[mame2003/-plus] Removing individual per-game bindings via Tab menu

[grant2258]

there is a github issue make the case there it isint my choice to make alone @Riverstorm

[hhromic]

@Riverstorm said in [mame2003/-plus] Removing individual per-game bindings via Tab menu:

It is @hhromic that would like the old way. I was just trying to help him on Friday.

Thanks for the help the other day, indeed I could map my keys using the internal TAB menu with your instructions/explanations and was very useful.

I want to make clear that indeed my problem was the reception of double-input because the core was listening to both, RA and raw keyboard at the same time and I didn't know how to remap internally. The new solution from @grant2258 seems to bring back the input_interface option that allows to choose which input system you want (retroarch or mame), hence no crippling of advanced users of the internal TAB menu.

For me, using RA's input system is sufficient and easier to remap, hence having this choice of input system is good. More advanced users do not need to use RA if they don't want and can still use the more advanced internal keyboard input system.

[Riverstorm]

@hhromic - sorry, that was not meant to put you on the spot at all. I'm glad you were able to find a workaround. I guess I don't see any point further pursuing as an optional feature. Grant thanks for taking a look.

[Clyde]

@Riverstorm said in [mame2003/-plus] Removing individual per-game bindings via Tab menu:

Current MAME behavior is double delete sets a field to NONE or pressing Enter and ESC once toggles between NONE and default. If it's set to default it will change to NONE or if it's set to NONE it will change to default.

Ah, I didn't notice that while testing the binding behaviour in MAME 0.185, but you are right: Esc after Enter toggles a binding between none and default. Thanks for clarifying that.

@grant2258 said in [mame2003/-plus] Removing individual per-game bindings via Tab menu:

well ask mark and arcadez ifi had a real life case scenario i would just do it right now i just need one example that its needed beyond mame current does it.

Well, I gave you three examples of games that need heavy re-binding to work with normal sticks (or one stick for dual-stick games for that matter). Of course I could use any key as a placeholder for none, but I like my bindings to be clear and self-explaining. Any placeholder isn't as clear about its meaning of "none" than none itself, especially some time after setting it, when the memory about its meaning is long since gone.

Beyond that, I concur with @Riverstorm. If statements from long-time MAME users like us that we see usefulness in this feature aren't enough for you, it's regrettable but fine insofar as it is your choice what to do with your free time, and we are in absolutely no position to demand anything from you. But I consider it moot to think up more examples on the spur of the moment that may or may not meet your seemingly quite high requirements for "real life cases", I'm afraid.

edit: typo

[grant2258]

you guys can take it up with the team i have posted the code that will set it to none its up to the team if they want this or not. I have never ever once in my life had to set a key to none.

dual joysticks are completely different from normal joysticks they are set as left/right.

anyway im not saying no I just cant myself fathum any reason to set a input mame needs to none.

https://github.com/libretro/mame2003-plus-libretro/issues/451

+maps this to the rstick buy to the analog rights stick and buttons, there is also an option to set it dual joysticks on arcade cabs

edit

[Clyde]

@grant2258 said in [mame2003/-plus] Removing individual per-game bindings via Tab menu:

you guys can take it up with the team i have posted the code that will set it to none its up to the team if they want this or not. I have never ever once in my life had to set a key to none.

And yet, you hear from us that we did. Thanks for posting the code.

dual joysticks are completely different from normal joysticks they are set as left/right.

Alas, it isn't as simple as that with those games in MAME. In Assault, for example, there are normal bindings P1 Up, P1 Down etc. next to P1 Up/Right etc. who interfere in some control schemes. The normal directional bindings have to be removed for some schemes to work like 1-stick mappings. This is one of the real use cases where none would be ideal and more elegant than dummy keys.

anyway im not saying no I just cant myself fathum any reason to set a input mame needs to none.

And yet we do. This is the circular conversation we are locked in that @Riverstorm mentioned.

Again, thanks for posting the code.

[grant2258]

you havent mentioned anything in particluar just they need rebinds

Any time I don't want a binding in a particular game, but keep it in all others. For example, games with special dual-stick controls like Battle Zone, Assault, and Vindicators require extensive re-bindings. Besides, it is the behaviour in modern MAME versions, so the MAME developers seem to see the need of it, too.

you can rebind a input. what has to be set to none on these games ? if I get clarification ill put a pull req in with a reason

[Riverstorm]

@grant2258 - I've watched you implement several features with zero input from the "team". I guess why now, why all of sudden did it become a joint matter when half the code changes you do is of your own accord.

Maybe folks have a custom cab and they want to nul keys to keep them out of the way for Robotron, Crazy Climber, Smash T.V., Total Carnage, etc. Maybe they repurpose a key and nul it out in certain games.

So you can't think of a single scenario? None that would be useful? You know literally you can not ever set a key to nul in Plus, even if you want to, literally unless you set all games to nul from Input (general) and inherit down. Even if you want to test something. I guess, yeah, ok...

