SOW: your thoughts on clickable cockpits and realistic start-up

[Chiz]

Hi all,

I had a couple of questions about SOW, namely options of clickable cockpits and a full start-up routine. I know Oleg has posted indicating that he will not be implementing either in SOW (not sure if the option will be there for 3rd party mods).

Why don't know?... some 5-6 years ago I was asking on the forums... and real pilots...
Voting of hardcore players - 1 per 100-120...
Voting of pilots - want all, but only for one time test of interest. Then will switch it off...

Also... I remeber some developers of other sims were on the way to make start up complex... Where their sims? Even with not precise start up for each aircraft modelled they were bankrupt... and the projects and companies were closed sold , etc...
I won't such situation with me. I want the long life of the new series and to get commercial success... or for what I'm so hard working? :)

For the MS FS fans third party developers we will offer in time many things... So we will probably grab their attention very well... Experience of MS FS is good sample, and at the same time with MS CFS - bad sample...
So we will have our own way that to get attention of both alternative-opposite groups of users, creators, etc...


Joystick is a _must be_ device for the flight sim. In all other cases with the other devices the FM must be simplified and it will be in BoB for the possibility to play with gamepad for example. Except special flight sim devices like bomber control column wheels, etc... But it is another story...

Notice: However if you are playing with gamepade or other similar device and then connect the online server where all other plays with the joystics (settings on the server) then you automatically will get the switch to normal FM... and possibly will be not able to play with others on the same level of aircraft control, like with at least Joystick.

my personal opinion as well as all pilots that I know and was asking specially for this item, all tell that clickable cockpit by the mouse is Ok for the the civil aircraft (say such funtctions like levers, wheels, etc), but anyway it isn't even comparable to the real life precise of hand movement... Say, pedals also clickable?
Mapping on the device or even keyboard is more close to real life than to make all things clickbale/moveable by the mouse. Especially in military aircraft....
Some reealtive sample: I would be glad to see how some will be control aircraft by the joyistick and then by the mouse simultaniosly clicking on the fire button on the control column in 3D cockpit. This sample I give only as realtive. But it is easy to understand in comparison...

I've been playing DCS: Black Shark a lot lately and I think the implementation of both clickable cockpits and a realistic start-up procedure in that sim are excellent and prove that it can be done successfully. I realise that WWII era aircraft are a great deal simpler than modern aircraft, however I think some cockpit elements (magnetos, fuel tank selectors etc.) could be implemented as being clickable (as well as having key bindings) and would make the sim more immersive. As for complex start-up, I know that it may not be suitable for online play, however I think it would really enhance the sim for those of us who mainly fly offline. There can always be a simple, one-key start-up or option to spawn with the engine running for those who want it.

What do you guys think? Should SOW implement clickable cockpits and realistic start-ups?

Cheers

[96th_Nightshifter]

If they had the time to implement it then that would be great for the people that would wish to use it but IMO it is not required (note that is just my opinion).

Having flown in reality the thought of using a a mouse and pointing and clicking on something to make it work is rather unrealistic.
Surely physically pressing a button on a keyboard or joystick is more realistic than fiddling around pointing at something with a mouse and clicking?

[KG26_Alpha]

Not for me thanks

Nothing realistic about "clickpits" at all.

On the question of complex/full/realistic (however you want to term this) start up procedure, surely this will have to extend to the aircraft's performance from cruise to combat also, at present ALL aircraft simply roll/dive/bank from full cruise to combat, a lot of aircraft required fuel balancing trim adjustments and other engine fuel mixture adjustment before simply yanking the stick and diving at your enemy.
Landing procedures should also be made "realistic" instead of the point and slap it in approach I've seen and done :).

If you are going to do "realistic" do it all the way through.............

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Cue the clickpit brigade

[flyingbullseye]

Its a decent idea but how many would actually use it and how much more time spent developing it will the clickable cockpits add to the over due sim?

Flyingbullseye

[LEXX]

Black Shark has only one cockpit right?

Chiz::What do you guys think?
At the top of this thread, there are two long quotes explaining this. Read them and you will figure it out. :grin:

[Talisman]

I am not interested in using mouse for clickable cockpit. I think Oleg has the right approach.

Happy landings,

Talisman

[Thunderbolt56]

"clickpits" are useless to me and I'm in accord with Alpha on this one too. If you want to make "complete" CEM a part of it, then that's cool. Having some additional toggle switches to enable certain aspects would be fun IMO. Besides, difficulty settings are set server-side anyway and if it's not done well (or too cumbersome for most) it could just be turned off.

I'm all for adding more elements of realism to CEM, but that aspect mostly appeals to the FSX crowd than to the average WWII virtual combat pilot. If shifting COG is modeled as fuel is burned and ordnance/ammo is used instead of just overall weight, then that would be a nice touch as well.

I wouldn't say no to having complete CEM modeled to its limits and having the ability to implement different aspects as collective pilot ability increases, but having it only on a single "on/off" switch would be too much for the vast majority IMO.

[robtek]

For me the cockpit doesn´t have to be clickable.
What i want is a more realistic engine management and that includes the starting procedure.
It will bring more immersion and would also, by chance, keep away the "join, throttle to 100%, start run in which direction the plane is pointing at this time - player"
Also it should be felt if you abuse your engine (too hot, too cold, too much rpm)
With the really complex engine management the different workload for the pilots would be simulated at last.
And if that is implemented it could also be clickable, for those who like it.

[Chivas]

I don't find clickable cockpits usefull or immersive, But being able to map the Magneto's Fuelcock's, Primer's and Ingine start button to my Hotas very usefull and immersive.

[ECV56_LeChuck]

Agree with Chivas and robtek. Today, with IL-2, all the planes work the same way. Engine on, full power, and go. That´s no realistic at all, and have a bad and negative effects on pilots.
If, for example, the pilots must set the mixture before starting the engine, gives another depth to simulation.

[nearmiss]

Clickable cockpits

Used in Flight Simulators This way users actually get a feel for the aircraft they are flying by using the switches displayed in the cockpit. Also, because in many real aircraft of similar types there are alot of switches and gauges in cockpits that are very similar.

When I do MSFT FS I always just click the switches on the screen. I can't remember all the keystrokes. I just don't do Flight SImulator enough to make the effort I guess.

The clickable cockpits do seem to work pretty well in flight simulators, because users aren't under pressure to make something happen fast.

In Combat Flight Sims keystrokes are best, because users are usually under pressure to make something happen fast. Navigation and other tweaky stuff kinda gets put on the back burner when you're just trying to stay alive.

The IL2 series uses the same keystokes for same actions in different aircraft. So over time and use you are able to learn the keystrokes faster.

The only issue with that... if you move to another Combat Flight Sim the same keystrokes are not used.

I've not said anything that any experienced CFS or FS enthusiast doesn't know. It's just that this topic creeps into discussions several times a year and most of us CFS type users.... just don't Oleg to waste time trying to indulge everyone's fantasy and leave off the stuff we really need.

So, I doubt you'll get much support for clickable cockpits here.

[HR_Zunzun]

I find start up procedure a "must have" for a sim that claims is going to be the more complex ever created. If latter the complete procedure will be used or not by the user is another matter. It is just a matter of doing of it an option in the difficulty settings.
Regarding the cockpit I find it quite inmersive as well, especially for thing like fuel selectors, primer, magnetos.....(so if you are going to have a complete start up procedure is very handy). Again, could be an option and not that hard to implement as Bob2 had it more than 6-8 year ago.

[ZaltysZ]

I don't have to use mouse in Black Shark to be able to click the switches. Mouse cursor is always on the screen and when I am moving camera by using TrackIR, cursor is also moved with it. I only need to "look" at switch and press button of my HOTAS to emulate mouse click. It is easy, natural and way faster than removing hands from HOTAS and pressing keys in the keyboard. Would be nice to have the same in SoW.

[DD_crash]

There was a video on youtube with a guy using some sort of glove to touch the switches on Black Shark. Looked very impressive:)

[Snuff_Pidgeon]

As an option i think it is a good idea, then when you dont want it, just turn that option off simple..

[ElAurens]

Clickpits are out for me. Never liked them in FSX.

Some added complexity such as fuel management, proper radiator and cowl flap management coupled with correct overheating/temperature models would be great IMHO.

A super complex engine start procedure is not high on my list, but, proper warm up definitely is. "Breaking the wire" (using War Emergency Power) should have correct limits, and consequences for not adhering to them.

And just why does every plane in the sim seem to have VR set at 170kph anyway?

[SPUDLEY1977]

If you want checklists, create each one:

1. Pre flight walkabout checklist
2. Pre Engine startup checklist
3. Warm up checklist
4. Pre taxi checklist
5. Pre take off checklist

make 5 clipboards and get your pens out. You already have this option. Do you already do this? No??? Once eack clip board is filled in, just start clicking your mouse the same number of times anywhere you want. There is your clickable virtual cockpit. No need to DELAY this past the current 2010 release.

Begging for additional limited programming and testing time will only delay the release. PLEASE DO NOT WASTE TIME on this option. Yes, this is my 2cents worth, but they already have to solve the VIRTUAL COCKPIT SMELL requirement to deliver on.

FLEAFLY is already working on the fully functional J TUBE...but will it be environmentally friendly, fully recyclable, self sustainable, and compatible with water cooled PC's (Even his new one someday)?

Clickable Flickable doo dads arrrggghhhh
:) Let the Flames begin...

FLYBY has already submitted C++ plans for real fire, smoke, and brimstone to fill your cockpits when you overload your clickable cockpits. Oh and he has a screen clickable fire extinguisher that is pooped out of your LCD into your lap so you can spray it all over the place and your clickable cockpits and clip boreds.

PEACES

[Chiz]

Wow, a lot of replies, seems clickables aren't too popular here. Coming from sims like Falcon 4 AF and DCS Black Shark, I think they can work very well, however I understand that WWII birds are far less complex. But I still think that clickable switches for functions that aren't used as much like fuel cocks, fuel primers, signal flares, bomb fusing panels, magenots etc. would work really well...and just because something is clickable, doesn't mean you wouldn't be able to bind it. Black Shark has around 500 actions to which you can bind keys...most of them are clickable too, and the Ka-50 cockpit is far more complex than anything that will be in Storm of War.

My real concern though is just how detailed the sim will be. IL2 is a lot of fun and for it's age has held up extremely well, but it's not really a sim...it's closer to Air Quake. I hope there are improvements in areas like engine management, computer AI, radio (LoS for transmissions, atmospheric interference, jamming etc.), ground-based direction for fighters from observer/radar info (huge part of the battle)...the list goes on. If it's just more 'press i and go full throttle', then it's just more Air Quake really, with nicer graphics. I think more detailed simulation of aircraft in Storm of War would also make the sim more attractive to the hardcore simmer crowd as well, especially with the MS flight sim studio folding, which could mean more market volume for Maddox Games. Scalability in the options could still accommodate the "press i and fly' crew, but for hard core simmers the more realistic flight options would be there too. I can picture it now, the MS flight sim guys are all flying He-111's, just waiting for an eight gun spit to give them what for ;)

[CrazySchmidt]

I think clicking controls with the mouse on the screen is less realistic that using a keyboard for the same affect.

End of the day, none of it is too realistic is it?

CS. :)

[SlipBall]

I would enjoy more complexity, hate the mouse thing thow, but binding to key's would be nice. The very first thing I was tought, once inside the cockpit, was to set the altimeter gauge. Having complexity switch for off-line use would make me happy.:)


I think sims should evolve to as close to real as possible, that's what a sim is

[Mysticpuma]

Personally, I have no preference, but I WOULD like to have an avatar/actor in the cockpit, that I can see when sat in the seat.

So engine switch on would have my 'virtual' hand reachinf forward and pressing switches on the panel and then setting hand down on throttle and other onto stick.

