[1.0.1.3] Control Schemes update - overview, feedback & small suggestions anthology

reaperx1

Crazed Builder
Joined
Feb 25, 2015
Messages
4,449
Likes
3,404
Points
670
Age
38
#24
So, still no controls over weapons to group them up? :)
That was the main thing I was hoping the new control system was going to bring us. I'm tired of firing all weapons just to get my plasma's to take out a rock.
I don't know why they don't just have the plasma's automatically activate when they are within a certain range of resources and enemies. That would probably be a good first step to take.
Have a good one [8D)
 

Matt

PAYLOAD STUDIOS
Joined
Jul 23, 2018
Messages
361
Likes
1,124
Points
200
#25
Hey everyone,

I just wanted to offer a quick update to all this brilliant feedback.

Pretty much everything that has been raised in this thread has been discussed within the team. We've decided on a plan of action for them that we'll work on over the next few weeks. NOTE: This is still very much subject to change so please don't shout at us if things change. This is just to highlight that we're actively working on the feedback provided and what we're working on.

Firstly, we know the radial menu on your currently controlled tech can be slightly annoying when building big techs or when zoomed in and you just want to move the camera. The solution is a lot more complicated than I'm able to explain but it involves prioritising the camera movement over the radial menu. There shouldn't be any delay in bringing up the radial, which brings me to my second point, quick swapping control schemes.

So, currently the only way to switch between control schemes is with the radial menu. This makes swapping between, say, car and plane control schemes a bit janky. The solution to this will be to have a button to switch between the two. As most techs will only have a maximum of two schemes this will just switch between the two. If, for some crazy reason, you had more than two schemes per tech the quick swap button will cycle through all the control schemes for that tech.

Which leads me on nicely to my last point, double keybinds. The introduction of Control Schemes separated thrust and boosters into their own buttons. Double keybinds will essentially allow you to re-bind them to the same key again. This will also allow you to bind the same axis/movement to multiple keys. So you could have WASD AND the arrow keys for basic movements, for example.
 

Soviet_Samuelson

On the path to becoming a grand-master idiot
Joined
Feb 9, 2018
Messages
1,823
Likes
1,368
Points
325
Location
My box
Website
forum.terratechgame.com
#26
Hey everyone,

I just wanted to offer a quick update to all this brilliant feedback.

Pretty much everything that has been raised in this thread has been discussed within the team. We've decided on a plan of action for them that we'll work on over the next few weeks. NOTE: This is still very much subject to change so please don't shout at us if things change. This is just to highlight that we're actively working on the feedback provided and what we're working on.

Firstly, we know the radial menu on your currently controlled tech can be slightly annoying when building big techs or when zoomed in and you just want to move the camera. The solution is a lot more complicated than I'm able to explain but it involves prioritising the camera movement over the radial menu. There shouldn't be any delay in bringing up the radial, which brings me to my second point, quick swapping control schemes.

So, currently the only way to switch between control schemes is with the radial menu. This makes swapping between, say, car and plane control schemes a bit janky. The solution to this will be to have a button to switch between the two. As most techs will only have a maximum of two schemes this will just switch between the two. If, for some crazy reason, you had more than two schemes per tech the quick swap button will cycle through all the control schemes for that tech.

Which leads me on nicely to my last point, double keybinds. The introduction of Control Schemes separated thrust and boosters into their own buttons. Double keybinds will essentially allow you to re-bind them to the same key again. This will also allow you to bind the same axis/movement to multiple keys. So you could have WASD AND the arrow keys for basic movements, for example.
could we assign specific keys? i dont want to change everything on my keyboard just to make one teck slightly easier to use
 

ZeroGravitas

Breaker of Games
Joined
Jun 29, 2017
Messages
3,488
Likes
4,576
Points
675
Age
36
Location
UK
Website
www.youtube.com
#27
Pretty much everything that has been raised in this thread has been discussed within the team.
Oh wow, excellent. Thanks for letting us know.:)

As most techs will only have a maximum of two schemes this will just switch between the two.
Yeah, absolutely. From my testing with all the different modes of vehicle I could find and think of, it's really only flying cars that couldn't be tweaked to use a nice, one handed scheme for their essential controls. (Because [W]&{S}really want to be both forwards/back on ground and pitch in the air.) Even planes are passable with [Shift]/[Ctrl] for forwards back and [Q]/[E] for turning when on the ground. So scheme switching may well stay somewhat niche.

