The key mapping could use some improvements.

[Pupo]

There are currently two problems when mapping keys in the game.
 
First, it is slow. Every time you change a key the game saves the change to the disk, which takes (in my computer at least), about 1 second. There is no need to save the key state after every change. To pour salt in the wound, if you "escape" away from the key mapping menu without explicitly pressing "accept", the game will revert all your changes and save them to disk again. Removing the unnecessary file save after each key map change would make the whole process much smoother.
 
The second problem is the amount of redundant and inconsistent keys that exist. For example, to trim our aircraft in all the aircraft in the sim, we have to set three different controls:
 
- Horizontal stabilizer axis for the 109 models.
- Horizontal stabilizer buttons for the 190 models.
- Trim buttons for all the remaining aircraft.
 
These three commands are redundant and could be collapsed into one. These three commands are also inconsistent since the 109 horizontal stabilizer can be controlled using an axis, while, for example, the spitfire trim can't. The game already models the maximum speed the pilot could turn these surfaces, so there is no potential for abuse.
 
Another example of this are the engine controls. There are two distinct water radiator and oil radiators controls that you need to map, and the redundancy does not add anything to the simulation. I choose 2 examples to prove my point.
 
The Spitfire water radiator can only be operated by buttons. This makes no sense. The control is a leaver. there are 5 levels to it, so if i map it to an axis just have it change position when i pass the 10%, 30%, 50%, 70% and 90% levels of my axis. Same logic applies to the 110 and 111 oil radiators.
 
The Pe2 Oil radiator should be controllable by an axis. This one is not so clear cut. I don't think it's a significant lost of realism to allow players to control the oil radiator of the Pe2 with an axis. Similarly to the horizontal stabilizer of the 109, so long as the command lags behind the input, no advantage is gained.  An alternative solution would be to have the axis work as a 3 position switch ( [0,33%[ - close radiator, [33%-66%[ - idle, [66%-100%] - open radiator). This alternative solution was implemented in CloD and in my opinion it was very counter intuitive and prone to error.

Same argument can be made for the 109/190/HS129 prop pitch, and the 109 horizontal stabilizer.
 
I tried to compile in a table all the commands used to manage the engine in a sim, and take note of which ones are used by each plane that I own (plus the p40). Throttle, mixture, supercharger, boost, propeller mode, feathering and radiators auto/manual, I do not have any issues with, and were omitted. The end result is here:


 
My suggestions:
- Merge all the trim controls into a single axis.
- RPM and propeller low/high pitch should be merged.
- Water radiator open/close and water radiator should be merged.
- Oil radiator and Oil radiator open/close should be merged.
- No plane has both radiator and outlet cowl controls. These two controls could be merged.
 

The advantages:

- Mapping engine controls will become more intuitive, and consistent.

 

Disadvantages:

- Pe2 oil radiator and FW190 Horizontal stabilizer behavior will probably not please some competitive players.

 

Feel free to discuss these issues, and propose different improvements. 

Cheers

 

 

TLDR: mapping controls to the game is unintuitive, repetitive, and inconsistent. I propose some improvement.

Edited February 17, 2018 by Pupo

[Yardstick]

Sensible suggestions.  Although to be fair elevator trim controls can be mapped to a button (hat) across all aircraft.  Personally I prefer a hat button over an axis for the 109, as I can get more precise control anyway.  However, I agree entirely re the Spitfire water radiator, having axis positions linked to the various stages of opened / closed makes complete sense. 

 

Currently I fly with 2 throttles just to have all the axes and buttons for engine management readily to hand with a number of my controls having to be specific to different types.  Logically, a number of these could be collapsed into single controls. 

[Trooper117]

Jason has stated more than once that they will look at this issue when time permits...

[Ehret]

You can bind the same physical button/key to do multiple things  - use it to alleviate spread options like trims.

The P40' rudder trim doesn't have a wheel in a cockpit - only a switch - this shouldn't be mappable to an axis.

