Controller setup GUI

[dburne]

Please consider if you can modeling  your controller setup GUI similar to how DCS does it rather than how IL-2 GB does it.

IMHO out of the flight sims I have DCS does this best. 

[Skelthos]

I second this, per plane with a curated list that only shows the controls available for that specific plane. 

[Hetstaine]

Thirded.

[javelina]

would agree as well

[ZachariasX]

Agree!

[GPatricks]

Yes!

[Hoss]

Complete 128DX Capable GUI. PLEASE.....

[Art-J]

Whatever path the devs will choose about cockpit clickability or lack thereof, at least having the option for separate mappings for individual planes is a must in my book. It was the biggest imrovement GB series introduced last year.

In DCS I tend to assign buttons and switches in a similar way as they are on the real plane and I'd love to be able to do the same in CP. The famous cannons trigger on the throttle lever of the Zero is a primary example. I hope I'll be able to map it to my Warthog throttle as well, with MGs operated by joystick.

[JG1_Vonrd]

Agree with all above. Also, allow more peripherals and more buttons. And better implementation of virtual axis (use of encoders like on Virpil products).

[Baldrick]

For DCS I use a third party utility Joypro. I have a lot of aircraft and I often redesign my button box locations, so this works well as I can map a control once in Joypro and it applies across all aircraft or just some as I wish.

Whilst it is brilliant I think it is a little daunting so I wouldn't suggest it as a standard method for all.

I am not sure how different the controls are likely to be for the aircraft here and we shouldn't have the complexity of modern jets. What might be worthwhile is a generic controls mapping option which then is the default for all aircraft which can be overridden individually.

At the very least we need to be able to map multiple buttons etc. to a control.

[Pabsty]

I like the feature in DCS when you push the joystick button, it hops to the keybind in the menu. That way you can quickly check your keybinds if it's been a while or you've been playing some other sims.

[dburne]

10 hours ago, Pabsty said:

I like the feature in DCS when you push the joystick button, it hops to the keybind in the menu. That way you can quickly check your keybinds if it's been a while or you've been playing some other sims.

 

Yes that is awesome - I use it quite often, many times before a flight just to re-familiarize myself on my button assignments if I have not flown that aircraft in a while.

[GPatricks]

42 minutes ago, dburne said:

 

Yes that is awesome - I use it quite often, many times before a flight just to re-familiarize myself on my button assignments if I have not flown that aircraft in a while.

Yes, BMS's Alternative launcher behaves the same way...

[LuftManu]

Yes! I would love to have both a listed system, for each aircraft separate.

Also, icing on the cake would be external launcher.

[kissTheSky]

As many others voiced, a global controls setup would be very limiting. I don’t have DCS, so I don’t know its system, but I like how iRacing does it. 
The first time you assign controllers, it becomes the “global base” for every other assignment afterwards, during which you click a checkbox that says “use custom controls for this car”. That way, you wouldn’t  have to assign axes that would be the same for all aircraft (pitch, roll, yaw, etc.) every time you’re setting up for a new aircraft.

Edited May 29, 2023 by kissTheSky

[Vulture]

Strongly agree to use the DCS model for control setups - to include modifiers if possible. IL-2 GB method of grouping controls is also useful. WW2 aircraft are not going to be as complicated as later jets, but engine controls are usually more complicated and need more axes (P-38 for example, 2 x throttle, 2 x props, 2 x mixtures, plus any radiator controls, or even turbo).

Good support for encoders (Virpil, etc). Also different types of toggle switches, as most in aircraft are not momentary, but most on controllers are.

No (or high) limit on number of peripherals - a high end rig will have a lot (I have 2 sticks, two throttles, a collective, and two panels/button boxes all hooked up at all times, but have to disconnect the collective for IL-2. Irritating.

Strong support for VR. Ideally something like MSFS, where you can jump in and out of VR mid game with a keystroke. 

[javelina]

2 hours ago, Vulture said:

Strongly agree to use the DCS model for control setups - to include modifiers if possible. IL-2 GB method of grouping controls is also useful. WW2 aircraft are not going to be as complicated as later jets, but engine controls are usually more complicated and need more axes (P-38 for example, 2 x throttle, 2 x props, 2 x mixtures, plus any radiator controls, or even turbo).