This will also allow you to bind the same axis/movement to multiple keys. So you could have WASD AND the arrow keys for basic movements, for example.
OK, cool. I couldn't actually think of a scenario where I would want duplicated keys like this, any more, now we can customise and switch them (on the fly). But others might, I suppose. Especially if anti-grav spawns new usage modes (that become somewhat popular).
 

MrTwister

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2017
Messages
538
Likes
773
Points
505
Age
34
#28
Hey everyone,

I just wanted to offer a quick update to all this brilliant feedback.

Pretty much everything that has been raised in this thread has been discussed within the team. We've decided on a plan of action for them that we'll work on over the next few weeks. NOTE: This is still very much subject to change so please don't shout at us if things change. This is just to highlight that we're actively working on the feedback provided and what we're working on.

Firstly, we know the radial menu on your currently controlled tech can be slightly annoying when building big techs or when zoomed in and you just want to move the camera. The solution is a lot more complicated than I'm able to explain but it involves prioritising the camera movement over the radial menu. There shouldn't be any delay in bringing up the radial, which brings me to my second point, quick swapping control schemes.

So, currently the only way to switch between control schemes is with the radial menu. This makes swapping between, say, car and plane control schemes a bit janky. The solution to this will be to have a button to switch between the two. As most techs will only have a maximum of two schemes this will just switch between the two. If, for some crazy reason, you had more than two schemes per tech the quick swap button will cycle through all the control schemes for that tech.

Which leads me on nicely to my last point, double keybinds. The introduction of Control Schemes separated thrust and boosters into their own buttons. Double keybinds will essentially allow you to re-bind them to the same key again. This will also allow you to bind the same axis/movement to multiple keys. So you could have WASD AND the arrow keys for basic movements, for example.
@Matt
Hi guys, just checking, are we planning to have weapon controls soon?
Many thanks for what's been done so far!
 

MrTwister

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2017
Messages
538
Likes
773
Points
505
Age
34
#31
A special tank engine control scheme, to enable proper tank steering.
Tank steering was fine just a few patches ago, before 1.0. Its just hawkeye threads are broken now - hardly able to steer at all. They worked well in 7.9.
 

MrTwister

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2017
Messages
538
Likes
773
Points
505
Age
34
#32
Hey!

It's something we're looking into. Probably not going to happen any time soon though.
And one more suggestion - directly related to control scheme. Can we please have a button to engage "Neutral" - disable passive breaking (and to save this setting in snapshot)? This way we can use any wheels in the game for trailers and to roll in our techs freely around if need be instead of full throttle.
 

AstraTheDragon

A dapper dragon
Joined
Sep 9, 2017
Messages
359
Likes
799
Points
505
Age
15
Location
Tír na nÓg
Website
1drv.ms
#34
And one more suggestion - directly related to control scheme. Can we please have a button to engage "Neutral" - disable passive breaking (and to save this setting in snapshot)? This way we can use any wheels in the game for trailers and to roll in our techs freely around if need be instead of full throttle.
And actually I think the opposite of this would be useful too- a toggleable handbrake to stop all passive wheel motion.
 
Likes: ZeroGravitas

ZeroGravitas

Breaker of Games
Joined
Jun 29, 2017
Messages
3,488
Likes
4,576
Points
675
Age
36
Location
UK
Website
www.youtube.com
#35
(5) I feel that the pitch control pair is backwards. I don't know what the official convention is with this, but every single time I went to remap the pitch control, I got it inverted, by pressing [W] first. I think it would be fine to show the diagram arrow over the top, to fit logically with this:

Kind of vindicating to see @Matt and @Flan struggle with this on stream, thinking there's a bug (although a little worrying as to how players are doing with it).:confused:

Well, to be fair, it was the "Yaw" axis they were stuck on, because Matt was, quite fairly and naturally, pressing "A" first (left to right logic), when the direction of the arrows on the figure mean you have to press D first to get turning the right way around.


Of course one could just click "reset to defaults" to fix it, and I'm sure you guys would have figured it out given less time pressure. But still, here's hoping there's time to finish rejigging the shemes menu/options a bit more, some time not to far from now. <cough> Shift+Ctrl pairing by default </cough> ;)
 
Likes: Matt

Wassaup

Active Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2019
Messages
58
Likes
116
Points
39
#36
Wouldn't it be easier for everyone involved, if each profile had fully binbable keys instead of re-shuffling pre-set key pairings? Even better, each input could have two slots: one for keyboard, one for game-pad.