 

What I personally found more irritating is an inability to map multiple key/button presses, except for "mod" keys (Shift,Ctrl,Alt...) and one normal key/button. I can not bind stick's trigger + stick's top button, to release bombs - for an example.

 

Another silly thing is that, except bow/turn, head movement options aren't on axis.

[dburne]

What I personally found more irritating is an inability to map multiple key/button presses, except for "mod" keys (Shift,Ctrl,Alt...) and one normal key/button. I can not bind stick's trigger + stick's top button, to release bombs - for an example.

 

 

 

This is so needed imho, I have been wishing and at times asking for this for quite some time.

I try to remain hopeful that maybe, someday - when some of the dust settles they might can see fit to implement this.

I really would like to be able to assign a button as a modifier button, within the game controller setup.

 

Also individual plane controller setups would be the icing on the cake.

Edited February 17, 2018 by dburne

[Finkeren]

All these suggestions sound fine to me.

 

As long as they don’t put flaps control on an axis.

[Royal_Flight]

Jason has stated more than once that they will look at this issue when time permits...

Hopefully, time will permit them to do this as soon as BoK is out, before they get too heavily stuck into BoBo.

I'm keen to get the next phase moving but there are still a load of minor issues such as this that need work to improve the whole experience, before we start having more content thrown at us.

[Pupo]

The P40' rudder trim doesn't have a wheel in a cockpit - only a switch - this shouldn't be mappable to an axis.

 

As long as they don’t put flaps control on an axis.

 

I don't see why would you limit any of these. So long as the trim and flap movement lags behind the user input (as the horizontal stabilizer does in the 109) there is no competitive advantage gained in mapping either of these commands to an axis. I'm interested to hear your arguments on this.

 

I'm keen to get the next phase moving but there are still a load of minor issues such as this that need work to improve the whole experience, before we start having more content thrown at us.

 

The devs really heard the community on their requests for graphic improvements. Draw distance is getting a huge increase next update, and 4K skins are slowly becoming a reality. I'm sure that if we propose sensible suggestions on how to improve other parts of the sim such as this thread, and my previous thread on gunner position clumsiness (see: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/33586-gunner-positions-feel-very-clumsy/?do=findComment&comment=559906), they will listen to us one more time and these things will also see some improvements.

[Finkeren]

I don't see why would you limit any of these. So long as the trim and flap movement lags behind the user input (as the horizontal stabilizer does in the 109) there is no competitive advantage gained in mapping either of these commands to an axis. I'm interested to hear your arguments on this.

Simple: If flaps are on an axis, you can set them in an instant and then forget about them, while they lower/raise themselves, instead of having to give constant control input until you reach the desired angle, as was the case IRL. This would negate the real life advantage of planes like the Fw 190 which had preset positions that could be set and then the pilot could move on to doing something else.

 

Currently this is an issue with the I-16, which had manually operated gear, that required the pilot to turn a crank with his left hand 30+ times, which meant that it was impossible for the pilot to operate the gear, flaps and throttle at the same time without having to let go of the stick (a bad idea in a plane with no adjustible trim) I hope the flaps operation stays the way it is now, and that we get a press-and-hold system for the manual gear on the I-16, because it is much closer to how it actually worked body mechanics-wise compared to the current “press a button to activate the automated process” system.

[Pupo]

Simple: If flaps are on an axis, you can set them in an instant and then forget about them, while they lower/raise themselves, instead of having to give constant control input until you reach the desired angle, as was the case IRL. This would negate the real life advantage of planes like the Fw 190 which had preset positions that could be set and then the pilot could move on to doing something else.

 

Currently this is an issue with the I-16, which had manually operated gear, that required the pilot to turn a crank with his left hand 30+ times, which meant that it was impossible for the pilot to operate the gear, flaps and throttle at the same time without having to let go of the stick (a bad idea in a plane with no adjustible trim) I hope the flaps operation stays the way it is now, and that we get a press-and-hold system for the manual gear on the I-16, because it is much closer to how it actually worked body mechanics-wise compared to the current “press a button to activate the automated process” system.

