Jump to content

Topic: User Interface


Recommended Posts

Hi there,

The FSX-keyboard/joystick-assignments, from an addon developer perspective, suck. Take for example Aerosoft's Catalina and its mixture levers. Why is it not possible to use the joystick setting to control it? I assume the reason is because Aerosoft had to use internal variables to simulate a realistic behavior thus loosing the ability to control the lever with the joystick.

Another example: I wanted to implement a gear lever with three positions - "up", "neutral" & "down" - to my aircraft. It took ~40 lines in XML and a couple of lines in the Simconnect module to do so. No problem so far but to be able to use a joystick button or the "g" key on the keyboard, I had to add another ~300 lines of code to overwrite the FSX system.

So the key question is how to give Addon developers the oportunity to simulate more complex systems than intended by the sims core engine and at the same time let these customized systems be controlled by keyboard or joystick controls!?

My suggestion is that in addition to hardcoded Simevents you allow the developer to add event entries to the controlls list for his/her particular aircraft and on the other hand let him disregard the events that are not required for this type. When the active aircraft doesn't have a retractable undercarriage, why bother to define a key? Even worse: why bother defining "rotor controls" when you are flying with a Cessna? Hence the advantage for the user will be that he doesn't have to browse through a list of 100+ events to map a joystickbutton. With a simple aircraft, the list of controllable interfaces will be really slim.

In general the keyboard/joystick mapping - apart from sim environment settings (menu navigation, time compression, view control, etc.) - is defined for each individual aircraft, instead of defining it global.

By using such a system you get another advantage: Some users might want to create different keyboard/joystick mappings for each type of aircraft (example: throttle control for an one-engine-aircraft vs. throttle control for a four-engine-aircraft) and with a "aircraft-controlled keyboard/joystick assignment" you give them the chance to do so without either buying FSUIPC or browsing through the settings before each and every flight.

There is one problem with that approach and that is that nobody wants to map a common event - "gear up/down" as an example - several times for each aircraft in the list. The best thing for the user, in my opinion would be a dialog box saying something like: "You changed the keyboard entry 'lower gear" - do you want to apply your changes for every aircraft?".

And that's the part that I am still not sure about - on the one side it would be cool to give the user the opportunity to put every cockpit element on a keyboard button - even though half of the systems are customized for a specific aircraft addon. On the other hand the engine still has to identify "common controls" like gear, flaps, throttle, etc. Maybe the dev team or the community has a solution for this dilemma.

I hope I didn't bore you with this idea or stole too much of your precious time. I might also be completely wrong with my appraisal because I see it more from a developers point of view.

Kind regards from downunder,

Vitus

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The non-Microsoft way would be to simply dump each program into a separate folder, and have it just work. Migrating to a new computer then becomes as easy as dragging everything onto an external hard

It still works in FSX. Go to the options and disable the checkbox "Pause if window is inactive" (Or something like that, sorry, but i use the german version of fsx). Now to the Userinterface:

Hi there, The FSX-keyboard/joystick-assignments, from an addon developer perspective, suck. Take for example Aerosoft's Catalina and its mixture levers. Why is it not possible to use the joystick s

Kudos, Vitus! That's the same problem I'm having. I'm building an A320 overhead panel (to go with the Aerosoft A32x, of course :rolleyes:), and many of the commands I need are not modeled in FSX. It's frustrating at best. I think the system you suggested would work very well... but, then again, I'm not a programmer. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The FSX-keyboard/joystick-assignments, from an addon developer perspective, suck.

From a user perspective, too. ;) See the Homebuild cockpits thread where I've tried to explain a possible solution to the problem of extensibility - probably with way to many words, I might add. ;) I think add-ons should be able to define custom simulation variables, events, commands, or whatever, that look and feel exactly like the stuff exposed by the core simulator. Or put another way, from the user interface/control setup perspective as well as from the perspective of add-ons, the sim itself should look like just another add-on. A developer can then either use the default events/variables/etc. if they fit nicely (i.e. a two-state gear lever), define her own ones, or use a combination thereof. In the case of a three-state gear lever, you could define a custom sim variable containing the current state, and events/commands that set the gear handle to each position. In addition, you could respond to the default events/commands that raise or lower the gear with custom logic changing your custom variable such that two 'clicks' are necessary to move the handle from down to up and vice versa. In your variable's accessor function you then manipulate other sim variables (e.g. the default gear variable the flight modeling engine uses) or do your own system modeling as you see fit. In the control setup, the user can assign joystick/keyboard buttons to the default commands as usual. But the interface will also display your custom commands right next to and indistinguishable from the built-in ones, which the user can assign a button to in just the same way. If your add-on is not loaded, nothing will happen, so this kind of implicitly enables per-aircraft control setups for the special stuff, while the common actions are shared among all aircraft. You could even respond to the default command that toggles the gear by doing nothing and preventing the event from trickling down the hierarchy, thereby disabling this built-in command completely. The last aspect is the reason why, in contrast to my previous post, a distinction between state and action does need to be made: if one part of the system (e.g. the user interface sub-system) manipulates state directly in response to some outside event, other parts of the system (e.g. add-ons) can't override this manipulation with custom behavior, because another part of the system (e.g. the flight modeling engine) might have already reacted to the state change. Hope this makes sense... ;)

