I think external hardware is the best way if you can afford it, though it has it's own pains. Some of the venders are above the price range of a lot of simmers. Also, there's no guarantee that you can program some of the functions onto hardware...for those, you have to do mouse clicks. Seems like the developers are helping more on that these days...thank you!

Perhaps you could explain how AVSIM (or indeed anyone else) could impose standards?

 

Simple. We come up with a set of standards. Add ons need to adhere to those standards or they will not get the AVSIM seal of approval or whatever you want to call it. It also doesn't have to be just AVSIM - it could be a collaboration between leaders from several sites. Add ons that adhere to the standards can advertise that they adhere to the standards. Anything that doesn't have the seal will automatically be under suspicion by consumers. Maybe this issue is included and maybe it is not but there are a ton of problems in the community that could use a little standardization.

 

A couple that come to mind:

Installers should never overwrite files without notification

All developers should have support forums

Wow, hold on there, Jeff.

 

If AVSIM would start imposing standards, what would keep other flight sim sites from doing the same? Even developers, what would keep developers from imposing standards? Imagine the chaos if each website were to impose their own standards, if aircraft got different "seals of approval"? Which ones are better, which to trust etc? It would be the same situation as now, just right now we got it simpler - a review or a thread will suffice.

 

Now, you really think that different sites would be able to merge a rule like that? Just think about two biggest online operators, VATSIM and IVAO, not able to merge due to differences. Compare that to even bigger AVSIM and Flightsim and other sites, and you see where this is going?

 

Another comparison: how many years were needed to bring mobile phone companies to use a standard charging connector - EU passed for MicroUSB as a standard in 2010, and that has been what, some 15 years since the mass usage of mobile telephones?

 

It's a swell idea(s), but IMO a bit too idealistic.

Also, you can't even get RW aircraft manufacturers to agree on things...where to put stuff, etc. Right now, I think we're going to have to rely on developer's innovation to make things as simple as practical for their aircraft. Standards do emerge organically as developer A sees developer B's idea and adopts it. For me, I just stay focused on one or, perhaps, two airplanes at a time and that helps keep frustrations down.

I don't know about you, but I have no frustrations whatsoever

Simple. We come up with a set of standards.

 

Simple??????

 

Who's we?

Are the standards to be retrospective?

How weould it apply to aircraft still in develiopment?

Who's going to meet AVSIM's additional costs in enforcing them?

What happens if a major developer ignores them?

 

I suggest it's so far from simple as to be totally impracticable.

Click left side - thingy moves left

Click right side - thingy moves right

Click one side of cap - cap opens

Click other side - cap closes

Click outer area - big numbers change

Click inner area - small numbers change

 

In my opinion right click to turn right and left to turn left works way better than this one, I hate always trying to find which exact spot I need to click from different switches. Also why on earth I would have to click different spots on cap to open and close it?

 

Most developers do listen their customers, and they can't please everyone as different customers like different kinds of methods of doing these things. And because of this fact forcing any kind of standard method of doing these things wouldn't work as different people prefer different kind of system and there will be never big majority that would agree about these standards.

 

// And truly I don't have real problem or frustration even with addons using method I don't like, I just usually use more 2D panels on them.

I don't know about you, but I have no frustrations whatsoever

There's a complete lack of frustration on my part when it comes to the various click schemes for VC controls

 

 

[edit] IMO, hover+scroll wheel > mouse clicks for rotating knobs.

Some people here if they were ever to become pilots would have to stay on type for their whole lives. Not just type but the same model even!

Whenever a pilot adds a different a/c type to his licence and log book he/she has to learn not just different control positions and functions but whole new procedures as well. That's life!

The sim simulates different a/c and their cockpits, so you have to expect different control methods. If a mouse click doesn't work because the defined mouse area is too small then of course that can be corrected. But, every effort is made by the developers to match as closely as possible the workings of the various controls. That's the whole point of the sim. If you dont like it then go and buy a game like Flight.

....Whenever a pilot adds a different a/c type to his licence and log book he/she has to learn not just different control positions and functions but whole new procedures as well. That's life!

The sim simulates different a/c and their cockpits, so you have to expect different control methods.

 

I fly five different aircraft (152, 172, DA20, DA40, Warrior II).

 

In every single one of them, I turn a knob clockwise to increase a frequency, and left to decrease a frequency. I push a knob (or lever) forward to increase throttle, I pull back to decrease. Kollsman adjust, AI adjust, HI adjust... they all operate the same, and it's unlikely you'll find anything reasonably modern that works differently.

 

Control input has nothing to do with procedures.

 

I agree that, where possible, control operation should be standardized in FSX, or, at least, have the option up the user. I also realize that entails some overhead that developers would have to endure.

Some people here if they were ever to become pilots would have to stay on type for their whole lives. Not just type but the same model even!

Whenever a pilot adds a different a/c type to his licence and log book he/she has to learn not just different control positions and functions but whole new procedures as well. That's life!

 

Very true.

 

If you dont like it then go and buy a game like Flight.

 

A little harsh?

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.

 

Well It's what make the world go around i suppose , but I have the opposite viewpoint.

I fly virtually all IFR, using track ir and VC cockpits and I find it anathema to have 2d panels popping up all over the place,

Imagine being in a real plane and panels flashing up before you !!.

There's me thinking that the pilot was supposed to reach out abd turn this knob or pull this lever or that switch!

The mouse within a VC gets the nearest to that, and you can even pretend that you are in a real Comet cockpit, which is different from Trident , or a 737 or 747 etc etc.

 

But I do find a lot of FSX flight simmers flying 2d , and if that was all there was , for me I'd stick with F4- FSX will have become a game only.

 

But then - different strokes etc..

I fly five different aircraft (152, 172, DA20, DA40, Warrior II).

 

In every single one of them, I turn a knob clockwise to increase a frequency, and left to decrease a frequency. I push a knob (or lever) forward to increase throttle, I pull back to decrease. Kollsman adjust, AI adjust, HI adjust... they all operate the same, and it's unlikely you'll find anything reasonably modern that works differently.

 

Control input has nothing to do with procedures.

 

I agree that, where possible, control operation should be standardized in FSX, or, at least, have the option up the user. I also realize that entails some overhead that developers would have to endure.

 

Have you flown an Airbus, B747 or a VC10? Agreed basic control systems are similar but frequently they are not.

Here is an example of why "left click" cannot suffice for every control function in the sim>

Look particularly at the red knob. To activate the emergency oxygen one is required to "pull" it. Umm but that can't be done on my keyboard or on my mouse. So the nearest best option is to "left click" to simulate it being pulled. Also "left click" restores the knob to normal.

 

 

 

But therein lies a problem

During the pre-flight checks I have to test the oxygen supply. The manual requires that the red knob be pushed. Which charges the ring main to 40psi. How on earth can I do that? seeing as I have already used up my "left click" to pull and close the knob.

 

The only solution therefore is to "right click" which simulates the push to test function. There ain't no other way!!

To the poster of "stop the right click/ left click insanity" You are asking for something that can't be done, won't be done. Be more patient and learn you individual aircraft systems. That's what us real pilots have to do!

To activate the emergency oxygen one is required to "pull" it. Umm but that can't be done on my keyboard or on my mouse.

 

Really? I'll let you think about that one for a few minutes.

 

"How on earth can I do that? seeing as I have already used up my "left click" to pull and close the knob."

 

Same answer.