 

I understand your points, but I still think that the advantage gained by having flaps on an axis is not very significant. Additionally, there is a precedent with the horizontal stabilizer of the 109 which you can currently set at a position and forget about them. Furthermore, the HOTAS systems that most of us use, completely trash away any hopes of a realistic anthropomorphic simulation. I have my flap keys mapped to my joystick head, and I already press and forget those keys while doing something else. Finally, let us not forget that the force anthropomorphic control limitations failed miserably in ClOD, not only because of implementation, but because it is a very and I'd hate too see them make a come back.  

 

However, I must say that have fond memories of frenetically pressing "Ctrl+G" on final when landing the I16 in 1946 

Edited February 17, 2018 by Pupo

[Yogiflight]

 

 

Furthermore, the HOTAS systems that most of us, completely trash away any hopes of a realistic anthropomorphic simulation.

This absolutely.

[Yardstick]

 

 

Simple: If flaps are on an axis, you can set them in an instant and then forget about them, while they lower/raise themselves, instead of having to give constant control input until you reach the desired angle, as was the case IRL.

 

It's a fair enough point Finkeren but currently I have the 109 flaps mapped to a latching button which is programmed to repeat until released.  So even now dropping flaps on the 109 requires a single key press. 

[Finkeren]

I understand your points, but I still think that the advantage gained by having flaps on an axis is not very significant. Additionally, there is a precedent with the horizontal stabilizer of the 109 which you can currently set at a position and forget about them.:

I disagree that those two are analogous. Trim (or adjustible stabilizer) you set gradually by feeling to find the sweet spot where your plane flies stable, you don’t have a set value that you are going for unlike flaps settings.

 

The advantage of having flaps on an axis would not be huge, but it would be there, and why create an unrealistic advantage that isn’t there now? What exactly would be the realism benefit of having flaps on an axis?

It's a fair enough point Finkeren but currently I have the 109 flaps mapped to a latching button which is programmed to repeat until released. So even now dropping flaps on the 109 requires a single key press.

Press-and-hold is a lot different from set-and-forget-about-it. The current system forces you to actually pay attention to what you’re doing when setting flaps, and I think it’d be best to keep it that way.

[Pupo]

Ok Finkeren. You raise some good points. I will back away from this discussion about Flaps, since their current implementation respects my main critic from the original post: Controls should be consistent and not redundant. Furthermore, I feel like I'm advocating for the devil since I use two buttons to control my flaps, and I would keep doing so even if this surface could be controlled by an axis.

 

I will however, hold my ground on the idea that the game should only have one oil radiator command and one water radiator command, both of them as an axis. This is my biggest pickle and the one that motivated me to create the original post.

Edited February 17, 2018 by Pupo

[Finkeren]

I absolutely agree that key assignments could be simpler and more streamlined, and overall the suggestions were good.

[Ehret]

I don't see why would you limit any of these. So long as the trim and flap movement lags behind the user input (as the horizontal stabilizer does in the 109) there is no competitive advantage gained in mapping either of these commands to an axis. I'm interested to hear your arguments on this.

 

The lag amount has to be set to a specific value - who should decide that?

Whatever you set, it will be an advantage for some and disadvantage for others. Do you want such a dilemma for something as simple as a binary/tertiary switch?

[Pupo]

The lag amount has to be set to a specific value - who should decide that?

Whatever you set, it will be an advantage for some and disadvantage for others. Do you want such a dilemma for something as simple as a binary/tertiary switch?

 

The lag amount already exists and would be the same as the speed you currently move the axis when pressing the button.

[Ehret]

The lag amount already exists and would be the same as the speed you currently move the axis when pressing the button.

 

You don't know how others are pressing the button. This is not the same as moving the controlling virtual wheel and having the plane virtual wheel following its value.

 

BESIDES - if the modeled plane's switch isn't of a continuous nature, or a pedal, then it DOES NOT have a controlling axis.