The part the puzzles me is you have the code completed and it only strengthens the core with more options and multiple ways to clear fields but you seem to dangle it like a carrot. I struggle with the logic here. I'm not sure if you want folks to massage or beg the feature from you but I agree with @Clyde everyone's going to always come up a few inches to short using your yard stick for reasons why this would be a useful feature.

I don't understand but respect your decision, time and consideration for this feature and it's ok you chose not to move forward after coding it. I guess I was just curious why this feature is special and needs full approval from the team and the other half of the time you're the only guy on the team making decisions!

[markwkidd]

To clarify the decision-making process, only arcadez, twinaphex, and myself can commit new code to mame2003-plus. Nothing makes it in without being looked at by at least one of us. There isn't a strict decision making process between the three maintainers but we do coordinate on important questions or contested opinions.

Grant is one of if not the most prolific contributor so he has a lot of credibility with all three of us.

For myself I am aware that I don't have near the depth of knowledge about the games and their control schemes as the rest of you. Because it seems like communication isn't going great here, I will look up these games, reread what's been posted, and see if I can get this scenario in my head.

My primitive understanding at the moment from reading this thread is that there might be a game with a control that users don't ever want to use out of preference. By setting the control to None, you can avoid accidentally triggering the control in-game.

I did notice that joystick directions and dual-joystick games were also mentioned. If I understand this, then there are some idiosyncracies within specific games that can cause problems when input is registered certain ways. That really sounds like a bug, or at least a bad default mapping, but I realize I'm rusty on dual joystick games.

I will refresh myself on those dual joystick control schemes (shouldn't be too hard -- I was up to date on them in the Spring) so I can also communicate better about that. Give me a day or two if you will.

[grant2258]

smash tv / carnaage is fixed robotron has no issues can you clarify plz

https://github.com/grant2258/mame2003-plus-libretro/commit/23f9ed9e753b5500624b7af9a4649b48eaf5ca01

[Riverstorm]

Shoot I can't do it. You missed the whole point entirely. I apologize but we've done this so many many times and it goes nowhere. I've even had to refer to prior posts because your claims simply aren't true or you've been wrong a time or two also. Gosh, you know, I can't sell you a feature you don't want to buy. I can work around how you want to keep the core. It's alright m8.

[grant2258]

@Riverstorm you need give me a specific example or leave it thats not asking too much is it

if you want your x y a b to work in dual joystick you dont need to map it all your do is pick Mame Right Stick to Buttons; enabled|disabled" in the option menu and its automaticly mapped to the right analog stick as well

[grant2258]

to answer your question no i cant think of a reason to nul mame input in games this game only show the inputs the games use why would you need to disable it

[grant2258]

on a final note the code to set it to none has been linked all you need to do is provide a scenario for me to to add it as a pull request.

That is something that has not been answered from the very start. Its not me doing any dancing round anything. You are not providing a proof of concept use. So all i can do is say i where the code is and let the team deiced because im really stumped without this is all.

I rarely use this core only when testing this feature doesnt not make a difference to me if its added or not.

I wont add something on a general comment without real a proof on concept of why its needed. Thats why I passed it on I cant justify why i would do this I asking you to help with that so it can be added its not about right and wrong.

[Clyde]

@grant2258 said in [mame2003/-plus] Removing individual per-game bindings via Tab menu:

you havent mentioned anything in particluar just they need rebinds

Yes I have:

@Clyde said in [mame2003/-plus] Removing individual per-game bindings via Tab menu:

In Assault, for example, there are normal bindings P1 Up, P1 Down etc. next to P1 Up/Right etc. who interfere in some control schemes. The normal directional bindings have to be removed for some schemes to work like 1-stick mappings. This is one of the real use cases where none would be ideal and more elegant than dummy keys.

To be more specific, I used this guide to set up single stick controls in Battlezone and Assault. For the latter, I had to "remove" (i.e. rebind to dummy keys) the pre-bound P1 Up, P1 Down etc. because they interfered with the rest of this binding scheme.

@grant2258 said in [mame2003/-plus] Removing individual per-game bindings via Tab menu:

you can rebind a input. what has to be set to none on these games ? if I get clarification ill put a pull req in with a reason

I also adressed this already:

@Clyde said in [mame2003/-plus] Removing individual per-game bindings via Tab menu:

Of course I could use any key as a placeholder for none, but I like my bindings to be clear and self-explaining. Any placeholder isn't as clear about its meaning of "none" than none itself, especially some time after setting it, when the memory about its meaning is long since gone.

Our apparently different perception what's already said is why @Riverstorm and I get the impression that we don't get through to you with our arguments, and that more arguments would only suffer the same fate. Playing the "I said so", "no you didn't", "yes I did" game is a waste of time and beneath the three of us in my opinion. So I'm at the point of agreeing to disagree in this matter, if my last attempt at a real use case above still isn't enough for you.

All this I say in the uttermost respect for your ongoing contribution to Retropie. 😌

@markwkidd said in [mame2003/-plus] Removing individual per-game bindings via Tab menu:

First and foremost, thanks for tuning in.

Grant is one of if not the most prolific contributor so he has a lot of credibility with all three of us.

It's the same with us (as @Riverstorm do not tire of pointing out), but even the most prolific contributor can be wrong or unnecessary demanding sometimes. Just make sure you don't fall into the argument from authority trap.

