Poll: Interactive Cockpits

[Antoninus]

We know that Oleg considers clickable virtual cockpits as not very useful for a combat flight simulator, but what do you think about them?

Personally I love this feature in FSX. It's very immersive to really fly the plane from the cockpit, adjust the altimeter or switching the lights as in the real thing. In Il-2 the cockpit is much too often just an obstacle that limits your view than your workplace, especially if you fly with speedbar and text messages switched on.

Of course nobody would (regularly) use the mouse to manipulate throttle, mixture and prop pitch/rpm controls or even the gun triggers, but there are already now lot's of of functions you use only once or twice during a mission. Currently things like lock/unlock the tailwheel, switch magnetos or aircraft specific features as folding wings, fire extinguishers or feather the props all have to be assigned to your keyboard.
Oleg has already stated (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=31730&postcount=3) that SOW will offer the possibility to simulate aircraft systems in greater detail, at least for 3rd party aircraft. Thus many more commands for things as switching fuel tanks etc. will become available and further overcrowd the keyboard layout.

I would prefer to have just the most important aircraft functions, that I need to access regularly or quickly during combat, mapped to my stick or keyboard and the more rarely used only as working switches in the cockpit.

[KG26_Alpha]

Not for me.

[nearmiss]

We know that Oleg considers clickable virtual cockpits as not very useful for a combat flight simulator, but what do you think about them?

Personally I love this feature in FSX. It's very immersive to really fly the plane from the cockpit, adjust the altimeter or switching the lights as in the real thing. In Il-2 the cockpit is much too often just an obstacle that limits your view than your workplace, especially if you fly with speedbar and text messages switched on.

Of course nobody would (regularly) use the mouse to manipulate throttle, mixture and prop pitch/rpm controls or even the gun triggers, but there are already now lot's of of functions you use only once or twice during a mission. Currently things like lock/unlock the tailwheel, switch magnetos or aircraft specific features as folding wings, fire extinguishers or feather the props all have to be assigned to your keyboard.
Oleg has already stated (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=31730&postcount=3) that SOW will offer the possibility to simulate aircraft systems in greater detail, at least for 3rd party aircraft. Thus many more commands for things as switching fuel tanks etc. will become available and further overcrowd the keyboard layout.

I would prefer to have just the most important aircraft functions, that I need to access regularly or quickly during combat, mapped to my stick or keyboard and the more rarely used only as working switches in the cockpit.

Clickable cockpits don't work well in CFS, because when you are in the heat of conflict finding the right button to push or pull,etc. will get your butt killed.

If you want clickable elements get a X-Keys macro programmable keyboard. You can program a number of keystrokes to work with one key stroke on the X-keys. This is fast and on the fly in combat you'll find it is a best way.

ALso, the voice command things aren't bad if you articulate your words the same all the time and don't mind talking to yourself.

It is one thing to view the cockpit panel and find the switch, but it becomes very tedious having to view the switch, move the cursor over the switch and click it. Moving the mouse cursor and aligning it over the switch is definitely the slow part.

A best solution that may be implemented at some point will be touch screen technology, like in restaurants or McDonalds. The user sees the key function on the screen and touches it, that would work in combat.

[proton45]

Honestly, I probably wouldn't use it that much...

[Antoninus]

Clickable cockpits don't work well in CFS, because when you are in the heat of conflict finding the right button to push or pull,etc. will get your butt killed.

You can still map the most important functions to your keyboard even if the cockpits are clickable. My point is that there a douzend other commands you never need during combat. How many times have you folded your wings or lowered the arresting hook while in a dogfight?

If you want clickable elements get a X-Keys macro programmable keyboard. You can program a number of keystrokes to work with one key stroke on the X-keys. This is fast and on the fly in combat you'll find it is a best way.

That's same as starting the engine with a single keystroke as it is done now. It may be convenient but not realistic and certainly pointless to simulate complex procedures just to bypass them with shortcuts. A simulator should try to recreate the pilot's workload as closely as possible. If you have more things do to and think about you can make more, maybe decisive, mistakes.

[nearmiss]

You can still map the most important functions to your keyboard even if the cockpits are clickable. My point is that there a douzend other commands you never need during combat. How many times have you folded your wings or lowered the arresting hook while in a dogfight?



That's same as starting the engine with a single keystroke as it is done now. It may be convenient but not realistic and certainly pointless to simulate complex procedures just to bypass them with shortcuts. A simulator should try to recreate the pilot's workload as closely as possible. If you have more things do to and think about you can make more, maybe decisive, mistakes.


IL2 is a WW2 combat flight simulator that covers a time when flying and fighting was less complicated, less restrictive.

You like all the button tweaking and complications yo need to stick with the MSFT and X-Plane type flight Simulators... They've got all the whistles and bells for doing all the stuff you want to do. They also have all the clickable cockpit stuff.

I like WW2 flight simulators. I like the speed, firepower and combat effectiveness of WW2 aircraft. I enjoy the lack of complications of post Korean war stuff.

Heck, I don't even care for the C.E.M. in IL2. I'd just soon Oleg created a most excellent C.E.M. switch, which wouldn't be that hard to do. I care less about messing with all the C.E.M stuff.

It's all about enjoyment, relaxation, it's a game.

If I want to go through all the complications of flying navs, flight plans, etc. I'll drive out to the airport and rent a plane.

[SlipBall]

I would love this feature, and have asked for it many times. Would be nice to have it with a switch, for those who do not like

[Supah]

I would love this feature, without it we will still be stuck with the single key to start engines, fuel management will become a chore and we will never see realistic modelling of essential aircraft systems. You wouldnt use it for functions you use in combat ofcourse, you assign those functions to a button on your keyboard or better yet to a button on your joystick. But if we are to have even semi realistic procedures to say start an engine then it is much easier to click the relative handle then to remember a awkward key combination. Having a clickable pit allows much greater depth of simulation, without it you are almost stuck with a game instead of a simulation.

I recently bought Falcon 4 : Allied Force, I quite enjoy a more complicated system suite in a simulation. I start every mission on the ramp and to the complete start up procedure in the falcon. It's not THAT hard and quite fun to do. We want to simulate what it is like to be a combat pilot right? Well this is part of it, waiting for your INS to spin up etc. It's been done very well in falcon4, the MSFS series (no combat there but try flying a ILS approach in a 747 ... lots of high workload moments, you map keys you need then to your stick). Basically this is a choice between simulation (Click pit) and game (Dumbed down procedures because of lack of keys) Besides, the systems on a ww2 fighter were relatively simple compared to a F-16A MLU. Also its not like you are forced to use it, you can always press I to start your engine. As you can see a quarter of users wants it so it's worth the effort programming it. I probably wont be flying the spitfire, you arent hearing me saying they shouldn't waste their time making it flyable? I understand a lot of people will be wanting to fly it.

[Former_Older]

I would love this feature, without it we will still be stuck with the single key to start engines, fuel management will become a chore and we will never see realistic modelling of essential aircraft systems.

wha?!

No, no it would not be a single key press to start the engines. It would be a single key press to use each system or flip each switch. You need to stop thinking in the box here. Your logic says:

'in il2 a single keypress was used, so that means a non-clickable cockpit always uses a single key press'


This is just not so

And how does a clickable cockpit ensure "accuracy for essential systems", while a keypress interface destroys that accuracy?

Personally? I see many of the 'click cockpit' proponents as Puritans who can't conceive of any other way to do it. I have a flippin HOTAS, and touchbuddy exists. I also have a seperate USB numpad that I map plane functions to. In my opinion, forcing a click cockpit severely limits a combat flight sim becasue now precise mouse control is the end-all and be-all of ACM

If you guys like it, great for you. I would never suggest having the clickpit as anything other than an option

[Former_Older]

Oh-

the poll choices are a little limiting. I either think the clickpit sucks, or it's the best thing ever

[II./JG1_Wilcke]

In a real cockpit you learn where are all the buttons, dials and levers are and which way to actuate them for all flight regimes. You can close your eyes and just do it. With our games it is next to impossible to mouse on over to the button or lever and actuate it and still keep your head out of the cockpit.

So "no" we do not need clickable cockpit stuff. Spend the valuable and limited development time on something that adds more to the experience. Like improved offline play. I am not buying a procedural trainer.

[proton45]

Oh-

the poll choices are a little limiting. I either think the clickpit sucks, or it's the best thing ever


agreed... I might think that it was fun to "click around" now and again, and I might enjoy the detail (mid-flight) but I probably wouldn't use it most of the time.

[SlipBall]

I would perfer key assignments over the mouse, but either of them would be cool

[Bearcat]

Clickable cockpits are a waste of time and resources. I think that resources would be better used in any flight sim creating a multileveled startup procedure from a 1 key start to a full function start.. as far as processes go. I think that rather than clickable cockpits just make all the functions assignable. Clickable pits are going backwards. The actual startup procedure for many WWII aircraft took less time than the walkaround.

[nearmiss]

Clickable cockpits are a waste of time and resources. I think that resources would be better used in any flight sim creating a multileveled startup procedure from a 1 key start to a full function start.. as far as processes go. I think that rather than clickable cockpits just make all the functions assignable. Clickable pits are going backwards. The actual startup procedure for many WWII aircraft took less time than the walkaround.

It always amuses at the things people want, and how often this kinda stuff shows up time and again. We must be the nicest of people, because we give their requests a fair howdy every time. LOL

I wonder, can you vote twice?

[ElAurens]

I am not buying a procedural trainer.

Exactly. If I wanted that I'd be a FSX junky.

[Supah]

wha?!

No, no it would not be a single key press to start the engines. It would be a single key press to use each system or flip each switch. You need to stop thinking in the box here. Your logic says:

'in il2 a single keypress was used, so that means a non-clickable cockpit always uses a single key press'


This is just not so

And how does a clickable cockpit ensure "accuracy for essential systems", while a keypress interface destroys that accuracy?

Personally? I see many of the 'click cockpit' proponents as Puritans who can't conceive of any other way to do it. I have a flippin HOTAS, and touchbuddy exists. I also have a seperate USB numpad that I map plane functions to. In my opinion, forcing a click cockpit severely limits a combat flight sim becasue now precise mouse control is the end-all and be-all of ACM

If you guys like it, great for you. I would never suggest having the clickpit as anything other than an option


What do you think is easier? Remembering Ctrl + Alt + E to switch on the batteries or just remembering where the switch is? I can tell you now that remembering where the switch is in the cockpit is much easier. And that would just be activating the electrical system. Then you would need to remember and use another awkward key-combo to activate the fuelpump, hydraulics and starter. I'd much rather use the click pit. I can have falcon 4's F-16 running (outside having to wait for the INS to spool up) in seconds.

