I'm just as effective with my m/kb as I am with my saitek flight stick. That being said I WOULD PREFER TO USE MY SAITEK! L2P? No... L2accomidateyourcustomerspreferences

 

I'm gonna have to say that there plenty enough players requesting this that Bioware should at least consider adding it

IMO all that is really needed is the ability to map the pitch and yaw axes to a stick and retain analog input. No reason to even lock the reticule; leave it on the mouse. A flight stick has enough buttons to map the hotkeys to already, and as someone already pointed out, there is software out there that allows joystick-mouse emulation.

 

I actually tried early on to map the W and S keys to pitch and ditch the yaw control entirely, just to be able to fly the ship with one hand and target independently with the other.

 

Mechwarrior habit

Joystick player here. Love them. I can't play with a mouse and keyboard. The controls just don't jive in my brain. It doesn't help that I'm a pilot IRL, where the controls are the same as every flight sim I've ever played until SWTOR.

 

I want joystick support. I'm not able to enjoy the content with the current controls because I get blasted so fast I don't learn anything. My average lifespan so far has been the 15 or so seconds it takes to get TO the battle, added to another 5 seconds of battle time.

 

I would love it if bioware would add joystick support to this. Or, buy the JTL code from SOE and port it into the game in place of this.

 

People on both sides of this argument have been combative and rude to each other, with no reason to be. Both controls can co-exist competitively. My preferred controls are joysticks.

 

For all who loved Star Wars combat flight sims in the past and want some modern PVP, it is coming soon: http://www.starwarsattacksquadrons.com/

 

I want to see joysticks in SWTOR, but if I never do, I simply won't play Galactic Starfighters, and I'll play another game. When I get bored with running around on the ground, I'll stop my subscription and leave. No biggie.

Yes please.

With Joystick Support I might actually Play GS. Always used the Joystick on all flight sims, be it space or real life.

When it has no Joystick Support, I don't play it.

Cockpit view would be preferable to 3rd person as well.

Yeah, stick support is a must. barring that let us lock they mouse reticle on center. At least that way, those of us with programmable sticks could use them.

/signed

I stopped playing GSF after day one. I won't even consider trying it again until joystick support is in.

It's been a really long time now.. is there really no flight stick support yet ?

It's been a really long time now.. is there really no flight stick support yet ?

 

Nope. Because it is not a priority and not needed.

 

FYI, this is coming from a gamer with a physical handicap (Cerebral Palsy) that played a LOT of games with a flight stick (that were not intended as such) for a LONG time. If *I* can be successful at GSF with KB&M anyone can.

It's been a really long time now.. is there really no flight stick support yet ?

 

The poor horse is dead, stop kicking it!

 

Even if joystick support was a good idea (which I don't think it is), I think we can all agree that there are more important things that need attention first. Broken tooltips, bugs/glitches, etc. I say let's fix what we have before we go and try to morph it into something it's not.

Be thankful the airlines of the world aren't using KB&M to fly their planes. I'm decent with KBM but could be so much better with joystick. I've tried mapping a stick or controller but have to use suspect drivers written in China and Korea to get it to work, then I end up playing tech support to keep it operational. Ridiculous. Has there ever been a flight sim or a decent flying game where KBM has been used? Seriously, Bioware, if you're listening and if you care at all, add joystick support.

Airplanes also don't have reticules to steer by!

 

 

A joystick mode would be better. But there's reasons why they won't.

 

 

1)- A joystick mode would be better. Properly implemented, a joystick would represent a definitely better method of control. Right now, you can't make a full turn while shooting- you can click when your reticule crosses the target, but it will be a max deflection shot. Even if your reticule was locked to center, a joystick would make this maneuver superior. Much more relevantly, a correctly done joystick- with the stick controlling the ship and the hat controlling the reticule- would offer many tricks not available on keyboard and mouse, in addition to the general superiority of the input.

 

Therefore this won't happen- it would ADD to the large discrepancy with the game.

