...

Sometimes, (and I can't believe I'm writing this) 2D panels are better especially when its bumpy and I'm doing many other things single pilot IMC argh....

Cant agree more. 2D is the practical choice for IFR pilots, and the usage is more realistic in that you dont have to fumble with the mouse trying to hit that exact click spot (which might move, depending on what the plane is doing). Fumbling with the mouse is not my idea of realism.

Cant agree more. 2D is the practical choice for IFR pilots, and the usage is more realistic in that you dont have to fumble with the mouse trying to hit that exact click spot (which might move, depending on what the plane is doing). Fumbling with the mouse is not my idea of realism.

 

As I fly more and more instrument approaches I'm starting to believe the same, in these specific situations. I still love the VC, but sometimes it's a PITA, but only with tiny clickspots.

 

What's better is a simulator with tactile feedback. The college below the tower has a cirrus sim and i've flown it - it's great to have all the knobs and switches like the real plane...

If a 2d cockpit has a good scale and shows 2/3 of the actual facia then the best policy is to sit slightly to the left of screen centre. i.e directly in front of the T. Then your scan is realistic and you don't need v at all!

vololiberista

Another reason why we need to establish standards in this community. No one ever responds to my assertion that a high level organization (like AVSIM) needs to spearhead a flightsim bill of rights that developers could sign on to on a voluntary basis.

This is perfectly consistent across any of our more recent products going back to the 747... We think right click to go right / left click to go left is a heck of a lot more logical and intuitive than a bunch of hidden spots all around the knob that do different things. You know that one basic rule and you know how to use any knob or switch on our planes.

I don't know about you, but I don't find it so bad. Not bad at all, actually.

I think that each developer should do it how they best see fit to their product.

 

It's almost like you would require that each car has the same controls, placed at the same spot and handles the same. How boring would that be?

 

Some are arguably better than others though. For my all time worse model for actuating dials/switches, it's the CoolSky Super MD-80 Pro. It has a multiplier in the control so that if you scroll a little too fast, OMG, you doubled or tripled your value! Despite the fact it's so easy on frames for low end machines like mine, I've never made peace w/ the Super MD-80--just can't seem to learn it because it is so different from every other. I have to give kudos to QW 757 with its model of left-click gets you 5x a single increment, and right click a single. This is easy to learn, and takes care of the painfully slow but predictable changes the NGX does.

 

Noel

I find the left/right click model very intuitive. I prefer this one over any other I've used so far. I hate the + and - clickspots and the click-and-drag thing. Left/right clicks for buttons and switches and mouse wheel for knobs; this is the best way for me. The most intuitive.

I love the left/right click system PMDG implement, waaay better for me than aiming perfectly on one side of a tiny knob for left and another tiny clickspot for right when the aircraft is in a turn and the camera viewpoint is shifting slightly. I also never get the dialog box while right clicking unless I totally miss the knob/switch.

 

Please don't change.

I don't care how developers decide to do it. I just want them to do it the same way.

While I can understand the frustration of having all sorts of different methods, most would agree that the default FSX method of holding the mouse while a tiny little + and - minus sign appears then laboriously holding a mouse button down waiting for a heading/radio etc to change is not a very good way.

 

Different kinds of aircraft inevitably have custom ways which to be fair might very well suit them. I don't think it takes much work to quickly learn different ways. We have our own system which users resisted at first but gradually they've got used to it and most like it. We have a "hand" that appears and you place it directly on the knob in question, and drag down for anti clockwise and up for clockwise. We also have a right click and drag for the smaller frequencies or decimals. It is quick and painless.

 

A tiny minority of users have hardware and they are quite well served anyway with customisable assignments. For the rest of us, until someone invents a simulator that can efficiently and flawlessly run on a large touch screen so you can put your dirty finger marks directly on the knob or switch, I can't see how else one is supposed to make the process better and the variety of methods available shows that everyone is doing their best to provide what they think is ok. No developers are going to agree. It would be absurd to design these things by a committee and doing so stifles innovation and progress.

 

Each real aircraft has different controls too. And you have to learn them, over a lot longer period than getting used to a simple set of mouse movements or clicks.