Judith

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Yes I would like to see in the upcoming sim possible cold and dark aircraft or the option to have it if this is going to be what real world flyers go through why not us make us learn how to go from cold and dark to apu start up so on so forth. and have a working CDU/FMS/FMC that would be awesome and to have maps included such as stars/sids/approach/arrivals/departure charts. You know put aircraft from makers such as Aerosoft/eaglesoft/PMDG they have some great aircraft in there arsonal.

Moving jetways and follow me cars to the gate would be great as well as when loading the aircraft at the gate you have to load passengers/bags as well something realistic. Not where you get into the aircraft already loading and thats it no we want more from it i want to learn how to do it all from coldand dak to starting apu procedures getting the aircraft ready for passnegers and engine start up to pushback to taxi clearance to taxi. and a good pushback tug with aircraft that use them. thats what we want to see what we want in the next Flight sim. And dont forget to keep the online gamming going thats the greatest.

Thank You

Marvin Brooks

Ft Irwin, Ca

FS lover since it came out

Link to post
Share on other sites

don't know if this is said before,

but in my opinion a nice feature:

Give 3rd party developers the ability to include pages in the UI.

For example, many addon products for FS now come with a load manager etc...

give them the possibility to include such managers or editors in the general user interface.

This would be a lot easier for users.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Have you ever made a complete reinstallation (new computer)?

I realy have a lot of Addons (not only from Aerosoft;-)).

This is a hard work!!

Starting 2 weeks ago and still not finished.

And I won't install all Addons.

Sorry, but this is a point, which should be improved.

Albrecht

Link to post
Share on other sites

Moving jetways and follow me cars to the gate would be great as well as when loading the aircraft at the gate you have to load passengers/bags as well something realistic. Not where you get into the aircraft already loading and thats it no we want more from it i want to learn how to do it all from coldand dak to starting apu procedures getting the aircraft ready for passnegers and engine start up to pushback to taxi clearance to taxi. and a good pushback tug with aircraft that use them. thats what we want to see what we want in the next Flight sim. And dont forget to keep the online gamming going thats the greatest.

woudnt that beat the purpose of AES?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you ever made a complete reinstallation (new computer)?

I realy have a lot of Addons (not only from Aerosoft;-)).

This is a hard work!!

Starting 2 weeks ago and still not finished.

And I won't install all Addons.

Sorry, but this is a point, which should be improved.

Albrecht

try googling for "install many programs at once" (or pm me, ill try to explain how to do it)

basically then you run one .msi and it installs many programs at once for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

basically then you run one .msi and it installs many programs at once for you.

The non-Microsoft way would be to simply dump each program into a separate folder, and have it just work. Migrating to a new computer then becomes as easy as dragging everything onto an external hard disk, connecting it to the new computer (or doing a reinstall, or whatever), and dragging everything back. That's how X-Plane works. As an additional benefit, you can carry a fully working copy of X-Plane around on an USB key, and launch it right from there.

Judith

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

as has been stated before, the AFS2012/13 will only be windows compatible. This is to make sure the latest technologies only are realised. I think it may only work under windows7, but it will use DX11, and take advantage of all the CPU and GPU cores you have. Further, it will not be backwards compatible with your current FSX addons, again this is due to the fact that FSX has limitations that will not appear in the new sim, should aerosoft decide to make one.

