2024 Controls Interface Discussion

Discussion Hub General Discussion
, ,
371

But did it auto-populate a profile? (I don’t remember. I set DCS up a while ago and haven’t touched the controls interface since then.) I think that must be what a lot of people here are wanting; someone else’s idea of how control inputs should be mapped automatically applied for them. Personally, I cannot fathom that. What is the likelyhood that Joe Random at Asobo or Virpil is going to set up the multitude of button presses on my HOTAS the way I would find them most useful? No thanks, I’ll do it myself.

And, once again, I disagree that it’s worse. In fact, I’d say that it’s better, because it’s more powerful than 2020 was. There are more things you can tweak.

What is your concept for this revolutionary new control setup UI? I mean, the UI allows me to select my physical controller and easily assign inputs to ingame commands. I donno what more is necessary. DCS isn’t really all that better, unless, I suppose, you consider EVERY SINGLE COMMAND being in one long list instead of nested to be better. I dunno that I do.

(Well, I DO know what more is necessary and what sucked about 2020 and what still sucked about 2024; Cleaning up the haphazard and inconsistent command naming system.)

372

Apparently I do have to, it first of all took research to figure out how this monster works because it is made unnecessarily complex and non-intuitive. Even when using “apply to all aircraft” a separate profile needs to be made for helicopters, balloons, etc. Often, for whatever reason, control bindings go missing, or profile isn’t applied to an aircraft (even though applied to all aircraft).

So yes, compared to FS2020 it’s complex, non-intuitive, bugged and time consuming to set-up.

2 Likes
373

Here’s a ridiculous notion for the year 2025:

How about we all “agree to disagree”.

There is zero reason to be here trying to “win” this.

How about channeling that energy into helping another figure out the confusion? That seems far more productive, to me, than proving someone else’s experience/opinion isn’t valid.

5 Likes
374

Why create a profile? This is not necessary if elementary important control commands are created by default for each plane present.

Let me answer this story quite simply. For me, only for me, what counts is how I get on with an operating concept. I quickly became familiar with the FS 20 concept and from then on I had no problems when I had to create the control inputs for a new aircraft.

I have been familiar with the DCS operating concept for over 10 years. For me, it is a reference for how an operating concept should be designed. I understood it from the very first moment, and that’s what counts for me.

In this context, I’d like to call myself a reference FSimmer who is neither smart, logical thinking nor a PC nerd, just an ordinary gamer who doesn’t play all the time. If this ordinary gamer understands how to use the FSim withot headache, then the programmers have done everything right.

I also understand that 20% (?) of gamers are “elite” player, who understand even abstractly programmed user interfaces because they can put themselves in the programmers’ abstract way of thinking. Congratulations to you.

375

Indeed, that is the key. It is not that the system is bad, but that it is very unintuitive and, in addition, Asobo/MS have not put any effort into explaining it in detail after the launch.
As has already been mentioned in many forum threads, the new user interface is poorly designed in all aspects.
It is unintuitive, the design takes up too much screen space, it is confusing in some aspects and it requires too many clicks to do simple things. I am not saying that you should get stuck with the MSFS 2020 interface. Everything can be improved, but there is no noticeable deep work in this part of the simulator.

4 Likes
376

I do not think the UI is poorly designed. As others have mentioned, it is “different”. It took me a little bit of time to investigate the difference to come to appreciate the design. Was able to replica my 2020 profiles for different aircraft and enjoy the fact once assigned to an aircraft, it automatically switches to that profile when the plane is loaded.

I use the Honeycomb Alpha and Bravo… I created a keyboard profile I use for all aircraft and made it a default. Since I use SayIntentions for most of my flights, made an Alpha profile that used a Button to bring up the Sim’s ATC and one that doesn’t… since I like to start twin engines individually, created another profile that removed the mags from the key switch of the Alpha.

The Bravo multiple profiles Single, complex Single, Twin, Turbine, twin Turbine, 2 and 4 engine jet. These were pretty straight forward to make using the same approach I did for 2020.

So far I have only found I need for an airplane specific profile.. that being the Cessna 172 where you have to turn on the electrical busses for the Avionics rather the just turn on the avionics. Not an interface problem but the standard inexplicable naming of control functions in MSFS .

Sort of reminds me hopping in a driving different cars these days… I started driving when automatic transmissions were relatively new. That being said, today’s push button cars all seem to take a different approach. Some have the “gear shift” on the column, others follow the old stick on the floor, others have toggle switches on the dash… it just takes a few minutes to orientate one’s self to the particular car manufactures approach on the model.

2 Likes
377

Ok, here is my answer with a suggestion for this UI “revolution”. Important, the concept is not mine, but it’s an existing concept taken from a very well-known existing flight simulator. The concept is brilliant because it‘s ingeniously simple, completely clear and intuitively understandable for everyone, even for me.

