Normalization of labels for same type of controls across different aircraft!

For example with US aicraft that share some of the common tech like HOTAS, there should be a normalization in the control names/labels we see in the DCS Control Options across the airplanes that share that tech or similar functionality.

I think the Control Options should be renamed to Control Settings, the term options in my ( non-english) ear sounds more like something that you choose that is a ON/OFF switch like the Graphics Options (but it's called just "Options > System" in DCS)

On the ESCAPE menu we got used to "Adjust Controls" but I kinda miss it sometimes even to this day when I'm in a hurry, I always misclick to "Options", so I think the label there could be "Control Settings" as well as on it's page. But I need english-ear people to give me their opinion if this makes sense.

-------------

-------------

Okay back to the point.

Now I'm not sure what's the right term for this, it's not about changing the actual term away from what the manufacturers used but in terms of label feeling consistency, labeling format, naming style, abbreviation/prefix/dash rules, but for example:

• Fuel Dump
  
• Dump Fuel
  
• Fuel offload
  
• Offload Fuel
  
• Drop Fuel
  
• Fuel Drop
  
• Empty The Tanks
  
• Tank Emptying System
  
• Purge Fuel Tanks
  
• Fuel Emptying Pump
  

You get the point, let's pick the best format/style and stick with it unless there's a valid difference in the function/feature behind it.

The other thing is simply abbreviation and word ordering, so all of these rules would combine and make something that makes sense for DCS because we use multiple planes unlike the pilots which train for only like 1 or maybe two military planes in their career as far as I know, they don't have that problem.

There's also this with the unit selector inconsistency.

• A-10C Game
  
• A-10C Real
  
• F/A-18C Game
  
• F/A-18C Sim
  

For example in A-10C you have "HOTAS TMS Aft", but on F-18C there's no "HOTAS TDC - Up" because it uses no HOTAS prefix and it uses the long name "Throttle Designator Controller - Up", and on the A-10C there is no hypen/dash/minus between "TMS/DMS/CMS" and "Aft".

The question is how much this has to be by the book of the official aircraft manual, or how much can we standardize it for DCS, I think it shouldn't poke on the reality aspect that much when it comes to HOTAS and other quite standardized systems like that where that same system should have similar or same labels even if on another aircraft, IMO. Ofcourse where applicable and where the functions are similar enough.

And it doesn't have to all be like A-10C is now, pros and cons could be analyzed and the best of both worlds used, and other aircraft too, the dashes between "Throttle Designator Controller" and "Down" make sense and should be incorporated in "HOTAS TMS Aft" as well and the rest of the airplanes.

And I do know TDC isn't equivalent to TMS, but rather to the A-10C Slew and many A-10C switches aren't abbreviated too, they would make sense if they were, or in other words, more complicated and harder to remember.

The A-10C company just didn't have any special for what F/A-18C calls the TDC and just called it plainly "Slew", if that label is by-the-book, but isn't it really doing same or very similar kind of HOTAS style function. That's to be debated but I hope we get some favorable results, if possible by the manual/accuracy rules.

A side note is the SOI, Sensor Of Interest, the equivalent in F-18C is "TDC assigned to the ? Sensor", kinda the other way around, if the E-A manual is correct about all this, in the end it's just different ways of doing the same thing IMO controlling the selected/assigned/interested sensor.

------------------

Then there's the "Sensor Control Switch" - and it happens to never be abbreviated to "SCS" in the F/A-18C Early Access manual, unfortunately, hopefully it is by the manufacturer somewhere and it'll make it in the final manual, otherwise it puts ED into dilemma whether to stick strictly by-the-book or not.

Even tho the "Sensor Control Switch" is an equivalent HOTAS thing to the TDC and is also capitalized, and there's instances where it's uncapitalized but I think that is most definitely an E-A thing, in the A-10C manual as a comparison of a full module, SOI is never uncapitalized, you will never see "sensor of interest" but rather "Sensor Of Interest (SOI)"

Perhaps such things were there are dillemas sorrounding sim reality accuracy and what makes sense in DCS and for an digital version may actual aviation field, or even ex-employees, to kinda add some credibility of sense to the mix, but this would be pretty funny to ask them about a label, but still, it's simming about getting the details right. So if we would get for example an ex-F/A-18 engineer in contact and ask him why they didn't abbreviate the "Sensor Control Switch" perhaps he has a favorable answer of "yeah good point we forgot about that" and that would give some extra credibility that would make it less guilty to go "over-the-book" on this one.