Hope that help

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

Today as I was trying to fly AND work on an airport AFX file, I had an idea. If we could install the new simulator on a server (network drive) we could have all the same software available to more than one computer. Yes, I know that would be taking money out of Aerosoft's pocket, but I would be willing to pay for an extended user license where we install the software to the server, and then have operating licences on multiple computers. I have virus software that allows me to install on up to three computers; even Microsoft allowed users to install Office 2003 on two computers. The point is, if we had the primary install on a server, we could use that to share/copy files to other licenced computers on the network. You could have 2 or 3 people sharing flightdeck duties on a flight in the house, or one computer designing scenery while another computer is flying. An automatic transfer/update program could ensure that the server files are moved to each of the user computers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is to make sure the latest technologies only are realised.

Rumor has it that the latest technologies are not exclusive to Windows. Ever heard of OpenGL 4, OpenCL, or Grand Central Dispatch? In fact, OpenGL had quite a few features long before DirectX 10. Macs are plenty fast, too (and besides, they have users who are much more willing to pay big bucks, and accordingly much less likely to pirate software).

If we could install the new simulator on a server (network drive) we could have all the same software available to more than one computer.

What stops you from doing that with FSX? Just set up a network share for your FSX folder. Granted, I've never tried it with FSX, but it works with X-Plane (OK, with some black symlink magic, because X-Plane is brain-dead enough to store its preferences in the program folder).

Judith

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rumor has it that the latest technologies are not exclusive to Windows. Ever heard of OpenGL 4, OpenCL, or Grand Central Dispatch? In fact, OpenGL had quite a few features long before DirectX 10. Macs are plenty fast, too (and besides, they have users who are much more willing to pay big bucks, and accordingly much less likely to pirate software).

Judith

Judith,

I couldn't have put it in better words. I am an Aluminum 15" 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro user. It's so true that Macs are plenty fast. Vista goes so much faster on Macs than PC's. I have proved that myself after being a PC buyer in the past. My lowest "score" in Vista is 5.5!

I really hope Aerosoft doesn't close the door in entering Apple's market in simulation. Because Apple is the best when talking about graphics and sound. Aerosoft could use Mac's programing code so much more! I say this after years of owning PC's especially the last one, a "top level" Sony Vaio. I hope Mathijs takes note of this. There are lots of Mac users in the simulation world and I am tired of having Windows just for flight simming. That's basically why I have Vista. I hope one day I can have a reason to erase that Windows partition I have -and that thanks to the Apple-made Boot Camp program.

Mathijs, take a look at Macs. You'll love the OSX. Once you do, you won't want Windows as your major OS. I am sure of that. B) Apple's market is growing a lot all around the world.

Best regards, Andrew - aka Vee One

Written using Mac OSX 10.6

Link to post
Share on other sites

Judith,

I couldn't have put it in better words. I am an Aluminum 15" 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro user. It's so true that Macs are plenty fast. Vista goes so much faster on Macs than PC's. I have proved that myself after being a PC buyer in the past. My lowest "score" in Vista is 5.5!

I really hope Aerosoft doesn't close the door in entering Apple's market in simulation. Because Apple is the best when talking about graphics and sound. Aerosoft could use Mac's programing code so much more! I say this after years of owning PC's especially the last one, a "top level" Sony Vaio. I hope Mathijs takes note of this. There are lots of Mac users in the simulation world and I am tired of having Windows just for flight simming. That's basically why I have Vista. I hope one day I can have a reason to erase that Windows partition I have -and that thanks to the Apple-made Boot Camp program.

Mathijs, take a look at Macs. You'll love the OSX. Once you do, you won't want Windows as your major OS. I am sure of that. B) Apple's market is growing a lot all around the world.

Best regards, Andrew - aka Vee One

You do understand that if they do make a MAC version they will have to use "The lowest common Denominator"

There would be 2 options:

1- Use OPENGL or something, and as a consequence lost a lot of performance.

2- Only make a MAC version. Nothing for windows. But i bet this will never happen as most of the computer (and FS) users are using windows

Link to post
Share on other sites

You do understand that if they do make a MAC version they will have to use "The lowest common Denominator"

There would be 2 options:

1- Use OPENGL or something, and as a consequence lost a lot of performance.

2- Only make a MAC version. Nothing for windows. But i bet this will never happen as most of the computer (and FS) users are using windows

The non-existent Microsoft flight simulator company did use Windows. Before that it used to make a Mac version of it too (maybe you were not born yet).

The ONLY company that is continuing on a world-wide flight simulator is X-Plane. They sell for Mac OSX and Windows (maybe Linux too).