That for me would be far more immersive than moving a pointer aorund a 2d image to click it on.

So give us a first-person POV actor in the cockpit that makes it look like it's not a ghost plane flying ;)

Cheers, MP.

[tagTaken2]

I think Oleg's reasoning is correct... the number of people who will always use the full startup sequence is in inverse proportion to the effort required to make it more accurate.

As for clickable cockpits, the less said the better. I don't even use them in Falcon. Too fiddly, too slow, makes you a sitting duck in combat.

[PE_Tigar]

I think Oleg's reasoning is correct... the number of people who will always use the full startup sequence is in inverse proportion to the effort required to make it more accurate.

As for clickable cockpits, the less said the better. I don't even use them in Falcon. Too fiddly, too slow, makes you a sitting duck in combat.

Three things:

- at least the online dudes would use the clickable cockpit 100% of times if it was the server setting :evil:.

- touchscreens will probably begin to move into the meainstream 2010/2011. Win7 already has touchscreen interface support.

- realistic CEM (including startup and cooldown/shutdown) would add a lot of realism to the game ane open up new possibilities. Not to mention that it would give a lot more to the player even from the limited set of airplanes that we'd have at the beginning. Flying even a simple airplane like a C-150 in reality is infinitely more rewarding experience than flying a Corsair or another complicated airplane in Il-2 just because of the procedures you have to follow. Frankly, as for how much it does for the sim, check DCS forum - everybody has their socks blown off by the realism of the thing. It feels real, and serious - that's what's so good about it.

[robtek]

It seems that some people don´t get it that a clickable cockpit can also be used with mapped keys!!!
YOU DON´T HAVE TO USE THE MOUSE.
But you can if you want.
And a full real online server should use the most realistic cem thats possible.

[tagTaken2]

Three things:

- at least the online dudes would use the clickable cockpit 100% of times if it was the server setting :evil:.

- touchscreens will probably begin to move into the meainstream 2010/2011. Win7 already has touchscreen interface support.

- realistic CEM (including startup and cooldown/shutdown) would add a lot of realism to the game ane open up new possibilities. Not to mention that it would give a lot more to the player even from the limited set of airplanes that we'd have at the beginning. Flying even a simple airplane like a C-150 in reality is infinitely more rewarding experience than flying a Corsair or another complicated airplane in Il-2 just because of the procedures you have to follow. Frankly, as for how much it does for the sim, check DCS forum - everybody has their socks blown off by the realism of the thing. It feels real, and serious - that's what's so good about it.

1. I don't know what fraction of servers would want to go with this. In the end, 'servers' are driven by what the players will fly in
2. Probably? Possibly, but at the moment it's just a novelty.
3. DCS is ONE cockpit, this has been said before, noone seems to be paying attention. If people want procedures, why aren't they flying MSFS? That's pretty much all it does.

In the end, I'd like it if everyone got what they want, but Oleg has indicated that it's too much work for too little return for complex startup, and he is not a fan of clickpits. It's his sim, he calls the shots.

One last thought, he has indicated the there might be offline mods available (haven't read much detail on this), so everyone might wind up happy.

[KG26_Alpha]

Was discussed before re start up procedure

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=2039&page=151

[Chivas]

At the moment in IL-2 there is no drama hitting engine start...you know it will start. In BOB WOV I have the magnetos, fuel cocks, fuel primer, and start key mapped to my hotas. It only takes a second to flip both magnetos, fuel cocks on and varify visually as I'm hitting the keys that the switches are thrown to the proper positions. The only tricky part is having the patience to prime the engine enough times to allow for a successfull engine start. This is not a problem on normal flights, BUT when your in a hurry as in your field is under immenent attack things become dicy. In my panic I seldom seem to prime the engine enough to start the first time. Its usally a series of primes, start, cough, cough, sputter, die, prime, prime, prime, prime, start cough, cough, sputter, sputter, catch, roar. And off with a little sorrowly needed drama thats adds immensly to the immersion factor.

On some missions having run out of ammo attacking bombers I'll land at the nearest base and taxi to the hangers, turn off my magnetos and fuelcocks, to hear the engine sputter and die. Wait a minute or two {take whatever time you like} and hit the rearm key, turn on Magnetos, fuel cocks, prime and start, taxi to the runway and off to attack the same bomber stream coming back from the target. Great fun and something we will have in SOW maybe even with animated ground crew and option to set the turn around time that suits your personal game play, or the servers game play.

[un_loon]

There's no doubt at all I would enjoy the extra addon of clickpit. It would be nice for starting the engine once in a while. I would be discouraged by a release date delayed only for click pits ... most of the time in combat I would be wondering how much of an additional PERFORMANCE HIT clickpits would cause (MSFS/CFS clickpits seemed to slow things down). So without a question of doubt or any quibble at all, I say, If I have to reach out and touch something other than what can be programmed into my control inputs during simulated combat, I'd rather touch a key than a mouse. Clickpits won't help how I throw the wrong switch because I'm too busy tracking a bogie to look at what key I'm hitting.

I agree that clickpits are ergonomically unrealistic if you are trying to create a simulation rather than a teaching aid. It doesn't sound like you need clickpits to make further improvements to the engine start-up sequence, engine damage models, and perhaps things like fuel load balancing or whatever else is in store.

What would really impress me is if Oleg asked this question a few months AFTER releasing BOB:SOW.

[SlipBall]

Well since 1C has not the time or desire to give this to us. Maybe if they could take but one aircraft and make it "by the book". I think that their market would reach out to many of those that were into MS. The logical aircraft to choose would be the SU-26.
I think that Oleg should make the SU-26 full real as possible, by the owners manual use of. He may be surprised at the level of interest, if he was to do so.:-P

[airmalik]

I'm all for (optional) added complexity to engine procedures but haven't played a sim with clickable cockpits so I'm not sure how realistic/viable that is. Based on my experience with IL2 though, I propose another option to those wanting more realism without Oleg having to build VCs for all planes.

I haven't played IL2 for a few years now but when I did, I spent days getting the keys on the Saitek joystick, throttle and the keyboard just right. But even with all that effort I found that I could only remember the most often used commands. Around then, I discovered a program which allowed me to use voice commands for various functions.

What a huge difference that made. I didn't have to memorise which keys did what and could focus on flying instead. I still got shot down just as frequently but at least now I could hold down a trigger on the Saitek and say things like "gear down" and "flaps up" without having to remember what I mapped those to. Especially gratifying was watching wingmen react to my spoken commands and having vectors to home base transmitted over the radio in response to my question "where's home?" in Lomac. By the time I finished configuring all the voice commands, the only things left on the stick were the fire buttons and not much else.

When I'm flying in real life, I follow checklists for different stages of flight and pre/post flight and I speak aloud each item as I perform it. Voice activated commands in IL2 would be very realistic in this sense even without actually performing the action. An avatar responding to spoken commands would probably be as close as possible to real life without building a simpit.

[Antoninus]

Just to show what depth and immersion is possible today in a modern simulator with clickable cockpits. Imagine flying such a plane in a combat environment.


http://www.a2asimulations.com//wingsofpower/wop3_p47/downloads/P47_Razorback_Pilot%27s_Manual.pdf

http://www.a2asimulations.com//wingsofpower/wop3_p47/downloads/P47_Accusim_Manual.pdf

Part 1. Cockpit Familiarization
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7cTL6YhEyg

Part 2. Takeoff and Landing Demonstration
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-E50TqJfGk

Part 3. High Speed Flaps Failure
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTY11zy5-m8

Part 4. Emergency Landing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rag1q9OGCPA

[Codex]

WOW...And that is how sim should be. I knew they were making a Wings Of Power 3 series, but I had no idea it would be so detailed in its flight and damage modelling.

[Chiz]

Thanks for the links Antonius....wow, just....wow. What a fantastic level of detail. This is what I'd love to see in Storm of War. I realise it's a lot of work and from what Oleg has hinted isn't the direction SoW is going, but a man can dream :grin:

[KG26_Alpha]

Hmm that flight model looks basic...........

No rudder input on take off for one and it looks like it floats along !!!!!

[ElAurens]

Hmm that flight model looks basic...........

No rudder input on take off for one and it looks like it floats along !!!!!


DING! DING! DING!

A Winnah!!!!!

The MSFS series biggest fault, all the aircraft of a certain class fly the same. I wonder if you over speed or crash it if it just gives you a black screen and ends the session like all the other planes?

Boring "gameplay" thy name is FSX.

[Flyby]

Antoninus, you beat me to it. I hope everyone enjoyed those videos. I know I did. :) The sounds were very good too. Truth be told, I'd have preferred Oleg put time into complex aircraft startup features rather than creating cpu-cycle-sucking ground objects. I noticed that adding the loadout (drop tanks, bombs, etc) caused the landing gear struts to compress under weight. I thought that was a nice feature too. In general, a very well done model. Imagine in SoW having to scramble in Hurris or Spits using a CEM like that. As someone said, if an online server disabled it, well there ya go. But a CHOICE will be very nice. Black Shark has complex engine startup, and those that use it love it. Then there are those who select the less-complex route. Everyone is happy. Sort of like setting the difficulty level in IL2: WonderWoman view, or locked cockpit, and the variations in between.
Let's hope Oleg is already ahead of us on this one. It will be a very nice surprise. Think of all the work to create those very detailed cockpits only to hit the start-engine key, and off you go. Or building those cockpits and not implementing 6dof.whistling.gif

[flyingbullseye]

Watching those videos it just might be a nice feature to add to SOW, however I'd rather it be put in a patch after release so as not to delay it any further.

Flyingbullseye

[tagTaken2]

Let's remember why Oleg does what he does.

Shoot first, admire landing gear compression later.

Unfortunately with the demise of FSX, we (it was happening at ubi too) seem to be getting swamped with a lot of procedure-needy, touchy-feely types :) X-Plane, anyone??

I'd love it if every plane had historically correct engine management/startup etc. But in the context of why 95% of us are going to buy the game, there's better use of resources for Oleg's team.

[nearmiss]

Interesting

You know guys you might want to take up for real in the air in a real airplane flying. If you desire full real startups and clickable cockpits and such. I'm not laying a trip on you here. I mean it.

Think about it, you may just need to take the next step and go take some flying lessons.

The one thing about real flying and doing a flight simulator. You get a little of the fun things of real world flying, but you don't have to do all the mundane (extremely) important detail requirements.

Honestly, can't see why anyone wants to spend 15 minutes and pre-flight check to move their joystick around and fly the virtual world. The idea of looking around the cockpit for the right switch to click when the keyboard is so accessible seems a little much.

Not knocking anyones penchant for reality, just wondering how far you gotta go with a combat flight simulator.

I do WW2 flight simulators only, early jets can be fun too.

If you want to do the full real bit there is an old sim that still has an enormous number of followers and updates are constantly released by 3rd party. That is the Falcon 4.0.

Look into Falcon 4.0 if you want to get into serious air combat simulation. Not only do you get the switches, startups... but you get a great warhorse aircraft (F-16) still flying today in many countries.

One great thing about it when you fly against the AI you have an advantage we don't have with WW2 aircraft, radar. Radar lets you fly and fight in the surreal world of the AI. You can see the enemy when he isn't visible to your eyes, and you can shoot him down only to see a few puffs of smoke.

[Flyby]

I'm glad SOMEONE knows why Oleg does what he does! Know when he's gonna do another update? :D But I see your point. Oleg is not in the business of doing study sims so far, only survey sims. Is that it? Speaking to better use of resources, I stll have not divined why he is allocating resources to elaborately detail some many ground objects in SoW_BoB. Got any ideas? Perhaps he's got those objects tied to a secret campaign feature? Knock out the radars and create gaps in the detection grid; attack targets through the grid gaps without interception? Something like that? Maybe in an online campaign scenario?
Flyby out

[PE_Tigar]

nearmiss - dude, me and several of my friends do fly real airplanes, and no - we can't really fly and fight in a P-47 or La-7, but we'd like to be able to have the simulated experience of the same. We also like to fly WWII-era planes, and don't have $4k an hour to fly in a Mustang... besides, you can't shoot anyone down these days :).