On certain aircraft the systems are essential to operating it as a fighting machine, say the mustang and its fuel balance problems. Have fun draining the wingtanks first instead of the tank behind the pilot! To people saying that it will only be awkward in combat, do you think real pilot's went "Now that I am chasing this 109 at low level I think it is a good time to change my radio frequency and mess with my hydraulic system!" No ofcourse not, those things are set at the beginning of the flight and once you are airborne and especially in combat you should not have to fiddle with this. If you do have to you messed up and should have set your plane up for flight and fight better, that is part of being a fighter pilot.

Saying just because you might not like it it shouldn't be done, I probably will never play this online, perhaps on my LAN with some friends. With your logic Oleg shouldn't waste his time on making an online game engine, I won't use it so neither should others be able to do so right?

To the people who think this is a nice reason to talk negative about FSX, I do not want a shallow point an shoot game, if I did I'd buy Unreal Tournament. I want a simulator featuring ww2 aircraft. These planes had quite complex systems for their time, those systems were critical for the planes function and often a factor in succes of failure. Having only a simplified version of them leaves out a lot of the experience.

[Tribunus]

A clickable cockpit sounds nice at first, but it’s a gimmick. And if you’re interested in emersion, it’s not the answerer. Pilots, especially combat pilots knew the inside of their cockpit like the back of their hand. They could find most controls without having to look at all, or at most they might have to take a quick glance.

With a clickable cockpit, you need to carefully move the mouse pointer to the tiny little 3mm spot on your screen that activates that particular control and then click on it. In my mind that’s not realistic and it’s sure not immersive.

A well thought out HOTAS system with either a dedicated number pad, or even an additional keyboard is in my opinion much more realistic.

[Widowmaker214]

It works great.. for mundane tasks..
Falcon4 AF has a clickable cockpit..
and we used it ALOT.. from the 20+ process of starting the engine..
configuring chaff / flare programs..
adjusting weapon ripples and burst altitudes in the MFDs..
to TFR flying.

Of course the Chaff/flare button, while clickable, was still mapped to the stick.

Most stuff that you can click with.. is bested used when starting up the aircraft...
or in ingress/egress.
(like adjusting fuel tanks, switching the guns on, starting the aircraft etc)

I think it would be fine to do, if they have the time..
but what I really want to do..is just built a cockpit with all the actual switches around me.. with the gauges that work.

THAT is a project I plan to complete.. one of these days :)

[Abbeville-Boy]

some thing more than the single key we have now, and trouble with cold weather starting would add alot for me

[Snuff_Pidgeon]

It would be great as an option.

[robtek]

Agreed,

as an option it would be fine,
BUT all clickable funktions must be mappable to the hotas or keyboard as well,
so you don´t have to use it.

[Antoninus]

Indeed, some commands have to be quickly accesible. But I don't know
any sim with clickable cockpits where you can't map all commands to the keyboard (except some workarounds by creative 3rd party devs.), no developer would do this.

[6S.Maraz]

It depends on how many features are iplemented in the cockpit.
With today's IL-2 features it would be a waste of time.

With more features as tunable radio, ADF, radarm more sophisticated engine modeling, etc. it would be useful

Maraz

[robtek]

Yeah, imagine you switch the frequency on your radio and you are in a different teamspeak channel.
Of course one has to memorize at the briefing the frequencies for fighters, bombers and so on.
And in Bombers you have to switch from intercom to external radio.
And so on and on and on...

[=815=TooCooL]

I registered just to vote 'NO'

I vote no. :grin: I hate procedure training simulator.
Moreover, I've never thought clicking buttons with mouse cursor(the white or yellow cursor!) is realistic.

[proton45]

I will tell you what I would definitely want... I want an option that would allow me to have "mouse over cockpit information".

Traditionally speaking IL2 has had so many different air planes to fly that I could never keep track of where all the different dials and gauges are (and what they mean). I want to be able to mouse over a gauge and have it remind me that it is a "temp" gauge or "oil pressure" or wheels up (whatever)... I wouldn't need it all the time but it could help me at the start of a mission...

[Friedric]

I woul like it very much ;)

And i now manny of my squadron mates wil like to have a clikable cockpit also

[SlipBall]

Worst come to worst, maybe Oleg will allow a third party to give us our complex feature's that we crave, in the near future after the sim release...heres hoping anyway!

[96th_Nightshifter]

To me personally having to click using the mouse is less immersive than having to press a button on say the keyeboard for example, surely pressing a button is more realistic than pointing with a little arrow with a mouse?

Real pilots have to learn where the real switches are thats for sure but I being a virtual pilot (and a real pilot) have to know what buttons to press in this game i.e. what combination of buttons does what and I don't know about you guys but I learn't a long time ago how to press these combinations without even looking at the keyboard since I now instinctively know where they are - isn't that more realistic than pointing with a mouse pointer?

I'd like the procedures to be more complicated as they should be but I can handle the combinations needed, especially using Game pads etc. which you can assign complex key strokes to one button.

If the option was there to use then fair enough but I wouldn't probably use it as IMO it is less realistic than what we have now.

Would be cool maybe if when you moved the mouse, instead of a pointer you saw an arm and hand actually animated moving the switches but if would take even more development for this stuff so I can't see it happening.

[Blackdog_kt]

Agreed,

as an option it would be fine,
BUT all clickable funktions must be mappable to the hotas or keyboard as well,
so you don´t have to use it.

I tend to agree here. Let's think a bit outside a black and white reasoning that says we either have clickable cockpits or we don't.

Assuming the level of complexity arises the way realism dictates (ie, the example about fuel management in a mustang), there's going to be an awful lot of functions to map to a keyboard. Well, guess what, my keyboard command list is already cluttered enough in IL2 as it is and not everyone can afford gaming keyboards or touch screens. I think that closing our eyes to the artificial gap this creates between players has important implications in a competitive online scenario, so much that we should ideally look towards giving the players enough options to remain capable without necessarily having to whip out their credit cards.

For example, i fly IL2 with a very dependable but aging MS sidewinder precision pro and nothing else, which means i have to map mixture and pitch controls to my keyboard because engine management is obviously important enough in combat. However, i also have to map bombsight controls to my keyboard and this is something that clutters up the layout to perform a task that could just as well be done by clickable dials. It's not as if i'm furiously maneuvering with wreckless abandon during a bomb run in a He111, is it?

This is why i would gladly advocate a hybrid system. Make the switches clickable but also make them assignable to the keyboard or stick buttons. What you consider important stuff will go on keyboard and stick so you don't have to look around the pit and click furiously in the midst of combat. The less important stuff that you touch once or twice per flight you will still be able to manipulate but you won't need to assign keys to them, leaving them assignable for more important functions. I seriously doubt that changing fuel tanks and calibrating altimeters is something people do while fighting, they do things like that on the ground before take off or during cruise.

If i don't want to look around for a switch to click then by all means i'll map it to a key combination or buy a separate gaming keypad, but i wouldn't advocate an implementation that limits the options of other players in competing with me, assuming that the new sim will be complex enough to model more procedures. This is however a separate debate. I'm not arguing for or against detailed checklist procedures for things like engine start, what i'm supporting is a suitably customizable control method to suit as much people as possible in case these procedures are eventually modelled.

[crazyivan1970]

Definitely waste of time. Some might enjoy it for a day or two... then never look at it again.

[TX-EcoDragon]

As a long time simmer who's gotten used to clickable cockpits (and a pilot who is as well) I feel that they are critical to an immersive sim. . .particularly as complexity of the aircraft increases. Along with accurate flight physics, this feature is a big factor in what makes or breaks most sims for me. IL-2 was the first and last sim that I continued to play despite very simplified systems management and cockpit interface . . .but at this point I'd expect no less than clickable cockpits in any future titles.

LockOn is the worst example of a useable control interface I've seen, and ten years earlier the Jane's and MSFS sims were doing clickable displays, rotating knobs etc. I would LOVE to have a panel that communicates things to me so that I didn't need a big scrolling text log in the right of the screen, I would love to not need to remember obscure keyboard commands to do things like advance the supercharger stage, set mix/prop/mags etc. I never used LockOn for anything other than formation flying with an aerobatic team, and the lack of clickable cockpits is the main reason why. It’s always seemed a bit odd to be staring at a switch right in front of you that you can’t flip. . .

Some people will not care one way or another about these things, but these people are generally going to be what I'd call gamers first and foremost. Perhaps it is them that a software producer would rather cater to, but there are pilots out there who also enjoy realism and utility, and there are dedicated flight sim pilots who would as well. Those that have never flown with these features might not have much basis for comparison, or perhaps it's really all about the combat game vs the flight simulation.

For people who don't want to use these things (or who fly with cockpit off), they can go on using the keyboard commands, but it's my opinion that no self respecting simulation will ignore these features.

[Former_Older]

...but how can you advocate this old-time clickpit, when better things are available?

http://www.touch-buddy.com/forums/faq/18-master-faq.html

Clickpits are not the answer, are they? As a real pilot, you really feel that manipulating and clicking a mouse in a sim is more 'correct' than keystrokes? How? Say I'm looking up in my full virtual cockpit...how can I also click the control to drop my belly tanks or arm my guns? How in the world can I do that? OK, so say it's on my HOTAS. How do I click the radio to chnage channels, with the mouse while I'm looking up? Conversely, I can just reach down and click my touchbuddy screen or keyboard, yes?

[tater]

It all depends on what is being simulated, IMO.

IMO, all that matters is the end result. In that sense, some CEM stuff is required, obviously, but even that can sometimes miss the forest for the trees.

The questions to ask for simulation, IMO, are:

1. Is the system complex enough that realistic variations in pilot skill are taken into account by the CEM system. Ie: someone who pays attention does better (milage, ROC, etc).

2. Does the interface result in actions in the cockpit by the virtual pilot taking the same amount of time/attention as a RL pilot?

#2 is CRITICAL, IMO. IF the click interface takes me 15 seconds to get the plane ready for a dive, and in RL it took 5, it's not simulating anything. If the keyboard shortcut or HOTAS takes me a fraction of a second to do something that should take several seconds, then THAT is wrong.

That said, since the switches are already animated, why not? Then it seems the player could create a combo of keymaps and clicks.

Take things like charging the guns, arming a bomb, etc. That's great for a interactive cockpit.

tater

[Blackdog_kt]

Exactly correct. The more complex the sim becomes the faster we run out of availble keyboard mappings and like i said before, not everyone can afford to shell out extra money for touch screens or that nice CH pad with customizable key layouts.

All i'm saying is, as long as there is sufficient complexity in the new sim to warrant a list of new controls modelled, then give us an extra option to manipulate said controls without having to buy extra peripherals or remember a dozen more key mappings. In the end, if i need to press ctrl+shift+alt+t+1 to switch to my no.1 fuel tank i feel it's no more unrealistic than having to look down and select it by clicking a switch with the mouse.

