1 hour ago, UrgentSiesta said:

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.

 

I respect FSUIPC and was a user for a long time.  But I think Spad and a couple of the other ones have gone so much further now.  While they all have learning curves, once learned they are so powerful.  

1 hour ago, CO2Neutral said:

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. 

It didn't confuse me at all...

Many (most?) times UI/UX isn't the self-describing, intuitive journey that could be. Sometimes, we have to poke around, experiment, think, and perhaps even RTFM to understand how things work.

I'm always amazed how critical flight simmers are of sim interfaces while simultaneously taking pride in having taken the time & study to learn multiple FMC's with truly arcane UI's...

///

3rd Party add-ons create conflicts from time to time, even the talented devs do it. And not just in MSFS.

We're drifting over into idealized states of perfection, rather than what's actually released.

EVERYTHING could have better UI/UX, in hindsight. Like @Bobsk8 said, Laminar Research seems to have struck a good balance.

But OTOH, as soon as you want to set up "default" views and such, you're kinda on your own to do it. Whereas the less intuitive MSFS does much if that for you.

1 hour ago, DD_Arthur said:

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...

Yer right of course thanks but I do click the Liveries page and still get this kind of layout which is weirdly chopped into different widths obscuring the full lettering below them.  On the 737 Max page I didn't understand what Passengers was but now it's pretty clear!  When I choose that variant then the liveries i bought do appear.

Cheers

23 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

perhaps even RTFM to understand how things work.

We shouldn't even need a manual, or training videos, that's the whole point!

Do we need a manual or training videos to use Apple products?

Good design is intuitive, simple and obvious.

19 minutes ago, Greazer said:

Do we need a manual or training videos to use Apple products?

I used to run a global network with right around 1100 Apple Macs of all kinds.

If you do anything much beyond web surfing, YES, documentation & training is always needed to one degree or another.

Your profile picture indicates you like airliners. How intuitive are they to operate...? Are they not examples of Good Design...?

There are literally hundreds of assignment options basically matching everything you could want in a home cockpit, and people want the controller setup to be simple? How exactly do you simplify something that needs to be so complex? I type what I need in the search box, I click the assignment, I tap the control, it gets assigned. As for conflicts, they need to exist... i.e. my hat switch pans in both internal views and external views. I search by controller input and I can see what those conflicts are. It's not the prettiest looking interface and it could use some QOL improvements, but it works just fine. If they allowed exporting to an XML file we likely wouldn't be here since config files could be uploaded to flightsim.to and people that are still confused could just download the profiles they need.

I'm not the biggest fan of all aspects of the UI... the plane selection page should be laid out more like the marketplace for one. But when it comes to the important stuff, like selecting free flight, selecting and airport and weather, and flying, I find it to be easier to use than 2020.

Except that since SU2 in MSFS 2024, the search function does not work for me when looking for control options. Add to that frustration, is waiting upwards of 20 seconds every time I select a new controller OR one of the three controller profiles. And, as mentioned in another thread, try and delete a bad profile, and CTD.

I would not mind the current control setting UI in MSFS 2024, IF it worked. But, currently as of SU2 it does not work properly for me. It's not just my opinion...it does not function properly. And, to add salt to the wound, SU2 also broke the use of my Tobii for me in MSFS 2024. It just plain will not let me do anything with it. It worked fine before SU2, although I had to use workarounds.

I think Asobo's idea to auto-link a profile to the aircraft you will be flying without having to select a different one every time you switch a plane is awesome, I love it, the problem is they just came short in the design and execution, this was most likely because of time constraints and a deadline. We have to give them time, I would rather have them concentrate their resources on stability and performance for now, followed by an overhaul to the UI, and they will, they do listen. The same was true in 2020; many complained about how complicated it was to set up our control devices. This is why there are so many videos on YouTube on how-to, some just have very short memory.

Edited May 21, 20251 yr by CarlosF

43 minutes ago, CarlosF said:

I think Asobo's idea to auto-link a profile to the aircraft you will be flying without having to select a different one every time you switch a plane is an awesome idea, I love it, the problem is they just came short in the design and execution, this was most likely because of time constraints and a deadline. We got to give them time, I rather have them concentrate their resources on stability and performance for now, then do an overhaul to the UI and they will, they do listen. The same was with 2020, a lot of people complain about how complicated was to setup our control devices, this is why there are so many videos on youtube on how-to, some just have very short memory.

exactly.  Spad has been doing this kind of thing for years and it's amazing.  To the point where you can create a profile for one plane in 2020 and it often works with little to any change on same plane in 2024.  Great idea by asobo.  Just bad execution like you said.  

On 5/19/2025 at 11:43 PM, Funky D said:

There are literally hundreds of assignment options basically matching everything you could want in a home cockpit, and people want the controller setup to be simple? How exactly do you simplify something that needs to be so complex? I type what I need in the search box, I click the assignment, I tap the control, it gets assigned. As for conflicts, they need to exist... i.e. my hat switch pans in both internal views and external views. I search by controller input and I can see what those conflicts are. It's not the prettiest looking interface and it could use some QOL improvements, but it works just fine. If they allowed exporting to an XML file we likely wouldn't be here since config files could be uploaded to flightsim.to and people that are still confused could just download the profiles they need.

I'm not the biggest fan of all aspects of the UI... the plane selection page should be laid out more like the marketplace for one. But when it comes to the important stuff, like selecting free flight, selecting and airport and weather, and flying, I find it to be easier to use than 2020.

you might have a point if XPlane wasn't so effortlessly simple in comparison

42 minutes ago, micstatic said:

Spad has been doing this kind of thing for years and it's amazing. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, I understand you have to have this app running for it to work, is this correct?

Just now, CarlosF said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, I understand you have to have this app running for it to work, is this correct?

that is correct.  Every flight I do I start spad and volanta.  Spad doesn't really stress the computer, but they have an option to run it on another computer separate from your flight sim rig if that's a concern for you

9 minutes ago, EGLD said:

you might have a point if XPlane wasn't so effortlessly simple in comparison

I am not an X Plane fan, but I have to admit, the people who designed their control setup GUI, were obviously people who understood simulators and pilots. Not so with 2024 control setup which is beyond ridiculous. 

7 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

Not so with 2024 control setup which is beyond ridiculous. 

It may very well be "beyond ridiculous" for you, but for others like me who have no problems managing complicated stuff, it works, it just needs a bit of polish.

Let me ask you, do you even have 2024 installed to backup every single negative comment?

Bob, I can see you in the future bashing FS20xx and praising 2024...LOL...I bet you a dollar that you will.

 

3 minutes ago, CarlosF said:

It may very well be "beyond ridiculous" for you, but for others like me who have no problems managing complicated stuff, it works, it just needs a bit of polish.

Let me ask you, do you even have 2024 installed to backup every single negative comment?

Bob, I can see you in the future bashing FS20xx and praising 2024...LOL...I bet you a dollar that you will.

 

Carlos.  That seems like an unneeded insult.  I have a somewhat complicated home cockpit and custom build my PC's.  I agree with the premise that the UI is horrible.  Just because people can figure out how to use a UI doesn't mean it's a good one...