Quote
I have read through a lot of forums in the past couple of days and, on the related subject, a vast majority of people appear to be extremely biased on the matter. There are people who (in respect to gamepads) feel that using your arms are far more accurate than using your thumbs (which I do agree with), and there are people who feel that console gamers should stick with consoles. I guess really what I'm saying is that my quote is unwarranted. A joystick is NOT the same as the thumbstick on a pad (though this IS a PS1 controller, it is not a pad, and I guess I just confused myself by overthinking about the people who don't care to help and instead shoot down ideas)
.
I hope that you find the information you need to come up with an awesome control scheme that works for you. I find typically that people do not accurately identify to the key points of what is the actual issue with controls since there are often a lot of variables masking the underlying fundamental issue and as a result there tends to be much confusion and misunderstanding on the subject. There are a few aspects to this that have to be understood in order to objectively navigate these semi-charted waters regardless of how ones interface looks or feels, at some point in-game these are all converted into the same inputs and it boils down to which one of two types.
There is no point in discussing button mapping since it is not the source of any contention as far as performance is concerned, so the items of concern are the axes, specifically x/y for moving the torso/aiming. Throttle and turning axes actually work quite well as is with little fuss to have excellent results, so also don't need much discussion as to performance... back to x/y. As I mentioned, there are two types of inputs possible, RELATIVE, or ABSOLUTE, and which one you are using makes a huge difference on how you experience the game. It's important to understand what these mean in practice, so I use the marble on a plane of glass analogy to make it easier to visualize in context.
Picture a 12" square sheet of glass and a marble sitting on it. Using relative inputs is like trying to move the marble by picking up the sheet of glass with the marble balanced on it and tilting it front/back and side/side, quickly leveling it again when it's where you want it to be in x/y coordinates. Using absolute inputs however would be like placing the same piece glass level on a desk in front of you and using your hand to reach out and directly move the marble wherever you want on the plane, and for this reason are also called direct inputs.
No matter what controller one is using or their preferences towards it, it comes down to using relative or absolute inputs. Sure different shapes have different levels of optimized ergonomics and feel, but where it counts an x-box D-pad or thumbstick is much closer than not to airplane stick (as defined in my first post), and is relegated to using relative inputs and this... this is what puts it in the same category of using relative inputs, which is a disadvantage in terms of control since it forces one to choose between either reaction speed or controllability. As such, you will be hard pressed to find anyone that uses any relative input device effectively piloting fast movers -lights and fast mediums due to these reasons. The faster the mech, the more pronounced the effect...
MWO is designed around the direct inputs a mouse produces, and other than a mouse the 3 Thrustmaster sticks I listed are the only other known devices capable of affecting this type of input, since TARGET, Thrustmaster's software allows this as a standard feature. As Foust points out, I now may actually receive royalties from Thrustmaster at this point (man I wish!), but in all seriousness it is precisely for this reason they come up in my conversations a lot.
I know of no other route to what I consider a viable stick. There are a whole host of other benefits to using TARGET, but most of them can be achieved via other emulators or some other type of workaround. In the end, it comes down to TARGET being the only (will someone please prove this wrong?!) one that has this degree of control over the axes, which in turn allows one to overcome the odds stacked against using a stick. One can spend a lot of time simply overcoming the small technical challenges of getting even a regular stick to work the best it possibly can, but in the end you still have a regular (airplane) stick, which for the reasons already cited have pretty serious limitations due to the gimbal and input type.
Quote
I hope that I can someday have the same creativity, time, patience, space, resources, and finesse to craft something even half as wicked as your mech-pit. Well done!
Many thanks for the kind words, it's much appreciated. You should really check out the
other pits though, most of which are viewable here in
repetes simpit summary thread.
Quote
Is it the particular way that I intend to use my sticks? Or is it the fact that I'm using two sticks to begin with (because I really don't want to use a single stick with twist action)? (snip) I see you have two joysticks on your chair, so I am a little confused as to what precisely you mean by my scheme.
Not due to the way you want to use them, but for the reasons stemming from relative vs absolute inputs leading to a less than satisfactory result. By 'your scheme', I mean that even with a normal stick/throttle that takes little effort to get working, the experience is very challenging, and you have the additional challenge of getting non-native hardware to work with a game that has troubles even with native hardare. Going further into more subjective territory, I do think it would be even more challenging to use a second stick instead of a throttle due to how one uses the axes to achieve inputs (unless you are actually ambidextrous), but it would be such an uphill climb to even get to a place to test this out that once you experienced how difficult that control setup would be I'm pretty sure you would be disappointed at best.
As to my own setup, what you are calling a second stick is actually a dedicated throttle. It is a Thrustmaster Cougar, which is a an all-metal reproduction of the stick/throttle of an F-16, and it controls every single function of the game without needing to take my hands off (called H.O.T.A.S. for Hands On Stick And Throttle) unless I want to type in chat. The Warthog is also a HOTAS setup, and while the T16000 stick I listed doesn't have the throttle as a separate component, it does have one and likewise controls all in-game functions from the stick and it's buttons. There are other nice HOTAS out there, but none have the capability of absolute inputs. The easiest route to a fully functional setup is a dedicated throttle for movement and secondary functions, and a good gaming mouse. Not the coolest looking arrangement, but the shortest path to a setup that is competitive. Bear in mind that this game is actually really hard even with perfectly viable and tuned controls; so adding layers of difficulty on top of this is not likely to prove a satisfying endeavor, but YMMV.
My left hand is on the throttle, which pivots forward/backward just like a boat throttle. On it are several in-game buttons (zoom, scoreboard, battlegrid, vision modes, shift layer) all sensibly mapped, that keep my left hand from needing to touch the keyboard. I use rudder pedals to steer my legs, but I do also have a backup 'a'/'d' on the throttle in case the pedals ever get jenky during a match. My right hand is on the stick, which is moving my torso up/down/side/side and controls all weapons/weapons list/jumpjets/etc, keeping my right hand from needing the keyboard. Since my scheme is emulator based, my keyboard is still active however (mouse too...) and I can use it to type in chat or to perform any other normal in-game functions, since my controls are also based off default mapping.
Quote
While CLEARLY your setup is far more immensely satisfying than what I want to do, I think I might be at least OK with my subpar scheme. Elaborate, please.
I think I've elaborated on what may leave you frustrated with your own endeavors, but the takeaway is anything using relative inputs is challenging at best, even once you are past the technical challenges of establishing function. By all means, test, pursue, and continue to chase the avenues you feel may lead to a viable scheme, and post away with results and questions!. Related, but sort of not, I actually just (bout an hr ago) sent Matthiew Craig, (MWO technical director) a nice long winded message about sticks, gimbals, inputs, and how it relates to the Artemis controller after recently learning that it's
not officially dead.
<---Artemis
I'm a sucker for a good dual stick though... check out this piece of awesome prototypeage:
<--Mek Fu (Hakwen)
...and of course the venerable SteelBattalion controller (which people have been using with MWO)
edit: linky
Edited by Loc Nar, 09 April 2013 - 02:21 PM.
2
I have constructed my own stick to use with MWO that a pretty serious departure from an airplane stick, and as such is just as accurate as a mouse, but easier to use in many regards. I know you didn't want to be asked why or want to discuss it, but as someone with such heavy interest on this specific subject, I am curious as to what attributes you have identified as the reason(s) a stick doesn't perform up to a mouse. I have listed the reasons I have identified below, as well as my personal workaround.
