David Megginson wrote:
 > Julian Foad writes:
 > > However, I think it would be a good idea to change the default to
 > > "false" because this "squared" feature is not "the Right Thing" for
 > > a general input axis.  It is, like a "dead band", an arbitrary
 > > work-around for normally-centred, low-resolution joystick axes,
 > > that some people want and others don't.  It is a useful feature to
 > > have available, but only when the user asks for it.
 >
 > The thing is that the default bindings have to be for something.  If
 > you're rebinding anyway, then changing the 'squared' feature isn't a
 > lot of extra work.  I find that the squared feature makes an enormous
 > difference in usability for regular joysticks on the aileron,
 > elevator, and rudder axes, enough that it justifies violating the rule
 > of least surprise.  What does everyone else

There's no pleasing everyone.  I'm actually of a mind with Julian here
-- the squaring makes sense for auto-centering controls, where it
provides "fine" control in the center of travel while preserving the
full range of control authority.  This is a good fit for ailerons,
rudder, elevator, and nosewheel controls.  But others, like throttle,
mixture, prop advance, or nozzle direction (harrier, heh) really don't
make much sense with this feature.

I think it makes more sense to leave the more intuitive linear mapping
as default and flag the squared axes as "special" than the reverse.

As for the Right Thing analysis, though, we're basically SOL on that
already.  Real controls have forces that depend on things other than
control position, and PC joysticks don't (well, there's force
feedback, but even that is really limited).  For reference, I
introduced the squaring into YASim originally to deal with nosewheel
steering.  Real wheels caster about a point that is not the center of
the wheel.  This causes a centering force that increases the faster
the aircraft is moving, and thus "reduces" the authority of the
steering.  Without the squaring, there would be too much authority in
the center of travel and the aircraft would be very "grabby" at high
speeds.  The only other solution would have been to reduce the range
of travel of the wheel, but that would have reduced turning radius
unacceptably during taxi.

Andy

-- 
Andrew J. Ross                NextBus Information Systems
Senior Software Engineer      Emeryville, CA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]              http://www.nextbus.com
"Men go crazy in conflagrations.  They only get better one by one."
  - Sting (misquoted)


_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Reply via email to