 

 

2)- The reticule is an odd map to a joystick. The reticule's whole reason to exist is to make a mouse do something. It essentially puts your joystick on the screen, with the reticule's position mapping to the position of your joystick. Having it and a joystick wouldn't make much sense.

 

3)- It's a giant paid to add an input device, requiring tons of testing. This means they would have to go out and acquire a ton of joysticks and test them, and the driver would be added for the whole game- most of which doesn't know that. A lot of code, a ton of test, and it will help like 200 guys who already own face?

 

 

 

So no, they won't. I wish they would, so hard, but I just don't think so.

What Verain said. But what really makes it a bad idea, especially at this point in GSF's life, is that it would further alienate players from what is already a small community in SWTOR.

 

EDIT: Editing to request that mods lock this thread.

Edited October 12, 2014 by Ymris

EDIT: Editing to request that mods lock this thread.

 

Agreed, petition for lock. I thought it was gonna die after the ninja, but it doesn't seem it will. Someone can make a new QQ joystick thread IMO

 

1)- A joystick mode would be better. Properly implemented, a joystick would represent a definitely better method of control. Right now, you can't make a full turn while shooting- you can click when your reticule crosses the target, but it will be a max deflection shot. Even if your reticule was locked to center, a joystick would make this maneuver superior. Much more relevantly, a correctly done joystick- with the stick controlling the ship and the hat controlling the reticule- would offer many tricks not available on keyboard and mouse, in addition to the general superiority of the input.

 

Therefore this won't happen- it would ADD to the large discrepancy with the game.

 

I don't disagree with you that a joystick will never happen and that having the stick controlling the ship with the hat controlling the reticule would create a huge divide between the haves and have nots.

 

That being said I think it would be worth it to allow a lock reticle to center toggle even if we still have to use just the keyboard/mouse (assuming you didn't have to continually drag the mouse to keep turning; maybe they could keep the little line that goes with the reticle like now thats shows which direction and how tight you are turning for the purpose of controlling the ship but it wouldn't be tied to where you are aiming). Primarily for the observations you made of how the current set up forces you to take a max deflection shot. The option to lock the reticle would, I think, would make weapons with relatively high tracking penalties like quads much more viable in a turning dogfight. You'd sacrifice the ability to take deflection shots for the benefit of better chance of hitting something while pulling a tight turn. since it would just be an input option rather than physical controller there wouldn't be any divide of haves and have nots.

 

I would honestly pay to unlock an option like that.

Edited October 13, 2014 by Gavin_Kelvar

Be thankful the airlines of the world don't require their pilots to ride 30 feet behind the aircraft...

Sadly, that option would also not work.

 

 

You see, without the "table" that the reticule slides on, you have NO WAY to tell the difference between partial deflection (turn at 70% of turning rate) and max deflection (turn at full turning rate). The "table" is just there to emulate the joystick, on which it is EASY to do this.

 

This problem is a bit hard to explain, but pretty easy to picture. An FPS is pretty well suited to a mouse control, I think we all agree- you move your mouse slow, your character turns slow. Move it fast, you turn fast. The amount of physical movement required to spin around twice in one direction is pretty minor, and it happens almost instantly. What makes this work is the tracking maps the mouse precisely. I'm sure no one is under the delusion that the rotation rate in an FPS is even remotely realistic- it's ludicrous for cyborg warriors, let alone the grizzled zombie survivor that a lot of games portray. Realistic turning rates happen in games with gamepad control, such as Perfect Dark or Halo, and in those games the turn rate can actually seem stifling to those used to the angular teleportation of Quake and beyond.

 

GSF models ships with finite turning rates. A scout can turn very quickly, but often wants to turn very gradually. The correct- really, the only- way to model this is with a joystick with a solid analog range. Max stick down gives you maximum pitch up, edge the stick right and get a small yaw to the right. GSF doesn't have this, so it EMULATES it with the "table" that your reticule lives on. Put that reticule partway up and you get partial pitch up, etc.

 

 

So you COULD do what you ask, but you wouldn't lock the RETICULE- you'd see a little crosshair appear in the middle, and the reticule would change shape (maybe to just the circle), allowing you to continue steering the ship whilst moving the reticule and firing direct forward for 0 deflection shots.

