26 minutes ago, CO2Neutral said:

So something FSUIPC could do decades ago?  Perhaps they should have contacted Pete or John and got their input rather than coming up with a UI that requires a tutorial, people “getting used to it” after an hour, and the numerous support posts it triggers? 

Or they could hire someone from XP to show them how to make a sensible way to assign controls. 

3 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

Perhaps they should have contacted Pete or John and got their input rather than coming up with a UI that requires a tutorial, people “getting used to it” after an hour, and the numerous support posts it triggers? 

They already had something that worked fine in 2020.  Very poor decision to overhaul that to the nth degree and end up with something far less user-friendly.

22 minutes ago, Noel said:

All they needed to look at was MSFS 2020 which was amply simple and effective.  Way too much effort was put into redeveloping the various UI elements.

Agree, but the irony is those < slider > type controls are likely intended for XBOX users that use an XBOX controller … so where is the need to provide such “flexibility” when the likely only controller an XBOX user has will be the XBOX controller.

How many XBOX users do you know that have stacks of different controllers that they want to have configured for a variety of different aircraft?  And more importantly, not like the XBOX controller is stacked with 100’s of buttons and knobs.

This type of flexibility is aimed at the PC crowd with many controllers, yet the UI is aimed for XBOX?  Makes zero sense.  And let those controller conflicts fester because … 

a.  Asobo like confuse users and more support tickets?

b.  Hope it triggers future work/employment?

c.  The UI developer is doing double duty and this is his/her first UI?

d.  Gives us something to chat about that deflects from the many other issues with MSFS 2024?

52 minutes ago, CO2Neutral said:

What useful purpose does letting me know I have a conflict?  

Because A, it's extremely useful for troubleshooting.

And B, what you see as "conflicts" are mostly contextual assignments.

As even the most casual inspection should illustrate...

7 hours ago, Greazer said:

Everyone can agree on one thing. The 2024 GUI screens are the Worst designs Ever.  

It's one thing to have Bad or Incompetent designers, but another thing for them to get Approved and they are found in the final product!

What should happen is, the Community should be allowed to design new GUI screen replacements that are streamlined, simple and easy to use. 

Then there would be a Community poll to decide the best one, for a future release update.

Hey Virginia, I haven’t really paid any attention to the design interface. I choose an airplane, configure the aircraft, select an airport and fly. Pretty straight forward in my hands with all the controller settings established since the launch of 2024. 

Just now, UrgentSiesta said:

Because A, it's extremely useful for troubleshooting.

No troubleshooting needed if one removes the conflict on a new assignment.

52 minutes ago, CO2Neutral said:

So something FSUIPC could do decades ago?  Perhaps they should have contacted Pete or John and got their input rather than coming up with a UI that requires a tutorial, people “getting used to it” after an hour, and the numerous support posts it triggers? 

FSUIPC is fine. But "intuitive" it's certainly not.

Given Asobo's track record of working with, partnering, hiring or outright buying talent/code, we'd have to ask ourselves why they DIDN'T bring this guys in, no...?

Or, maybe they did. And maybe they couldn't come to terms.

Either way, I don't pine for FSUIPC vs what Asobo came up with.

 

6 hours ago, Lotharen said:

Who the hell is Virginia? 😏

You have to be an old fart like me to get the reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes%2C_Virginia%2C_there_is_a_Santa_Claus

5 minutes ago, CO2Neutral said:

No troubleshooting needed if one removes the conflict on a new assignment.

And sometimes 3rd Party addons automagically create conflicts during install.

Figuring that stuff out when things aren't working as documented is easier when Double/Multiple Binds are highlighted.

Edited May 19, 20251 yr by UrgentSiesta
Clarification

1 hour ago, CO2Neutral said:

rather than coming up with a UI that requires a tutorial

I didn't require a tutorial - many on here didn't either.  MS did post an idiots guide to the 2024 settings which was sufficient.  Again though, we are all different and I see no negative whatsoever in supplying a tutorial by MS or third party.

1 minute ago, UrgentSiesta said:

FSUIPC is fine. But "intuitive" it's certainly not

Valid, but my point was FSUIPC UI was built decades ago as freeware and does more.  The UI in MSFS 2024 is no better some 2 decades later.  

48 minutes ago, Noel said:

There are a lot of elements to what makes up the UI.   To me some is fine.  I love the EFB now it's fabulous.  But others are really hard to explain, like the Controller setup that is done thru a UI.  The Market Place is done thru a UI, and it is absolute awful in spots.  Here's an example.  When you select an item in this layout you often can't tell which one you selected it's so garbled and overlapped.  So they put a 'Show selection only' as a solution to a very bizarre design:

Go to select an airplane, and you then have to hit Configure, then hit Livery to start seeing what liveries are available for that plane.  I decided to try the 737 MAX again now that some issues have been fixed with regard to transponder set so bought a nice pack of liveries on the Marketplace, specific for this plane and here's what the UI looks like--they aren't there despite them being described as 'Streamed'.  And for the CRJ sometimes the different liveries overlap each other because of how they're laid out in a ribbon of sorts like you see below and you aren't certain which one is which:

Here's another one w/ the Fenix 320 I just bought a few weeks ago.  Using its Livery installer I added 4 more that do not appear on this ribbon when you scroll it max right they're just not there.

I really can't explain the kind of brain(s) that would lay something out like the controller setup.  Yes, we eventually figure it out, but truly it is anything but the gold standard of effective yet user-friendly.  I've literally wondered if the main brains involved with this are either genius, or 'on the spectrum' as it were.

 

Er...in both the examples you've provided your liveries are not being displayed because you're on the 'variant' page.  You'll notice the 'liveries' page is next to it...

6 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

When I read many reviews of a restaurant where reviewers say food and service was terrible, I don't go there for dinner to see for myself. 😉

But there are hundreds of thousands of restaurants but just three main flight sims - you have to check the flighsim out!

 

Same guy made one for 2020 three years ago. 

18 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

And sometimes 3rd Party addons automagically create conflicts during install.

So make a Controller UI that doesn’t really help resolve anything only add confusion?  3rd party should NOT be in the position of creating conflicts, they should check and act accordingly.  Are you saying the infrastructure isn’t there to support this … if so, sounds like an SDK problem. 

18 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I see no negative whatsoever in supplying a tutorial by MS or third party.

I didn’t say a tutorial was a negative, but a good UI design will reduce the need and support.

I really simply solution would be:

1. A dropdown combo box (can default to the current aircraft selected or if nothing define for current aircraft then fallback to a global setting for all aircraft).

2. A dropdown combo box for available controllers with one selected.

3.  Image of the selected controller with hotspot buttons, triggers, knobs and their current assignments.

Flow

User selects aircraft (if needed).

User selects controller (if needed).

User clicks on button/knob/etc on controller image hot spot and is presented with small dialog (or just a search text input box next to the button/knob) where they type in search text (ie. “Brake”) and search results populate a list/grid and they pick from list what they want … and/or provide grid with filterable columns for those that might want to discover what bindings exist.

There will be NO conflicts because they simply aren’t permitted.

Edited May 19, 20251 yr by CO2Neutral