The whole SOW project now looks extremely attractive, but real systems management and modelling would make it perfect. And you can always switch that option off if you wish, nobody preventing you from doing that.

[SlipBall]

+1...

[Snuff_Pidgeon]

+2

[Skoshi Tiger]

I'm glad SOMEONE knows why Oleg does what he does! Know when he's gonna do another update? :D But I see your point. Oleg is not in the business of doing study sims so far, only survey sims. Is that it? Speaking to better use of resources, I stll have not divined why he is allocating resources to elaborately detail some many ground objects in SoW_BoB. Got any ideas? Perhaps he's got those objects tied to a secret campaign feature? Knock out the radars and create gaps in the detection grid; attack targets through the grid gaps without interception? Something like that? Maybe in an online campaign scenario?
Flyby out

With AI and human players being vectored on to targets by RDF would I hope that that taking out a radar facility would effect a sides ability to react to threats. Also getting lost in ground clutter and comming in under the radar might have a purpose.

I wonder if the Observer corp will be simulated as a backup?

[II/JG54_Emil]

I wonder if the ground-objects are so detailed because you can actually use other features. May something like a 1st person shooter, to fight your way back home from enemy lines. Why would it be possible to walk through trains or use flaks???

Anyhow I´m a fan of complex realism in sims. And if this sim offers the feature of i.e. repairing the engine after it was shot up, I would appreciate it.

We´re talking about a feature that can be added any time or not by the host of the game.

It would be great to have it.

[II./JG1_Krupinski]

It certainly would add a level of immersion for both complex engine start up and and click able pits.

However, Oleg said before that he queried the community and it was about a 1 in 100 response for click able pits. Personally, I don't know why he wouldn't put it in - all other sims are able to use it or not.

But the complex engine management / startup is pretty much a must now. This certainly can be switched on and off and won't get in the way of anyone, but the immersion it will add to the community would be astounding.

But I don't think he'll even attempt to start clickpits. You ever try to do that it FSX or BoBII with TIR? It's a PITA! and that's an understatement. But, using the keyboard and watching the actions is much better.

[nearmiss]

Guess I'm not getting it said. LOL

We have the C.E.M., which I think is a bit much as well.

I guess, if we have clickable cockpits, full real startups, C.E.M.,probablistic failures and emergency procedures, then of course we need no waypoint following maps, or other automatic nav tools. In other words, in WW2 they had to follow landmarks and use old ADF tones for navigation. Then of course we need to throw in the stuff that happens, where wingman turns back and you have to follow, one bomb sticks in the racks, one or more guns quit working, you come upon a flak forest and one pass is all you can make and stay alive.

In other words, there are plenty of elements and things that need to go with full real startups and clicking cockpits. Guess it all depends on how far you want to take this thing.

IMO, we need a great mission builder tool like the old MSFT CFS2. You can't imagine how much enjoyment you can get out of recreating and flying historical missions. It gives you a feel for what those WW2 pilots dealt with and the difficulty of it all.

The old MSFT CFS2 is still a very vibrant community. The mission builder tool keeps the sim experience exceptional. There is still a large 3rd party development community constantly pumping new life into the sim.

So... if we get a great mission builder tool, and the stuff others want we'll have best for all.

Face it, this is probably not worth all the words. Oleg will do what he plans to do... regardless.

[Bearcat]

Clkickable pits are a waste IMO as well.. however having the ability to have every switch that has a function move in the pit is not a bad idea..... as well as having the option for more complex CEM..

[Antoninus]

So changing view to watch an animated battery switch is no waste of time but using maybe one extra second to click on it instead of using the keyboard is.

At least we will have such fully animated cockpits in SOW and it's certainly better
than nothing, since you can quickly check the status of systems and see if the
awkward key combo has done the right thing.

However I fail to see the benefits of such an half-way implementation of an interactive cockpit compared to a fully clickable VC. So an aircraft designer already has to make a fully modeled VC, assign commands to all switches and animate them, thus all the work to make a clickable cockpit for MSFS. Of course they save once a little bit of development time that can be used to make more overly detailed ground objects or research the correct number plates for all German and British army divisions.

[Flyby]

two weeks and we'll see what's what. (j/k)

[ElAurens]

If a beautiful woman came to your door with a case of your favorite libation and handed you a roll of money, you guys would complain about the colour of her hair.

Really.

:rolleyes:

[Al Schlageter]

Section II -- Allison Starting Procedures

The following is the correct starting procedure for all ALLISON power aircraft: (P-40, P-39, P-51).

1. Have the propeller pulled through by hand if the ship has set for more than two hours. (switch off).
2. Turn the fuel selector to the proper tank:
1. P-39 RESERVE
2. P-40 FUSELAGE
3. P-51 LEFT MAIN

3. Throttle cracked one inch.
4. Mixture Control in IDLE CUT OFF.
5. Propeller Control to FULL INCREASE RPM.
1. Curtiss Electric Propellers:
1. Selector switch to AUTOMATIC.
2. Circuit breaker ON.
3. Propeller Control to FULL INCREASE RPM.
6. Generator Switch ON.
7. Battery Switch OFF when the battery cart is used.
8. Carburetor air in the RAM or UNFILTERED position.
9. Fuel Boost pump ON.
10. Start to energize the starter.
11. Prime the engine while energizing - 1 to 2 strokes if warm, 2 to 5 strokes if cold. Leave the primer unlocked.
12. Fuel boost pump OFF.
13. Turn Mag Switch to BOTH.
14. Engage the starter, hold in engage until engine fires regularly.
15. When engine fires move the Mixture Control to AUTO RICH, and turn the boost pump ON.
1. Keep the engine running with the primer if necessary.
2. When the engine fires regularly release the starter switch and LOCK THE PRIMER.

16. Oil pressure must be established within 30 seconds or engine must be shut OFF.
17. Check engine driven fuel pump by turning the boost pump off for a few seconds and then back ON.
18. Limit the RPM to 1000-1200 until minimum temperatures are established.

Standard Stopping Procedure

1. Propeller in FULL INCREASE RPM.
1. Curtiss Electric Propellers - Selector switch to AUTOMATIC.
2. Clear the engine.
3. With the throttle at 1000 RPM move the mixture control to IDLE CUT-OFF.
4. When the engine quits firing, move the throttle slowly open.
5. Turn the Mag Switch OFF after the propeller stops turning.
6. Fuel selector OFF.
7. All cockpit switches OFF.

Correction for Over Primed Engine

1. Ignition switch OFF.
2. Throttle OPEN.
3. Mixture Control in IDLE CUT-OFF.
1. Boost pump off.
4. Pull propeller through four or five revolutions.
5. Make normal start without prime.

more: http://rwebs.net/avhistory/opsman/pursuit/pursuit.htm

[Antoninus]

Much more, lot's of free orignal manuals for WWII era aircraft:

http://www.tailwheel.nl/index.html

[usagold2004]

having flown real planes, i promise, the start up is not the highlight of the flight. the only thing that makes start up interesting is the fact that you are watching your gagues for any sign of engine malfunction. unless these malfunctions are present, the start up sequence is merely an un rewarding and time consuming process. Supposing they did implement malfunctions in startup, you would simply be forced to restart your mission with an airplane that would crank up. The only reason we have "complex" start up sequences in real life is because things break exactly when you dont want them to.

Clickable cockpits are good for some functions, but i would not want every item in the cockpit clickable. When you fly a plane, much like driving a car, you dont always look at what button you are pushing. You do so much of it by feel that its hard to express how important it is to know your cockpit literally blindfolded. that doesnt mean that you never take a quick glance to ensure that you have achieved the desired effect of whatever switch you are manipulating though! but you dont look AT the turn signal when you switch it in your car do you? to have clickable buttons in such a simple (relatively) airplane means that you would have to have it displayed on your coputer screen (since you cant do it by feel) and that you would have to focus on clicking that switch. The reality is that this is LESS realistic than having it mapped to a button on your controller or keyboard.

[SlipBall]

having flown real planes, i promise, the start up is not the highlight of the flight. the only thing that makes start up interesting is the fact that you are watching your gagues for any sign of engine malfunction. unless these malfunctions are present, the start up sequence is merely an un rewarding and time consuming process. Supposing they did implement malfunctions in startup, you would simply be forced to restart your mission with an airplane that would crank up. The only reason we have "complex" start up sequences in real life is because things break exactly when you dont want them to.

Clickable cockpits are good for some functions, but i would not want every item in the cockpit clickable. When you fly a plane, much like driving a car, you dont always look at what button you are pushing. You do so much of it by feel that its hard to express how important it is to know your cockpit literally blindfolded. that doesnt mean that you never take a quick glance to ensure that you have achieved the desired effect of whatever switch you are manipulating though! but you dont look AT the turn signal when you switch it in your car do you? to have clickable buttons in such a simple (relatively) airplane means that you would have to have it displayed on your coputer screen (since you cant do it by feel) and that you would have to focus on clicking that switch. The reality is that this is LESS realistic than having it mapped to a button on your controller or keyboard.



For me starting the engine was alway's a highlight...but I very much enjoy engine's, the sound's, the feel, and the respect deserved of a well designed combustion engine. I can see why others can't be bothered with such matters, but I would totally enjoy the experience each time. I think that we are talking a switch here, so no one would have to use the feature. And yes, I'm not a big mouse fan either, but would enjoy function bind to key. I would go even further, with temperature affecting start up:cool:

[tagTaken2]

having flown real planes, i promise, the start up is not the highlight of the flight. the only thing that makes start up interesting is the fact that you are watching your gagues for any sign of engine malfunction. unless these malfunctions are present, the start up sequence is merely an un rewarding and time consuming process. Supposing they did implement malfunctions in startup, you would simply be forced to restart your mission with an airplane that would crank up. The only reason we have "complex" start up sequences in real life is because things break exactly when you dont want them to.

Clickable cockpits are good for some functions, but i would not want every item in the cockpit clickable. When you fly a plane, much like driving a car, you dont always look at what button you are pushing. You do so much of it by feel that its hard to express how important it is to know your cockpit literally blindfolded. that doesnt mean that you never take a quick glance to ensure that you have achieved the desired effect of whatever switch you are manipulating though! but you dont look AT the turn signal when you switch it in your car do you? to have clickable buttons in such a simple (relatively) airplane means that you would have to have it displayed on your coputer screen (since you cant do it by feel) and that you would have to focus on clicking that switch. The reality is that this is LESS realistic than having it mapped to a button on your controller or keyboard.

+1

Well put too.

[Antoninus]

Nobody wants to operate every switch, lever or rheostat with the mouse but there many functions where it makes sense and it would only be an additional option to control more complex (3rd party?) planes.

to have clickable buttons in such a simple (relatively) airplane means that you would have to have it displayed on your coputer screen (since you cant do it by feel) and that you would have to focus on clicking that switch. The reality is that this is LESS realistic than having it mapped to a button on your controller or keyboard.

Well in my car I can't operate each system quickly without at least one quick look and it's much simpler than any WW2 fighter. Buttons for the rear window heater, air conditioner or air re-circulation are identically shaped and placed close together. Impossible to manipulate the car audio system to select another channel without looking at the display or buttons for pre saved ones.

WW2 era aircraft weren't known for their superior ergonomics. Nobody can tell that he quickly identify each switch here blindfolded:


http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/7844/lfktb0.jpg

[ElAurens]

+1

well put too.