[tater]

^^^ Agreed.

I think blanket statements one way or another are probably simplistic.

A bunch of those things, like arming guns, switching fuel tanks, etc, are not done very often, and simply don't warrant a dedicated control, or god forbid multiple sticksets.

That way you can keep all the most used stuff close at hand.

[TX-EcoDragon]

...but how can you advocate this old-time clickpit, when better things are available?

http://www.touch-buddy.com/forums/faq/18-master-faq.html

Clickpits are not the answer, are they? As a real pilot, you really feel that manipulating and clicking a mouse in a sim is more 'correct' than keystrokes? How? Say I'm looking up in my full virtual cockpit...how can I also click the control to drop my belly tanks or arm my guns? How in the world can I do that? OK, so say it's on my HOTAS. How do I click the radio to chnage channels, with the mouse while I'm looking up? Conversely, I can just reach down and click my touchbuddy screen or keyboard, yes?

That's a pretty cool bit of software, and perhaps that's a potential solution for some of us (if I had a second monitor and/or touchscreen). As far as your other comments, there is no doubt that some of these things are things that in the real aircraft a pilot could do without looking (though in many circumstances that's considered bad practice), and I'm not attempting to imply that clcikable cockpits is a better solution for that sort of thing. I don't really see it being all that related to that issue to be honest. For a real tactile experience of being in a cockpit we need a cockpit mockup! I still need to take my eyes off the monitor to look for my keyboard, and find the key combo I'm after. For many things I'm fine with that. Even in most clickable cockpit sims I still use the "g" key to lower my gear. If I had a cockpit mockup with a gear lever I'd certainly rather use that. . .but I don't have that sorta setup.
Flying with clickable cockpits simply feels the most realistic in my experience-I'm not saying it's perfect, but many of us chose to make do with a hotas and single monitor and we might not have a full tilt-sim-pit.

I guess I just have a hard time understanding what is so difficult about incorporating clickable cockpits, and no I don't think anyone really is talking about doing this at the expense of keyboard or joystick mappings. . .so those of you that don't want to be able to grab the mags with your mouse, can reach for you keyboard if you want.


I've built plenty of cockpits within MSFS and X-plane and I just assign a function to a particular clickspot on the panel. . .for all subsequent panels it takes a few minutes to do. If they are already planning on animating toggles and levers in cockpit, that seems like the bulk of the challenge is already going to be done.

While I don't expect all gamers to enjoy a realistic start procedure, I think that's what realism settings are for, and if planning a new flight sim, it would be foolish to be so limited from the outset, that those who are capable and interested in procedural sims will have to look elsewhere when this sim has so many other things to offer. I guess I wouldn't care if I didn't love this series so much. . .but to the bulk of pilots I introduce it to, the inability to interact witht the cockpit, and the simplified systems management and procedures always generates a few chuckles. . .I often realize how much I overlook in order to enjoy this game. Why not be better than that. . .at least as an option? I've been an advocate of this sim to many different niches within the gaming world as well as the pilot community, and I'd like to see this sim grow to offer more for the various groups, as I feel that is in the best interest of the sim community here, as well as the sim developers. The Su-26 is one great step in that direction, but it too is met with much resistance by those who just want to press I and blow stuff up.

[Blackdog_kt]

I don't know if this is the case and i'm certainly nor accusing anyone of anything in particular, but bear with me while i try to make a guess about the whole "procedural simulation" debate.

It could be that some people don't want BoB to go that way because they don't want to be labeled as the player group of "less than full switch".

For example, i remember reading suggestions about a toggle to switch between complex and automatic CEM on the fly, just like we switch between speedbar settings. To that, i replied that in an online scenario it will drive down the collective realism level to something that the game host didn't intend to do. If i have to manage 3 systems and the other guy simply moves one slider, then i'm already at a disadvantage and will probably toggle easy CEM on myself. The problem here being that i initially joined said server to fly complex CEM. It's like flying in a server with half the pilots in locked cockpit and the other half using wonder woman view, ie it doesn't make sense.

The solution is pretty simple, it's the set of difficulty options in the realism panel which are and should be enforced by the host.

Just the same, it would be a shame to limit the new sim from the get go because some things would be boring to a part of the players. If it is indeed boring to so many people, i guess the majority of servers will run lower realism settings and the problem is solved. I don't see why we should lobby to limit the fun of those who want something a bit more complicated. To this end and because of the difficulty of mapping everything to keyboard and HOTAS, it seems like a very good idea to me to have the option of clickable cockpits. Almost all the important bits in every plane are already animated in IL2, so i doubt it would be so much work to do for BoB.

And just like EcoDragon said, those of us who don't like this method can still use the keyboard. However, having a broader scope of options, both in control methods and realism is not only a good thing for the player, but it will also help with the sim's sales to the hardcore part of the crowd who like to fly 747s on cargo trips half way around the globe. Which in turn means more revenue to support the game we like so much. I can't see why this should be argued against just because someone might tell me i'm flying on easy settings. I fly the settings i enjoy, whether online or offline. But i wouldn't like to make my preferred settings the highest available just so i can claim that i fly full real and ruin someone else's fun in the process.

[SlipBall]

There is no doubt that sale's of SOW would increase greatly, I've always wondered why Oleg can't see that. Many of the MS crowd would be drawn in just for the fun of flight, many of whom will choose to enjoy without the on-line combat aspect of the sim

[ElAurens]

Somehow I find it hard to believe (and it's possible I'm quite wrong about this) that anyone who thinks that piloting a flying cattle car for 6 hours in a simulation is "fun" is going to find anything they like in a combat simulator. What are they gonna do for that amount of time in a WW2 bird? No ATC to chat with, no autopilot to take over when nature calls, or the phone rings. Of course there won't be many aircraft with that kind of range anyway in BoB.

I'm just trying to understand this type of virtual flying. I have FSX, and after the "new" wore off, it just sits on my HD now, collecting virtual dust. I don't know what I'm supposed to do with FSX other than fly around doing, well, nothing. But I digress.

I'm not against a more immersive and detailed experience in the cockpit, but there has to be some sort of middle ground, some scalability that will allow all of us to have our cockpit options and still fly on the same servers. I sure don't want to be stuck in "kiddy car" servers just because I don't want to use a "clickpit".

I have DVDs of the training films for most of the USAAF combat types flown in the war, and after watching them I will say that if absolute strict startup, fuel management, etc... proceedures are enforced you won't ever see a P-38 in the virtual sky again.

That thing is an ergonomic nightmare.

[Supah]

Somehow I find it hard to believe (and it's possible I'm quite wrong about this) that anyone who thinks that piloting a flying cattle car for 6 hours in a simulation is "fun" is going to find anything they like in a combat simulator. What are they gonna do for that amount of time in a WW2 bird? No ATC to chat with, no autopilot to take over when nature calls, or the phone rings. Of course there won't be many aircraft with that kind of range anyway in BoB.

I'm just trying to understand this type of virtual flying. I have FSX, and after the "new" wore off, it just sits on my HD now, collecting virtual dust. I don't know what I'm supposed to do with FSX other than fly around doing, well, nothing. But I digress.

I'm not against a more immersive and detailed experience in the cockpit, but there has to be some sort of middle ground, some scalability that will allow all of us to have our cockpit options and still fly on the same servers. I sure don't want to be stuck in "kiddy car" servers just because I don't want to use a "clickpit".

I have DVDs of the training films for most of the USAAF combat types flown in the war, and after watching them I will say that if absolute strict startup, fuel management, etc... proceedures are enforced you won't ever see a P-38 in the virtual sky again.

That thing is an ergonomic nightmare.

Hey way to talk down people from the FSX community. Yeah let's be rude and offensive that's one sure way to draw in new players to this game and make Oleg loads of money. I for one would love to see C-47's etc. and perhaps troop gliders piloted by real players online or on LAN games. Operating a bomber requires a lot more instruments and controls then a single engine fighter and I think a clickpit would be a real boon for the bomberboys (and galls).

It's not like because of a lot of controlls being useable by clicking the cockpit that you will not be able to map them to a key on the keyboard or to a button, axis or slider on your throttle. I use a HOTAS too in FSX and have almost all the buttons mapped, I still use the clickpit for a lot of functions like adjusting the fuelselector, fiddle with radio's and adjusting the navigational instruments. In a real plane (well the ones I can afford to fly anyway ;) ) I need to reach out to adjust the barometric pressure on the altimeter too, that takes about as much time as it does to put the mouse cursor on it. Same goes with transponder, HSI gyro drift etc.

To those saying it is merely a gimmick, I use the clickpits in FSX and Falcon 4 on every mission. I start ever flight or misson cold and dark. Having the overly simplified startup procedures you have now is way more unrealistic then a clickpit will ever be, even a awfully implemented one. This is not a procedural training thing, I can have falcons jet running in seconds, it doesn't take forever and I don't even need a check list anymore (though IRL for safeties sake and the fact that there is no refly button you should use it when at all possible). I urge people to try sims with this feature like FS2004, FSX and Falcon 4 Allied force before they pass judgement on this feature. The numbers of this poll do not lie, a third of users who voted wants it, I think it's rather foolish to ignore such a large part of your customer base. Add to that people coming from other communities like FSX who might be interested in say the Tiger Moth might be a bit turned off by this omision.

[robtek]

@supah
please do not forget that what is posted here are opinions of individuals.
You do not have to share them, but you must accept them.
In my own personal opinion i find it also very boring to fly a cessna or a boeing
in a civil - Flightsim once the new has worn off.
But thats it, my opinion. I didn´t say that civil - FS - Fans are queer or something.
I just stated what i like and like ElAurens didn´t "talk down the people of the FSX community"

[RockStar]

I love it in FSX, I would love it in BoB!

[nearmiss]

If we had a change for every tweak like this one...

Did you know there a players, like myself that can use both hands competently.

I fly with a MSFT FF2 stick in my right hand, a Kensington Expert Mouse (trackball that looks like a queball) on my left hand, and keyboard between.

http://us.kensington.com/html/2200.html

I use the trackball for viewing. I have used it now since Il2 1.0. I click on the #2 button on my joystick or #5 on number pad to go front and center for targeting and I move my index and middle finger tips across the trackball (slight movements) and it moves my view very quickly and I can see as well as anyone using a TrackIR and I never have a stiff neck. I don't have to make sure I hold my head still or not move my head from side to side. I don't lose situational awareness, if I fly with the cockpit just like someone flying TrackIR. I like the trackball, because where I move my view... it stays until I move it.

You cannot use the mouse viewing and have the mouse clickble cockpits. In fact, in MSFT flight simulators (FSX) you either use the TrackIR or POV only. In the old CFS2 you could only use the POV. I don't remember if it is the same in CFS3 I put that "dog down" about a month after I bought it.

