Keyboard entry and AirTrack

[bigbasspic]

Moin,

 

maybe I overread it, but a ) will you be able to enter FMS data via keyboard and b ) will the 737 work with AirTrack on the iPad?

 

Bassy regrads,

Benjamin

 

 

Edited December 27, 2015 by bigbasspic

[Eddie]

CDU (not the entire FMS, of course) keyboard input doesn't make any sense anyways. The 737 is not like an A380 with a literal pull-out keyboard for data entry.

[Cameron]

a ) will you be able to enter FMS data via keyboard

 

Not initially, and I'm not sure if ever. Quite unrealistic in the end, but we'll wait for customer feedback after release.

 

b ) will the 737 work with AirTrack on the iPad?

 

No. This product is much too customized for this.

[sizziano]

CDU (not the entire FMS, of course) keyboard input doesn't make any sense anyways. The 737 is not like an A380 with a literal pull-out keyboard for data entry.

So? No one is forcing you to use it.

[Eddie]

So? No one is forcing you to use it.

I believe IXEG's stance on these sorts of things is more along the lines of "we're trying to emulate the real thing, within reason, and there's a fine line between providing concessions for sim use and making it unrealistically convenient" and not "hey, let's just throw it in."

[sizziano]

I believe IXEG's stance on these sorts of things is more along the lines of "we're trying to emulate the real thing, within reason, and there's a fine line between providing concessions for sim use and making it unrealistically convenient" and not "hey, let's just throw it in."

So then you're against mouse wheel support then?

[reincarnate]

You just type in a few letters in the CDU. I dont need a keyboard for that.

[Eddie]

So then you're against mouse wheel support then?

Using the mouse wheel to scroll smaller knobs such as those on the MCP is the closest "in-sim" experience we can get to actually spinning those knobs.

 

However, the sensation of typing on a QWERTY keyboard is completely different from entering data on an MCDU. It's more akin to the keypad on your microwave than any PC keyboard.

[sizziano]

Using the mouse wheel to scroll smaller knobs such as those on the MCP is the closest "in-sim" experience we can get to actually spinning those knobs.

However, the sensation of typing on a QWERTY keyboard is completely different from entering data on an MCDU. It's more akin to the keypad on your microwave than any PC keyboard.

IXEG seems to disagree. If we are also simulating the tedium of the input system of a 733 then using a mouse is a poor substitute as it makes it even more annoying than it is already. Remote CDU would be the best solution but that's not in v1. This will be implemented in the future I'm sure so no reason to discuss this really. I don't see any reason not to include completely optional ease of use features. Some sort of artistic integrity? I think it's worth adding it and I'm not alone but I will not continue derailing this thread.

[Cameron]

I think it's worth adding it and I'm not alone but I will not continue derailing this thread.

 

Thank you.

[bigbasspic]

Thank you for reply!

 

To me, clicking buttons on screen with the mouse is much further away from reality than typing letters on the keyboard. But as said: Let's wait for customer feedback after release.

Pitty about AirTrack, but as expected 

 

Bassy regards

Benjamin

[ChevyRules]

Thank you for reply!

 

To me, clicking buttons on screen with the mouse is much further away from reality than typing letters on the keyboard. But as said: Let's wait for customer feedback after release.

Pitty about AirTrack, but as expected 

 

Bassy regards

Benjamin

 

Given the mouse click mimics your finger pushing on the keys of the FMC, it is actually fairly close to reality. You don't type on a FMC's keypad like you do on a QWERTY keyboard. 

[Eddie]

Thank you for reply!

 

To me, clicking buttons on screen with the mouse is much further away from reality than typing letters on the keyboard. But as said: Let's wait for customer feedback after release.

Pitty about AirTrack, but as expected 

 

Bassy regards

Benjamin

I'd like people who defend this point to show us even one video of a pilot entering data on an MCDU with both their hands on the keypad, like a keyboard, cranking away at the equivalent of 100 WPM.

