Attention to detail in control bindings is unacceptable

[Jarmak]

First off, I want to be very clear that I understand this plane is in early access, early early access at that, and if I thought for a second this was a matter of waiting for things to be finished I wouldn't make this post. But, these exact issues still haunt the harrier module years after leaving early access, and the nature and consistency of issues point to a failure of management process, design choices, and/or priority rather than a specific technical issue or bug that needs to be squashed. 

The handling of discreet controls is sub-standard for a module released in 2023. Why are we missing discreet binds? Why are what there are for discreet binds not in their relevant control sections, but instead all thrown haphazardly in a "abstract for joystick" section? Why are rotary axis inverted and only use half their throw as if they were the user-made custom binds instead of properly coded? Why are some many of them broken? Why does it require arcane knowledge to get the idle/stop detent to function properly with a joystick that has them when this has been a standard feature of any module that has them since at least the hornet, and technically even the OG A10 did it if you were rocking the TM Warthog throttle?

The entire approach, including even how the control binds menu is organized, just screams management that doesn't realize expectations have changed in this regard since the Huey and original A10 were the marquee DCS modules. This was arguably a failing of the AV8 in 2017; six years later after so many modules have done this so well it just looks sloppy. It feels like the core binds were made to not include physical rotary axis, most multi-position switches made to be toggles bound to push buttons, and then some intern was given the task of cobbling together enough extra discreet and axis binds using clickabledata.lua to make the people with fancy joysticks happy.

Contrast this with any Heatblur or mainline ED module released from the F18 onward (2018). With seemingly few exceptions controls binds seems to be made 1:1 with aircraft controls and switch states first, and then abstractions such as cycling toggles or if/else binds added to add accessibility.

This is not an issue that will be fixed by collecting bug reports and patching things to minimally workable. This is a structural issue that won't be corrected until RAZBAM realizes that the interface between their simulated systems and the user's physical controls is tantamount to the user experience, and decides to devote some resources to it like it's a proper priority instead of using the same approach that was arguably already outdated in 2017. It doesn't matter how much your pour into in-depth authentic simulation of systems if the people who care about that most are stuck on the other side of an archaic control layer that feels like we're back trying to hack HOTAS controls into Tie Fighter. 

It's not about bugs or technical issues, those are expected with EA and the positive examples I mentioned all had them--god knows the hornet had nagging controls bugs for years--this is about repeating poor, outdated design choices that are out of place in a full-price marquee module in 2023. Honestly, it feels like RAZBAM still thinks the size of the userbase with switchboxes/panels is still so niche that it's not worth spending more than the absolute minimum amount of resources on us.  

  

[LeCuvier]

I agree it's disappointing at this point in time, and for the time being my F-15E is unemployed. I still hope they will correct this mess, and then I will start playing. As long as they haven't done it, I won't consider buying any further Razbam module.

[bfr]

Agreed on the rotary throw issue and the mapping of 3 way switches (when most consumer devices don't have them) to something workable is quirky/requires thought to say the least.  I'm not seeing that the idle detent thing was appreciably any harder than it has been on any other comparable DCS jet though (i'm using a Virpil TM3 throttle).

[Home Fries]

@Jarmak

Your arguments are solid and well founded.  I agree that I would prefer discrete bindings before toggles, and certainly standard discrete and On/Else bindings for 3 position switches.  Toggles are great as well, but they should be in addition to discrete bindings, not in lieu of.

I too share some of these frustrations.  Hopefully RAZBAM takes this post to heart.