Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, 12Alfa said:

It is YOUR position that this is a "bad system", you view only, and after the reason why we have such from ESim.

 

image.thumb.png.033f6e9e30a41c0954a3ddc55978bc31.png

 

It also appears to be the position of 70.97% of the people who have voted in this poll. This is from a response from 31 members, with 22 of them stating that they would like to see the current system change. That is why I made it, to give actual quantifiable data regarding the hobbyist community's opinion on the subject. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

50 minutes ago, 12Alfa said:

 

 

 

I suspect that this issue (and I may be incorrect here) that it's more about "hit score" that traverse speed on a known fire control system, with limited traverse speed.

 

My 2cents has been spent, feel free to carry on.....:)

Why i never ever count my score and where i play there are almost never a win or lose statement setup we know if we won or not so that statement is just plain sad and below the belt and very very disrespectful.
But what should be the case here is that 2/3 of those voted feel that it is bugged and stuff that's there and isn't being used then it is bugged cause it sure as hell aint because we don't want to use it.
  

4 hours ago, ben said:

My idea is to add mouse control.. and keep the arrow key control working as it does for those users who prefer it, what do you think?


This is respect of others oppion in fact i really like it 👍

and it solves the issue by letting the people who play the game and Make the scenarios themselves decide
MD

Link to post
Share on other sites

How about using the Scroll wheel?

If you think about it it's a really small hand wheel.

 

Wheel = Elevation

Crtl + Wheel = Traverse

Shift + Wheel = Range adjustment (as it currently is)

 

OK you'll never be able to control 2 axis at once, unless you start doing some wizardry with 2 pointing devices at the same time. (at which point you may as well go with control handles,with the amount of faff involved)

 

Or maybe with:

Up/Down Arrow + Wheel = Elevation

Left/Right Arrow + Wheel = Traverse

 

you could hold down which button(s) you want the turret to go in and spin away

 

 

 

Edited by Hedgehog
had a idea
Link to post
Share on other sites

One other factor to consider is that not all keyboards are created equal, as far as simultaneous key presses are concerned (and with a polling frequency of 20Hz two near-simultaneous presses of up and left arrow may actually register as pressing both at the same time for the keyboard controller). Just saying, keyboard isn't keyboard and what may work with one model may not work with another, a factor few may even be aware of since we tend to take the keyboard for granted.

 

This could be an argument against rapid keyboard smashing as it may not even work reliably for everybody. Just so you don't say I'm not even considering counterarguments to the solution I gave preference some 25 years ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hedgehog said:

How about using the Scroll wheel?

By and large, the same arguments for/against hand crank replicas apply (even if they are smaller and cheaper). I don't see many people buying these. That's no reason not to support these gadgets, but it's irrelevant in a discussion about what the base solution for people with (just) keyboard and mouse should be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Splash said:

I think Hedgehog meant the scroll wheel on the mouse.

Personally, I think that'd be a terrible and RSI-inducing-pain type of an idea that doesn't solve horizontal traverse (well, OK, my mouse has an extra fin on top that I could use for this, but not everybody has a programmable 12 button mouse). I'm not against allowing such input devices; if you have a powerful gaming mouse and know how to use it, more power to you. But this discussion is about finding a viable solution for minimally complex hardware (standard keyboard and three-button mouse with scroll wheel).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

Personally, I think that'd be a terrible and RSI-inducing-pain type of an idea that doesn't solve horizontal traverse

 

Well, his idea did solve it for traverse ... with two suggestions.

 

Whether using the mouse wheel induces RSI, I suppose that would depend on the movement ratio. IMO, turning the mouse wheel would be an improvement over stabbing arrow keys. But, it's all about opinions here.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Full disclosure I used to use this:

 

71fY4w2rMRL._AC_SL1500_.jpg

Then I got fed up with no middle mouse button, so I got this:

81KjOGI08jL._AC_SL1500_.jpg

 

The ring around the trackball is the scroll wheel.

 

I think the idea of the arrow keys + scroll wheel is the better one if it could be made to work.