[sronayne96]

I really don't understand the issue here. Fair enough if they don't include the feature but if a certain number of people are in favour why not include it? Pretty sure the goal of high fidelity PC based flight simulation is to accurately replicate aircraft systems and flight dynamics not cockpit ergonomics. Half the people saying "it's not realistic" probably fly Boeing's with a joystick! (I know I do!)

[Morten]

I really don't understand the issue here. Fair enough if they don't include the feature but if a certain number of people are in favour why not include it? Pretty sure the goal of high fidelity PC based flight simulation is to accurately replicate aircraft systems and flight dynamics not cockpit ergonomics. Half the people saying "it's not realistic" probably fly Boeing's with a joystick! (I know I do!)

 

Generally, the main scope of this project is creating an aircraft that is as realistic as possible in a cockpit environment and operation as seen form a REAL 737 pilot perspective.

In other words, we give our real in-type pilots the final word on what goes in or not (not forum polls).  Atleast for v 1.0.  Other "nice to have stuff" we will consider in each case later on as optionals.  But, you probably have noticed the bar is set high on what goes in or not. 

 

Further, we recommend that you fly the aircraft BEFORE you ask for these "nice to have" features, like keyboard, 3rd party FMC stuff, scrollwheel etc.

This aircraft has a very different "feel" than most of what you probably are used to.  Also the quality of avionics are extremely high.  It needs to be experienced first.

[sronayne96]

Generally, the main scope of this project is creating an aircraft that is as realistic as possible in a cockpit environment and operation as seen form a REAL 737 pilot perspective.

In other words, we give our real in-type pilots the final word on what goes in or not (not forum polls).  Atleast for v 1.0.  Other "nice to have stuff" we will consider in each case later on as optionals.  But, you probably have noticed the bar is set high on what goes in or not. 

 

Further, we recommend that you fly the aircraft BEFORE you ask for these "nice to have" features, like keyboard, 3rd party FMC stuff, scrollwheel etc.

This aircraft has a very different "feel" than most of what you probably are used to.  Also the quality of avionics are extremely high.  It needs to be experienced first.

I completely understand that and I've no problem with it not being in the first release (or any release for that matter. It's not a big deal for me). I just couldn't understand why some people seem so against it ever being a feature on the grounds that it's "unrealistic". 

[Litjan]

I completely understand that and I've no problem with it not being in the first release (or any release for that matter. It's not a big deal for me). I just couldn't understand why some people seem so against it ever being a feature on the grounds that it's "unrealistic". 

 

I think it´s mostly because it takes time to implement that I would rather spend playing computer   - or implementing wingflex!

 

If we could snip our fingers and - whoop, there it is - you bet we´d have it (as an option for the weak and lazy only, of course   ).

 

Jan

[Eddie]

I completely understand that and I've no problem with it not being in the first release (or any release for that matter. It's not a big deal for me). I just couldn't understand why some people seem so against it ever being a feature on the grounds that it's "unrealistic". 

Then why not have a pop-up GNS430 for people who don't want to learn about the sophisticated navigation equipment inside the plane? Or an autostart feature for the engines because it's too "cumbersome" to reach over and switch on the fuel at a certain point? The same argument could be made - "you don't have to use it if you don't want to" - but then where's the value in the simulation?

[jailer]

Then why not have a pop-up GNS430 for people who don't want to learn about the sophisticated navigation equipment inside the plane? Or an autostart feature for the engines because it's too "cumbersome" to reach over and switch on the fuel at a certain point? The same argument could be made - "you don't have to use it if you don't want to" - but then where's the value in the simulation?

 

This discussion is getting a bit carried away, but these analogies are far off the mark.  In terms of ergonomics, a keyboard with a tactile feel and the ability to hit different buttons in rapid succession is actually closer to the reality than using a mouse to click one button on a screen after another.  If you want to argue that the benefits are outweighed by programming time involved, fine.  But using "realism" to justify omitting a feature seems to stretch credibility.

