The big weakness of Cliffs of Dover: control presets?

[Avimimus]

...and the lack of them.

 

As I get back into Cliffs in anticipation of 5.0... I'm remembering how much one has to bind - even the keyboard has to be bound. This means that everyone has their own set of bindings (without defaults) and thus it is hard for community members to help each other.

 

A minor thing - but something that might be worth looking into prior to the next release?

[JV69badatflyski]

3 hours ago, Avimimus said:

...and the lack of them.

 

What do you mean by presets? if you mean something already pre programmed, that would be hard to do anyway, as the users have different sets of "joysticks" and other personal made HW.
BUT, the strength of Clod is the possibility of giving each plane it's own settings and "call" this setting when needed.
It's a painstacking process but worth to do. You just have to visualize what commands are needed for what plane.
Start with something simple like the 109E4, add the basic controls and then do a fast mission and see what's missing, then add it. Save the profile as "BF109".
then Take The spit (or the hurri) , do a fast mission again, see what's missing, add it to the bf109 profile and save it under "Spitfire"
That's how i do, i start with the 109 because it's the airplane with the least of controls.i use it as  the "base" .
Or you take the command list on a paper sheet, pre-filter  what you will need for what plane and this way you won't need to check your commands in a fast mission.
Don't forget to Backup your Commands profiles in a New folder that can't be overwritten by steam.

[ZachariasX]

Not being able to filter through presets, not having them listed per aircraft, having tons of inexistent functions makes this process a royal pain in the neck. One can take it further proof of the incomplete status of that sim. But you can see the original noble intentions.

[Buzzsaw]

We will be reducing the number of options for the players to program in the controls for TF 5.0 so the clutter should be reduced.

 

Obviously there is no need to provide the option to manage 8 engines... yet.  ?

[Sokol1]

Presets don't make much sense, are too much variables, will not fit for all.

- Player controller, a "3-in-1" josytick user has different needs than one with full HOTAS.

- Use or not of headtrackd device

- Singleplayer with externals x multiplayer with cockpit only 

- Gameplay prefereces: "arcade" x "simulator"

...

What CloD controls GUI need is an cleanup, hidden or removing unused settings (like mixture, radiator.. for engines #3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8), this will cut the control options in almost 1/3.

 

 

 

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Only thing I feel that went backwards from original IL-2 in CloD was the GUI. Mapping takes it´s time and the GUI did not make it easier. Good to hear the GUI is being tidied up.

[Avimimus]

 

On 12/23/2019 at 3:20 AM, ZachariasX said:

Not being able to filter through presets, not having them listed per aircraft, having tons of inexistent functions makes this process a royal pain in the neck. One can take it further proof of the incomplete status of that sim. But you can see the original noble intentions.

 

Unfortunately, until the GUI is completely replaced I don't think progress can be made on that (the GUI is apparently a nightmare)

 

On 12/24/2019 at 9:41 AM, Sokol1 said:

Presets don't make much sense, are too much variables, will not fit for all.

 

I agree about joysticks (unless the community wants to submit a bunch of templates - and even then, individual preferences differ). That said - People can always rebind.

 

In any case - having comprehensive keyboard presets is usually a good idea. Having defaults that people can refer to makes it easier to help new players.

 

On 12/23/2019 at 4:57 AM, Buzzsaw said:

We will be reducing the number of options for the players to program in the controls for TF 5.0 so the clutter should be reduced.

 

Obviously there is no need to provide the option to manage 8 engines... yet.  ?

  That is good to hear! Even just ensuring that all of the most important ones have default bindings would do wonders (let alone reducing the clutter or changing the order they appear in).

 

As for 8 engines... perhaps... but I know from my modelling of the Rumpler Transozeanflugzeug from the 1920s in X-plane that it can be frustrating to not have more than 8 props available (and 16 engines) ? Unlikely to be an issue in Cliffs... and I suppose the underlying code will be there... but life is surprising isn't it? You never know!