Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2004 21:31:10 +0200, Erik wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
First try searching for an aircraft that has a boost function for it's
engine *and* that has speebrakes.
..AFAIR, this was a kludge to get around a few problems modelling
gear shift controls on g
Innis Cunningham wrote
> Hi Guys
> When I started this topic all I was asking
> was to set aside say ten of the keys that are
> not currently used for A/C specific functions.
> By this I ment functions that are specific to that
> A/C eg a 747 may have a cargo door while a fighter
> may have a t
> Alternatively, you could use a WYSIWYG paradigm and just make
> all the functions
> clickable and make people click over to mode 0 and use the
> mouse cursor. The way
> I see it a real pilot has to let go of something to twiddle a
> dial anyway, we
> shouldn't complain if we have to as we
Hi Guys
When I started this topic all I was asking
was to set aside say ten of the keys that are
not currently used for A/C specific functions.
By this I ment functions that are specific to that
A/C eg a 747 may have a cargo door while a fighter
may have a tail hook in which case each could use the
On Thu, 27 May 2004 21:31:10 +0200, Erik wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> First try searching for an aircraft that has a boost function for it's
> engine *and* that has speebrakes.
..AFAIR, this was a kludge to get around a few problems modelling
gear shift controls on geared super-charg
On Thursday 27 May 2004 21:44, Jim Wilson wrote:
> Josh Babcock said:
>
>
>
> > This leaves several keys totally unused, I would suggest reserving
> > defyuDEFYU and their CTRL modifiers for aircraft and putting a note as
> > such in
>
> keyboard.xml
>
> > so people don't create conflicts in their
One idea is to only bind keys to flight controls and autopilot on/off. All
other stuffs should be done similar to what you do on your desktop. For
example, say you want to toggle a switch and then turn a nob clockwise to
change the settings of a certain system, what you should be required to d
Giles Robertson wrote:
I see it a real pilot has to let go of something to twiddle a dial
anyway, > we shouldn't complain if we have to as well.
A real pilot can keep one hand on the yoke and twiddle a dial with
another. He or she may also have a copilot. I use mouse control as I'm
without a joysti
27 May 2004 21:21
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] keyboard mapping
Lee Elliott wrote:
> On Thursday 27 May 2004 20:18, Andy Ross wrote:
>
>>Josh Babcock wrote:
>>
>>>So maybe airplanes shouldn't be in the interface business. May
On Thursday 27 May 2004 21:51, Jim Wilson wrote:
> Lee Elliott said:
> > 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
> > imp
Lee Elliott said:
> 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 i
On Thursday 27 May 2004 21:21, Josh Babcock wrote:
> Lee Elliott wrote:
> > On Thursday 27 May 2004 20:18, Andy Ross wrote:
> >>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
> >>>
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
> > anyt
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
Lee Elliott wrote:
On Thursday 27 May 2004 20:18, Andy Ross wrote:
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 bindin
Andy Ross wrote:
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 accumu
Andy Ross said:
> 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 sc
Erik Hofman writes:
>
> Yeah, you should be a politician.
> You're trying to change the whole thing by neglecting the historical
> perspective, stating 'we' while you're actually trying to say 'you guys'
> for trying to solve your problems.
ROTFL :-)
Norman
_
Josh Babcock said:
>
> This leaves several keys totally unused, I would suggest reserving defyuDEFYU
> and their CTRL modifiers for aircraft and putting a note as such in
keyboard.xml
> so people don't create conflicts in their local configs and also so that
> airplane builders will know wha
On Thursday 27 May 2004 20:18, Andy Ross wrote:
> 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 binding
Josh Babcock wrote:
Comments?
Yeah, you should be a politician.
You're trying to change the whole thing by neglecting the historical
perspective, stating 'we' while you're actually trying to say 'you guys'
for trying to solve your problems.
First try searching for an aircraft that has a boost fu
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 s
Erik Hofman wrote:
Giles Robertson wrote:
The other advantage of defining specific function is consistency across
aircraft models. As as user, I'd want to know that a certain key drops
the arrestor hook, and that that same key drops the hook in all aircraft
that have one. If we just make aircraft m
ginal Message-
From: Josh Babcock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 27 May 2004 19:46
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] keyboard mapping
Lee Elliott wrote:
> On Thursday 27 May 2004 09:07, Erik Hofman wrote:
>
>>Giles Robertson wrote:
>>
&g
Lee Elliott wrote:
On Thursday 27 May 2004 09:07, Erik Hofman wrote:
Giles Robertson wrote:
The other advantage of defining specific function is consistency across
aircraft models. As as user, I'd want to know that a certain key drops
the arrestor hook, and that that same key drops the hook in all
On Thursday 27 May 2004 09:07, Erik Hofman wrote:
> Giles Robertson wrote:
> > The other advantage of defining specific function is consistency across
> > aircraft models. As as user, I'd want to know that a certain key drops
> > the arrestor hook, and that that same key drops the hook in all aircr
Giles Robertson wrote:
The other advantage of defining specific function is consistency across
aircraft models. As as user, I'd want to know that a certain key drops
the arrestor hook, and that that same key drops the hook in all aircraft
that have one. If we just make aircraft modellers use a cert
keys, inconsistencies should spring up.
Giles Robertson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Innis Cunningham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 27 May 2004 02:38
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] keyboard mapping
Hi Josh
Josh Babcock writes
Hi Josh
Josh Babcock writes
I think that there is already stuff out there that does not conform to
this, but if enough people here agree, I would be happy to chase down all
those potential conflicts and mitigate them.
I think that would be a good idea there seems to be enough room
on the keybo
Innis Cunningham wrote:
Hi Guys
The other day I stumbled on the keyboard map for
FG, can't find it at present,and I noticed quite a few
keys that have not been alocated yet.
I was wondering if a block of say ten keys could be
put aside and labeled aircraft specific for things like
tail hooks, A/C d
Hi Guys
The other day I stumbled on the keyboard map for
FG, can't find it at present,and I noticed quite a few
keys that have not been alocated yet.
I was wondering if a block of say ten keys could be
put aside and labeled aircraft specific for things like
tail hooks, A/C doors, refueling booms an
At 6/9/03, you wrote:
There a question raised about Michael's choice of keys for mapping the
spoilers. For the most part the controls/commands mapped to letters are
lowercase for one direction (e.g. increase) and upper case for the other (e.g.
decrease).
So I looked to see if there was a non-alpha
There a question raised about Michael's choice of keys for mapping the
spoilers. For the most part the controls/commands mapped to letters are
lowercase for one direction (e.g. increase) and upper case for the other (e.g.
decrease).
So I looked to see if there was a non-alpha alternative. It look
33 matches
Mail list logo