Example:
decent2keys.png
Descent 2 (1996, MS-DOS) by Parallax Software
 

ZeroGravitas

Breaker of Games
Joined
Jun 29, 2017
Messages
3,488
Likes
4,576
Points
675
Age
36
Location
UK
Website
www.youtube.com
#37
fully binbable keys instead of re-shuffling pre-set key pairings?
It's definitely an interesting suggestion, given that the two tiers of key binding menus seem confusing to figure out (even for the devs).

But I don't think you could have this, in practice, because it would interfere with the other types of bindings for build beam, anchoring, block rotation, pause menu, etc. You'd have to include all of these in each control scheme, too, making it unwieldy and really damn confusing, if someone else's tech scheme stops you being able to pause/exit the game, for example...

My view is that enabling all the control scheme keys to be pairable would make the current system good enough - i.e. including the propeller & thrusters keys as pairable, which are currently still seperate on [Shift]+[Crtl] by default.
 
Likes: Wassaup

Wassaup

Active Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2019
Messages
58
Likes
116
Points
39
#38
...I don't think you could have this, in practice, because it would interfere with the other types of bindings for build beam, anchoring, block rotation, pause menu, etc. You'd have to include all of these in each control scheme, too, making it unwieldy and really damn confusing, if someone else's tech scheme stops you being able to pause/exit the game, for example...
I honestly don't think this would cause an issue, 'cause when you see a custom control tag, you immediately look at it and either internalize it and/or tweak it to your needs. Of course, there's the hypothetical situation, where someone might use the default tech controls, but altered hotkeys for whatever reason. Maybe the profiles should only be for controlling the tech itself, while the UI, build-beam, systems etc could stay in the main options menu (kind of how it is now). Or it could just flash us a warning if there are conflicting inputs?
One compromise I could deal with, is breaking up the pairings, so we can shuffle the keys individually, instead of constantly pairing and un-pairing them, when we switch profiles.
 

Flan

PAYLOAD STUDIOS
Joined
Jun 13, 2018
Messages
30
Likes
57
Points
225
Age
25
#39
Wouldn't it be easier for everyone involved, if each profile had fully binbable keys instead of re-shuffling pre-set key pairings? Even better, each input could have two slots: one for keyboard, one for game-pad.
Descent 2 (1996, MS-DOS) by Parallax Software
The separation makes more sense when you consider AZERTY keyboards and limited mobility keybindings. The idea is that anyone can pick up any snapshot and have it make sense with their input system. Your axes are a personal setting, but how those axes are used is specific to the tech.

But yeah, the Right, then Left setup on the axis is confusing.
 
Joined
Apr 28, 2019
Messages
58
Likes
116
Points
39
#40
The separation makes more sense when you consider AZERTY keyboards and limited mobility keybindings.
:confused:...Okay, I'll play along. How would this two-tier control system make sense? If someone is using non-standard inputs, either because of the devices they have available or they themselves have some kind of special need, isn't that just another reason to have fully bindable controls? Shouldn't these people be allowed to use anything and everything they have in anyway it suits them? It's possible, that I'm just ignorant, but I cannot, for the life of me, think of a situation, where this limited, rigid system would be beneficial. And it's only for the keyboard! You can't even customize the game-pad in-game on the PC, you need to do it from a launcher! A launcher, that explains neither the inputs, nor the actions, so I have no idea, what I'm doing!

If this game had the complexity of, let's say, Besiege, than I could see custom controls being a bigger hang-up, but TT is pretty straight forward, when it comes to design. The "making sense" part is more on the user of a tech, rather than the creator. A vehicle can be a car, an airplane, a helicopter, a hovercraft or a hybrid. No matter, how radical the techs design, you can always trace it back and apply an appropriate control layout, or toggle between two or more (witch is an awesome feature, thank you again, for adding it) or even create your own. But it's all up to you, 'cause what makes sense to the creator, might not make sense to you. When I download a bunch of airships, I want to pilot them the same way I pilot my own airships, regardless who created them or why. When I push the forward key, it means I want the tech to move forward and if it doesn't, I want the freedom to set it up so it does! The profiles are needed because I don't steer a plane the same way I steer a car, nor do I steer a helicopter the same way I steer a plane.

Options are the one thing you can never have too many of. Let us have them all! Not just for the controls, but graphics, mouse settings, camera, everything! You would save us, and yourself so much work and trouble if you did.