It has neither categories nor individual profiles for special controls for any individual aircraft. Each aircraft gets one - just one (!) - let’s call it a data sheet. On this data sheet, which is only created for the respective aircraft, all possible control inputs and control commands are available at ONE GLANCE, be they digital or analogue. In a form like an Xcel data sheet, columns for the input devices, rows for the functions.

In the row at the top of the data sheet are all recognized input devices listed. All are automatically recognized and are shown as column headings at the top. On the side of the sheet, all possible functions are listed as row headings. But only those, and this is crucial, that are actually available and valid for the respective aircraft. This makes categories or profiles superfluous.

The functions are differentiated according to whether they are to be assigned to analog axis commands or digital inputs. Entering a control command in this data sheet matrix is ​​more than simple. You double-click one desired field in the matrix (input device to function). Then you either press a button on the corresponding input device (keyboard, joystick, etc.) for a digital input or move the input device (throttle, joystick, etc.) for an analog axis input. That’s it, the binding is finished and saved.

Double assignments are not possible, they are recognized, displayed and, if desired, a previous binding is overwritten. Of course, there are various ways of fine-tuning each control command entered, e.g. for the axis (slope, sensitivity, dead zone). And, important, the data sheet file created for a dedicated aircraft is available on your own PC in a special “saved game” folder. It has not disappeared somewhere in the cloud. You can transfer this file to a new installation, and if you can (not me), you can even modify it with a text editor. More flexibility and transparency are not possible.

I claim that there is no UI for storing functions for input devices that is simpler, clearer and more intuitive to understand than this. (It is from DCS, by the way)

3 Likes
378

You lost me at Excel. Nothing simple about that solution. Columns and rows for inputs and functions, but what about digital vs analog? That’s a 3rd dimension.

The first SDK was designed such that all aircraft would respond to the same inputs. That worked great. I don’t recall anyone asking for individual aircraft controls. Is there a wishlist item for this?

A flight sim is just a piece of software that takes a data file and makes pictures on the screen. If you are going to move data these days you reach for JSON. I believe MS Dynamics is behind the scenes here, and that’s a hammer looking for a nail.

1 Like
379

That may be true for some, or even most users. But it’s one of the two main reasons I use SPAD.NeXT.

  1. SPAD saves control profiles for each individual aircraft, and loads those profiles when it detects the aircraft is running in the sim. The new UI attempts to emulate that - sort of. And fails miserably.

  2. My goal is to have a ‘mouse-free’ (and mostly ‘keyboard-free’) cockpit. Different 3rd party developers use differing variables for the same thing, and sometimes (quite often, actually) those variables are not accessible through the sim’s native UI. Being able to increment and decrement controls with each button press when there’s a 3-way switch in the cockpit is also enormously useful.

3 Likes
380

Yes, but you realize you are an edge case.

And, if developers are using different variables for the same thing, that’s on Asobo and the developer. If the developers want to throw wrenches at the sim, then that doesn’t mean we all wear wrench-proof clothing or that Asobo should make a wrench-friendly SDK.

Someone made a very bad design decision here, and you can rationalize it all you want. This topic is far from solved.

1 Like
381

the rows for all functions have rows for “all but axis commands” and rows for “axis commands”. Axis command rows only accept inputs from analog devices, of course. It’s that simple.

1 Like
382

Excel is probably the wrong example. The data sheet for entering functions and controls is just a simple table with columns and rows, nothing more.
(In which you obviously cannot do calculations - if that is what bothers you).
If I can handle this type of simple spread sheet for control inputs without any problems, then anyone can, for sure.

1 Like
383

I get you, no worries. Excel is famous for being a very complicated piece of software, so it’s a very inside IT joke. It’s good IT history though if you are into that sort of thing.

They had a working system; now they don’t. That’s simple.

1 Like
384

Asobo’s controller setup interface is like Windows 1.0 compared to your excellent description of what’s available from coders who understand design and function

1 Like
385

I found Aircraft Manager my salvation in 2020 so I didn’t have to page through thirty profiles to get set up. Now I again have to pick an aircraft and set three levels of controller settings to be ready to fly. I sincerely hope the Aircraft Manager can come to the rescue again in 2024.

386

What am I rationalizing? I don’t believe I ever said anything about it being solved. In fact (and no, I don’t expect you to know this) I’ve been a pretty vocal critic of the Controls UI, despite the fact that I choose to use SPAD instead, for the reasons I stated in the post you responded to.

1 Like
387

Is this it?

image
image1286×829 95.8 KB

388

Yes. If you click on “Axis Commands”, another list of functions opens that can only be assigned to analog input devices - for one plane, a Su-25T in this case.

1 Like
389

It looks clean and easy to follow. Never tried it myself.

390

If you use the spad.next program, you are again, let’s say “trapped”, in the system of the already complex FS UI for the controls. Because you have to create spad next as a profile within the UI that you actually want to make simpler. You have to at least make sure that other profiles do not interfere. This will result in more complexity rather than less. Why make it so complicated when it can be simpler (see my previous post ref. “revolutionary UI”)