 

All the best,

 

Rob - RealAir

No developers are going to agree. It would be absurd to design these things by a committee and doing so stifles innovation and progress.

 

Developers should be more concerned with what customers want and not what developers want. Have you guys even tried to develop community-wide standards? I agree that no one will agree; that's why I believe someone like AVSIM should impose standards. Imagine every city in the US using a different type outlet for their electrical system - that's what we have with FS.

 

Each real aircraft has different controls too. And you have to learn them, over a lot longer period than getting used to a simple set of mouse movements or clicks.

 

This only works if you fly the same couple aircraft all the time. A lot of people fly several aircraft and they don't have the time to re-learn each one every time. Some people don't get the opportunity to fly that often. I haven't touched FS in a month but I know when I get a chance to fly, I'm not whipping out manuals and studying the fine points on knob operation.

 

Rob, I don't mean to single you out and I'm not sure this is the biggest issue that requires standardization. You just fed in to my argument.

I guess unless you have actually had to engineer how the knobs of that Whammodyne 5000 work in sim you won't understand. You've been down this road before and it didn't work then...

Developers should be more concerned with what customers want and not what developers want. Have you guys even tried to develop community-wide standards? I agree that no one will agree; that's why I believe someone like AVSIM should impose standards. Imagine every city in the US using a different type outlet for their electrical system - that's what we have with FS.

 

 

 

I haven't touched FS in a month but I know when I get a chance to fly, I'm not whipping out manuals and studying the fine points on knob operation.

 

 

But really now after all these years of flying the sims do you really need to whip out a manual to figure out how to use a knob?

Developers should be more concerned with what customers want and not what developers want. Have you guys even tried to develop community-wide standards? I agree that no one will agree; that's why I believe someone like AVSIM should impose standards. Imagine every city in the US using a different type outlet for their electrical system - that's what we have with FS.

 

This only works if you fly the same couple aircraft all the time. A lot of people fly several aircraft and they don't have the time to re-learn each one every time. Some people don't get the opportunity to fly that often. I haven't touched FS in a month but I know when I get a chance to fly, I'm not whipping out manuals and studying the fine points on knob operation.

 

If you think most developers sit on a cloud and ignore their customers you are mistaken! For every new aircraft we make, we gather all of the feedback from the last and sift through all the things that were requested then see if they are viable, but we go generally with the most requested features, not the least requested. Your post is well meant, sure enough, but is a classic example of one poster perhaps giving others the impression that his views are shared by thousands. I honestly don't think the average addon purchaser wants your suggested standard at all. You are in fact proposing a committee-led decision about what is desirable, and that will absolutely kill innovation.

 

Moreover, I think that whatever click or mouse interactions exist, most developers are sincerely finding new ways forward. This is not like a video playback standard which needs years of heavy investment by a whole industry supported by millions - it is a small part of a piece of software which is supported by a small and niche market.

 

We don't want to subscribe to a committe-based agreement where that would stifle our ability to come up with new things. Big airliner simulations by their nature have different requirements and it is natural that some will have click spots, gauge access functions and all sorts of navigation around gauges and switches which suit their character. For us it is different, so we have a different system. The other thing to bear in mind is that there is always resistance to new ideas because people naturally are habitual in the way they expect things to be. We think our radio tuning method is supported by over 95% of our customers, and their feedback suggests this is true. Why then should we change it just because a couple of people want us to join a committee and agree over something which is not suitable for our own products?

 

I think you are sincere in your post, but also feel it is a big fuss about not very much. It takes two minutes to read our section on how to tune our radios and operate our views. We also give several different options so each user can choose which method is best for him or her. It then takes about three minutes to get used to the method. I just cannot see why you think this is such a burden.

 

Rob - RealAir

As just an idea to consider (because I find it hard to keep the mouse pointer in one small area REGARDLESS of HOW you move a dial due to simulated turbulence, Ezdok random movement, etc)

 

1. CLICK THE AREA of the dial

2. A larger window opens front and center becoming the area of focus.

3. WHEEL up or down to tune the dial

4. CLICK THE area of focus to close the dial