E.G. Down + Left + CW/Down = Diagonal Left movement.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we should consider how other games handle this? Summer Games on the C64 is a perfect example, its controls for running would translate perfectly to Steel Beasts! Another example might be QWOP if you're looking for more precise controls.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Lumituisku said:

why not to have a kind flat base where rotary encoders are hidden into, and connected to finger wheels,   small wheels that can be rotated with tone finger with ease

Has anyone thought of the humble trackball?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2021/1/24 at AM9点20分, Ssnake said:

尽管我喜欢旋转编码器和手动曲柄副本的事实,但我绝不会做出将这些当作给定条件的用户界面设计决策。无论我们做什么,没有它们,一切都必须运转良好。它们是特殊物品,占用大量的办公桌空间(甚至“低于办公桌的体积”),因此,即使它们处于消费者价格范围内,我认为只有极少数的人会把它们用于娱乐目的。

 

 

UI设计约束是

1)我们键盘上只有这么多按钮。尽管我们可以根据上下文将多个命令分配给按键,但是您仍然希望通过将相似的功能放置在相同的按键上,并将相关按键分组到键盘上的相似位置,来“记住”所有内容。这真的不是要谈判的。

2)虽然推荐使用游戏杆(或控制手柄复制品),但不能认为每个人都可以使用。因此,另一个输入设备(键盘的补充)是鼠标。鼠标必须至少在《钢兽》中用作游戏应用程序元素的模拟指向和控制设备,以及摄像机/视点控件以及与虚拟环境和/或射击控制系统的交互,具体取决于用户输入的上下文。因此,我们通过单击鼠标左键在这些模式之间切换。这也意味着左键单击不能用于其他用途。

3)如果我们使用鼠标进行炮塔/瞄准镜控制,那么剩下的就是来自键盘命令的数字输入;自然地,数字输入只能在一定程度上近似模拟运动,例如平均/使用抽头速率平滑。这是我们目前正在做的。当然,有可能重新考虑平滑功能,以查看是否可以进行一些改进。或者,如建议的那样,取消键盘输入并切换到鼠标。

4)尽可能与车辆的功能和UI概念保持一致。

5)偏重于现实性和多样性而不是便利性。

 

我对ATM感到非常疲倦,因此我不确定是否错过了重要的约束条件,但是前四个至少是20年前主导我们设计决策的主要约束条件。第五个不是约束,而是决定主导设计原则的地方,我们实际上可以在至少两个选择中进行选择。我准备承认,我们所模拟的系统越多,在追求难以捉摸的“现实主义”时,更多的平衡可能会转向支持统一解决方案而不是丰富多彩的个性。因此,也许我们现在正处于转折点,需要重新考虑第五个要素。

 

 

然而,一小部分用户加强游说将不如该委员会许多用户的广泛支持令人信服。

Reality is very important to the game

 

But the manual turret can add the function of switching different operations (mouse / keyboard)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2021 at 12:14 PM, Mirzayev said:

 

image.thumb.png.033f6e9e30a41c0954a3ddc55978bc31.png

 

It also appears to be the position of 70.97% of the people who have voted in this poll. This is from a response from 31 members, with 22 of them stating that they would like to see the current system change. That is why I made it, to give actual quantifiable data regarding the hobbyist community's opinion on the subject. 

 

Not everyone voted - either because they were too busy, or don't care.   ;)

 

Besides, we are talking about the latest rage-of-the-update/week here, for something that has been the way it is for 21 years now. 

 

There are benefits for having it as key presses, because its the only way you can map it to traverse wheels. A traverse wheel is a device that rotates, and as it makes a revolution (or part of a revolution) it presses a key. If its not mapped to a key press, then you can't use a traverse wheel.

 

The issue with the BTR/BRDM and RCL has to do with the fact that on the real life vehicle/weapon, it is effortless to traverse the small turret around freely, and is why the same behavior exists on all missile launchers (except the BMP-2s, which want to actually allow the option to use the mouse - this is known).

 

On AFVs, its not effortless to traverse with manual traverse, and actually, anyone who has traversed an M1 tank turret just 1/4 to 1/2 of the way around in real life knows this, and usually the gunner will either slow down, or have to stop and rest.

 

That said, could there be an option to allow for mouse traverse for all manual traversing turrets one day, possibly, who knows. I am simply explaining the original rationale here -- both from the intentional standpoint that its unrealistic to allow a vehicle turret to manually traverse around with easy, and the ability to map it to control wheels. 

 

The attempt to strong arm some kind of change through a poll (as is common on game forums these days) is rather pointless. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Volcano said:

Not everyone voted

I don't really have a horse in this race, but this attitude doesn't make sense.  This is just plain poor marketing in every sense of the word.

 

Its basically saying anything customers say mean nothing, so I'll just do what I want.  And this why programmers should be barred from talking to customers.

 

So enlighten me on how you gather intelligence on your customer's wishes?  Is it from all the giggling chats on the MP sessions.  Or do actually go out and talk to every customer?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@thewood Well said.