 

 

 

If you did lock the reticule, you'd have NO WAY of discerning between max and partial deflections, OR you'd have no way of turning a solid circle, like a loop, OR you'd have no way to find center. You get the first input problem by making any mouse movement correspond to max, and any stationary mouse movement correspond to nothing. You get the second input problem by making any mouse movement correspond to a similar amount of ship movement, up to a point. But unlike games where facing is a technicality from a physical perspective (every FPS), you'd rapidly run into an issue in GSF where you are turning at your max rate, and your mouse is moving at a reasonable pace (after all, you need to distinguish between full turn and partial, right?), so you run out of space, have to lift and replace mouse, etc. The final input problem is generated if you solve GSF the way it has been, but make the reticule invisible- now it's acting like GSF, but you can't see it.

 

 

So you still need the steering reticule, you could just lock firing to center. That would be a great feature, but it would definitely change how weapons are valued- for instance, you'd definitely not do that with BLC, continuing to use the standard method, but you unquestionably would do it with quads. Would you do it with laser cannon? Light laser cannon? These wouldn't really benefit as much from it as quads or heavies, but they would benefit pretty often nonetheless, putting them in a rough middle ground- essentially, you would be buffing some lasers around them.

 

So you still need the steering reticule, you could just lock firing to center.

 

This is basically what I meant, my bad if I didn't articulate that very well. And thank you for the detailed explanation! It really helped me visualize why GSF controls present such a challenge from the dev side to change.

 

That would be a great feature, but it would definitely change how weapons are valued- for instance, you'd definitely not do that with BLC, continuing to use the standard method, but you unquestionably would do it with quads. Would you do it with laser cannon? Light laser cannon? These wouldn't really benefit as much from it as quads or heavies, but they would benefit pretty often nonetheless, putting them in a rough middle ground- essentially, you would be buffing some lasers around them.

 

No doubt it would buff some weapons. But IMO that wouldn't be entirely bad since the weapons getting buffed are some of the best blasters available to strike fighters making it an indirect buff to them as welll (with bombers and GS it might be debatable since their even slower turn rate might make taking deflection shots more practical than locking blaster firing to center). It might also help reduce the supremacy of BLCs by making it more easy to line up a shot with high tracking penalty blasters in situations (such as around a sat) that currently heavily favor BLCs. So it might also make other options like LLC more appealing on ships that have access to both LLC and BLC.

 

Personally I think the ideal would be making it a toggle button so you could more easily switch between modes depending on the starfighter you were taking out but I recognize that might not be possible.

Edited October 13, 2014 by Gavin_Kelvar

i would like this as well for my Thrustmaster T-Flight Hotas X Flight Stick

This thread makes me sad. GSF was such a good idea, and like the rest of the game ruined by small minded devs. I was almost as excited about GSF as I was when I heard about swtor being made, then I found out they didn't have controller/js suppor t:(

 

Who would have thought that a Flight game made for people who don't like flight games would flop? Now its stuck in a death spiral not making enough money for updates to keep current players happy or enough money to hire two retarded monkeys to code controller support.

This thread makes me sad. GSF was such a good idea

 

GSF isn't an idea, it's a game. And a good one.

 

and like the rest of the game ruined by small minded devs. I was almost as excited about GSF as I was when I heard about swtor being made, then I found out they didn't have controller/js suppor t:(

 

It's not just "controller support".

 

Here's why it's a big deal:

 

1)- Retooling and rebalancing the the weapons would occur. The existing weapons are all balanced around the gimbaled setup.

2)- The flight input would be very different on the software side of things.

3)- Joysticks would have to be purchased, coded for, tested and retested.

4)- A UI to configure the joysticks would have to be written and incorporated in the main game.

5)- How well does the engine support joysticks? Who knows? It could require a whole extension.

6)- The testing load would increase permanently to support the new joysticks.

7)- The code load would increase permanently to support the new joysticks.