That said, I agree with you that communication is the main problem here.

My primitive understanding at the moment from reading this thread is that there might be a game with a control that users don't ever want to use out of preference. By setting the control to None, you can avoid accidentally triggering the control in-game.

From my perspective, that nailed one of my main reasons for preferring a none binding to a random dummy binding perfectly.

Besides, you suggested the Del key to "none" a binding yourself in the main mame2003-plus thread, but it doesn't work in both mame2003 and -plus. Is that inherited from MAME 0.78 or is it a bug? In either case, would it be a good idea to put that (back) into the 2003 mames for consistency with newer versions that people like us are familiar with? Just some food for thought.

[grant2258]

its the same on mame078 delete will use use the default in this game.

ill read that guide and see where its says to set an input to none rather than something else. That exactly what i needed to know thanks.

im just wondering how you ever managed to to this before when it never set to none

[grant2258]

@wilsonstorm said his self the not mapping is working so you are setting it to something else. I read that guide no where does it say set the key to none.

[grant2258]

Ill need to actually test these games out never played them if there is a need for set to none ill make the case in the pull req.

[grant2258]

~@clyde can you give me your setup for bzone and assault please just one if they are the same including the keys you are setting to none. I just want to understand this issue with this game

[Riverstorm]

@markwkidd - Taking it to the supreme court! I was wondering if you had time to take a look at the suggestion of adding the ability to map NONE in Input (this game) and made your final ruling?

Sorry if the earlier point didn't makes sense. I know you guys collaborate on the important features. I also know Arcadez doesn't care about input in fact he said he skips over input discussions altogether but I understand too he is a one man show because he does some serious driver work and memory mapping.

That leaves Grant by himself, most days, banging away and coding this stuff and asks "Hey, can one of you guys push this PR though." It does give him the ability to wash his hands of any accountability and dump it on you. When he removed himself as a collaborator I thought it's brilliant really, still in control of updates, and rests the crap decisions on your shoulders. :)

I also understand Grant is probably the main contributor and definitely so for the past several weeks and does one hell'va good job but as @Clyde pointed out even the prolific are prone to error and bad judgment. Without Grant doing what he's doing updates would slow significantly to a crawl I imagine. It's hard to slap the hand doing the feeding and say overruled but everyone needs to be kept honest once in a while.

Anyway in this case I would think bad judgment as @Clyde has given what was requested and makes the point perfectly. A game with an example of why implementing NONE in Input (this game) is needed or a good decision.

I don't mean to put character on the table but this feels like ‘proving I am smart, proving I am right, knowing all of the answers’. There can be a huge difference between intelligence and wisdom. I think the latter serves a leader more effectively than the former. Smart people usually don't make good leaders but the wise do. Anyway you've always been the cooler head in the group and have made a great face for this core. Everyone gets rubbed the wrong way occasionally and probably go to bed regretting certain decisions but I have yet to see you get really pi$$ed off about a subject. We (grant and I) have certainly have had some intense conversation about certain aspects on Github and it does get taxing we have to go to extremes all the time to get small updates. Prove it to me, let's run in circles for a while or I'll just change the context of what you said entirely and bring it back to square one.

“For the great individual achiever, it is all about me. For the great leader, it is all about them.”

Anyway take Assault for example you need to 'nul' some of the direction keys in order for the tank to move properly. If you don't the controls do not work properly. If you set Up, Down, Left and Right to any non-used character (in my case I usually use backquote) then the controls work properly. It would have been preferable if I had the ability to set them to NONE ourselves. You don't need anyone's setup, the defaults are sufficient to present the example.

I understand it's possible to code and change these default mappings but I find implementing this feature would be very beneficial allowing the users to set Input (this game) fields to NONE. It would allow flexibility to do some simple remapping ourselves to address these types of situations vs calling out to you guys every time we need a code change to update the defaults or nul a field. Putting that ability into our hands seems reasonable enough.

Also a few weeks ago I started setting fields to NONE through Input (general) and I learned some new things about how RA works. It just seems like this would be a great feature that's a win-win.

There's thousands and thousands of games in this core and I know more that will fit this same category. Current MAME, AdvMAME and several derivatives use the same scheme of the Enter + Escape key alternates between NONE and defaults (pulled from Input (general)).

You could say that's an isolated incident or give me another example or just keep them coming but honestly then it could go on and on. I think Vindicators is another that falls into this same category. This feature does no harm to the existing setup and would only bring new flexibility to the core.

As it sits now you can set Input (general) fields to NONE and they inherit down to Input (this game). This change would allow fields in Input (this game) to be set to NONE also. If you choose so you may hit ESC/ESC or LEFT/LEFT to reset it back to the defaults from Input (general).

Anyway that's my two cents and exhausted my resources on the subject. I guess the rest is up to you and I'm ok with your decision and will move forward.

@Clyde I've enjoyed reading what you have written and I still chuckle at some of other comments you made early in the discussion. A great sense of humor, the best part of people! ;)

Don't forget to get out and rock the vote if it applies. It matters!