+100000000000000

[Abbeville-Boy]

i think only peoples who are real life pilot want to have this. Fur ball peoples just want some quick fur, have no time to dream or learn or do right steps to fly

[jasonbirder]

There seems to be a little blurring between clickable cockpits and realistic start up/flight processes...
A clickable cockpit is just an interface...if its not a method of input that you favour those inputs can be mapped to HOTAS buttons and/or kekboard inputs...despite the huge number of functions in games like Falcon 4.0/Black SHark etc...the overwhelming majority of them are mapable...so dislike of a "click-pit" interface is no reason to throw out the idea of more realistic engine management/systems...
Its just being used as a red herring by those that favour the all action "sim light" aproach we have within IL2 1946...but a move to fewer more detailed flyables could give us the opportunity to have realistic engine/fuel/systems management...making actually flying and fighting the plane more interesting and challanging...rather than the over simplified models we have currently.
It would be a step towards making SOW-BOB a Combat FLight Simulator rather than a Combat Game with a flight element.

[robtek]

@jasonbirder

+1

And i really wait for the whining when the reduced workload of the "automated" planes like the FW190 "destroys" the "balance".

[SlipBall]

Section II -- Allison Starting Procedures

The following is the correct starting procedure for all ALLISON power aircraft: (P-40, P-39, P-51).

1. Have the propeller pulled through by hand if the ship has set for more than two hours. (switch off).
2. Turn the fuel selector to the proper tank:
1. P-39 RESERVE
2. P-40 FUSELAGE
3. P-51 LEFT MAIN

3. Throttle cracked one inch.
4. Mixture Control in IDLE CUT OFF.
5. Propeller Control to FULL INCREASE RPM.
1. Curtiss Electric Propellers:
1. Selector switch to AUTOMATIC.
2. Circuit breaker ON.
3. Propeller Control to FULL INCREASE RPM.
6. Generator Switch ON.
7. Battery Switch OFF when the battery cart is used.
8. Carburetor air in the RAM or UNFILTERED position.
9. Fuel Boost pump ON.
10. Start to energize the starter.
11. Prime the engine while energizing - 1 to 2 strokes if warm, 2 to 5 strokes if cold. Leave the primer unlocked.
12. Fuel boost pump OFF.
13. Turn Mag Switch to BOTH.
14. Engage the starter, hold in engage until engine fires regularly.
15. When engine fires move the Mixture Control to AUTO RICH, and turn the boost pump ON.
1. Keep the engine running with the primer if necessary.
2. When the engine fires regularly release the starter switch and LOCK THE PRIMER.

16. Oil pressure must be established within 30 seconds or engine must be shut OFF.
17. Check engine driven fuel pump by turning the boost pump off for a few seconds and then back ON.
18. Limit the RPM to 1000-1200 until minimum temperatures are established.

Standard Stopping Procedure

1. Propeller in FULL INCREASE RPM.
1. Curtiss Electric Propellers - Selector switch to AUTOMATIC.
2. Clear the engine.
3. With the throttle at 1000 RPM move the mixture control to IDLE CUT-OFF.
4. When the engine quits firing, move the throttle slowly open.
5. Turn the Mag Switch OFF after the propeller stops turning.
6. Fuel selector OFF.
7. All cockpit switches OFF.

Correction for Over Primed Engine

1. Ignition switch OFF.
2. Throttle OPEN.
3. Mixture Control in IDLE CUT-OFF.
1. Boost pump off.
4. Pull propeller through four or five revolutions.
5. Make normal start without prime.

more: http://rwebs.net/avhistory/opsman/pursuit/pursuit.htm




Thank's for this, very interesting and not such a big chore. Maybe a dozen or so keys/buttons to program. I estimate a 20/30 second start up in a hurry...but it sure would be sweet :grin:

[Bearcat]

So changing view to watch an animated battery switch is no waste of time but using maybe one extra second to click on it instead of using the keyboard is.


If I can program a button on my keyboard or HOTAS to perform that function.. absolutely.

Having the button move when activated and having it move when clicked with a mouse are two very different things.. In 46 right now.. there are several functions that are programmable and that have switches or knobs that move when you activate the commands.. from the K-14 gunsight in the Mustang to the P-40s lights... great stuff IMO.... but if those cammonads were clickable.. I'd still have them mapped to my HOTAS... and with TIR and zoom programmed on my HOTAS seeing the key is no more intuitive or cumbersome than looking down at it.. and then hitting the corresponding key on my HOTAS.

i think only peoples who are real life pilot want to have this. Fur ball peoples just want some quick fur, have no time to dream or learn or do right steps to fly



I disagree totally.... I think that if the features were programmed in as a level of CEM then some people would flock to it.. and again.. as long as the function were mappable and had a visibly corresponding action in the virtual cockpit to any modelled action ... not necessarily clickable with a mouse but visibly corresponding it would be a good thing......

Y'see for me.. the idea of doing any virtual flying with a mouse even iof it is clicking functions on a virtual pit... is counter immersive............. but hey.. that's me.

[Chivas]

Having a mouse curser floating over the cockpit switches kills immersion for me. Mapping the switches to my Hotas works very well. Now if the pilots hand and arm moves to flick the switches and nobs even better. ;)

[jasonbirder]

I guess, if we have clickable cockpits, full real startups, C.E.M.,probablistic failures and emergency procedures, then of course we need no waypoint following maps, or other automatic nav tools. In other words, in WW2 they had to follow landmarks and use old ADF tones for navigation. Then of course we need to throw in the stuff that happens, where wingman turns back and you have to follow, one bomb sticks in the racks, one or more guns quit working, you come upon a flak forest and one pass is all you can make and stay alive

In one paragraph you have outlined EXACTLY what I would like to see in SOW-BOB

[Antoninus]

+ 1

Oleg has already said that SOW should also become a plattform for 3rd party add ons like MSFS. Thus his small team does not have to make a few douzend highly complex aircraft (though I would appreciate less but more detailed planes), he should just give others the possibility to realize all this.

[II/JG54_Emil]

i think only peoples who are real life pilot want to have this. Fur ball peoples just want some quick fur, have no time to dream or learn or do right steps to fly

I´m not areal life pilot but I want to have it as I like authenticity and realism in a sim.

[SlipBall]

+ 1

Oleg has already said that SOW should also become a plattform for 3rd party add ons like MSFS. Thus his small team does not have to make a few douzend highly complex aircraft (though I would appreciate less but more detailed planes), he should just give others the possibility to realize all this.




Yes, and that is a very good thing...but it's the waiting that bothers me, maybe year's after SOW release. I think A2A simulation's could be available right now, lets put them to work on this straight away:-P:-P:grin:

[Warhound]

I am 100% on the same line as Bearcat.
How can grabbing a mouse ,panning your view and then clicking some button be more realistic and immersive?
Imagine if u built a complete Simpit, added every button imaginable...and then instead of using the buttons u added , u have to grab your mouse each time and pan all over the cockpit to press a few buttons.
I'm sure those with good simpits will love having their pit made redundant and being forced to use their mouse for the most mundane function.

In short: Yes to animated cockpits where every button moves according to what position it is in and possibly animated pilot arms, NO to clickable cockpits.

IMO if u want a clickable cockpit..build it around your pc and u have everything clickable ,fully immersive/realistic without being forced to use your mouse to pretend clicking such and such button.

[ElAurens]

I'm totally wiht Bearcat on this as well.

Using a mouse is gamey, at best.

[jasonbirder]

But ignoring the pluses and minuses of a "clickpit" interface...which as has already been pointed out could quite easily be fully mappable...what about incorporating all the functionality...making it more of a Sim...less of a game...
Realistic Navigation and radios, realistic start up procedures...realistic engine management (with appropriate problems when mis-handled) realistic fuel management and switch-ology etc etc...even failures/gun jams etc etc modelled...
Particularly if we incorporate more realistic FMs with true levels of torque/ground handling issues...more realistic landing parameters etc etc
Surely that would be a tremendous addition to SOW-BOB rather than a continuation of the "air-quake" environment we have now.

[SlipBall]

That would be the ultimate WW2 flight simulater, I'm droooooooling just thinking about such a product...I think very few of us could handle the demands of such a game. Most here perfer to press (I), cut across the grass, and fly with map icons. That is the type of pilot, that is Oleg's sales base. but, I think that it possible, if 1C put different skill levels in the game. Almost every game has that skill level "Expert" to choose, that would be great to have a choice of skill level

[Antoninus]

I am 100% on the same line as Bearcat.
How can grabbing a mouse ,panning your view and then clicking some button be more realistic and immersive?
Imagine if u built a complete Simpit, added every button imaginable...and then instead of using the buttons u added , u have to grab your mouse each time and pan all over the cockpit to press a few buttons.
I'm sure those with good simpits will love having their pit made redundant and being forced to use their mouse for the most mundane function.

In short: Yes to animated cockpits where every button moves according to what position it is in and possibly animated pilot arms, NO to clickable cockpits.

IMO if u want a clickable cockpit..build it around your pc and u have everything clickable ,fully immersive/realistic without being forced to use your mouse to pretend clicking such and such button.

Why do people come up again and again with this complete nonsense that clickpits would be the only way to control your sim? How can anybody seriously believe that anybody would be forced to use the mouse? Do you have any example where the introduction of clickable cockpits has destroyed the experience for others who don't use it? In MSFS or every sim with a clickable cockpits I know you can still map all commands to the keyboard, hotas etc. If you have the time , energy and money to build a full sized or partial cockpit mock up, fine for you. But only because you prefer a certain way how to play your sims does not mean that everyone else feels the same or even should be forced to do in your way. Sorry if this sounds a bit harsh but I am tired of hearing the same disproved arguments over and over again.

And simply clicking on a battery switch in a beautiful 3d cockpit is certainly more immersive for me than pressing shift+alt+B.

[tagTaken2]

But only because you prefer a certain way how to play your sims does not mean that everyone else feels the same or even should be forced to do in your way. Sorry if this sounds a bit harsh but I am tired of hearing the same disproved arguments over and over again.


And it's quite possible that Oleg, who has clearly stated that he's not a fan, and clickpits are not going to happen, is getting bored of you whining.


And simply clicking on a battery switch in a beautiful 3d cockpit is certainly more immersive for me than pressing shift+alt+B.

So be immersed in another sim?


I'd love it if everyone who keeps bleating about everything they need on this thread would go back and read what Oleg has said in interviews and then try and understand what he's saying. I'm hearing a minimum of respect for the man, just gimme, gimme, gimme.

[SlipBall]

And it's quite possible that Oleg, who has clearly stated that he's not a fan, and clickpits are not going to happen, is getting bored of you whining.



So be immersed in another sim?


I'd love it if everyone who keeps bleating about everything they need on this thread would go back and read what Oleg has said in interviews and then try and understand what he's saying. I'm hearing a minimum of respect for the man, just gimme, gimme, gimme.



The conclusion that I draw from Oleg's words are:

1. We will someday have a third party give this to us

2.Oleg does like function bind to key

3.He does not like the mouse click thing

4.He wants to attract MSFS people to his product, so maybe "third party" advanced engine management will be much sooner, rather than later. Especially since the recent fall, or demise of MSFS:cool:

[jasonbirder]

Oleg, who has clearly stated that he's not a fan, and clickpits are not going to happen

I was hoping we were moving this argument away from the merits of click-pits (which as an input mechanism are a matter of taste) and towards the merits of making SOW-BOB a realistic and immersive combat flight simulator - something that has truly moved to another level...rather than simply being IL2 1946 with really really really really good graphics...

Lets be honest i'm never going to see the lovingly rendered shovel in the firemans hand as he feeds coal into the steam trains engine as i fly over it at 400mph and 300 feet am I?

But I will notice if my engine cuts out as I haven't switched my fuel flow from one tank to another won't I?

[Abbeville-Boy]

If I can program a button on my keyboard or HOTAS to perform that function.. absolutely.