So, just because someone thinks it's a simple thing to just add some new thing like mouse clickable cockpits they should realize there are plenty of other people affected.

The most difficult part of flying as I do.. is learning to competently use your left hand. Actually, it isn't that difficult to do... not near as difficult as writing with your left hand. The human mind is amazing I was using the trackball very competently in a very short time.

[Antoninus]

You cannot use the mouse viewing and have the mouse clickble cockpits.

The solution is a simple button to switch mouse view control On/Off, just as the toggle Snap/Pan View command we have now. It works very well in this way in FSX (Shift + o per default).

[RockStar]

I fly Shockwaves BoB on occasion and I love the clickable pits for startup procedures, it adds a little somthing special IMO.

[Supah]

@supah
please do not forget that what is posted here are opinions of individuals.
You do not have to share them, but you must accept them.
In my own personal opinion i find it also very boring to fly a cessna or a boeing
in a civil - Flightsim once the new has worn off.
But thats it, my opinion. I didn´t say that civil - FS - Fans are queer or something.
I just stated what i like and like ElAurens didn´t "talk down the people of the FSX community"


Calling what these guys fly cattle cars etc. isn't exactly friendly ;) If you find flying a cessna boring you should try it IRL once, it mightly look mundane and lowely but for the first 100 hours a cessna is more then able to scare you to death believe me :( The percentage of people that want clickpits and that don't is approaching 50/50 now, I think that should be more then enough argument for Oleg.

[ElAurens]

Been on an airliner lately, they are indeed cattle cars...
:lol:

Besides, many of the guys I know in the industry call them that.

Methinks your skin is a bit thin supah. I mean no disrespect to FSX flyers. I just don't understand the lure of that sim is all.

I too would like to see flyable transports in SOW. I've wanted them from the start of IL2. Also more flyable large aircraft of all types, flying boats in particular.

As to control functionality, I don't care what anyone uses, as long as I am not forced into one particular type of setup.

That is my only concern.

[proton45]

I miss the 3D grass discussions.... ;)

[SlipBall]

Somehow I find it hard to believe (and it's possible I'm quite wrong about this) that anyone who thinks that piloting a flying cattle car for 6 hours in a simulation is "fun" is going to find anything they like in a combat simulator. What are they gonna do for that amount of time in a WW2 bird? No ATC to chat with, no autopilot to take over when nature calls, or the phone rings. Of course there won't be many aircraft with that kind of range anyway in BoB.

I'm just trying to understand this type of virtual flying. I have FSX, and after the "new" wore off, it just sits on my HD now, collecting virtual dust. I don't know what I'm supposed to do with FSX other than fly around doing, well, nothing. But I digress.

I'm not against a more immersive and detailed experience in the cockpit, but there has to be some sort of middle ground, some scalability that will allow all of us to have our cockpit options and still fly on the same servers. I sure don't want to be stuck in "kiddy car" servers just because I don't want to use a "clickpit".

I have DVDs of the training films for most of the USAAF combat types flown in the war, and after watching them I will say that if absolute strict startup, fuel management, etc... proceedures are enforced you won't ever see a P-38 in the virtual sky again.

That thing is an ergonomic nightmare.




Please do remember that many of those that fly MS are real pilots. They enjoy the challenge's and rewards of proper aircraft managment. I know that I do! Also keep in mind the Sukhoi Su-26, and the co-pilot feature promised for SOW. Throw in mapable complex aircraft management, and those MS pilots would be drawn like moth's to a fire, and greatly increase sales for Oleg's sim.When I fly my Messerschmitt, I want as many of the challenges possible in a sim, as those pilots experienced back then. Will I turn it off sometimes, of course I will. All that is needed is a difficulty switch to disable. Remember also that MS did so well in sales because people, especilly pilots want as much "real" as possible, out of a sim

[TheFamilyMan]

I agree that the choices are too polar. I like the clickable cockpit of FSX solely for learning more about the aircraft. In practice I rarely use them, but on occassion for something different I'll "reach over" to adjust the prop pitch or set the radio. But hey, that is for recreational/civil stuff. In combat, I need to do something now and not fiddle with a mouse so in that sense it is completely useless. I won't say it'd be a waste though, for my above reason. As far as immersion goes, IMHO a good HOTAS or cockpit sim setup trumps fiddling with a mouse.

[VMF-214_HaVoK]

Should have had more choices in your poll. Its a great immersive feature but it is also in a sense a waste of time for what a Oleg sim is. He explained his reason well and I agree for the most part but even so it is indeed a immersive feature. So both choices in your poll are correct.

S!

[revi]

I would like it as an option as I think it would add more immersion, but I dont think that current technology ( using mouse, buttons or even touch screens) simulates the process well enough. Maybe we should make some futuristic suggestions of hardware development which might take us to a new level. Like....maybe an eye tracking device that tracks movement of your eye, so you need only to look at the instrument you want to move. Then in conjunction with a universal hat switch you can control that switch/dial or lever. That way you can control everything thru your eyes and 1 switch on your joystick?

[Abbeville-Boy]

I would like it as an option as I think it would add more immersion, but I dont think that current technology ( using mouse, buttons or even touch screens) simulates the process well enough. Maybe we should make some futuristic suggestions of hardware development which might take us to a new level. Like....maybe an eye tracking device that tracks movement of your eye, so you need only to look at the instrument you want to move. Then in conjunction with a universal hat switch you can control that switch/dial or lever. That way you can control everything thru your eyes and 1 switch on your joystick?



that would be amazing, oleg can i have that please please, ha ha ha

[TX-EcoDragon]

. . .I'm just trying to understand this type of virtual flying. I have FSX, and after the "new" wore off, it just sits on my HD now, collecting virtual dust. I don't know what I'm supposed to do with FSX other than fly around doing, well, nothing. But I digress.

I hope this doesn't sound rude. . .but it doesn't really matter if *you* don't get it. It's not your bag. . .and that's fine. That said, there are many who do get it, and it is their bag. . . in fact many, many, more than there are here playing IL-2.

I'm not against a more immersive and detailed experience in the cockpit, but there has to be some sort of middle ground, some scalability that will allow all of us to have our cockpit options and still fly on the same servers. I sure don't want to be stuck in "kiddy car" servers just because I don't want to use a "clickpit".

I still don't see why this has to be an argument about server difficulty. If people can map things to joysticks and keyboards as they do now, plus have the option to do some things on the panel, what's the harm? Where is the need for a totally different server setting?

[Blackdog_kt]

As to control functionality, I don't care what anyone uses, as long as I am not forced into one particular type of setup.

That is my only concern.


That's the whole point actually. I'm not simply advocating clickpits to the expense of everything else, instead i'm advocating a hybrid between clickpit only and keyboard/HOTAS only. If 99% of the necessary functions could be interchangeably manipulated either via keymapping or clicking the switch in the pit, everyone would be happy. Let's not get this polarised when there's no reason to;)

As for the procedures part...if it really is such a bore to the majority of players, i'm sure there will be enough servers to cater to that, without being oversimplified.

I seriously doubt that servers with a strong community base that uses forum polls for the slightest change will overlook that. If people want to do away with a detailed start up procedure, that doesn't mean the entire realism settings screen will be switched to off.

I doubt it will end up being a choice between a realistic server with detailed procedures and a server with single-key engine starts that also allow externals, simplified gunnery and/or unlimited fuel and ammo. In fact, i bet that most of the dogfight servers will be running just like they do now, ie full physics/FM difficulty enabled, no externals and single-key engine starts. Why? Well, because they're dogfight servers, the maps are small and going through a 1-2 minute checklist when the enemy spawns 5 minutes away from raiding your base and kill you on the ground will make it no fun. So i guess there should be no need to worry really.

But things like these will add a lot of immersion for offline players, especially if the campaigns are well made, and they will also draw a lot of new people into the game, people who are more concerned with procedural fidelity and flying the plane as close to real life as possible.

It's not a question of which style of gameplay is better, this is a personal choice for everyone of us. It's simply a question of accommodating as many different gameplay styles as possible to secure a wider customer base and a product that will better stand the test of time. I know that i would probably fly with detailed procedures offline and not online, but there's no harm having a choice as long as the developers have the time available to do it. Who knows, maybe after 2-3 years of playing the new sim we will all start to crave that extra bit of challenge and fly online with complex procedures enabled as well.

Guess what, you just got yourself a new game for free as you now have to learn each warbird from scratch. It will also open up a lot of rock-paper-scissors tactical scenarios with mid and late war planes. Do i prefer a solid performing aircraft with an increased workload like the P47, or do i choose a 190 with a (hopefully correctly done) 100% automatic system that will struggle at high alt but give me a reduced workload? I don't know what others think, but i'm totally intrigued by such things.

[wjc103]

Two questions on this topic:

#1 What kind of development time/effort does it take for all thee features?

#2 What potential for other things of interest would be lost by that time/ effort being spent?

[Sturm_Williger]

Have to vote - No.

I remember this feature in B17 the Mighty Eighth. I learned how to go through the complete startup for all 4 engines on the B17. It was fascinating ... but I only did it about 3-4 times.

The same would be true here ( except for more a/c to learn of course ). Therefore it's a resource and programming-time hog that would not justify itself. IMO.

[mondo]

No thanks. Too much of a pain in the ass. besides, how is clicking on something in a cockpit with a mouse any better/immersive than pressing a buttons on a keyboard? I don't know many planes that are controlled by a mouse.

[Supah]

No thanks. Too much of a pain in the ass. besides, how is clicking on something in a cockpit with a mouse any better/immersive than pressing a buttons on a keyboard? I don't know many planes that are controlled by a mouse.

I know as little planes that were controlled with a keyboard.

[Chivas]

I voted NO...but...

I wasn't a fan of clickable cockpits in BOB WOV primarily because the switches were very difficult to find with the mouse. It was an excercise in frustration. When they modded it so you could map the switches to our Hotas, things changed dramatically.

Turning on the full cocks, magnetos, adjusting prop pitch, pumping the primer, and hitting the starter.... watching the prop turn over...hoping it will fire up as a group 110's are a seconds away from blasting your base.... is very exciting.

Also taxing and shutting down next to the ground crew while they rearmed my aircraft (hitting the rearm key in BOB WOV) hopefully a much more immersive implemetation in SOW then start up procedure to have another go at the departing LW formations. All great fun and very immersive.

I would really like to see this modded in SOW, but Oleg has suggested the real start up procedure would be too complicated and few people would use it. This is probably true, but personally I don't need the ultra realistic start up procedure...being able to map a few more switches to my Hotas(and verifying the switches are being turned on in cockpit) would be more immersive than the "I" engine start key.

