On Thursday 27 May 2004 21:17, Jim Wilson wrote: > Lee Elliott said: > > I hope there's no flame war over this - it's too important. > > > > Part of the problem with coming up with a good keyboard mapping scheme is > > that a comprehensive survey of the requirements needs to be done before > > anything can be planned e.g. are slats simply toggleable (erk!) or do > > they need to be stepped up/down? (I guess this particular example could > > be accommodated via Nasal, as used for the flap indents - I've already > > done this for the B-52F, which only has two flap positions, so > > essentially they're being toggled) > > > > Perhaps a wiki could help to gather the information, then many people > > could enter the requirements they know about and it would avoid having to > > make a single person responsible for finding everything out and possibly > > missing something, which would lead to a flawed solution. > > > > Then there could also be an issue with some keyboard combinations being > > difficult to use when the context is taken into consideration, i.e. is > > having to use Shift/Control combos to control things a good idea at > > critical points in the flight, such as take-offs and landings? > > Would a survey would help that much? There's always something new on the > horizon anyway isn't there? We're already seeing some good input. After > some discussion here, if someone just took on the job and made the changes > it could be presented for further discussion and modification. > > Just to check... we aren't talking about a complete remapping are we? The > problems mentioned so far seemed solvable without going that far. > > Best, > > Jim
I think a survey would be a good idea, for the same reason I suggested something like a wiki for doing it - without making sure that every possibility is in some way catered for some things could be excluded or impossible. I don't hold any strong opinions about it really - just things that have occurred to me while developing & testing FG a/c, but a complete re-mapping might, or might not be a good idea - I just don't think that all the requirements have been identified yet and until then any progress or decisions are likely to miss something. LeeE _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