Having the button move when activated and having it move when clicked with a mouse are two very different things.. In 46 right now.. there are several functions that are programmable and that have switches or knobs that move when you activate the commands.. from the K-14 gunsight in the Mustang to the P-40s lights... great stuff IMO.... but if those cammonads were clickable.. I'd still have them mapped to my HOTAS... and with TIR and zoom programmed on my HOTAS seeing the key is no more intuitive or cumbersome than looking down at it.. and then hitting the corresponding key on my HOTAS.





I disagree totally.... I think that if the features were programmed in as a level of CEM then some people would flock to it.. and again.. as long as the function were mappable and had a visibly corresponding action in the virtual cockpit to any modelled action ... not necessarily clickable with a mouse but visibly corresponding it would be a good thing......

Y'see for me.. the idea of doing any virtual flying with a mouse even iof it is clicking functions on a virtual pit... is counter immersive............. but hey.. that's me.




i too think people will flock to it. i wish everybody to forget the mouse and stop bringing it up. nobodies want the mouse so everybody just talk about if you want more detail in new game.

[tagTaken2]

The conclusion that I draw from Oleg's words are:

1. We will someday have a third party give this to us


4.He wants to attract MSFS people to his product, so maybe "third party" advanced engine management will be much sooner, rather than later. Especially since the recent fall, or demise of MSFS:cool:

I'd love it if a third party was able to add this, among other things. I fly offline, so it does make a difference for me being able to start from scratch.

As for the lovingly rendered shovel :), Oleg has said that he wants people to be able to use SoW engine to make documentary footage with... kind of like the stuff you might see in Dogfights, but with realistic flight modelling, and hopefully without that stupid 'intense' voiceover. So I think that's supposed to be why they're going berserk with the ground objects.

[ElAurens]

So I think that's supposed to be why they're going berserk with the ground objects.


I think there is a lot more to it than that.

We all need to keep open minds.

[Warhound]

But only because you prefer a certain way how to play your sims does not mean that everyone else feels the same or even should be forced to do in your way.

OK fair enough..I'll state a different point for u.
I would hate to see time being spent on making clickpits to appease a small part of the SOW userbase. Would much rather see one extra damage parameter/turbulence layer/CEM function/plane/even a groundobject be added then hours and hours being spent on redoing every single cockpit so u can click stuff.
(if Oleg and co even had time to do one extra thing...)
If u can buy clickpits made by a 3rd party some time in the future, excellent ..the more choice the better.

But to me a function or object that will add value for every single SOW customer is tons more desirable than a superficial and in the end purely cosmetic feature like clickpits. So I would hope to see Oleg and his team spend time on refining core features.
And I still stand by my idea that if the clickpit advocates are as realism focused as they claim to be..they would build a simpit (no matter if its out of cheap plywood and takes 1+year to build)

Like u say it's not because U want a certain feature that the rest of us should agree...it's all up to Oleg to decide anyhow and he most likely has done just that long ago.

[Antoninus]

According to a poll last year in this forum around 40% would like to have clickable cockpits. That's certainly not a tiny fraction of the SOW user base, at least the active hardcore part of it. Clickpits just in some 3rd party planes would be fully ok for me, with Il-2 level complexity they are really a waste of time. Oleg has said that it will be already possible to animate each switch in the VCs, so the amount of work for aircraft modelers is already the same as in sims with clickable cockpits. I assume that Oleg and his team weren't lazy in the last 5 years and already have refined the core features and that we can expect some serious improvements there.

And it's quite possible that Oleg, who has clearly stated that he's not a fan, and clickpits are not going to happen, is getting bored of you whining.

Oleg could as well change his mind one day, if he sees that there is continuous support for this feature over many years and that it could help to increase his customer base. If people just ask for something once followed by silence for years Oleg will naturally think that it is not really important. We don't have to lobby Oleg for an improved AI or offline campaigns, just the less obvious things. If BOB is really close to beta now he might consider which features to add for future incarnations.


So be immersed in another sim?


With no serious competitor around and especially now after the demise of ACES and the MSFS/CFS series Oleg and SOW are currently the only hope to something as the ultimate combat flight sim one day.

[SlipBall]

According to a poll last year in this forum around 40% would like to have clickable cockpits.


I think that we who strongly advocate for more complex startup's and complex systems management, should reframe from using the term or word "clickable"

Just the word "clickable" can turn off a whole lot of people. What we want is press a key or button, and watch as the function takes place. Need to prime the engine, press the button/key assigned to that function 3 or 4 time's or what ever it take's. Need to switch fuel tank's??? press the key/button to achieve that task. You will find that looking at a switch with your eyes, and then using your hand to press a key/button, and then see/hear it move, is totally natural! and will seem as though you touched that switch and felt it move.

"clickable" using the "mouse" will not work in a combat sim, but let's say a pad, or hotas such as the one's CH puts out, where you could program multiple functions would work ideally...I think it very important that we drop that word "clickable" in this discussion...and remove it from the title!!!!:-P

[usagold2004]

Just the word "clickable" can turn off a whole lot of people. What we want is press a key or button, and watch as the function takes place. Need to prime the engine, press the button/key assigned to that function 3 or 4 time's or what ever it take's. Need to switch fuel tank's??? press the key/button to achieve that task. You will find that looking at a switch with your eyes, and then using your hand to press a key/button, and then see/hear it move, is totally natural! and will seem as though you touched that switch and felt it move.

"clickable" using the "mouse" will not work in a combat sim, but let's say a pad, or hotas such as the one's CH puts out, where you could program multiple functions would work ideally...I think it very important that we drop that word "clickable" in this discussion...and remove it from the title!!!!:-P[/QUOTE]

i agree. itd be more stuff to map, but if thats your flavor ice cream, i think there might be decent immersion there

[Talisman]

SlipBall,

Good post. Nail and head come to mind.

Happy landings,

Talisman

[RAF74_KurtStudent]

Clickpits.... no... not a good idea.

Reasoning... When using 6DOF, looking behind me like a crazed schitzo trying to shake the 109 off my six, whilst being buffetted by winds, flak and others... last thing I want to click by accident was the bail out lever, or perhaps the landing gear.. or perhaps fuel dump or engine...

As one chap mentioned, the only reason why realistic engine management would be good is to identify problems... not fun for real pilots....

What happens if you have a problem on the ground... "CLICK REFLY"... Bulltard!! I have enough difficulties getting co-ops off the ground with the amount of rejoins etc etc.. last thing I want is a malfunction in the beginning of the flight. In real flight you dont take off... in flight YOU LAND.. thats it... (or crash if worse). In this game (co-ops) it can be an hour before my 20 pilots are off the ground without software or connection errors..!!!

having a pilot sitting in the seat, or crew pushing the buttons as you punch away on the k'board is a good idea... detailed ground targets... BAD IDEA.. I dont care how detailed the grnd targets are when im looking down a bomb sight at 30,000 feet!!! I'm not going to see it!!

having a nice damage model, good engine management, realistic flight model (unlike some russian aircraft modeled in this game - or even the P51!!) would be nice...dont forget the P51 would have been a great plane if you could manage your fuel tanks properly in 1946.

What I really want.....

IS THE GAME (and thats all it is) TO COME OUT SOME TIME THIS YEAR!!! not next decade...

sorry for the whinge.. but you cant make everyone happy and I think that creating updates every 6 months is a much better process than trying to get the game spot on 1st time...

Remember lock on...?? yup, bought it.. learnt to fly the planes after 4 weeks of constant writing quick notes and learning the sequences of buttons blah.. only to find out that after mission 1 in the campaign I couldnt go further as there was an inherent problem with the game. It was locked up for 2 years when i HAD TO BUY A PATCH to get it to work!!!

no no no no no.......

lets have the game out THIS YEAR and have all the extra un necessary "grass blowing in the wind" details later... if people REALLY want that detail.... do what we used to do before computers TRY GOING OUTSIDE AND LOOKING AT THE GRASS!!!

Come on people, we seem to be going over and over the same topics again and again... when will we see the game released?

Sorry for the ranting 1st post but i have been reading this forum for over a year now and just become annoyed at the amount of detail people want in game....

oh and btw.. it only costs £80 for an hour flying lesson... you can push all the buttons you want then. If you cant afford that save up!! its only twice the cost of this game I ordered 2 years ago ... and cant get a bl00dy refund!!

I WANT MY SIM!!!!!

[Baron]

"Sorry for the ranting 1st post but i have been reading this forum for over a year now and just become annoyed at the amount of detail people want in game.... "


NP, the wishlist for this game is becomming redicilous to the extrem. (not just the "clickpits" thingy mind u)


Alot of people will be extremly dissepointed up on its release.


Will probably be an awsome game, but alot of whining and dissepontment will follow, belive it or not.

[jasonbirder]

To differentiate itself from IL2 1946...SOW-BOB will have to differ in some fairly significant way...
That may well prove to be graphical improvements leaving the actual game content essentially the same...
Or an exceptional campaign system (perhaps a la Falcon 4.0) (and the corresponding incorporation of radio traphic)
Or it may be a significant improvement in the fidelity of the simulation itself...more realistic FMs and Flight procedures...
Or it could be a combination of all 3

Oleg has already indicated that the graphics will be significantly better...but as that doesn't in any substantive way change the game itself...its little wonder that people are discussing what he will be doing with the simulation itself and with the campaign engine...

[HR_Zunzun]

It is all a matter of perspective (one´s own perspective).

Clicking cockpit: you need to look at the real (sim) cockpit to find where the button or level is (as the real pilots did in theirs 109 or spitfire cockpits). Perphaps unnatural way of cominucating with the plane but really inmersive (you learn to operate the plane as the real pilots did as you are looking at the "same" places).

Keyboard cockpit: You look at your keyboard or use your hotas. More natural way of comunicating with the plane but, for me, far far less inmersive.


It is a matter of preference but, please, put it as an option for those that like it.


PD: You dont clicking-fight. Because the most important controls is in your hotas. Don´t be afraid of that.

[SlipBall]

"Sorry for the ranting 1st post but i have been reading this forum for over a year now and just become annoyed at the amount of detail people want in game.... "


NP, the wishlist for this game is becomming redicilous to the extrem. (not just the "clickpits" thingy mind u)


Alot of people will be extremly dissepointed up on its release.


Will probably be an awsome game, but alot of whining and dissepontment will follow, belive it or not.


If you guys would take a minute to read this thread's title, you would see that it is not addressed to Oleg. It is an opinion thread, not a demand list.:confused:

[Baron]

True, but the same wishes is put forward in Oleg Maddox Room, that and everything else anyone can think of.

It will be what it will be and sooner or later (proppably later) everyone will get exactly what they want.

Just not on release.


And to be honest, after the gazilliont debate on the same subject its hard not to read "demand" or even "whaaaaa" instead of plain "opinion"



Anyways, not trying to derail anything so carry on good folks.

[Abbeville-Boy]

i think it very good to talk these things so mr maddox will know what his followers are thinking about. so many things that could be added but even a few things would put some space between il2 and bob, and would be good to have some advance to seem like we are maturing flyers and can grow a little more like those real men had to do and learn in the war time to be good flyers.

[RAF74_KurtStudent]

They are thinking "When will the game actually come out" ;)

[TX-EcoDragon]

For me a realistic cockpit interface is a must. IL-2 was the first and hopefully last sim I'll use without clickable cockpits.

I still don't understand why this debate continues. No other developer seems to find this a challenge to model, especially in aircraft as simple as those in WWII, and most all flight sim pilots with experience outside the rather limited world of IL-2 appreciate the need for a cockpit interface that is more than just a facade. Those that want to map everything to their joystick can do so (despite the fact that's not at all realistic), as those who are fine having no idea what position the radiator is without cycling the position and looking at the HUD, or trying to cycle the mags with the keyboard (I usually just get the map popping up instead) can keep on doing it!

