Separate TC and AIRCRAFT controls

[Zinovy_Kolobanov]

Suggestion:
Make Tank Crew controls completely independent from Aircraft controls.

 

Problems:
I am using my HOTAS to control the tank, but suddenly I want to make an exit with the plane, many of these controls overlap, and it is really uncomfortable.

 

Profits:
Having controls, that do not affect and that are independent, if we fly or drive a vehicle, would help to have everything well organized, and to be able to change platforms more easily, and without frustration.

[[DBS]Browning]

I suspect that this would be time-consuming to implement, but I think it's needed.

Should have been done from the start.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

Separate gas pedal, brakes and gear for starters.

[PatrickAWlson]

This is a subset of  a long standing request: allow us to have a mapping for each plane.  It extends it to allow us to have a mapping for each vehicle.  The base stays as is, the UI stays as is except you can select a specific vehicle or edit the defaults.  It then becomes a three part overlay:

1. Company defined default

2. User defined default overwrites company defined default. (this is what we have today)

3. Vehicle specific further overwrites.

 

User changes are stored in terms of deltas and not the whole config set.  This allows changes to the company baseline to show through provided the control has not already been overridden by the user.  If it has been overridden by the user then the user setting takes precedent.

 

The files themselves would be relatively tiny text files.  The user defined override is what we have today - it is exactly the contents of the input directory.  The vehicle specific overrides would be new.  

 

Intuitively this should not be all that hard to code.  I have used this mechanism in PWCG and in my professional life more than once.  Still, small team, lots in progress, etc.  and it is work.  Hoping for this some day.

[Thad]

58 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

This is a subset of  a long standing request: allow us to have a mapping for each plane.  It extends it to allow us to have a mapping for each vehicle.  The base stays as is, the UI stays as is except you can select a specific vehicle or edit the defaults.  It then becomes a three part overlay:

1. Company defined default

2. User defined default overwrites company defined default. (this is what we have today)

3. Vehicle specific further overwrites.

 

User changes are stored in terms of deltas and not the whole config set.  This allows changes to the company baseline to show through provided the control has not already been overridden by the user.  If it has been overridden by the user then the user setting takes precedent.

 

The files themselves would be relatively tiny text files.  The user defined override is what we have today - it is exactly the contents of the input directory.  The vehicle specific overrides would be new.  

 

Intuitively this should not be all that hard to code.  I have used this mechanism in PWCG and in my professional life more than once.  Still, small team, lots in progress, etc.  and it is work.  Hoping for this some day.

 

Yes! Pat from your lips to the developer gods ears. Amen!

[AEthelraedUnraed]

1 hour ago, PatrickAWlson said:

This is a subset of  a long standing request: allow us to have a mapping for each plane.  It extends it to allow us to have a mapping for each vehicle.

I don't think it is. I think the problem is that the tank controls are fit to the existing mappings of aircraft controls, which sometimes makes sense (fire button) and sometimes not (throttle).

 

So it doesn't necessarily need separate mappings for each plane, but rather additional controls that are specifically tuned to the tank requirements.

Edited October 6, 2021 by AEthelraedUnraed

[PatrickAWlson]

19 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

I don't think it is. I think the problem is that the tank controls are fit to the existing mappings of aircraft controls, which sometimes makes sense (fire button) and sometimes not (throttle).

 

So it doesn't necessarily need separate mappings for each plane, but rather additional controls that are specifically tuned to the tank requirements.

 

Doesn't the user have the ability to change the tank controls independently of aircraft controls?  If that's all it is then it's a one time remapping and done.  Or am I missing something?

[Thad]

1 minute ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Doesn't the user have the ability to change the tank controls independently of aircraft controls?  If that's all it is then it's a one time remapping and done.  Or am I missing something?

 

You are missing nothing.

 

The question I have is what does it matter when considering going from ground vehicles to planes? If there are mutual controls or buttons involved, they will only be working for the tanks etc. when using them. We can't be in both at the same time.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

5 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Doesn't the user have the ability to change the tank controls independently of aircraft controls? 

Not all of them, no, and the ones that are separate often function similarly to the aircraft controls, even when inappropriate.

 

My biggest problem is the drivetrain. It's basically the same as the aircraft throttle, only that the 0-100% power range is remapped to a -50-100% range to make moving backwards possible, with idle near-but-not-quite-in the middle which will also trigger the brakes. There's also some gear limiter function that's next to useless.

 

I'd rather have a separate gas pedal, brakes and gear, as would make sense. IMO this would make driving a lot more immersive.