all your marked keybinds...

tldnr: clever, automatic binding for common controls would be a nice addition, but i believe there are other aspects that can be improved that would have a greater benefit for keymapping... namely improving the mapping process for complex, aircraft specific controls.

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, twistking said:

i know that the community is advised not to argue against a wishlist item, but i want to give some feedback anyway. i understand that key bindings can be a chore soemtimes, but i think that this solution isn't the most efficient one.
if you think about what is difficult about key binding, it's not the shared or common keys, is it? to set up a new aircraft with the most important keys, just to give it a spin, is a matter of seconds. idk. maybe minutes... since you already know what's important (main control axis, trim, gear, speedbrake...) you just use the search field to quickly skip to the binding and set it up. sure, this could be automated - but be honest - it's one or two minutes max per module.

The time spent setting up the common controls could be spent flying the module or setting up the module specific controls. 

[twistking]

14 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

The time spent setting up the common controls could be spent flying the module or setting up the module specific controls. 

sure... can't argue against that. i just see way more QOL potential in optimizing the module specific mapping. in an optimal world, we'd get both of course...

[SharpeXB]

4 hours ago, twistking said:

first of all you have to know what controls are important to be mapped (not easy to know when mapping a modern jet with complex hotas), then you have to know what the command is actually doing (for complex hotas mostly). this means that you either have to know the aircraft quite well before mapping

An approach which makes this process easier is to realize you don’t really need to know what these do in order to assign them. All you need is the illustration of the HOTAS and the fact it has a 4-way Sensor switch or such. What this actually does you can learn later, in fact you’ll need it assigned in order to do any training missions etc. So a good approach is to simply map everything you see on the HOTAS diagram before proceeding with anything else. Even a total novice can accomplish this in a few minutes. 
I see some of these tutorial videos which almost imply the player hasn’t assigned these before beginning and that’s not the easiest way to go about things. The best way is to have these all assigned and memorized before going any further. 

[twistking]

7 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

An approach which makes this process easier is to realize you don’t really need to know what these do in order to assign them. All you need is the illustration of the HOTAS and the fact it has a 4-way Sensor switch or such. What this actually does you can learn later, in fact you’ll need it assigned in order to do any training missions etc. So a good approach is to simply map everything you see on the HOTAS diagram before proceeding with anything else. Even a total novice can accomplish this in a few minutes. 
I see some of these tutorial videos which almost imply the player hasn’t assigned these before beginning and that’s not the easiest way to go about things. The best way is to have these all assigned and memorized before going any further. 

doesnt't work if you have to work with modifiers. i don't have "enough" buttons on my hotas, so i have to put less important functions on a modifier combo. but i agree that checking the manual is the way to go and that's how i'm doing it. if you have to work with modifiers, you just have to do some more reading first in order to judge which functions get the modifier treatmrnt...

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, twistking said:

doesnt't work if you have to work with modifiers. i don't have "enough" buttons on my hotas, so i have to put less important functions on a modifier combo. but i agree that checking the manual is the way to go and that's how i'm doing it. if you have to work with modifiers, you just have to do some more reading first in order to judge which functions get the modifier treatmrnt...

Yeah you can even have a go at the tutorials using the keyboard to figure them out before assigning everything. Some commands have names which kinda make it obvious what they do. Then there’s the A-10C with buttons like “China Hat” and “Coolie Switch”

Edited September 2, 2023 by SharpeXB

[upyr1]

19 hours ago, twistking said:

sure... can't argue against that. i just see way more QOL potential in optimizing the module specific mapping. in an optimal world, we'd get both of course...

I don't think your idea really would conflict with anything that has been proposed even if it did the issue wouldn't be the conflict but the point to your thread. For example if you are like certain people and say no to almost any wish list item, including something that would benefit their play style often making claims Eagle needs to focus their attention elsewhere and never saying where....that's a problem

[twistking]

25 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

I don't think your idea really would conflict with anything that has been proposed even if it did the issue wouldn't be the conflict but the point to your thread. For example if you are like certain people and say no to almost any wish list item, including something that would benefit their play style often making claims Eagle needs to focus their attention elsewhere and never saying where....that's a problem

it wouldn't. it can still be valid to critique somethin though. my assumption being that the OP maybe has correctly identified a problem, but hasn't come to the optimal solution. that can happen, so giving negative feedback can be constructive.
i have nothing against the original solutions suggested here.

[Canard]

The Control Wizard in Wags 2.9 radio video. I must have missed that (and can't see it in my version of DCS). I put all my hope in that little button for now until the harsh reality kicks in and it will not solve my problem with to many modules and controllers. The control admin time will soon pass the flying time .