------------------

Things are fairly standardized across FC3 planes, with additions or omissions wherever needed, there may be a few cases with inconsistencies but I won't go over FC3 planes right now, since I'm really focusing on A-10C and getting some deeper skills I haven't got before, plus the F-18C on the side.

If there's a Shkval system on a unit, it should have the same name in the controls. I do not have the Ka-50 that I heard apparently also has the Shkval.

For example:

• Shkval
  
• Shkval TV
  
• TV
  
• Display
  
• TV Display
  
• Electro Optical Sensor
  
• Optical TV Display
  
• Display Sensor
  

:joystick:

Also what about grouping things with prefixes that are part of the same sensor, for Su-25T there's lot's of things on the sensors category that are part of the shkval, I think it should be prefixed better.

• SHKVAL Display Zoom - In
  
• SHKVAL Display Zoom - Out
  
• SHKVAL EO System On/Off
  
• SHKVAL Target Designator - Left
  
• SHKVAL Target Designator - Right
  
• etc
  

Perhaps there could be subcategories, but that would just complicate things and perhaps require newer user control profile format, not sure tho, perhaps it works in a way to allow such expansion.

I've thought about it for some time but admitted it wasn't that important so I focused on other things but I did it now after I was plesantly surprised with the recent GUI updates for the Controls which are indeed a big deal and we spend a quite a lot of time in that screen. Making sure the Control Settings are as welcome and pleasant to setup is quite important because it can be the biggest hurdle of a new player IMO and a bad experience may throw them off right there.

You're talking about aircraft designed by totally different companies.

It's not unusual for different companies to call their parts something different, though they may function the same way. It's just how it is.

Personally, I like how it is currently. Makes you learn a new bird just like an actual pilot would going from one aircraft to another.

You don't think Boeing and Airbus get together to make sure their switches are labelled the exact same thing, do you?

I knew I wasn't going to get away with it so easily ... ;)

The comparison between A-10C and F/A-18C may still be a stretch in some ways, but still HOTAS is HOTAS. Yeah, I forgot to mention the biggest argument, that with the TDC not being abbreviated in the Controls doesn't go against of it's E-A manual, so I was kinda stemming from that argument mainly but I expanded it as I thought about this overall with all the other stuff.

Then again, do real companies and armies have a Control Settings page? Do they have space concerns, well it's them which coined these abbreviations anyway, the F/A-18C manual it self uses the TDC abbreviation so it's not like I'm making things up by saying "Fuel Dump" should be called "FD".

So they also ofcourse on the A-10C have the long versions of TMS and DMS so it's probably just ED that happen to use the short version of the Controls page to save on horizontal space perhaps, or it was just random, I'd say from the manufacturers point of view both are correct.

I'm not saying it has to be only abbreviated, perhaps both, but it would be kinda long, but our monitors are bigger these days too:

• HOTAS TDC (Throttle Designator Controller) - Left
  
• HOTAS Throttle Designator Controller (TDC) - Left
  

At least the inhouse modules perhaps, I thought about the 3rd-parties, can't just force them, but who says rules for 3rd-parties can't change, if it's determined Control Settings/Options are important enough across the whole community then it may be some rules for them too.

But this is a serious thing, it's part of programming placeholders, you don't want some quickly made up placeholder to use it in a final product right, I think a few instances reminded me of that but I forgot which ones.

EDIT:

Update, I added the paragraph about the unabbreviated "Sensor Control Switch" to the main post.

Wow. Just wow. :doh:

Not all FC3 planes use Shkval, so I guess that one may not work across all.

A new inconsistency found:

• Su-33 has "Electro-Optical System" without the "On/Off" suffix.
  

I don't care how unusual this seems or feels, I'm sure there's a valid point in here somewhere.

Update:

Look at the F-16C namings .... SPD BRK, WPN REL, the unfortunately look official tho as they're so in the manual, but then Display Management Switch is a full name again.

Also another thing:

A-10C: MIC Switch

F-18C: COMM Switch

F-16C: Transmit Switch

The first two may be all official and okay, but what about Transmit Switch, is that a real name?

I'm just showing the "inconsistency" and not saying we have to necessairly change it, if it's all by-the-book to those aircraft then I'm not sure what we can do about it.

None of these are grouped into the "Communications" group, perhaps that's one of the remedies.

Also another thing:

 

A-10C: MIC Switch

F-18C: COMM Switch

F-16C: Transmit Switch

 

The first two may be all official and okay, but what about Transmit Switch, is that a real name?s.

