David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
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
Jim Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
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
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
Andy Ross writes:
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,
Andy Ross writes:
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,
On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 12:01:01 -0800,
Andy Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
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,
The joystick axis squared mode seems to default to on, and is applied at the centre
of the axis, not the zero-point of the output value. In the default joysticks.xml,
the throttle bindings do not explicitly set it false, so the throttle movement is very
odd, so I edited my joysticks.xml.