[ChevyRules]

This discussion is getting a bit carried away, but these analogies are far off the mark.  In terms of ergonomics, a keyboard with a tactile feel and the ability to hit different buttons in rapid succession is actually closer to the reality than using a mouse to click one button on a screen after another.  If you want to argue that the benefits are outweighed by programming time involved, fine.  But using "realism" to justify omitting a feature seems to stretch credibility.

 

You hit one button at a time on a real FMC. Clicking on the key with the mouse is far more realistic than typing it all with a QWERTY keyboard. 

 

I am not saying don't include keyboard support for those who want it, but it's not realistic. The mouse mimicking your finger is. Providing keyboard support is a convenience feature for those who don't want to get that deep with the simulation. It is not a realism feature. 

 

The only thing a QWERTY keyboard and a FMC shares in common is they have keys. That's it. 

Edited December 29, 2015 by ChevyRules

[jailer]

You hit one button at a time on a real FMC. Clicking on the key with the mouse is far more realistic than typing it all with a QWERTY keyboard. 

 

I am not saying don't include keyboard support for those who want it, but it's not realistic. The mouse mimicking your finger is. Providing keyboard support is a convenience feature for those who don't want to get that deep with the simulation. It is not a realism feature. 

 

You hit one key at a time on a keyboard-- that is, except when you read a post like this.  Kidding; couldn't resist.  I'm not aware of any limitation on a CDU only allowing only one finger to be used.  Yes, you have to wait for the response before typing the next in the sequence.. this could presumably be programmed into the feature as well.  Anyway, my point was merely that a keyboard is closer to the real thing with the tactile response and ergonomics.  It's hardly a deal breaker though.

[Eddie]

This discussion is getting a bit carried away, but these analogies are far off the mark.  In terms of ergonomics, a keyboard with a tactile feel and the ability to hit different buttons in rapid succession is actually closer to the reality than using a mouse to click one button on a screen after another.  If you want to argue that the benefits are outweighed by programming time involved, fine.  But using "realism" to justify omitting a feature seems to stretch credibility.

But the ergonomics of an MCDU keypad are completely different than the "tactile feel" of your keyboard. It'd be more like using one half of those split ergonomic keyboards positioned near your shins than something as easy to access as your PC keyboard on your desk.

 

While it's not as far off the mark as people who want to be able to type into the X-Plane 430/530 with their PC keyboards (there isn't even a keypad to speak of on those things), I still adamantly believe that these features have no real basis in real-world operations and are solely for convenience. Advocate for them if you want - but don't claim they're "more realistic".

[Eddie]

You hit one key at a time on a keyboard-- that is, except when you read a post like this.  Kidding; couldn't resist.  I'm not aware of any limitation on a CDU only allowing only one finger to be used.  Yes, you have to wait for the response before typing the next in the sequence.. this could presumably be programmed into the feature as well.  Anyway, my point was merely that a keyboard is closer to the real thing with the tactile response and ergonomics.  It's hardly a deal breaker though.

I'm just going to post this here, and ask you if it looks like he's typing nearly as quickly or efficiently as you (or he) would on your PC keyboard, which specifically designed for long periods of data entry and positioned far more comfortably for that (vs. the MCDU, which is specifically designed to fit in a tiny area and rapid data entry is not deemed critical)

[jailer]

I'm just going to post this here, and ask you if it looks like he's typing nearly as quickly or efficiently as you (or he) would on your PC keyboard, which specifically designed for long periods of data entry and positioned far more comfortably for that (vs. the MCDU, which is specifically designed to fit in a tiny area and rapid data entry is not deemed critical)

 

He was able to type pretty fast, in my opinion.  You are free to put your keyboard on the floor under your desk and have your wife seated next to you complain about changes to the pension plan, if that's the type of realism you're looking to achieve.  

[Cameron]

He was able to type pretty fast, in my opinion

 

About as fast as I can with my mouse on the IXEG 737 FMC!