Edited February 17, 2018 by Ehret

[LukeFF]

 

 

The P40' rudder trim doesn't have a wheel in a cockpit - only a switch - this shouldn't be mappable to an axis.

 

That's roll trim that has a switch on the dash. 

[Panthera]

Been looking for a way to fine tune the pitch & roll axis for each aircraft ingame, but I now understand you can't actually do this?  That's quite an omission IMHO, you were able to do this in ROF.

[Finkeren]

Been looking for a way to fine tune the pitch & roll axis for each aircraft ingame, but I now understand you can't actually do this? That's quite an omission IMHO, you were able to do this in ROF.

I personally think this was far more important in RoF due to the lack of trim, asymetric controls and overall unstable flight characteristics of the planes.

 

Can’t say I personally miss this feature in BoX.

 

That’s not to say we shouldn’t have it, if enough people think it’s important.

[Panthera]

I personally think this was far more important in RoF due to the lack of trim, asymetric controls and overall unstable flight characteristics of the planes.

 

Can’t say I personally miss this feature in BoX.

 

That’s not to say we shouldn’t have it, if enough people think it’s important.

 

It's very important in my opinion as it allows you to compensate for all control collumn lengths.

[Finkeren]

It's very important in my opinion as it allows you to compensate for all control collumn lengths.

I use a short stick and don’t have need for input curves.

 

But again, my personal needs or lack thereof should not dictate such things, so if people feel the need of such a feature, it should at least be considered.

[dburne]

I personally think this was far more important in RoF due to the lack of trim, asymetric controls and overall unstable flight characteristics of the planes.

 

Can’t say I personally miss this feature in BoX.

 

That’s not to say we shouldn’t have it, if enough people think it’s important.

 

Yes fine tuning axis is pretty important especially for all the varying sticks and lengths. Which we obviously already have to some degree. But what would be the best would be individual plane settings, rather than one global setting that applies to all aircraft. Especially as the sim continues to grow and add more aircraft.

 

Hopefully at some point in the future the devs will be in a position to put some resources into this.

[Pupo]

Fine tuning axis really was important in Rise of Flight. Lets hope that with the soon to come Flying circus, that feature will make a come back 

[A_radek]

As I'm planning a controller-box build and trying to figure out a good layout for it, I find this an interesting discussion.

 

Regarding flaps on an Axis I understand finkerens arguments but pressing and holding a key, to me, feels as wrong as turning a dial slightly and forgetting about it. Competitive advantages aside.

 

Third alternative for flaps would be an encoder wheel. I have yet to receive my encoders to test if there could be a potential "cheat" when used for flaps. Anyone here tried a 24 pulse encoder with BoX flaps and would care to share how that went?

 

I also miss the frantic key-pressing of the old il2 when retracting gears on I-16 and wildcat. After reading ground personnel could tell which aircrafts pilot was working that crankshaft by the wobbly flight behavior, it felt immersive rather than silly.

Edited February 18, 2018 by a_radek

[Pupo]

As I'm planning a controller-box build and trying to figure out a good layout for it, I find this an interesting discussion.

 

Regarding flaps on an Axis I understand finkerens arguments but pressing and holding a key, to me, feels as wrong as turning a dial slightly and forgetting about it. Competitive advantages aside.

 

Third alternative for flaps would be an encoder wheel. I have yet to receive my encoders to test if there could be a potential "cheat" when used for flaps. Anyone here tried a 24 pulse encoder with BoX flaps and would care to share how that went?

 

I also miss the frantic key-pressing of the old il2 when retracting gears on I-16 and wildcat. After reading ground personnel could tell which aircrafts pilot was working that crankshaft by the wobbly flight behavior, it felt immersive rather than silly.

 

 

Well, i didn't try an encoder, but i did try the bottom "fake axis" of the X52 Pro throttle. When you turn these, the joystick will send a signal that gets recognized as an instantaneous button press every 1/16th of a turn.  This is the same behavior you will get if you use the raw encoder signal as two buttons.

