Josh Babcock wrote:
> So maybe airplanes shouldn't be in the interface business. Maybe we
> should spend our energy agreeing on property conventions and Nasal
> scripts.
Even better would be to take a big audit of all the existing bindings
and re-assign them from scratch. We've accumulated all sorts of
inconsistencies and usability glitches over the years. Here's one
right here:
> a Tailhook down
> A Tailhook up
> L Toggle slats
IMHO, we want to adhere to *either* the traditional toggle convention
*or* the no-shift-means-down/shift-means-up idea. Using a combination
in the default mappings is confusing. Likewise, we have other
bindings (magnetos, flaps) that use yet another convention ("key
pair") to indicate increase/decrease.
I'm sure this will generate a good viscious flame war, but IMHO it
ought to be done sooner rather than later. We're starting to attract
real newbies, and they are already having a hard time with our default
interface.
And while we're at it, we need to do the same thing for the joystick
bindings. I bought a new stick recently to replace my X45 (a Logitech
Extreme Digital 3D) and discovered that our default bindings for it
are absolutely nothing like the ones for the X45. It does "snap view"
with the hat instead of panning, for instance.
> Lastly, while we're at it, get rid of any key bindings define in the
> code and put the mappings in keyboard.xml.
This is done already. There are no more hard-coded key bindings in
the C++ code. Outside of bindings done for aircraft, everything is
in keyboard.xml.
Andy
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