~Salute~
Chivas

[TX-EcoDragon]

Now this would make for one interesting cockpit interface:

http://www.perceptivepixel.com/

[heywooood]

Eco - that was a sweet vid and what a way to interface with a program..I like the intuitive hand motions as they relate to specific manipulations of the displays...looks like a form of sign language.

For clickability - I was a naysayer and really pretty adamant about my dislike for clickable cockpit controls....until I actually used it in FSX.

As has been said, you can either use the mouse to locate and manipulate the control switches and knobs OR use the corresponding keyboard commands so it is NOT an either - or proposition....and believe me - this option really brings the virtual cockpit to life. You see the rudder trim wheel...you need to correct with left rudder trim..you slide the cursor over it and rotate the mouse wheel one or two clicks and you have the pinpoint control input that you need and instead of a dead control actuator slaved to the keyboard that is otherwise totally inanimate - you have a functioning trim wheel that actually works...virtually.

For preflight and in non combat flight I would love to be able to make the finer flight trimming adjustments or do the engine startup/shutdown proceedures with the mouse click method...and then in combat I would ofcourse use keyboard commands as they are much easier to do without any fiddlin'

It would be good to have the option and I think some here who are most dead set against it would have a change of heart if it was available -

[Bearcat]

Not me.... As long as the function is programmable and the virtual corresponding control moved in the virtual cockpit Id be straight.

[TUSA/TX-Gunslinger]

I was a naysayer too - right up to the point I saw the Blackshark video with the preflight sequence.

Think about the vast number of MS Flight Simulator users. Think real hard about it. Most of those guys love their clickable pits.

Clickable pits will sell far more copies of this new sim than I think most imagine - simply due to the fact that most of us are so wrapped around our experiences in Il2.

S~

Gunny

[klem]

I don't think clickable cockpits will add anything useful. We jump into so many different types we would never remember in time where each switch is. Also, it is not at all immersive to be fumbling around for the mouse with your stick hand.

What is much more useful are the programmable button units you can get (Saitek?) where you can lay out the buttons for all the featurers you need and know where they are regardless of the aircraft you are flying. You can lay them out in a representative cockpit layout so that there is some feeling of realism to it - many cockpits were generically similar in their basic layout. Before anyone says "but all cockpits are and should be different" let me say that's ok if you are 'trained on type' and flying that type only for a long period as was the case in RL.

Another method is to cannibalise an old programmable stick and build a panel or two with switches and knobs to suit your needs.... short of where the wife would accuse you of 'building a cockpit'! :D So far I haven't moved beyond using a second Saitek X45 as prop rpm, aileron trim and flaps plus half a dozen switch functions like Canopy, Hook, etc. It doesn't feel too far from 'the truth' when I push the X45 throttle up for increased RPM or adjust the aileron trim rotary.

Just my 2p

[mondo]

I know as little planes that were controlled with a keyboard.


The point is the keyboard, for the user is much quicker and easier than clicking around a cockpit with a mouse and far more similar to what a real pilot would do; hitting nobs, buttons and switches etc. I don't want to have to take my right hand of my joystick to then use my mouse to lower my combat flaps or change the engine RPM or any of the many things you have to do constantly in combat.

If SOW does both then cool, everyone is a winner. I just don't want it enforced on me, it would be a deal break for sure.

[Zoom2136]

For me the only thing that increases immersion is actually seing the switches and levers moves when I select them (with my hotas or keyboard). Other then that I don't think that a combat sims can benefit from a clickable cockpit... well not until touch screens are the norm...

One idea I floated on UBI was that a certain delay should be implemented between commands are entered... this could simulate the pilot having only one hand free at all time... Cause the way we have it know we can trim, change throttle setting, drop flaps, jettison tanks, drop undercarriage, etc. all within 1 seconde... using a hotas...

[II./JG1_Wilcke]

Now this would make for one interesting cockpit interface:

http://www.perceptivepixel.com/

Now if you give me that type of cockpit interface at lets say 3/4 or 1/2 scale I am in for the "touchable" cockpits. In fact let say the unit price for SOW is going to be $39.99 each....put me down for $125.OO each and I have my CC ready! I will get the TT's to go with it no problem.

Having logged and enjoyed tons of hours in FS2004, I can say that I am through with procedural trainers due to the fact that I just do not have the time. Now the FSX folks love their vintage aircraft there is a huge industry based around WWII aircraft and they pay up to $40 for a single addon aircraft!

Now back to our reality, are you guys really going to wait for the oil temperature to come up to operating limits before taking off. How about shock cooling and cracking your cylinder heads because you didn't plan your descent out of altitude properly. Complex engine management in reciprocating aircraft engines was and is a PITA until the recent advent of FADEC (Full Authority Digital Engine Controls).

I think there will be a nice middle ground for all to enjoy. I would rather have correct munition load outs and weapons configuration and release controls as per the real aircraft.

But that touch screen business really put the hook in me....I want that!!!!

[SlipBall]

I was a naysayer too - right up to the point I saw the Blackshark video with the preflight sequence.

Think about the vast number of MS Flight Simulator users. Think real hard about it. Most of those guys love their clickable pits.

Clickable pits will sell far more copies of this new sim than I think most imagine - simply due to the fact that most of us are so wrapped around our experiences in Il2.

S~

Gunny



I agree 100 percent, Oleg would have much greater sales if he would put this feature in. I think programed keys is the best way to go. I hope that the sim will allow for a third party to give it to us some day. If only Oleg would take a chance on this

[Roy]

imho a waste of time considering that the most accurate modelling would be through key strokes and axes... for the users that'd feel like making a simpit with all the buttons, switches and levers.

[SPUDLEY1977]

We can already program hotkeys. To simulate reality the key for me is flyability. Using a small mouse to locate, hover, click the tiny buttons on a virtual cockpit (which will be quite different in all craft) only detracts from the experience. We already have to suffer with a 2d computer world for a 6d real world.

For those who desire a preflight checklist here's your solution that will satisfy all: Keep a clipboard at your desk, and with pencil perform your preflight checks, and don't you dare take off until one hour+ after you sit down to the computer. Simple, easy, and allows for the programmers and CPU/GPU to focus on the visuals, flight models, situational awareness, and tactics.

I vote "No" thank you to clickable wasted cockpit resources. If Oleg & Comrades have that kind of extra time on their hands, just program the cockpit virtual buttons to move when we use the already programmable hot keys.

CS

[Therion_Prime]

For those who desire a preflight checklist here's your solution that will satisfy all: Keep a clipboard at your desk, and with pencil perform your preflight checks, and don't you dare take off until one hour+ after you sit down to the computer.

WTF?

[mondo]

For those who desire a preflight checklist here's your solution that will satisfy all: Keep a clipboard at your desk, and with pencil perform your preflight checks, and don't you dare take off until one hour+ after you sit down to the computer.

lmao! Never thought of it that way. I guess all the guys who cry about realism should keep a gun at there desk...

[msalama]

My 0.002$?

I will definitely get DCS: Black Shark, but I'm not so sure about BoB:SoW anymore TBH. Why? Well, finding the answer to that I'll leave as an excercise to the reader ;)

[Blackdog_kt]

I think there was one of the previous posters here that said he built clickpits for MSFS or something and it was no big deal, as long as the switch animation is already modelled. I can't dig up the exact quote right now, but if i'm not mistaken he said it was simply a question of assigning a preset function to activate a switch to a certain set of panel coordinates.

So, since these movable objetcs will certainly be modelled (don't deny it, they are already animated in IL2), i don't really see any substantial amount of time getting wasted.

Again, almost nobody here advocates a clickable-only interface. What most of the people support is to have two options for control, either via a mouse click or via HOTAS/keyboard. So i fail to see what's the big deal here.

Now you'll say that since i'm supporting this so eagerly, there must be some kind of big deal going on. Well, the only thing i'm concerned about is that with the increased realism we need more and more functions mapped to our sticks and keyboards. If you have multi-stick setups or a 200$ HOTAS set that's not really a big deal. For a lot of people however that lack such equipment, it would be a shame to miss out on an important part of our aircraft's functionality just because we don't have enough keys to map things to.

For these players, a clickable cockpit would give an extra method to interact with our aircraft. In other words, i would really consider it a major game design oversight if i had to choose between a 4 key combination or shelling out 200$ for a new stick just to be able to switch between my fuel tanks. If it's as easy as it has been implied, then the best thing to do is to implement both methods and let the player choose which one to use.

[proton45]

I can't believe that some people feel that "clickable cockpits" is all that "BOB SoW" needs to eclipse the M$ products in sales...

I thought that Oleg said he had no interest in developing a "flight sim"... I think I remember Oleg saying that he wanted BoB SoW to be a flight 'combat' sim... I think he said he was only interested in modeling the things that where necessary to simulate combat in flight.

I think that clickable cockpits is the proverbial "can-o-worms"... if Oleg starts getting into the business of making a "flight sim" it will be the beginning of the end...

[Blackdog_kt]

The finished product is still far enough away for people to debate pros and cons of suggested new features. All this discussion brings forth some ideas that might be modelled and give us a better sim in the end, so i see no harm in that.

Would i buy BoB:SoW without clickable pits? Of course. Would i like it if clickpits were included? The answer is again positive.

The fact that this is a combat sim doesn't negate the added appeal of a more expansive environment. We could have the best DM/FM in the world, accurate down to 99.9% of the original, and yet have its complexity bog down sytem resources to the point that our planes and cockpits would be simple wireframes on a black and white display. Sure, it would be the best combat sim ever in terms of realism but nobody would fly it, because there would be no suspension of disbelief whatsoever.It's all about keeping a balance in the end ;)

[Supah]

I don't think clickable cockpits will add anything useful. We jump into so many different types

we would never remember in time where each switch is. Also, it is not at all immersive to be fumbling around for

the mouse with your stick hand.

You might jump into a lot of different aircraft, I like to play offline campaigns and focus on a single airplane

for a longer period. I'd actually like more indepth simulation. I think a lot of guys fly their favorite planes a

lot, the large group of people flying the 190 (despite of a arguable cockpit view) religiously almost comes to

mind. I think those people would love to be able to explore their favorite rides in more depth and become

proficient with them.



What is much more useful are the programmable button units you can get (Saitek?) where you can lay out the buttons

for all the featurers you need and know where they are regardless of the aircraft you are flying. You can lay them

out in a representative cockpit layout so that there is some feeling of realism to it - many cockpits were

generically similar in their basic layout. Before anyone says "but all cockpits are and should be different" let me

say that's ok if you are 'trained on type' and flying that type only for a long period as was the case in RL.



Have you ever seen a ww2 fighter cockpit and more specifically its control column and throttle quadrant? They are

awfully devoid of buttons. There might be the occasional trigger and bomb release switch but trim switches on the

stick was a unheard of luxury. All those people thinking that a HOTAS is even anywhere near realistic for WW2

combat should have a look in a cockpit in a museum.