 

A lot of effort for joysticks that would be used in one portion of GSF, by a small sample of the population, who already dominate everyone else.

 

i would like this as well for my Thrustmaster T-Flight Hotas X Flight Stick

 

Of course, and I'd love to use my X-55. But for all the reasons above, it's not in the cards at this time. And guess what? If we could use our Hotas setup, we'd have a really big control advantage over the rest of everyone. Likely, this is not the absolute best possible outcome.

 

 

Who would have thought that a Flight game made for people who don't like flight games would flop?

 

A game that reuses assets of an existing game really can't "flop", and GSF has plenty of loyal players and frequent pops.

 

Now its stuck in a death spiral not making enough money for updates to keep current players happy or enough money to hire two retarded monkeys to code controller support.

 

It would take a lot more effort than that to redesign the game, rebalance the weapons, include the hardware support, offer customization, test with a bunch of hotas and sticks, etc. It's a pretty huge effort.

 

Oh, and if you think it's not? If it's simple because you can code up a demo program? No. Just no. That's not how it works.

This thread makes me sad. GSF was such a good idea, and like the rest of the game ruined by small minded devs. I was almost as excited about GSF as I was when I heard about swtor being made, then I found out they didn't have controller/js suppor t:(

 

Who would have thought that a Flight game made for people who don't like flight games would flop? Now its stuck in a death spiral not making enough money for updates to keep current players happy or enough money to hire two retarded monkeys to code controller support.

 

You necro'ing this thread and then telling demoralizing untruths on our forums makes me sad. Shoo!

 

Edit: To the next person who wants to necro this thread: read a page or two of it. I suspect what you want to say has already been said here. Now shoo!

Edited December 17, 2014 by Ymris

In fairness, he wasn't the original necromancer. Also, it can be frustrating to want to post about a topic that has been talked about a lot. You either contribute to a cloud of spam threads, or you necro. I'm pretty sure he picked the first post about the topic on page 1 or page 2, and the other guy who actually necroed it probably landed from a google search.

 

 

I think the overall limitation is with forum software. The timeline of a current thread might be:

 

======x

 

and the timeline of a thread like this might be:

 

===-=----------------=----------------------------=x

 

And there's no way to see that when you look at it on the front page, or go straight to the action (you can usually go to the last post, and then scroll up to see the first post that IS NOT from a year ago or whatever, but that should be visible and automated). You'd like a link to go to the equals signs (activity start points), as they are virtual threads on the same topic, kept more organized. Or they would be, if the software could display that fact.

 

 

Whatever!

Edited December 17, 2014 by Verain

You necro'ing this thread and then telling demoralizing untruths on our forums makes me sad. Shoo!

 

Edit: To the next person who wants to necro this thread: read a page or two of it. I suspect what you want to say has already been said here. Now shoo!

 

It was on the front page when I posted Cleatus. Im glad you and the other 4 people who are still playing gsf think its such an amazing game, but I wont stop pointing out that they screwed this up until they fix it.

In fairness, he wasn't the original necromancer. Also, it can be frustrating to want to post about a topic that has been talked about a lot. You either contribute to a cloud of spam threads, or you necro. I'm pretty sure he picked the first post about the topic on page 1 or page 2, and the other guy who actually necroed it probably landed from a google search.

 

 

I think the overall limitation is with forum software. The timeline of a current thread might be:

 

======x

 

and the timeline of a thread like this might be:

 

===-=----------------=----------------------------=x

 

And there's no way to see that when you look at it on the front page, or go straight to the action (you can usually go to the last post, and then scroll up to see the first post that IS NOT from a year ago or whatever, but that should be visible and automated). You'd like a link to go to the equals signs (activity start points), as they are virtual threads on the same topic, kept more organized. Or they would be, if the software could display that fact.

 

 

Whatever!

 

It was on the front page, I was bored waiting for a gf group and thought id wander into these forums because I hadn't bothered to see what was going on in gsf for 6 months since their is usually nothing going on in gsf and since I was one of the first people to start riding bioware about joysticks since the day they announced gsf I have a big interest in that subject.