 

If you map this "fake axis" buttons to a control surface, such as the flaps, they will have different behaviors depending on the plane.

 

For the 109, the key press will simply not move the flaps. The amount the flaps move when you press the key is a fix amount of about 0.5 turns per second. If you press the button a fraction of a second, the flaps will simply not move. 

 

For the spitfire it works just fine, since the spitfire flaps are operated by an "on/off" switch. Turn the wheel downwards and the flaps get deployed, upwards they get retracted.

 

 

So, I wouldn't expect you to have much success using an encoder wheel to control an axis in the game. Unless you do some magic programming stuff.

[Furni]

I have to say the key commands are one of the things that has me I'm finding very fustrating after coming from the original IL2. After a 10+ year break I finally DL the new IL2 BOS etc last Novemeber and I have to say Im still trying to get the key commands sorted for my HOTAS Cougar. I dont think that the 10 year break has helped with the Cougar/foxy set up but it did seem a lot easier back then to key map the controls than it is now.

 

Seems to over complicated with a lot of setting for differant aircraft which is good but trying to get them to work within the sim is really troublesome at times!

 

In the old days you had a key command Flaps or radiators that worked for all aircraft now seems to be 1 key command for one aircraft and another key command for another aircraft.

 

But have to say I do like the way IL2 is going - apart from the key commands!

[A_radek]

Thank you Pupo! Good to know.

 

And what a pity. A shorter key press time allowed for flaps could have made an encoder both a realistic and intuitive way of controlling them. I don't think any scripting on my part will overcome this, without in the end making the encoder wheel a spinning alternative to just holding a two way switch.

 

Did you try trims with it? I know the 109 stab can have an axis assigned but for the other vanilla trim tab planes?

[blitze]

Simplification of the menu structure with sub groups under each tab would also help navigate the assignments pages.  I have had fun trying to work out my own X52 Pro and still have some things not assigned and tweeking.

 

For elevator trim I have it mapped to the 2-way switches on the Stick Base but it depends on the plane as for manual engine controlled planes I use them for Water and Oil Radiator with trim on the click wheel on the base of the Throttle.  The Outter engine cowels are mapped to the throttle thumb sliding axis and then inner shared with the oil radiator.  Prop pitch and Mix are on rotaries on throttle.  Quite a mix.

 

Be nice to have more consistency of mapping but the game will not that to happen.  Just have to remind myself when I fly a different plane what does what.

 

Would love for the X52 Shift modifier button to be useful in mapping commands as that would open up more controls to the Stick and Throttle like using the shift modifier to setup Ground Attack settings.

[Pupo]

Thank you Pupo! Good to know.

 

And what a pity. A shorter key press time allowed for flaps could have made an encoder both a realistic and intuitive way of controlling them. I don't think any scripting on my part will overcome this, without in the end making the encoder wheel a spinning alternative to just holding a two way switch.

 

Did you try trims with it? I know the 109 stab can have an axis assigned but for the other vanilla trim tab planes?

 

 

Trims will have the same problem. Every single in game axis when controlled with buttons works the same way. While you press the key, the axis in game will turn by at a fixed speed (and to make mathers worse, there is an acceleration as well ). So if you supply the game with instantaneous key presses, it will just ignore them.

 

An alternative would be programming the encoder to convert the instantaneous button presses to press and hold the key for a set ammount of time. This would fool the game to think that the key was being pressed constantly.

[A_radek]

Oh what a pity. Seems I have four encoders on the way I won't have any use of.

 

I hope this will be a future thing for the devs to look in to. Any hardcore pit builder would miss the axis or encoder assignments.

 

An alternative would be programming the encoder to convert the instantaneous button presses to press and hold the key for a set ammount of time. This would fool the game to think that the key was being pressed constantly.

Yes, but like I wrote above this would make it just a weird rotating two way switch. Not taking any consideration for the speed I rotate the wheel at. And compared to that I'd rather have a regular two way switch or just two buttons.