Another method is to cannibalise an old programmable stick and build a panel or two with switches and knobs to suit

your needs.... short of where the wife would accuse you of 'building a cockpit'! :D So far I haven't moved beyond

using a second Saitek X45 as prop rpm, aileron trim and flaps plus half a dozen switch functions like Canopy, Hook,

etc. It doesn't feel too far from 'the truth' when I push the X45 throttle up for increased RPM or adjust the

aileron trim rotary.

Just my 2p

Yeah that's a realistic solution, let's all buy extra expensive hardware and tear it apart! A lot more feasible

then making the cockpits clickable.

The point is the keyboard, for the user is much quicker and easier than clicking around a cockpit with a mouse and far more similar to what a real pilot would do; hitting nobs, buttons and switches etc. I don't want to have to take my right hand of my joystick to then use my mouse to lower my combat flaps or change the engine RPM or any of the many things you have to do constantly in combat.

I wonder mondo, are you a real pilot? I have about 200 hours on cessna 172's and about 20 on Piper Arrow III and even with this experience (which is more then what a lot of ww2 pilots got) I still dont just flip switches at ease in milli seconds. Ergonomy is a factor especially in older Cessna's where the trim wheel is low on the center console or for the tank selector which is on the ground. Now I have it easy because I am quite tall but some shorter guys have the option of either trimming the plane and looking outside, not doing both. Now add to that landing on a bumpy grass runway during a wet autumn and reaching out for your flap switch during a touch and go is virtually impossible. A keyboard or HOTAS isn't at all realistic especially so in ww2 sims as it places all keys within easy reach something ww2 planes most certainly didnt. I have sat in spitfires, mustangs and those cockpits weren't designed with ease of operation in mind. Combat operations ok, those are often in reasonably easy to reach places but the things I want a clickpit for (for instance tank selector) weren't. You don't need them to be either.


For those who desire a preflight checklist here's your solution that will satisfy all: Keep a clipboard at your desk, and with pencil perform your preflight checks, and don't you dare take off until one hour+ after you sit down to the computer. Simple, easy, and allows for the programmers and CPU/GPU to focus on the visuals, flight models, situational awareness, and tactics.


Yeeeees lets get offensive again! Yes focus all your efforts on eye candy so Spudley can have his airquake and kill tigers with 50 cals. Not so nice when people act like that is it?

I can't believe that some people feel that "clickable cockpits" is all that "BOB SoW" needs to eclipse the M$ products in sales...

I thought that Oleg said he had no interest in developing a "flight sim"... I think I remember Oleg saying that he wanted BoB SoW to be a flight 'combat' sim... I think he said he was only interested in modeling the things that where necessary to simulate combat in flight.

I think that clickable cockpits is the proverbial "can-o-worms"... if Oleg starts getting into the business of making a "flight sim" it will be the beginning of the end...


Could you link us to the page containing that Oleg quote? If that's true then ok we don't even need to have this discussion let alone buy his product. If I wanted playstation/xbox style over simplified flight games with more eyecandy then I'd just go and buy that.


In general, Oleg has some serious trouble on the horizon. Where the MSFS series before was as devoid of arms as could be for the last few years suddenly we are starting to see bombs and guns in third party addons. This means it is allready implemented in the engine as third party developers cant add new stuff to the engine. We can allready drop flour bombs in official missions, I think it's just a matter of time before we go the extra step. As said before the people in the MSFS pay 40 bucks for a single aircraft which is what we will probably end up paying for the entire game. These people love ww2 aircraft as much as anyone in this community but have a much higher expectation of simulation fidelity then people in this community who are apparently satisfied with "I-key Start engine be sure" logic applied there in. If Oleg wants to sell to the same old whiney deminishing crowd then sure more of the old, if he wants to tap into large and financially interesting markets then the old ways just dont cut it with poorly done campaigns and over simplified aircraft.

[robtek]

@supah
don´t you think it would be better to reach all possible customers,
so please don´t be a seperationist.
afaik the msfs series has so much more defiencies as a Combatsim than even
the already aged il2 that it isn´t even worth talkink about that.
The majority of the combat flight sim fans here are not the people who will spend
40 bucks for 1 additional aircraft as nobody could fly it online if not everybody has it.
I believe we should have as much realism as needed without loosing the fun.

[Supah]

@supah
don´t you think it would be better to reach all possible customers,
so please don´t be a seperationist.
afaik the msfs series has so much more defiencies as a Combatsim than even
the already aged il2 that it isn´t even worth talkink about that.
The majority of the combat flight sim fans here are not the people who will spend
40 bucks for 1 additional aircraft as nobody could fly it online if not everybody has it.
I believe we should have as much realism as needed without loosing the fun.

1. There is no true and tried combat version of FSX.

2. Il2 has as much deficiencies as FSX in other areas.

3. Apparently they are because it is the addons containing ww2 aircraft that are selling, think shockwave. Addon compatibility is no big issue, I have seen this in multiple games like Operation Flashpoint for which I did some modding. The users will sort it out themselves, the popular addons become the standard soon enough.

4. For me the current level of complexity is a big let down meaning less fun for me.

[TUSA/TX-Gunslinger]

I can't believe that some people feel that "clickable cockpits" is all that "BOB SoW" needs to eclipse the M$ products in sales...

I thought that Oleg said he had no interest in developing a "flight sim"... I think I remember Oleg saying that he wanted BoB SoW to be a flight 'combat' sim... I think he said he was only interested in modeling the things that where necessary to simulate combat in flight.

I think that clickable cockpits is the proverbial "can-o-worms"... if Oleg starts getting into the business of making a "flight sim" it will be the beginning of the end...

This is what you get out of this discussion?

It's not about eclipsing MS - it's about drawing more users in who are familiar with that interface. No one said anything about eclipsing MS.

Also, for serious simmers - it provides more difficulty. If you were to limit the engine to what many folks would want - then Il2 would only have had Wonder Woman view and padlock.

Lastly - if this were solely a 'Combat flight sim' then how do you explain the inclusion of Su-26?

I wonder if you are familiar with all of the folks that use Il2 for acrobatic teams and racing?

S~

Gunny

[proton45]

This is what you get out of this discussion?

It's not about eclipsing MS - it's about drawing more users in who are familiar with that interface. No one said anything about eclipsing MS.

Also, for serious simmers - it provides more difficulty. If you were to limit the engine to what many folks would want - then Il2 would only have had Wonder Woman view and padlock.

Lastly - if this were solely a 'Combat flight sim' then how do you explain the inclusion of Su-26?

I wonder if you are familiar with all of the folks that use Il2 for acrobatic teams and racing?

S~

Gunny


I think I read somewhere that the SU-26 was included in the development (and plane set) of "BoB SoW" because its performance characteristics where well known to the game developers. With "verifiable real life data" the game developers where able to check that the Su-26 performed correctly under the same simulated conditions as they would in the real world...That way they are able to fine tune the atmospheric effects on the flight model... :)

[SlipBall]

Yes indeed, the SU-26...can you boy's realize the amount of MS pilots that would buy Oleg's SOW just for that one aircraft!...but the SU-26 needs to be presented in the same way as the owners handbook. That means full engine prep start up too, I still am at a lose to understand Oleg's position on this, I mean he could make a ton of money, I just don't understand his thinking on this. Sims should evolve to the highest level posible, It's what the other half want, and there are alot of them...With the Oleg FM, graffic's, they would be hooked like the rest of us

[brando]

http://mission4today.com/index.php?name=ForumsPro&file=viewtopic&t=3401

Maybe check out Beebop's topic at M4T, then come back and say this is how the average combat sim pilot wants to set off on a mission?

I voted no, and this kind of film doesn't change my mind at all.

[BadAim]

Wow, there is certainly a lot of passion on this subject. I'm actually kind of glad about that, it means interest is alive and well.

I think that really the biggest reason people are against clickable cockpits is that they are afraid recources will be taken away from aspects of the sim that nearly all of us would agree are more important, and I think Oleg as much as said the same himself.

That said, what are we getting all upset about here? Whether anyone wants clickable cockpits and completely realistic procedures or doesn't care about them, I doubt anyone is willing to give up a bit of flight model or damage model for it.

[BadAim]

BTW, Brando, how did your 'bios flash' go? are you getting any relief?

[brando]

BTW, Brando, how did your 'bios flash' go? are you getting any relief?
Thanks BadAim, yes it went well & I'm obtaining considerable relief.

[Abbeville-Boy]

Wow, there is certainly a lot of passion on this subject. I'm actually kind of glad about that, it means interest is alive and well.

I think that really the biggest reason people are against clickable cockpits is that they are afraid recources will be taken away from aspects of the sim that nearly all of us would agree are more important, and I think Oleg as much as said the same himself.

That said, what are we getting all upset about here? Whether anyone wants clickable cockpits and completely realistic procedures or doesn't care about them, I doubt anyone is willing to give up a bit of flight model or damage model for it.


something better than now would be improvement for sure

[proton45]

"Supah" asked for a link to Olegs feeling about "clickable cockpits" and "flight sims" vs "Flight combat simming". Here is a resent post I saw from Oleg that addresses some of the issues (with Evgeny question):


Question...Originally Posted by Evgeny View Post


8. Hello Oleg

I've been flying the IL-2 series almost exclusively since the Beta test days. I've also flown Rowans and Shockwaves BOB WOV off and on since that series began. Recently I have been flying alot of BOB WOV since the stability of the 2.07 patch and because of the engine start procedures, and the ability to simulate refueling and rearming. These few things add alot of immersion for me.

I know you have some sort of rearming and refuelling simulation planned for SOW but I think I remember reading that you weren't too interested in simulating clickable cockpits. I'm not interested in clickable cockpits either, but enjoy having the option to map the fuel cocks, magneto's, fuel pump, and start switch to my Hotas. Do you have any plans to implement optional switches in the Controls section of SOW?



Olegs answer...

Third party would do it I think. Models of aircraft has all features that to program it.
However we don’t plan to make for each aircraft 100% precise start of engine, etc… They are too different and not like it is in simulator above in most cases…
Some aircraft has 20 operations, some up to 40… for each aircraft we would need some sort of flight manual (Pilot Notes) in such a case. This is possible if we would make the sim of just one, or say couple of aircraft. But we will have way more… and we don’t plan to continue development of SOW engine and BoB itself 3 years more.
In my very personal opinion – the main thing in a flight sim of WWII is how the plane is fly and its physics in total + plus features and physics of the weapon and the damage that this weapon would do… say the complexity of the internal construction of aircraft… This would make sim way more realistic that to model instead of it the starting procedure… the gameplay would be in this case more better than the game play with immersion of only starting procedure. Yes, I would say it is also interesting, but for less than 1 % of users… that will use it constantly and will not switch off right after the first attempt.