 

I will simply conclude my involvement by saying that I created said poll to give quantifiable data on the percentage of the hobbyist community who voted that would like to see a change to the way manual traverse is handled. I did this based on the following statement: 

 

On 1/23/2021 at 5:20 PM, Ssnake said:

Nevertheless, intensified lobbying by a small group of users will be less convincing than a broad support by many users of this board.

 

The purpose was to give actual usable data to help make an informed decision. I think this poll shows that of those 38 members who voted, 71% favor a change to the status quo. It doesn't reflect those who didn't vote, nor can it. If people wish to boycott something, or don't want to take five seconds to click "Yes" or "No," then I can't control that. 

 

image.thumb.png.194739585ca79ec5f1e351186e28a0de.png

 

The simple fact is that you now have data from the hobbyist community. You may do with that what you wish. 

 

On a personal note, I did vote "Yes," and I would like to see a change to the manual traverse. However, I am not emotionally invested in seeing it implemented, nor do I have a financial stake in eSim, nor do I know the specific inner workings or priorities. I have no problem with being told "no." In fact, my assumption was that the official response would be "no." I understand. Leaders have to make tough decisions. Many of these decisions are not popular. I've had to make plenty in my time, and I don't see that ending anytime soon.

 

Regardless, when someone gives me a smart alec response, I'm not going to listen to anything else that they say on the subject. I assume that this forum accepts having disagreements like mature adults. I'm sorry to see that certain staff members don't realize this. 

 

@Ssnake, you have the data. Do with it what you will. 

 

No response to this post is necessary. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Mirzayev said:

The purpose was to give actual usable data to help make an informed decision.

Yes, that's how I took it, and I think it's a useful contribition to that end. Also, Volcano has his nickname for a reason. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mirzayev said:

@VolcanoSorry, I didn't read your message. I know you quoted me, but I'm too busy and I don't care. 😉

 

Wow, OK, I guess that pretty much sums everything up then.

 

My point about the poll was that not everyone voted in it, nor knew about it, no need to get your feelings hurt. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thewood said:

I don't really have a horse in this race, but this attitude doesn't make sense.  This is just plain poor marketing in every sense of the word.

 

Its basically saying anything customers say mean nothing, so I'll just do what I want.  And this why programmers should be barred from talking to customers.

 

So enlighten me on how you gather intelligence on your customer's wishes?  Is it from all the giggling chats on the MP sessions.  Or do actually go out and talk to every customer?

 

So then I will explain it another way.

 

When not everyone in the active community knows about a poll, nor when there isn't a lot of votes in it (for whatever reason), and the poll has about 40 votes at the time it is shared in a post, then it can't be waved around as some kind of concrete datapoint. If the poll had about 100 votes, and most of the people in the community voted on it, then that would be much more helpful.

 

What follows was an explanation about why the differences exist in the arrow key traversing, mouse traverse, and the rationale behind it.

 

Pretty straight forward I thought.

 

But you can take it as a 'plain poor marketing in every sense of the word' if you like, and continue to be confrontational. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Volcano said:

 

Wow, OK, I guess that pretty much sums everything up then.

 

My point about the poll was that not everyone voted in it, nor knew about it, no need to get your feelings hurt. 

 

There are more tactful ways to go about it. Now, can we agree to put differences behind us and have some modicum of mutual respect? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mirzayev said:

 

There are more tactful ways to go about it. Now, can we agree to put differences behind us and have some modicum of mutual respect? 

 

You tell me, because there was no amount of disrespect intended in my initial reply, but when people are looking for it, they will find it, even if it wasn't there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Volcano said:

 

You tell me, because there was no amount of disrespect intended in my initial reply, but when people are looking for it, they will find it, even if it wasn't there.

My apologies if I interpreted your meaning wrongly. I'm human, and I can admit to not being faultless. 

 

Regardless, it is present, and people know about it. They are free to vote on it if they want. I know it likely won't change anything. Just trying to give a method for the community to give input that gives quantifiable data. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's just say, this was probably the most exhausting beta test ever, with Covid for everybody (and some in the team in particular) which hasn't exactly helped anyone to relax, an unhealthy and politicised atmosphere during the presidential elections, ... and while it's understandable that the deficits of a new version are immediately reported, well, a few kind words now and then would help everybody to stay calm and composed. Which, of course, cuts both ways - but from the team's perspective we just stumbled across the finishing line with our last breath.

 

Anyway, I'll observe the poll for a bit longer to see if it accumulates more votes, then we'll draw our conclusions from it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Volcano said:

You tell me, because there was no amount of disrespect intended in my initial reply, but when people are looking for it, they will find it, even if it wasn't there

People who say they meant no disrespect usually did and knew it when they said it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...