The most recent T.O.GR1F16-CJ-1 that I (as a UK civive) have legit access to describes it as "UHF VHF IFF Transmit Switch (4-Way, Momentary Rocker)"

The apparent inconsistency may in fact be real. Different manufactuerers/airframes/capabilities... would a USMC F/A18-C necessarily use the same "shorthand" as a USAF F-16C?

There is very little consistency between aircraft in regards to this kinda stuff, even in what you call the radios In brevity varies from platform to platform. Radio 1. Is “prime” in one aircraft “main” in another. The way one switch or setting or hotas especially is completely different and the functionality is completely different from one aircraft to another. Even if you have the same f

“Features” the way they are laid out or implemented are usually completely different. That’s just the name of the game with full fidelity stuff...

Now consistency in labeling on one aircraft as to what is and isn’t abbreviated or what is labeled exactly as it is in the jet vs some generic thing, is always good.

Tho what really helps me out to be honest, is the search function... hover your mouse over a switch you want to bind, see what the tooltip pop up says it’s called, and then search that in the controls menu.

There's not a lot of consistency in real life, tbh, and even if two systems have the same name/function they may be operated in a different fashion even between similar aircraft. Some are more user friendly, some are backassward. Just how it is.

As for ingame, it's a bit confusing (speedbrake vs airbrake for example) and I understand you're asking for more consistent naming, but I just really don't think it's going to happen lol We're waaaaaaay too far down the rabbit hole already. Embrace the chaos!

FC3 really is on it's own thing in DCS and Airbrake is consistent among the FC3 ones so I didn't want to put that on the spot, but yeah I'm aware.

Great idea there about UHF/VHF prefixes.

I'm buying a simulation of a specific aircraft, I want things to be identified properly for that aircraft.

I'm overall not sure how to sympathize with the need for something you really only need to do like once needing to be dumbed down for the sake of convenience like this.

Learn the plane, Fly the plane, make a cheat sheet.

As for ingame, it's a bit confusing (speedbrake vs airbrake for example) and I understand you're asking for more consistent naming, but I just really don't think it's going to happen lol We're waaaaaaay too far down the rabbit hole already. Embrace the chaos!

Even on the non control side it's mess. Every plane has his Pause, Escape (well or no assigned), Restart Mission, View Points, Labels, Kneeboard stuff etc... and then sometimes named slightly different. These could all go in a General control section instead of being aircraft specific. For this to make you may be even at the end of the rabbit hole. It's a quick win.

I don't understand some of these responses, I'm not for completely changing anything unless you got a better solution altogether, they started the consistency in the first place, in FC3 in particular, I'm just pointing out the individual cases where there's just obvious that the label is standing out and not following the other consistent cases, why not do it all the way if you're at it at all.

Either you are consistent or you're completely different, I just don't like to be somewhere in the middle where you can't tell if it's one way or the other. We had similar dicussions about "helpers" vs "cheats" ... I was more on the "cheat" side there, while others wanted "helpers", artificial things in the sim that aren't realistic, and wouldn't consider them cheats, there were far more people on the "helper" side, they don't have the time to sit 5 hours a day when it comes to some of the time consuming tasks so I completely understand, but if so many people were pro-helper why are then so many against this, this is clearly one of such helpers is it not, and it's not even poking into the gameplay whatsoever.

I know making some cases hold is hard, so yes, these are propositions to discuss not conclusions.

I know comparions with non-aircraft may not be valid but picture this, a Hand Brake in a car ... whatever the Official Manual calls it, do we ever hear anyone call it anything else, an instructor, the TV presenter, a passenger ... for example when you drive a Ferrari the instructor would tell you to "pull the Speed Lever", when you drive a Mazda he would tell you to "extend the Brake Handle", when you drive a Mercedes he would tell you to "pull back the HND BRK stick" ... can we agree that something like this and similar would never happen?

There's already things like "Special for Joystick" so there's some helpers out there already, so that's cool.

Yeah , rivet-counting is one thing , but the very FIRST thing one does after downloading a new aircraft is to map the controls . The current mish-mash of names across aircraft does make this far more difficult than it needs to be . How many posts have we seen regarding someone not being able to map a function , simply because they can't find it ?

I know comparions with non-aircraft may not be valid but picture this, a Hand Brake in a car ... whatever the Official Manual calls it, do we ever hear anyone call it anything else, an instructor, the TV presenter, a passenger ... for example when you drive a Ferrari the instructor would tell you to "pull the Speed Lever", when you drive a Mazda he would tell you to "extend the Brake Handle", when you drive a Mercedes he would tell you to "pull back the HND BRK stick" ... can we agree that something like this and similar would never happen?