I hope this helps...

I think Oleg is saying that the "realistic" flight physics and weapons damage ect... would help with the immersion MORE the "clickable cockpits" (or complex starting procedure)...his feelings, his sim.


Oleg makes an interesting point about the difference in making a "flight sim" vs a "flight combat sim"...when your making a "flight combat sim" you have to spend time modeling all the internal systems and structures of an aeroplane while the "flight sim" doesn't have to spend time or resources modeling these things... the "flight sim" just isn't concerned with issues like "what gets damaged if flak hits the engine"...

Their has been some speculation here about M$ modifying their "flight sim" code into a "Flight combat sim", but I just don't see it happening... Adding bombs or machine guns is one thing but I just don't see how they could (write in) modify their code to include a complex "damage engine"... people complain about "IL2's" shortcomings and people complain about how the "Il2" engine was stretched beyond its original design, can you imagine what a M$ "flight combat sim" would be like if it was built on a modified "flight sim" engine? It would be a joke!

[BadAim]

Thanks BadAim, yes it went well & I'm obtaining considerable relief.

Good news!

[SlipBall]

Olegs answer...

Third party would do it I think. Models of aircraft has all features that to program it.(quote)


Well at least there is some hope for this in time

















0

[Supah]

Their has been some speculation here about M$ modifying their "flight sim" code into a "Flight combat sim", but I just don't see it happening... Adding bombs or machine guns is one thing but I just don't see how they could (write in) modify their code to include a complex "damage engine"... people complain about "IL2's" shortcomings and people complain about how the "Il2" engine was stretched beyond its original design, can you imagine what a M$ "flight combat sim" would be like if it was built on a modified "flight sim" engine? It would be a joke!

For all you know that code might allready be in there ;) Besides MS has a lot of resources committed to FSX, more then Oleg has on BOB. I think oleg will mis out on a lot of sales if he sticks to this road. But oh well, more developers have come and gone due to strange decisions.

[ElAurens]

Well, if Micro$oft's track record with combat flight sims is any indicator, Oleg has nothing to worry about.

They had all the resources in the world at their disposal, and still managed to release that steaming pile called CFS3.

Also, the MS architechture of open "air files" won't go over well with onliners in any case. It will be just like CFS2 again. Skys full of supersonic, aimbotted WW2 aircraft.

Been there, done that, never again.

[Supah]

Well, if Micro$oft's track record with combat flight sims is any indicator, Oleg has nothing to worry about.

They had all the resources in the world at their disposal, and still managed to release that steaming pile called CFS3.

Also, the MS architechture of open "air files" won't go over well with onliners in any case. It will be just like CFS2 again. Skys full of supersonic, aimbotted WW2 aircraft.

Been there, done that, never again.

If Microsoft comes out with a combat version of FSX I would rather give it a serious try before judging it.

[csThor]

a) SoW is first and foremost a military flight simulation. Maddox Games doesn't need to reinvent the wheel with it - they have a fundament both of experiences and technical solutions laid with Il-2 as well as input from the community and other "external sources".
b) Oleg doesn't need to cater to the civilian pilots in detail, because Maddox Games sure won't be able to do it all on its own. They will give external developers an interface to work with as well as tools to create/import the stuff they make. But that's about it - Maddox Games is a small company and needs to concentrate on the core business (if anything they have an issue with spending ressources on useless projects in the military part) and can't be spit-polishing the ground for the 3rd Party Projects.
c) The simulation aspect of civil and military flight sims couldn't be more different. Civil simmers are - IMO - procedure simmers first and foremost while "us" military types like to shoot holes into each other's planes. That's a drastic difference and sets completely different envelopes for the basic engine. I'd prefer Oleg did the military part right and doesn't try to be the jack of all trades. Because such is also the master of none.

Bottom line - clickable cockpits are a waste of time for a combat sim. If the SoW engine allows for 3rd Party Devs to add them for their own A/C then that is the maximum of what we can expect.

[RockStar]

If Microsoft comes out with a combat version of FSX I would rather give it a serious try before judging it.

Agreed. Combat FSX could be awesome. I know it would be in my shopping cart in spite of how bad cfs3 was.

[Supah]

a) SoW is first and foremost a military flight simulation. Maddox Games doesn't need to reinvent the wheel with it - they have a fundament both of experiences and technical solutions laid with Il-2 as well as input from the community and other "external sources".
b) Oleg doesn't need to cater to the civilian pilots in detail, because Maddox Games sure won't be able to do it all on its own. They will give external developers an interface to work with as well as tools to create/import the stuff they make. But that's about it - Maddox Games is a small company and needs to concentrate on the core business (if anything they have an issue with spending ressources on useless projects in the military part) and can't be spit-polishing the ground for the 3rd Party Projects.
c) The simulation aspect of civil and military flight sims couldn't be more different. Civil simmers are - IMO - procedure simmers first and foremost while "us" military types like to shoot holes into each other's planes. That's a drastic difference and sets completely different envelopes for the basic engine. I'd prefer Oleg did the military part right and doesn't try to be the jack of all trades. Because such is also the master of none.

Bottom line - clickable cockpits are a waste of time for a combat sim. If the SoW engine allows for 3rd Party Devs to add them for their own A/C then that is the maximum of what we can expect.

How on gods green earth do these points lead to the conclusion that clickable cockpits are a waste of time? There simply is no logic to your post if those are the conclusions. Civilian simmers are not procedure simmers at all, have you even tried FSX's new mission system? Or FS9's freeflight ? You can just power off down the runway just as easily without any planning as in IL2. The difference is that if you DO want to get serious you can in FS9 and FSX. You sound like you are basing you opinion on presumptions rather than actually trying the products.

[csThor]

The conclusion is that Maddox Games doesn't have the manpower to make clickable cockpits standard - especially because these are more of a gimmick than a real necessity. To me there are simply way more important issues - namely a decent offline campaign and an immersive GUI. It's a purely economic question and Maddox Games has proved to be "susceptible" to wasting precious ressources on sideshows.

I haven't spent any time in civil sims. My conclusions come from several visits to flight sim conventions. Of course that may have contorted the picture. ;)

[proton45]

If Microsoft comes out with a combat version of FSX I would rather give it a serious try before judging it.


I would probably wait till the reviews where in...

I think the problem I have had with FSX is that it cost too much to get the good scenery...and the good airplanes, and everything else. Right out of the box it don't look that great (at least on my computer it didn't)...

maybe cost is a stupid reason to feel bias (I'm will to admit it...)

[choctaw111]

I think it would be nice to be familiar with the startup procedures from a historical point of view, however very much time would be needed to implement such a feature to each aircraft, and Oleg knows that even if the clickable pits were wanted by the user, they would only be used a time or two and never again. Oleg has already stated that it simply is not a good use of time given the many other things he is working on right now.

[jasonbirder]

I think its unfortunate that the poll has been worded to refer to clickable cockpits...
In terms of both immersion and ergonomics mouse clickable cockpits (particularly in 3D cockpits) can sometimes leave something to be desired...where bindable keystroke combinations or other input devices can sometimes be prefered.

I think it would have been better to have phrased the question in terms of would you like to see realistically modelled flight, engine, fuel and systems management in this Combat Flight Simulation or would your rather see grossly homogonized and simplified systems implemented?

That way those who want to see the BOB-SOW as yet another Sim Lite at least have to say so...rather than hide behind the smokescreen of saying using a mouse isn't an effective input device.

[SlipBall]

I think its unfortunate that the poll has been worded to refer to clickable cockpits...
In terms of both immersion and ergonomics mouse clickable cockpits (particularly in 3D cockpits) can sometimes leave something to be desired...where bindable keystroke combinations or other input devices can sometimes be prefered.

I think it would have been better to have phrased the question in terms of would you like to see realistically modelled flight, engine, fuel and systems management in this Combat Flight Simulation or would your rather see grossly homogonized and simplified systems implemented?

That way those who want to see the BOB-SOW as yet another Sim Lite at least have to say so...rather than hide behind the smokescreen of saying using a mouse isn't an effective input device.


Great post! and I agree most responders are stuck on the word "clickable"...the wording of the poll question could have been better. Or maybe most IL-2 pilots only care for the furball aspect. A shame considering what those pilot's had to learn and master back then, I want that challenge, I want to plan, feel, and execute proper aircraft management decishions

[Blackdog_kt]

a) SoW is first and foremost a military flight simulation. Maddox Games doesn't need to reinvent the wheel with it - they have a fundament both of experiences and technical solutions laid with Il-2 as well as input from the community and other "external sources".
b) Oleg doesn't need to cater to the civilian pilots in detail, because Maddox Games sure won't be able to do it all on its own. They will give external developers an interface to work with as well as tools to create/import the stuff they make. But that's about it - Maddox Games is a small company and needs to concentrate on the core business (if anything they have an issue with spending ressources on useless projects in the military part) and can't be spit-polishing the ground for the 3rd Party Projects.
c) The simulation aspect of civil and military flight sims couldn't be more different. Civil simmers are - IMO - procedure simmers first and foremost while "us" military types like to shoot holes into each other's planes. That's a drastic difference and sets completely different envelopes for the basic engine. I'd prefer Oleg did the military part right and doesn't try to be the jack of all trades. Because such is also the master of none.

Bottom line - clickable cockpits are a waste of time for a combat sim. If the SoW engine allows for 3rd Party Devs to add them for their own A/C then that is the maximum of what we can expect.

I think the conclusion you are looking for is "dwelling too much on procedures like detailed engine startup is a waste of time".
Clickable cockpits are an extra control method (extra not primary).

In that regard, i certainly don't consider them any more waste of time than support for other control methods implemented in most sims today, like native TrackIR support and the ability to work with a wide array of HOTAS sets, gaming keypads and other peripherals that give you more options in how you interface with the game. The difference and the main reason i'm advocating clickpits is that not everyone can buy all those peripherals, but every PC comes with a mouse. Let's use it.

[csThor]

The problem with your approach is that you miss the essential flaw in your logic - for a single release (say "Release and be forgotten") clickpits might be a viable feature for a team as small as Maddox Games. However SoW is planned to encompass (hopefully) all theaters of WW2 air combat one day - and that means trainloads of different aircraft. Right now Maddox Games assumes production time for a single cockpit to be at around 6 months for an experienced modeller who knows the procedures and hurdles - add how much for a clickpit?

TIR or HOTAS support is essentially a "do-once" thing and does not need to be redone each time a new aircraft is introduced. Oleg said the fundament is there for a complete startup procedure and clickpits - Maddox Games just does not see these additions as econimically viable for them. I'd have liked full startups, but I do understand where MG is coming from so it's no dealbreaker for me.