One thing I must point out to Windows users is that a Windows Vista GIG of RAM is NOT the same as a Mac OSX GIG of RAM. The graphic language is not the same. Windows users don't know there is a huge leap in programming between Mac's rock-solid OS's language and Windows graphic language. In other words Apple has much more torque under its bonnet than Windows has -speaking of programming language.

In Mac OSX there are a lot more of possibilities a programmer can use than in a Windows platform. Why do you think lots of movie makers are using Apple products to do the job? B)

In any case, if X-plane (made by a small-sized company) is made for two or three OS's, why can't Aerosoft? I don't find it impossible, even less if Aerosoft is looking to this project as the major-to-be overtaker in the Flight simulator world wide community!?

Mathjis, take in account Apple computer users are growing very much in and out of the USA. For example, in Spain, Apple's market is up to 20-30% now and growing.

Happy landings!

Vee One

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I must point out to Windows users is that a Windows Vista GIG of RAM is NOT the same as a Mac OSX GIG of RAM.

Yeah - a GIG or RAM in the macs is actually TWO gigs of ram, not one! I totally agree.

Windows users don't know there is a huge leap in programming between Mac's rock-solid OS's language and Windows graphic language. In other words Apple has much more torque under its bonnet than Windows has -speaking of programming language.

What? Do you even know what you are talking about?

In Mac OSX there are a lot more of possibilities a programmer can use than in a Windows platform. Why do you think lots of movie makers are using Apple products to do the job? B)

I see you are a programmer for sure....

Mathjis, take in account Apple computer users are growing very much in and out of the USA. For example, in Spain, Apple's market is up to 20-30% now and growing.

... and Apple's marketing director too!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It still works in FSX. Go to the options and disable the checkbox "Pause if window is inactive" (Or something like that, sorry, but i use the german version of fsx).

Now to the Userinterface:

I think the GUI of FSX isn't bad. Personally I do well with it. But I think it's still too far away of getting the right feeling of "starting a flight". What I mean ist the pre flight procedure. Ok, Professionals simply want to define the aircraft, weather and the route. But I think its too dry.

Image, you could start at the doors of the airport. Either you can start an arcade flight with a minimum of pre flight doings or you could walk through the airport as an pilot and have to reach some checkpoints, where you have to manage the pre flight things. A typical procedure could be:

1. Start at the doors of the airport

2. Looking at the airport flightplan panel, which is your main panel for starting a flight / mainpanel of ASFS2012.

3. Click on Arcade Entry and simply choose an aircraft, startposition and go on.

4. Or take one of the random flight shown on the panel.

5. Or take the professional way and start to walk to through the airport.

5.1 One checkpoint for choosing the aircraft (Good for simulating an airline career)

5.2 One checkpoint for choosing the weather options

5.3 One checkpoint (Breefingroom) for setting up the route, starttime, start gate ...

5.4 Walking to the gate, where your machine is waiting for you

5.5 Walking on the gateway to the aircraft and entering the plain -> The flight can start.

I hope you know what I mean. There should be a nice way to start a flight earlier than sitting in a cold&dark cockpit. So the user will become more pilot as yet.

This is a good Free Flight start. This makes us users feel more like real pilots. And I remember Aerosoft quoted when making Aerosoft Airbus X the main objective is to make you feel like one. Totally agree with this post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1- Use OPENGL or something, and as a consequence lost a lot of performance.

Guess what: the graphics card couldn't care less if you throw OpenGL or DirectX at it. There are countless examples of games that have both a DirectX and an OpenGL code path. Sometimes the DirectX renderer is slightly faster, sometimes the OpenGL version has a slight edge. But none of these games show a significant performance difference between the two APIs, as far as I'm aware. Oh, and by the way, did you know that X-Plane actually runs faster on the Mac (given the right graphics card)?

I won't comment on the Mac zealotry above - suffice to say that a gig is a gig is a gig, no matter what.

Judith

Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't comment on the Mac zealotry above - suffice to say that a gig is a gig is a gig, no matter what.

Judith

Right, a physical GIG is a physical GIG. What I meant was, depending on the OS's architecture it'll need more gigs to do a specific job than the other in a specific timeframe. That's what I meant. No Mac zealotry whatsoever. Maybe Bertrand Serlet could explain it better... <_<

Oh, and by the way, did you know that X-Plane actually runs faster on the Mac (given the right graphics card)?