Hand Brake

Parking Brake

Emergency Brake

"E Brake";)

the very FIRST thing one does after downloading a new aircraft is to map the controls .

Actually the first thing you should do is read the manual. Then you’ll know what the controls are. :book:

Another nice one where ED developers had a bit of fun...

Jets: Active_Pause

Props: Pause_Active

You're talking about aircraft designed by totally different companies.

 

It's not unusual for different companies to call their parts something different, though they may function the same way. It's just how it is.

 

Personally, I like how it is currently. Makes you learn a new bird just like an actual pilot would going from one aircraft to another.

 

 

You don't think Boeing and Airbus get together to make sure their switches are labelled the exact same thing, do you?

I would go along with this outlook as hard as it is for me to master as a newb. :helpsmilie:

From aircaft to aircraft, not only is the labelling different but also the postions of switches doing the same thing. I usually start off with the simplest items and add five a night to learn the position of, usually governed by the activity I am undertaking ie ATA missile or ATG CCIP or CCRP or equivalent. Sometimes it goes up to seven, other times only 3 or 4 but each aircraft is a learning curve, and all the more fun and rewarding when your hands are flying around the panels operating the necessary switches in an emergency.:thumbup: I am no expert by any manner or means but walking through these operations as I lie back in bed at night often helps me to get off to sleep very quickly when normally I struggle.:pilotfly:

Actually the first thing you should do is read the manual. Then you’ll know what the controls are. :book:

BS . I often download and read manuals even before a purchase . But remembering 200 control assignment names while binding ? Not gonna happen .

BS . I often download and read manuals even before a purchase . But remembering 200 control assignment names while binding?

LALT+TAB? :book:

LALT+TAB? :book:

Yeah , i wanna go through all that just to please the rivet counters , but thanks for the tip .

BS . I often download and read manuals even before a purchase . But remembering 200 control assignment names while binding ? Not gonna happen .

Maybe you need to read it again? Have it open as a reference?

I’m amazed at this topic... :music_whistling:

You don't think Boeing and Airbus get together to make sure their switches are labelled the exact same thing, do you?

To start engines:

Boeing: Set Fuel to “Run”

Airbus: Set Engine Master to “On”

:lol:

This isn’t hard for me to comprehend, because I read the manual...

As am i at some of the responses . I guess the thread puts pragmatists-those who appreciate efficacy- in opposition to -well i don't know who - or if i did i would not name for fear of inadvertently offending .

As previously posted , even mapping outside of aircraft controls isn't standardised , leading me to believe that things are labeled whatever the coder feels like that day . This is also reflected in file stuctures/names .

Imagine downloading a new aircraft . You just want to take your new toy up for a spin ,, and see how you like it , so you are only making minimum bindings . Good luck figuring out if you need to bind wheel brakes or axle brakes , or speedbrakes or airbrakes , or some other name for either .

Certainly in the case of aircraft-specific controls , such as TDC , or SCS , the proper names should be used , but in the more general sense ?

I'm not thinking so much of myself here , as i am newbs , whose entry into DCS should be as efficacious as possible .

This discussion rather reminds me of 18th century vs 19th century manufacturing methods , with the former requiring hand-made parts that had to be hand-fitted , versus the latter's introduction of interchangeable parts .

So, just to recap:

Easy

Developers editing the majority of control bindings for the majority of modules, to have them comply with each other, even at the expense of their real life naming conventions.

Developers editing the majority of their flight manuals. 3rd parties editing their guides/videos.

Developers editing the majority of their training missions to use the universal nomenclature... possibly involving the recording of new audio.

Developers editing the majority of in-cockpit tool tips.

Pushing these changes as an update to DCS.

All of this will not result in any errors which will break training missions, bindings, cockpits, or something completely unrelated.

Waiting weeks for the relevant fixes.

Hard

User has to read flight manual.

User might have to reference flight manual when binding controls.

User might have to apply critical thinking to control names, or else reference documentation.

Good luck figuring out if you need to bind wheel brakes or axle brakes , or speedbrakes or airbrakes , or some other name for either .

Boeing 737: Speed Brake

Airbus A320: Speed Brake and/or Ground Spoiler

M-2000C: Airbrake

:lol:

If you want to play a simulator, then you have to learn the real terminology. This is not so difficult. I realize that maybe some of the manuals aren’t translated to everyone’s native language but afaik they’re taken from the originals so they’re going to use that language. You can call Airbus and Dassault to complain if you like...