If Oleg only polls those that only fly IL-2, the results will clearly not be representative of the actual stance of the flight sim community at large, and certainly real world pilots who try the sims . . .this isn't conjecture, 100% of the time I've demonstrated IL-2 to other pilots, this is one of their first gripes, as it was mine! In addition to the gamers, Oleg SHOULD also care about luring the more serious simmers and pilots to BOB:SOW. . .many of these same folks dismiss IL-2 as little more than a combat game without a second thought as it is, and this is one of the reasons.

I'll still buy SOW for the SU-26 if for nothing else, but I sure do expect more than what is provided in IL-2 with respect to flight physics, CEM and cockpit interface.

[Codex]

For me a realistic cockpit interface is a must. IL-2 was the first and hopefully last sim I'll use without clickable cockpits.

I still don't understand why this debate continues. No other developer seems to find this a challenge to model, especially in aircraft as simple as those in WWII, and most all flight sim pilots with experience outside the rather limited world of IL-2 appreciate the need for a cockpit interface that is more than just a facade. Those that want to map everything to their joystick can do so (despite the fact that's not at all realistic), as those who are fine having no idea what position the radiator is without cycling the position and looking at the HUD, or trying cycle the mags with the keyboard (I usually just get the map popping up instead) can keep on doing it!

If Oleg only polls those that only fly IL-2, the results will clearly not be representative of the actual stance of the flight sim community at large, and certainly real world pilot. In addition to the gamers, Oleg SHOULD also care about luring the more serious simmers and pilots to BOB:SOW. . .many of these same folks dismiss IL-2 as little more than a combat game without a second thought as it is, and this is one of the reasons.

I'll still buy SOW for the SU-26 if for nothing else, but I sure do expect more than what is provided in IL-2 with respect to flight physics, CEM and cockpit interface.

Spot on

[GOZR]

Yes EcoDragon is right about this and i feel the same way.

Anything close to what DCS team did with "Black Shark" system management is a good start . :)

[zxwings]

Clickable cockpits are not a good idea for combat flight simulation. The developers ought to use the time that they would spend in clickable cockpits to do other more useful things, such as better AI.

[GOZR]

Clickable cockpits are not a good idea for combat flight simulation

Please tell us what is a good idea for a combat flight simulation vs a game ?... I can tell you that in Real flights or combats the clickable cockpit and systems management played a huge part of the fight. matter of death or life..

It's also understandable that in a Combat Fight Sim it's important to have different settings for different choices and styles.
Having clickable buttons it doesn't mean that you guys will loose the keyboard or joystick keys shortcuts.. everyone can be happy, Now we will see if Oleg's team can deliver.. In the other hand you guys keep an eye in "Rise of Flight" lots of good things are coming up ;)

[TX-Kingsnake]

Yes we like clickable cockpits.

X-Plane, DCS & FSX, all have clickable cockpits. Those of us who like clickable cockpits are not taking anything away from those who will not be using them. DCS Blackshark is getting great reviews for having clickable cockpits. The cockpits are already modeled with moving parts with a keypress. All we are asking for is the option to click on it or look at it with TrackIR and hit a button. Otherwise it may be the only simulator without a clickable cockpit.

[Rama]

Since this is an oppinion thread, I will give mine.

I don't care about clickable pits as long I'm not obliged to use them (as long there's no interference with the views and no other losses).
That's said, I don't see the need of it (except to satisfy some peoples that "think" it's more realistic)... good for them if they feel satisfied (but not to the detriment of others)

and most all flight sim pilots with experience outside the rather limited world of IL-2 appreciate the need for a cockpit interface that is more than just a facade.

Sorry, but that's quite wrong. I know many RL pilots (both civilian, amateurs or pro and military) who play with IL2, and also with FSX, and who don't care and don't use clickable cockpits.
I understand that some do... but it's far to be generalizes as you pretend.

Those that want to map everything to their joystick can do so (despite the fact that's not at all realistic)

That's not less realistic than using the mouse to select and click a button or a lever on the pit...
I agree that hud messages are immersion killers, but they can be removed without clickable pits... as long the corresponding virtual pit switch or lever or indicator is correctly animated and displayed.
when piloting a plane in RL, I never search and click a button with a mouse... most of the time I don't even look at it... and that's the case for most of the pilots, even more when they are experienced. the pilot as to use all is attention to outside view and instrument, and this is even more important (especially for outside view) for military pilots.
So using buttons on HOTAS, even if the buttons are not on the "right place" (except for pit builders), when it becomes instinctive, is certainly closer to "reality" than looking at the button position, moving the mouse on the button and clicking.

If you want clickeable pits for your satisfaction, I can understand that... and as I said earlier, I have no problems for clickable pit lovers to be satisfied... but please don't justify them with "realism". It's a nonsense and IMHO destroy your argumentation so don't help you to obtain what you want.

[jasonbirder]

Right...we know that many people don't like the idea of a clickpit INTERFACE but thats not important...any clickable input would have a keyboard shortcut and be mapable anyway...
The point is do people want the FUNCTIONALITY that it would bring?
IE realistic, non-generic, high workload engine, fuel and flight systems to monitor and manage (ideally with corresponding problems/failures etc) alongside a realistic navigation and communication environment...
I guess what we are asking for is a realistic world war 2 combat flight SIMULATOR
And the like/dislike discussion of the relative merits of the clickpit interface is taking away from that...

[SlipBall]

For me a realistic cockpit interface is a must. IL-2 was the first and hopefully last sim I'll use without clickable cockpits.

I still don't understand why this debate continues. No other developer seems to find this a challenge to model, especially in aircraft as simple as those in WWII, and most all flight sim pilots with experience outside the rather limited world of IL-2 appreciate the need for a cockpit interface that is more than just a facade. Those that want to map everything to their joystick can do so (despite the fact that's not at all realistic), as those who are fine having no idea what position the radiator is without cycling the position and looking at the HUD, or trying to cycle the mags with the keyboard (I usually just get the map popping up instead) can keep on doing it!

If Oleg only polls those that only fly IL-2, the results will clearly not be representative of the actual stance of the flight sim community at large, and certainly real world pilots who try the sims . . .this isn't conjecture, 100% of the time I've demonstrated IL-2 to other pilots, this is one of their first gripes, as it was mine! In addition to the gamers, Oleg SHOULD also care about luring the more serious simmers and pilots to BOB:SOW. . .many of these same folks dismiss IL-2 as little more than a combat game without a second thought as it is, and this is one of the reasons.

I'll still buy SOW for the SU-26 if for nothing else, but I sure do expect more than what is provided in IL-2 with respect to flight physics, CEM and cockpit interface.


I agree with all that you say here!...and I would think it very odd, if SOW is void of the opportunity to interface as you say. Everytime that I think about this subject. I shake my head in disbelief that Oleg cannot see the importance of this. I would think attracting the same type of people who flocked to MSFS looking to opperate and manage an aircraft cockpit, would be a priority of his. Surely the popularity of MSFS was due to the cockpit interface, certainly NOT the FM or grafhics, this should be very apparent to 1C. Him relying on a ancient poll result, limited to those who had IL-2, is in my opinion a big mistake. Just the addition of the SU-26, if offered as a "by the book" aircraft. I think would add thousands of new pilot's just looking for the challenge of flying that one aircraft. Off-line or on-line, in the many air racing/stunt/formation rooms that would appear. I so much want SOW to be more of a state of the art, WW2 prop plane simulator, and less of a arcade type game. He is the only one that could create such a product, and have it near perfect in all respects...I am dreaming of what could be, would be a shame to waste more years waiting for such a product, that may never develope:(.

[JVM]

IE realistic, non-generic, high workload engine, fuel and flight systems to monitor and manage (ideally with corresponding problems/failures etc) alongside a realistic navigation and communication environment...
I guess what we are asking for is a realistic world war 2 combat flight SIMULATOR


So it is not really about clickable cockpit at all, but really CEM...However one of the issues is: if you make a mistake in your CEM leading you to, say, an engine failure enroute to the mission target, how fun will it be to have to crash-land/bail out without having done nothing? At a minimum you would need to have instantly the choice to join as an observer (or actor if you can replace an AI player) in another aircraft of the mission, wouldn't you?

Besides, for for a TrackIR user a good implementation of a kind of clickable cockpit would be the ability to assign a "cockpit" button on either stick or throttle (or whatever!): when you look with the trackIR in the cockpit, if the button is pressed the control/button in the focal point of the view is (kind of) highlighted; when you release the button, the control changes states with the required animation and configuration.
The advantage here is you would have nearly the same instantaneity as if you where activating said control with your finger without loosing your time and awareness trying to point it with a mouse...
Drawback is the need for a TrackIR (or equivalent device) and it would not work very well with "analog" controls (like trims for instance) which are usually controlled by feeling/evaluating the induced effect...

JV

[Rama]

Off-line or on-line, in the many air racing/stunt/formation rooms that would appear.

You must be kidding there...
air racing/stunt/formation flying is allready well practised on IL2, Lockon, both without clickable pits. have you heard about FAMA?
And even with clickable pits, you can't do air racing/stunt/formation flying while loosing time looking into your virtual pit, moving the mouse and clicking... you need fast and accurate on-time reactions. Even the teams that try to practice formation flying with MSFS (very difficult because of the laggy netcode) dont "click" their clickpits...

[SlipBall]

You must be kidding there...
air racing/stunt/formation flying is allready well practised on IL2, Lockon, both without clickable pits. have you heard about FAMA?
And even with clickable pits, you can't do air racing/stunt/formation flying while loosing time looking into your virtual pit, moving the mouse and clicking... you need fast and accurate on-time reactions. Even the teams that try to practice formation flying with MSFS (very difficult because of the laggy netcode) dont "click" their clickpits...



If you would read my post you would find that I do not favor using the mouse. The new rooms that I spoke of, would develope from the thousands of new serious pilots who enjoy MSFS, and do not fly IL-2. The cocpit interface would be the draw for them, to come fly SOW.

[Abbeville-Boy]

you need fast and accurate on-time reactions. Even the teams that try to practice formation flying with MSFS (very difficult because of the laggy netcode) dont "click" their clickpits...




mapped keys is good then no mouse is needed

msfs laggy netcode, good reason for them to come to fly sow
but they only come if aircraft not for kids like il2 is
su26 would be hard to ignore for them if it is a like real pit

[TX-EcoDragon]

Rama, I'm not sure how many pilots you know who fly modern fighters that actually incorporate a HOTAS system, but if you do know any, ask them what functionality is on their HOTAS. Based on what you have stated, I think you might be surprised to learn what they have to look, and reach for. Certainly in WWII aircraft the design was very different, and pretty much everything but stick, rudder, and brakes requires a reach and removal of hands from the stick/throttle.

I'm fully aware of what proper procedure is in real aircraft, including the fact that grabbing/switching without looking first is frowned upon in the bulk of circumstances, despite what was done in WWII when blindfolded cockpit checks where employed as a component of transition training.

I also am the first to admit that when I'm flying in the middle of a formation of 6 aircraft in the real world that I hate having to put my left hand on the stick, and use my right hand to switch between fuel tanks, while maintaining position in an aircraft as twitchy as the Extra. . .but that is what happens *in real airplanes*. When I fly formation in sims, I have the luxury to not need to bother with a fuel selector in a sim with such a simplistic CEM model as in IL-2, and if I dont want to, I don't have to reach for anything given the rather arcade way in which I can put it all on the HOTAS if I wanted to (which has far more functionality than even that in the real F-16 which the stick is based on).