Judith

...maybe my comment above explains why... Just put a PC and a Mac with the same specs (processor, RAM, Video card, etc...) and the same program (such as X-plane), the PC with Windows and the Mac with MAC OSX... Judith, I am sure you know both systems won't kick the same FPS's. No zealotry there. "Strange" you'd say such thing... ;)

Happy landings! B)

Vee One

P.S.: "Strange" people are saying that Windows OS's go faster in an Apple computer... I have noticed it myself as well!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Drifting further off topic:

What I meant was, depending on the OS's architecture it'll need more gigs to do a specific job than the other in a specific timeframe.

If anything, the opposite is true (but that's not as bad as it sounds, either). Macs have long been known for memory bloat. While the main reason for that - the PowerPC architecture - is history, other factors remain, or emerge. For example, while I'm typing this, my Mac is using just under 2 GB of RAM, with Safari and Mail open. Right after start-up, memory usage is slightly below 1 GB. Yes, I'm using my Mac for some heavy lifting, but still. Mac OS X simply has a vastly different memory management strategy than Windows, which is not necessarily better or worse, just different. The same could be said for Linux as well. As such, any comparison about memory usage is kind of moot in my opinion. As long as performance is good (and it is), I couldn't care less about memory usage. And let's face it - when you're short on RAM, you have no business running a state-of-the-art flight simulator anyway. ;)

...maybe my comment above explains why...

Or maybe not. Had I claimed the opposite (i.e. X-Plane is faster on Windows), I would've been just as right. ;) That's because it all depends on the graphics driver. ATI's Mac drivers are usually more optimized than their Windows drivers when it comes to OpenGL. Or put another way, the OpenGL implementation in ATI's Windows drivers is - well - kind of suboptimal. Nvidia, on the other hand, don't seem to be able to get their act together with their Mac drivers somehow - they are way inferior to their Windows counterparts. Or put another way, OpenGL really flies on nVidia under Windows.

P.S.: "Strange" people are saying that Windows OS's go faster in an Apple computer... I have noticed it myself as well!

While I doubt that is true across the board, it only speaks for the great hardware Apple makes, not at all for their equally impressive software. And no, Boot Camp doesn't influence how Windows runs - because all it does is help prepare and partition your Mac for installing Windows. Once that's done, its job is over. And besides, while the ability to dual-boot is nice, it's a major hassle that's just not worth it for everyday use, in my opinion (same goes for dual-boot setups on any ordinary PC, of course).

Don't get me wrong: I firmly believe that Mac OS X is a great OS which is better than Windows in many ways. But let's try to stay technically accurate - it's not like there's some mysterious voodoo in Mac OS X that somehow makes it vastly superior to anything else just by definition. Believe it or not, even Apple's software does have its flaws and shortcomings, too, just like everything else.

Judith

Proudly created on a  Mac

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

I do not like to start a simulator on a runway. I think the simulator should allways start at the gate or ramp. Newer on a runnway. In reallife you do not jump in a plane that is sett on a runway.

But for testing purposes you might jump to the runway to save som time when you know you have to do the same over and over again. But by default i think the sim should allways start at a gate or ramp in a cold and dark cocpit.

For people that are new to flightsims, might have some help through training "missions". But default chould allways be pro dark and cold. :)

I think it's a good idea but don't start with cold and dark cockpit, because many users which are not pros do have a lot of problems with that, I think it should be an option to start like

- cold and dark

- ready for push and start up

- engines running

So that it's easier for more people to start flying. But the idea to start at a gate is much better than starting on the runway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I think I may have mentioned it before during the initial idea gathering phase.

It would be great if more items could be easily controlled via the keyboard. In that regard, a more logic keyboard 'layout' may help. A certain group of commands could be assigned to a certain 'shift-layer' of the keyboard, such as Shift,Ctrl,Alt,Ctrl-Shift,Alt-Shift,etc. New shift modes can be added by splitting e.g. the right Shift/Ctrl/Alt-keys from the left ones, by using the Caps-Lock key as another 'shift' key, by making use of the various 'Windows' keys on the keyboard as new 'shift' keys too.

(Technically, if it's not possible directly from the application, not sure about that, but it is certainly possible from a low-level keyboard hook that would only act for keystrokes within the simulator's process (PID)).

Another poster suggested something like entering "N1118.50" to set Nav1 etc. I agree, this would be great. A small popup window could be shown to show what was typed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...