Commonality Approach to Sim Controls

Emphasizes logical grouping of types of commands, with plenty of carefully reserved space to integrate future functions. As an example, every targeting, caging, or sensors function, is always bound to the same throttle hat, on various layers.

Goal is to maximize HOTAS use, while minimizing muscle memory retraining between diverse vehicles.

Currently DCS F-5E is supported. Working on the FA-18 next.

Elite Dangerous, Descent Freespace, Eve Valkyrie, and others are also supported. While these are obviously not true flight sim applications, the first principle requirements addressed by their user interfaces can be a model for future design. For Elite Dangerous in particular, every control binding has been comfortably mapped, meaning typing system names, CMDR names, and text chat, are the only reasons to take hands off the HOTAS.

Profiles are given for a T16000M HOTAS, however, the concept should extend well to other controls. Logical grouping does result in more comfortable operation with controls that differ significantly from the original vehicle. Particularly, this principle is demonstrated for the T16000M stick itself, lacking in hat switches.

https://github.com/mirage335/t16fcs/blob/master/_ref/convention.pdf

https://github.com/mirage335/t16fcs/blob/master/Profiles/DCS_F5E.pdf

https://github.com/mirage335/t16fcs/tree/master/Profiles

Still under heavy development.

Yeah that would be nice. I tried to follow my F-16 mapping for the F-18 on my TFlightHotasX but couldn’t quite do it because both planes use a different control logic esp with Sensor Control (F-18) vs TMS/DMS (F-16).

Sims like Elite Dangerous, Descent Freespace, Eve Valkyrie, and others have no real life counterpart so it doesn't matter where you put what on the HOTAS.

There are basically 2 options when it comes down to sims who are based on real life counterparts:

- You (try) to map them the same, or as close as possible, as in real life, meaning every airplane is different.

- You try to map every airplane +/- in the same way. If switching between flying various airplanes this makes things a lot easier to remember and operate.

Personally i go for the second option.

There are basically 2 options when it comes down to sims who are based on real life counterparts:

- You (try) to map them the same, or as close as possible, as in real life, meaning every airplane is different.

- You try to map every airplane +/- in the same way. If switching between flying various airplanes this makes things a lot easier to remember and operate.

Personally i go for the second option.

Correct, but real life aircraft do seem to follow similar conventions, improving over time. A recent aircraft, like the F-35, has a very clean cockpit with lots of HOTAS buttons. Yet, the button placement, and presumably functionality, is vaguely similar to the controls of the much, much older F-5, which itself has similar improvements and vague similarities with even older WWII aircraft, like the P-51 Mustang... and so forth.

This evolution of vehicle and tool controls is due to three things.

* All tools, vehicles, weapons, etc, basically need to be moved some place, then made to do something, then to repeat.

* Some tools, vehicles, weapons, etc, move one tool, then move another tool with greater precision.

* Design techniques, ergonomics, CAD software, and the like, have been steadily improving for decades.

What I am trying to do here is carefully plan out a system which can consistently work the same way, yet support as many features as possible.