I also understand the differences that the poor interface we necessarily have with a computer mandates for those that don't build their own cockpits. It’s absurd to say that clicking with a mouse is unrealistic. . of course it is, but it's more accurate than having it all on a HOTAS, and staring at an INOP panel! I certainly don't argue that any of these methods is perfect, but I'll stand by all that I've said, and I base it on decades of simming, real world flying, and communicating and working with the sim community outside of IL-2, and the resulting awareness of the perception of the REST of the flight sim community, and how the lack of a more realistic cockpit interface impacts the reception of Olegs games within that community. Asking only those already in this community is to largelly invalidate the results since the audience is already pre-selected to not care about a lack of cockpit interface!

If anyone wants to argue that they don't see the value, fine go ahead, but that has nothing to do with the fact that it matters to many, many people, and that to overlook it is to make this potentially great sim that much less, and to make the audience which purchases it that much smaller.

It has nothing to do with “[my] satisfaction”. . .my intention is to support this game, and its evolution towards becoming a legitimate flight simulation when viewed through the eyes of the much larger flight sim community out there. . . not to convert anyone to anything, or to enforce anything on them.

As far as the Su-26, the challenge will be getting the flight physics to even remotely approach the fidelity required to do a decent job of modeling aerobatic flight. . .doing a clickable cockpit would be an hour long job in a sim that already incorporates realistic CEM and an animated cockpit. At least that's about how long it usually takes me on the cockpits I've built for X-Plane and MSFS.

[tagTaken2]

I'm fully aware of what proper procedure is in real aircraft


How impressive.


It has nothing to do with “[my] satisfaction”. . .my intention is to support this game, and its evolution towards becoming a legitimate flight simulation

It's evolution?


potentially great sim that much less, and to make the audience which purchases it that much smaller.


What a patronising attitude.


the perception of the REST of the flight sim community, and how the lack of a more realistic cockpit interface impacts the reception of Olegs games within that community.


Realistic cockpit interface? Do you also sometimes wish you could use a mouse to open things in real life?
Mousing is slow/tedious/fiddly and utterly unsuited to the game that Oleg is planning, which based on what I've read, is NOT going to be MSFS11, as much as some are wishing for it.

[TX-EcoDragon]

Think what you like, but I love IL-2, and want more people to give this series the same consideration. If you think that's patronizing, I don't know what to tell you. . .but I'd start by saying you should read the entire sentence, your selective quotes always miss the point.

As far as clickable cockpits and mousing around the cockpit, I thought I already stated my thoughts on that. Speaking of which, I take it you haven't seen what is possible with a touchscreen in flight sims. . .well, OTHER flight sims.

[GOZR]

Well here a little example of what can be done with SOW.. take a hard good look at this.. Enjoy and welcome to what will be the norm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLkfx6QxLfg <<<<-----
Now imagine this into an older WW2 fighter or bomber.

AT the beginning the Track IR was rejected by many or even considered as a cheat .. that change pretty much isn't it.. ? Some new gadgets are coming and it will be fun but you guys need to stay open to news things that make a simulator a good simulator and a lesser game.

I really think that Oleg is re-considering this subjects since he always wanted something that others simulators lacked..

Note for RL pilots: With Il2's community experience during some years i did learn one thing...you have to remember that on forums Sim pilots will know better than RL pilots. ;)

[SlipBall]

How impressive.



It's evolution?



What a patronising attitude.



Realistic cockpit interface? Do you also sometimes wish you could use a mouse to open things in real life?
Mousing is slow/tedious/fiddly and utterly unsuited to the game that Oleg is planning, which based on what I've read, is NOT going to be MSFS11, as much as some are wishing for it.



Man, you are one negitive dude, chill out.

[SlipBall]

Well here a little example of what can be done with SOW.. take a hard good look at this.. Enjoy and welcome to what will be the norm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLkfx6QxLfg <<<<-----
Now imagine this into an older WW2 fighter or bomber.

AT the beginning the Track IR was rejected by many or even considered as a cheat .. that change pretty much isn't it.. ? Some new gadgets are coming and it will be fun but you guys need to stay open to news things that make a simulator a good simulator and a lesser game.

I really think that Oleg is re-considering this subjects since he always wanted something that others simulators lacked..

Note for RL pilots: With Il2's community experience during some years i did learn one thing...you have to remember that on forums Sim pilots will know better than RL pilots. ;)



Thank's! this is really quite amazing. After viewing this, the future seems much brighter for flight sims:cool:



edit: I just read that the
Publisher for Black Shark

The publisher in Russia, CIS and Baltic Countries is 1C company:!::o

[Rama]

Rama, I'm not sure how many pilots you know who fly modern fighters
I know a good dozen of pilots flying modern fighters and lot more flying other kind of planes.

I think you might be surprised to learn what they have to look, and reach for.
Of course I asked... They look at instruments... but not at stick, throtle, trim switch, airbrake switch, and all other buttons and switches they use in flight... they KNOW where they are and find them without having any need to look at.
Like all professionals, they know their instruments.
Only while following check-lists do they look at buttons and switches (which in fighters only occurs on ground)

It’s absurd to say that clicking with a mouse is unrealistic. .
If it's so realistic, why don't you push your logic to completely control your virtual plane with a mouse... I'm pretty sure you don't use your mouse to click on the trim, airbrakes, flaps (THIS would be totally absurd...)
... and push it a bit more... why do you need a stick after all? you could move it with your mouse... ;)

If anyone wants to argue that they don't see the value, fine go ahead, but that has nothing to do with the fact that it matters to many, many people, and that to overlook it is to make this potentially great sim that much less, and to make the audience which purchases it that much smaller.

That's YOUR oppinion... without more value than any other

It has nothing to do with “[my] satisfaction”

Really... nothing to do... you don't flight sims for your satisfaction??? ;)

[ElAurens]

I don't honestly think that anyone who wears a fake airline uniform while "piloting" his virtual 767 from DTW to LAX is going to look twice at any WW2 combat simulator. Might get his paint scratched don't ya know.

This is not to say that I am against more in depth implementation of aircraft systems in our little sim. Within limits the more the better.

But to say that devotees of FSX are going to flock to Oleg's sim if clickable cockpits are available is patently absurd. Apples and oranges gents.

;)

[Snuff_Pidgeon]

Thanx for posting that clip Gozr, the sleeping must be woken!

[ElAurens]

Thanx for posting that clip Gozr, the sleeping must be woken!


Seen it before.

A button pushing extravaganza, but fun?

Not so much.

And that level of complexity is achieved at the cost of having only one aircraft.

I'll pass, and so will the majority of consumers of combat flight simulators.

[Chiz]

And that level of complexity is achieved at the cost of having only one aircraft.



One aircraft that is far more complex than anything that will appear in SoW, or do you think that a Spit I or 109 E had satellite navigation, data linked targeting between flight members, tv targeting system, laser guided munitions, etc...

My understanding is that the flyable list for SoW is pretty small and I for one would rather have a small number of highly detailed aircraft than the plethora that is in IL2...most of which I rarely, if ever, fly.


I'll pass, and so will the majority of consumers of combat flight simulators.

I think you'd be surprised...Black Shark seems to be doing pretty well to me. People from sims like IL2, MSFS, Falcon 4 etc. are very impressed with it. It may not appeal to much of the IL2 community, but IL2 isn't really a flight sim, as it just doesn't model the complexity of actually flying aircraft of that era. A high fidelity WWII sim would appeal to a much wider community than IL2 currently does.

[TX-Kingsnake]

Those opposed to a clickable interface were the same kind that missed the point of a mouse – saying they could type at a command prompt faster than a mouse could click. Apple took the initiative (and arguably does to this day) by implementing the mouse. X-Plane and FSX have clickable cockpits. If FSX drops out of the market then Apple could take it and go so much further. X-Plane is handy even on an I-Phone, try FSX on a mobile PC phone – you can't. I have a PC for the sole fact that Mac has until recently opted out of the flight simulation market. It is not a pro-platform statement as much as it is an eagerness to assimilate innovation. That innovation has kept everyone enthralled with IL-2 longer than they have ever kept interest in any simulation. I look forward to seeing clickable cockpits in SoW. Please do not express your intent to remove our enjoyment of this great sim with an additional feature you elect not to use.

[robtek]

When i read the last dozen or so posts it appears to me it that most people who are against clickpits or/and a really complex CEM are just trying to keep being big fish in a small pond.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Those opposed to a clickable interface were the same kind that missed the point of a mouse – saying they could type at a command prompt faster than a mouse could click. Apple took the initiative (and arguably does to this day) by implementing the mouse.

I still use the good old dos box (cmd) when doing certain things as a network administrator at my school. You use the most appropriate tool for the task at hand.


X-Plane and FSX have clickable cockpits. If FSX drops out of the market then Apple could take it and go so much further. X-Plane is handy even on an I-Phone, try FSX on a mobile PC phone – you can't. I have a PC for the sole fact that Mac has until recently opted out of the flight simulation market. It is not a pro-platform statement as much as it is an eagerness to assimilate innovation. That innovation has kept everyone enthralled with IL-2 longer than they have ever kept interest in any simulation.
[\QUOTE]

Different developers, different priorities. I'm sure SOW will be inovative, with or without clickable cockpits.

[QUOTE=TX-Kingsnake;67023]
I look forward to seeing clickable cockpits in SoW.


Please continue to look forward to seeing clickable cockpits in SOW, but please do not get too upset if it is not included. That is up to the developer, who for reasons of his own (and is well within his rights to do so) has been quite frugal with the specific information regarding the user interface of the sim.


Please do not express your intent to remove our enjoyment of this great sim with an additional feature you elect not to use.

This, I feel, is beyond the power of anyone on this board. I would have no more ability to remove your enjoyment of the sim, than I would of flying to the moon. You will either enjoy the sim or not.

Cheers!

[Skoshi Tiger]

When i read the last dozen or so posts it appears to me it that most people who are against clickpits or/and a really complex CEM are just trying to keep being big fish in a small pond.

That's a bit harsh! I'm not a fan of clickable cockpits but check out my stats on skies of valour. I am probably one of the smaller fry hidding in the weeds of the virtual pond. I honestly doubt that clickable cockpits will improve my stats.

[Codex]

I think there is a major point that is being missed here.

Weather real pilots use click-pits or not is pointless, this is a PC simulation we're talking about here, not the real thing. Yes there are pilots that don't like them and I know a real helo pilot that swears by it when he flies Black Shark - So what!?. The point is, what does a click-pit add to a sim? It adds immersion, not realism, but immersion. And I think that is what is being missed here.

At the end of the day it's Oleg that will make the call, and to add a click-pit to SoW will only enhance the game. Everyone should remember it come does to choice, if people don't like it, no one will force them to use it.

[Rama]

I think there is a major point that is being missed here.
It adds immersion, not realism, but immersion. And I think that is what is being missed here.


I can understand that.
If operating a complex CEM (which I think everybody would be pleased with) with a clickable interface add no immersion for me, I understand well it adds for others and makes them more satisfied.
So clickable interface for them it would be nice, either via stock release or by modders (Since Oleg said it would be possible)... still I don't think it will bring much extra peoples to play SoW.

[ElAurens]

Istill I don't think it will bring much extra peoples to play SoW.


Bingo.

People that are playing the current sim will continue with SOW. Guys pretending to be airline pilots doing real time cross country flights in jet airliners won't know what to do with an Avro Anson, much less a single seater fighter aircraft with a combat radius of a few hundred miles.

Like I said, apples and oranges.

I don't mind more complexity in the cockpit as long as I can interface with it my way. What I don't want is a tiny planset because too much time is involved implementing so called clickpits, because if the choice is between clickpits and a new flyable aircraft type, I want the airframe.

Simple as that.

I like airplanes, not pushing buttons.

[jasonbirder]

Guys pretending to be airline pilots doing real time cross country flights in jet airliners won't know what to do with an Avro Anson, much less a single seater fighter aircraft with a combat radius of a few hundred miles

But what about guys that want to pretend to fly AND fight a world war 2 fighter...
Surely as a Combat Flight Simulator SOW-BOB should incorporate at least an element of realistic flight: IE Engine Management, Fuel Management and realistic FMs...without that it is just a game...