Good support for encoders (Virpil, etc). Also different types of toggle switches, as most in aircraft are not momentary, but most on controllers are.

No (or high) limit on number of peripherals - a high end rig will have a lot (I have 2 sticks, two throttles, a collective, and two panels/button boxes all hooked up at all times, but have to disconnect the collective for IL-2. Irritating.

Strong support for VR. Ideally something like MSFS, where you can jump in and out of VR mid game with a keystroke. 

^^^THIS!

[Ghostrider9667]

How about SPAD.NEXT support?

[PrawdaeH]

This one is pretty important to me.  It's not that I need full fidelity click pits with every switch something I can bind.  IL-2's modeling was good enough for me for WW2 era, but I don't like the one size fits all control scheme at all.  Profile switching offered an improvement but it puts the onus on me to understand what bindings work with what planes.

  DCS is not the only example.  Falcon BMS, while limited in plane selection, has separate pages for binding axis and buttons.  The axis page ignores button inputs.  The button page ignores axis inputs.

What puts DCS ahead in the control department, while having many more buttons available to assign for most of it's aircraft.,  only controls that are available to the aircraft I'm flying are listed.  I don't have to figure out which controls apply to an F-16C or which controls apply to an F/A-18 Hornet.    If we're talking IL-2 style controls, this equates to smaller lists of controls per airframe as well as eliminating the need to think about double bound controls for those of us with lots of buttons, axes and switches. 

I think for a WW2 sim like we've been used to since 2014, having a drop down menu that instead of individual planes included all variants would be a huge step up.  Like if IL-2 had a dropdown menu for "BF-109s" that only included controls that apply to BF-109 variants, a page for assigning only button inputs that ignores any axis inputs, and a page for assigning axis inputs, that ignores button input.. that would make for a less tedious, and even a more newcomer friendly experience, especially as more aircraft get added to the arsenal.   P-51 dropdown includes only controls for all P-51 variants, La-5 for all La-5 variants, etc.  

 

[wheelsup_cavu]

Hello and welcome to the forums @PrawdaeH.

 

Wheels

[Vulture]

It would be really nice if one could bind controls FROM IN THE COCKPIT. In other words, you jump in a plane, select "Bind Controls", then while in the cockpit touch a control with your mouse (or hands in VR, whatever), and select "bind control". You then manipulate the physical control on your HOTAS or panel that you want bound to the virtual control in the cockpit, accept it, and try it out - still in the cockpit where you can see if your actual control is bound correctly to the virtual control. Once done, exit "Bind Controls" and off you go. Be able to do this at anytime, on ground or in flight (game goes to active pause) so you can see the effect of your binding in real time.

Also have the option to bind controls as a "Global" setting for things that apply to all airplanes: basic flight controls, trim, flaps, gear, throttle, prop, mixture, canopy, trigger, etc. Obviously some planes will have exceptions (a floatplane will not have a gear control, for example) but the UI should be smart enough to handle exceptions. Possibly make it an option when you first bind a control ("make global"). Then when a new plane is added, most of the work will be done, and any changes you want due to some unique control setup for a particular plane (thing hand crank for gear in F4F vs up/down gear handle in A6M) can be done plane by plane.

Finally, have some way to present a Control binding diagram in the cockpit as a pop-up kneeboard page so a pilot can refresh his memory in game - especially crucial in VR where it's impractical to refer to a HOTAS diagram. In DCS it's easy (if a bit time consuming) to add kneeboard pages with self-made HOTAS charts; which are indispensable if you fly more than one kind of aircraft. Having a way to automate that process would be wonderful. Should be easy enough for the more common controller setups, where it could require some imagination would be in handling less common or home made controllers. Perhaps a simple "build a controller diagram" app would work.

Along the same line and a bit off topic, in-cockpit access to documentation and provisions for user and mission generated kneeboards and checklists is essential, again especially in VR.

Attached some examples of HOTAS kneeboards that I use in cockpit for a P-51, which is broadly similar to the type of planes that CP will be developing.

Cheers!