[robtek]

I´d like to remark that NO clickpit and real complex engine- and flight- management don´t exclude each other.

[SlipBall]

Maddox Games just does not see these additions as econimically viable for them (quote)



Would not sales double, triple, quadruple? I think that they would

[Supah]

I haven't spent any time in civil sims. My conclusions come from several visits to flight sim conventions. Of course that may have contorted the picture. ;)

So basically you are knocking something you have no idea about as you have never actually tried it seriously. Atleast I've tried both, maybe more people in this community should. I agree with your previous point about there being a lot of work to be done on the offline campaign, its been almost ten years since the release of falcon 4 but still no flightsim has ever come close to it's campaign system. However I got the impression we are going to get even more scripted campaigns with BoB which doesn't bode well for offline players. I often find scripted campaigns have zero replay value.

I think its unfortunate that the poll has been worded to refer to clickable cockpits...
In terms of both immersion and ergonomics mouse clickable cockpits (particularly in 3D cockpits) can sometimes leave something to be desired...where bindable keystroke combinations or other input devices can sometimes be prefered.

I think it would have been better to have phrased the question in terms of would you like to see realistically modelled flight, engine, fuel and systems management in this Combat Flight Simulation or would your rather see grossly homogonized and simplified systems implemented?

That way those who want to see the BOB-SOW as yet another Sim Lite at least have to say so...rather than hide behind the smokescreen of saying using a mouse isn't an effective input device.

Very Well put!The furball people have nothing to worry about as the difficulty level is fully scalable.

[csThor]

So basically you are knocking something you have no idea about as you have never actually tried it seriously. Atleast I've tried both, maybe more people in this community should. I agree with your previous point about there being a lot of work to be done on the offline campaign, its been almost ten years since the release of falcon 4 but still no flightsim has ever come close to it's campaign system. However I got the impression we are going to get even more scripted campaigns with BoB which doesn't bode well for offline players. I often find scripted campaigns have zero replay value.

I did not knock civil flight sims and simmers - I said they're after a vastly different experiences. All I am doing is doubting that a team as small as Maddox Games can do both worlds justice in one attempt without overtaxing their ressources, without sacrificing details for foul compromises.
And regarding Falcon 4's campaign engine - In my view it was a nice project that stopped halfway down the road (too technocratic presentation, too soul-less, unimmersive GUI), never worked convincingly until after 7 years of fiddling and ultimately broke the back of its creators.

[Antoninus]

I think its unfortunate that the poll has been worded to refer to clickable cockpits...
In terms of both immersion and ergonomics mouse clickable cockpits (particularly in 3D cockpits) can sometimes leave something to be desired...where bindable keystroke combinations or other input devices can sometimes be prefered.

I think it would have been better to have phrased the question in terms of would you like to see realistically modelled flight, engine, fuel and systems management in this Combat Flight Simulation or would your rather see grossly homogonized and simplified systems implemented?

That way those who want to see the BOB-SOW as yet another Sim Lite at least have to say so...rather than hide behind the smokescreen of saying using a mouse isn't an effective input device.

The whole poll is based on the assumption that many of the more complex features will already be available in SOW, if only in 3rd party aircraft. See Oleg's posts in the "Answers" thread quoted above, also linked in the initial post:



...but enjoy having the option to map the fuel cocks, magneto's, fuel pump, and start switch...

Third party would do it I think. Models of aircraft has all features that to program it. ..


As I have understood this, 3rd party modelers can implement complex start up procedures, fuel tanks management etc. in their aircraft, just Maddox Games isn't doing it because they lack the resources.

I've made the mistake that I did not consider that anybody could believe a clickpit would be anything else than another option to control the aircraft. Also I was surprised that most of the more hardcore fans, who visit this forum regularly, seems to be just interested in playing air Quake, thus I did not formulate the poll questions to incorporate such thoughts.


TIR or HOTAS support is essentially a "do-once" thing and does not need to be redone each time a new aircraft is introduced. Oleg said the fundament is there for a complete startup procedure and clickpits - Maddox Games just does not see these additions as economically viable for them. I'd have liked full startups, but I do understand where MG is coming from so it's no dealbreaker for me.

Clickpits seem to be a "do-once" thing too. The feature has to be programmed only once just as any other control method and than modelers can assign functions while building the cockpit.


I've built plenty of cockpits within MSFS and X-plane and I just assign a function to a particular clickspot on the panel. . .for all subsequent panels it takes a few minutes to do. If they are already planning on animating toggles and levers in cockpit, that seems like the bulk of the challenge is already going to be done.

[Supah]

I did not knock civil flight sims and simmers - I said they're after a vastly different experiences. All I am doing is doubting that a team as small as Maddox Games can do both worlds justice in one attempt without overtaxing their ressources, without sacrificing details for foul compromises.
And regarding Falcon 4's campaign engine - In my view it was a nice project that stopped halfway down the road (too technocratic presentation, too soul-less, unimmersive GUI), never worked convincingly until after 7 years of fiddling and ultimately broke the back of its creators.


IMO even out of the box falcon 4's provided a lot better experience then the IL-2 one did. However falcon 4 had the advantage of modelling a fictional conflict which BoB won't have. In the end, in a realistic campaign, the germans have to lose (or more not win as I understand the conflict). Now if you don't have a problem with a unrealistic outcome ok, another point being that a single pilot won't be able to influence the outcome of a campaign. I think in a recreation of a real life campaign a semi scripted campaign can do but I think it will stand or fall with how things play out during the mission. If it is totally scripted then it can get boring really fast. If playing the same mission twice leaves you with a different experience both times it could be fun.

In the end I will still buy BoB with or without clickable cockpits or a dynamic campaign just to see if I like the game. If I don't I wont be buying any sequels etc. I buy a lot of flight sims/games (girlfriend might think too many ;) ) over the last year and a half, and including 1946, I still think FSX (and the acceleration addon) is the best and most entertaining yet.

[Rama]

Clickpits seem to be a "do-once" thing too. The feature has to be programmed only once just as any other control method and than modelers can assign functions while building the cockpit.

Which is an extra work for M:1C cockpit modelers...
And I don't think it's that easy to built 3D "click" area that must move with the different commands (like pitch lever for example) with different kind of assignable fonctions. It probably would take some non-negligible programmers time (once) + extra work for cockpit modelers.

In any case, when playing FSX, players use the mouse to control the command mostly on 2D-panels, and rarelly with the 3D-"virtual"-pits (just because it's a pain in the ass with the 3D-pits...; I know, I tried).... and you must remember that neither IL2, nor SoW have 2D-panels...

For myself and a lot of other IL2 players that will play BoB, We use the TIR from the start to the end, just like a "natural feature".... and imagine using the mouse to click commands in a 3D-pit which is constantly moving... a real nightmare...

I hav found the perfect solution for myself, which only need keyboard commands (interfaced with a virtual keyboard)....

http://www.edc-fr.net/LC_fichiers/console.jpg

Of course, it would be even better with a direct access to the commands and parameters through and improved "devicelink"

P.S. I forgot.... I also use a Hotas + rudders + TIR to handle everything without needing to type anything on the keyboard...

[Antoninus]

A hardware solution is surely ideal, but the problem is it's extraordinary price. Such a panel costs several hundred €, not everybody can or wants to spend that amount of money for his hobby.

In FSX the clickable VC works very well for me, I use it almost exclusively. I change view just with my joysticks hat-switch. Hitting the buttons is usually no problem, they are not that small. Most aircraft have additional pre defined fixed views available, that give me quick access to all relevant parts of the cockpit. By default the A key switches between them, if you're in the VC. No problem to start an engine in less than a minute. However I mostly fly classical single or small twin engine prop. planes, more advanced airliner cockpits might be something different.

[Rama]

Yes, the above solution is quite expensive (but that much compared for example to a modded Cougar)... but there are other solution wich also works and who are quite cheap (with a little hand work). I remember for example peoples using old keyboards, painting and re-labelling the keys. It can give a nice result.

I change view just with my joysticks hat-switch.
Now try to click the VC commands with TIR active....

Most aircraft have additional pre defined fixed views available
Right.... and that's something you don't have in IL2 and will not have in SoW (and that would cost extra work to do)

[Therion_Prime]

Blackshark clickable cockpit using a touchscreen:
That's what I call immersive!

http://www.leftside-limited.com/projects.html

[Blackdog_kt]

I can certainly see the deal about limited resources. That's why i'm not demanding anything. I'm simply advocating it. ;)

I'll still buy the game anyway, heck, i'll buy a brand new PC just to be able to run the game when it's ready. That doesn't mean we shouldn't ask for some things if we do it in a nice manner.

As someone said before (i think robtek) and it's a very good point, clickpits and a bit more detail in the functions of each aircraft are not mutually exclusive. It's just that if a higher number of functions is modeled, it would be nice to have alternative control methods.

The only issue is the money issue to be honest. If BoB has an increased/more realistic pilot workload the amount of controls to bind to input devices will rise. I don't have a TIR, so i guess i'll be able to click the buttons just fine. If someone has a TIR and an entire panel of switches then he has no reason to complain, because he doesn't need to click anything anyway. If someone has a TIR but not an extra panel, he will have to use a HOTAS or the keyboard.

It's about options to suit every possible gamer, because let's face it, in the end this is not a gaming genre that gets massive attention. I doubt we can afford to be "elitist" (for lack of a better word, i'm not accusing anyone here) among ourselves.

Now if Maddox and co. can't do it in time, no problem. If it's as simple as EcoDragon says, the community will.

Maybe we could get a blank template text based file for each cockpit and do it ourselves. In order for this to work, it would have to start things out pretty simple, by only adding clickable switches and not movable throttles/sliders/trim.

For example, something like a conf.ini for instrument panels that will look like this

Me109E3cockpit.ini
Magneto1=x1235.67/y1564.56/z8963.45
Magneto2=x1235.67/y1564.56/z8963.35
Magneto1+2=x1235.67/y1564.56/z8963.25

Just an idea here. The thing is that this would need a way to open the cockpit models in a 3d viewer/editor to obtain the correct coordinates, much like it's done with skins in IL2. I don't know if Maddox Games would like this, as it could potentially lead to radical modification of the cockpit panels.

But then again, it doesn't have to be that way, someone could come up with a dedicated cockpit viewer-only application that would provide the coordinates when you mouse over the switches (and if it does that much, i guess it can map the desired function directly to the clickspot in the cockpit, like a joystick profile manager utility).

I know all this takes time, but it's simple ideas like these that got IL2 going for so long. Did anyone of us know when we got hold of the first IL2:FB box about water=3? No, but the option was open in the code for someone to add it later on ;)

That's all i'm saying in the end. I hope we get a working sim first with some decent customization potential to use down the road, just like it was with IL2 but with a few new ideas thrown in the mix.