I like airplanes, not pushing buttons

Does that mean you merely dislike Clickpits...or are opposed to realistic levels of functionality being modelled in SOW-BOB (regardless of the interface implemented)..is that a dislike of a mouse based interface...or a preference for a low workload generic flight environment allowing a concentration on the "fun" of dogfighting?

[SlipBall]

Bingo.

People that are playing the current sim will continue with SOW. Guys pretending to be airline pilots doing real time cross country flights in jet airliners won't know what to do with an Avro Anson, much less a single seater fighter aircraft with a combat radius of a few hundred miles.

Like I said, apples and oranges.

I don't mind more complexity in the cockpit as long as I can interface with it my way. What I don't want is a tiny planset because too much time is involved implementing so called clickpits, because if the choice is between clickpits and a new flyable aircraft type, I want the airframe.

Simple as that.

I like airplanes, not pushing buttons.



With all due respect to you, (and I do respect you) I think your "bingo" may be in error. Have you ever asked yourself...Why would the SU-26 be in a WW2 flight combat sim?

The reason I believe, is to bring in as many of those as you say "pretend airline pilot's" as possible. I have a strong feeling that the SU-26 will be the most realistic aircraft that 1C has ever offered to us. It's very possible that it will be released as a "by the book" aircraft. Just a gut feeling that I have, and the only explanation that would seem logical to me.

If you truly like aircraft, you would want to know those buttons, and push them when needed. War machines are complicated, would you not want to know the buttons in a tank or submarine?...I think that you would.

[Rama]

Why would the SU-26 be in a WW2 flight combat sim?

The reason I believe, is to bring in as many of those as you say "pretend airline pilot's" as possible.

My oppinion is completelly different...

I think that the purpose of the the Su26 is only to demonstrate how close SoW fm are to reality. Since it would be impossible to compare with the few remaining warbirds (which are not equiped (armor load, ammunition load, etc...), as they were during WWI, and which are never flown to the limits... for obvious reasons)
There are much more Su26 pilots that can compare and comments on the SoW Su26 fm... that's the reason (And Oleg gaves some hints in that direction when the Su26 screens were first displayed on ORR).

A secondary reason could be to please those attracted with virtual stunt... but that's certainly not the main reason.
... even in that case, most of the potential players wanting to practice virtual stunt are interested by fm... not by pre-flight check-lists, tower radio or VOR use (that will certainly not be modelled in SoW...) ...

[ElAurens]

OK Gents, I am not, I repeat not, against higher levels of cockpit work load. We definitely need better management of aircraft systems. Here I am on the same page as you guys.

What I don't want is an enforced cockpit interface. Either way.

And like I said, if it comes to clickpits or airframes, I want the new airframe.

As to the Sukhoi 26, I believe it is being included as a "proof of FM" tool.
The Su 26 is one of the most well known aerobatic aircraft world wide, it's flight parameters have been instrumented and documented in the most minute detail. Hence Oleg is using it to prove the veracity of the overall physics model of the new sim. At least that is how it's inclusion was explained to me.

If it brings in some new players from FSx fine, but don't expect Oleg to start modeling Airbus 380s, God forbid.

[SlipBall]

My oppinion is completelly different...

I think that the purpose of the the Su26 is only to demonstrate how close SoW fm are to reality. Since it would be impossible to compare with the few remaining warbirds (which are not equiped (armor load, ammunition load, etc...), as they were during WWI, and which are never flown to the limits... for obvious reasons)
There are much more Su26 pilots that can compare and comments on the SoW Su26 fm... that's the reason (And Oleg gaves some hints in that direction when the Su26 screens were first displayed on ORR).

A secondary reason could be to please those attracted with virtual stunt... but that's certainly not the main reason.
... even in that case, most of the potential players wanting to practice virtual stunt are interested by fm... not by pre-flight check-lists, tower radio or VOR use (that will certainly not be modelled in SoW...) ...


Too simplistic a reason to add such an aircraft...that aircraft is added to get sale's! and sale's it will get:-P

[ElAurens]

You is wrong, be sure.

:cool:

[tagTaken2]

My oppinion is completelly different...

I think that the purpose of the the Su26 is only to demonstrate how close SoW fm are to reality. Since it would be impossible to compare with the few remaining warbirds (which are not equiped (armor load, ammunition load, etc...), as they were during WWI, and which are never flown to the limits... for obvious reasons)
There are much more Su26 pilots that can compare and comments on the SoW Su26 fm... that's the reason (And Oleg gaves some hints in that direction when the Su26 screens were first displayed on ORR).

A secondary reason could be to please those attracted with virtual stunt... but that's certainly not the main reason.
... even in that case, most of the potential players wanting to practice virtual stunt are interested by fm... not by pre-flight check-lists, tower radio or VOR use (that will certainly not be modelled in SoW...) ...

This is correct, I believe based on what I've read in interviews and around the screens.

[usagold2004]

I just dont understand what is so wrong with the detail in IL2...
it has mixture control, prop control, radiator/cowl flap control, super charger control, gunsight ranging control (on the P-51 sight), manual gear retraction...i'm probably leaving out a lot, but those come to mind the fastest.

If the detail that you are looking for is only found in ground ops and starting procedures, I'm not entirely sure that you know what youre asking for. If you want more complex engine start up, you are essentially saying that you DONT want you airplane to start up on the first try! I think complex radio management (ie, changing frequencies as in MS flt sim) is "immersive" perhaps, but you should only have to do it once per flight at start up to put in your flight com setup. Navigation equipment that helped you return to base or fly accross the map might actually be nice, but why would i want the ability to set in the wrong frequency...In all seriousness, go play falcon 4 or falcon 4 allied force and do the ramp start a couple of times

I think the emphasis on this next gen WW2 flight sim should upgrade first, the graphics. second the flight model/physics. third, damage model. fourth, AI. then multiplayer/campaign. if they get all of that nailed down and have a little spare time, hook us up with a little more detail. I just dont think that the detail should come at the cost of any of those items i just mentioned while meeting whatever deadline they have set. I think oleg is aiming for as much detail as he can cram in without undue delay to the sim.

[robtek]

@usagold2004
i can tell you what is wrong with tj´he detail in il2: i.e. it is much to hard to ruin your engine!!!!!
It misses completely the damage to an engine if it is run to cold.
If the mixture is too lean the engine must quit much sooner and not only overheat.
If you dive dowm from 6000m without load on the engine and open radiator flaps the engine would be much to cold to give power again after the dive without ruining it and so on and on.

[TX-Kingsnake]

A clickable interface is not an enforced cockpit interface. You can use the mouse or the keys or the HOTAS. I see some confusion from those that think it will remove detail from the sim and they will be forced into clicking the instrument. All that is being added is a hitbox around the existing instruments. How much time does it take to add a hitbox to a button? Taking the already moving items and adding a hitbox is not going to sink the boat in terms of time and work. We want hit boxes around the switches. Could we have that instead of an obscure varient of a jet from the Korean war. We are not, and nobody is, asking for rudder pedals controlled with a click or a mouse flight stick *already in the sim. It is the type of thing when someone asks you - what is the key for the bombsight? Just click on it. It is to operate the switches not used as often without having to remember something like keypressing left cntrl right shift numpad 2 then right alt left shift 2 because you don't have room for it on your HOTAS. The result is a combined interface. Sometimes it is better to click or faster to hit a key. It isn't an argument for one way of interfacing. We are just asking for a hitbox and that detail will not come at the cost of any of those items you already enjoy.

[tagTaken2]

But you won't get it.

Haha.

[SlipBall]

All of this debate, just goes to show that we know next to nothing about what will be included in SOW. I know that Oleg is very busy, but for a game that is planned to be released this year, sure would be nice to hear some detail's from him.

[Igo kyu]

How much time does it take to add a hitbox to a button?
About ten minutes per button, and that's before you connect it to the code base, which would take a lot longer. You've got what 50? 100? "button"s you want clickable? Add in the code at the back end and you may be looking at a "man year" (yeah, mythical). It would be expensive.

[Rama]

Too simplistic a reason to add such an aircraft...

To say that, you must have missed all pre-release and post-release communications around IL2 fm by Oleg. You also must have missed all endless ORR wars around fm particular points, at the time Oleg still answered on forums... before getting so bothered he stopped answering..

For Oleg, fm fidelity is a major communication argument... and even more a reason to be proud (everybody as an ego).
For sure it is for him a sale argument, and one of the main.... is he right or wrong to think that?... that's another point.

[ElAurens]

All of this debate, just goes to show that we know next to nothing about what will be included in SOW. I know that Oleg is very busy, but for a game that is planned to be released this year, sure would be nice to hear some detail's from him.

+1

[SlipBall]

To say that, you must have missed all pre-release and post-release communications around IL2 fm by Oleg. You also must have missed all endless ORR wars around fm particular points, at the time Oleg still answered on forums... before getting so bothered he stopped answering..

For Oleg, fm fidelity is a major communication argument... and even more a reason to be proud (everybody as an ego).
For sure it is for him a sale argument, and one of the main.... is he right or wrong to think that?... that's another point.


As far as I know, Oleg has never said "why" the SU-26 in any comments anywhere. I remember the speculation threads on "why" such a aircraft would be included. The vast majority of those posting were not pilot's, and really not qualified to judge fm, or to speculate that the SU-26 would provide a proof. Oleg is a pilot, he is already comfortable with his product. And he must get a good chuckle from time to time, reading the whine post on fm. I am also a pilot, and the fm in game represents the four force's acting on flight very well. He has said (quoted) that he would like to attract the MSFS users and developers, so I believe the SU-26 is included just for that goal. I'm sure someday Oleg will reveal his reason, we will just have to wait for that.:)

[Rama]

so I believe .../...

As long you say it's your oppinion and not a fact... no problem with me.
Based on all Oleg's interventions on forums, I stand on my oppinion.

[Sutts]

OK, I've read this entire thread and I think that most folk would like to see more complex systems management but not necessarily through mouse clicking.

I think the arguments arise because there are 2 distinct camps of people:

1. Those that primarily enjoy the combat and the skills and strategy required to down the bad guys. For them complex systems may be seen as an unnecessary and unwelcome delay in getting at the enemy. I respect these guys and acknowledge that many have incredible flying skills and a great knowledge of air combat tactics. However, flying skills and tactics were only part of the real mission.....

2. Those that want to engage with the full reality of WWII flying, as they may have read in first hand accounts. Re-living those accounts and getting the real experience of the air war, yes, including the boring bits.

I'm not ashamed to admit that I fall into this second group. I believe that IL2 is very good at giving us the rush of air combat. However I don't believe it is so good at replicating the true work load of a WWII pilot. For many of us, immersion comes from learning an aircraft the way a WWII pilot would have been required to - this includes the flight characteristics AND knowing the procedures required to keep the engine from quitting on you when you're over water 300 miles from land.

To me, it should matter how you handle your fuel load, so when the fight comes you have an aircraft capable of responding. It should matter how you use your mixture controls, boost and prop pitch on a long mission to conserve fuel and get you to the target and home again. Can you imagine the tension these guys felt in the pacific when flying distances over water and the urgency of watching fuel consumption and the health of the engine? As of now you really don't feel any of that urgency and respect for the engine that is keeping you from potentially a watery grave. That is the element that is missing for me - I know we'll never feel the true terror of life and death combat but with a good simulator you certainly can experience the mission tension and some of the thought processes and feelings that the real pilots recount in the many books available.

I really am impressed with what Oleg has given us already with regards to CEM, incredible really. All I'm asking is that proper consideration be given to the things that worried real pilots in the war - essentially fuel state, the health of the engine and life support systems and navigation. I'm not necessarily after every last switch (although I wouldn't complain), I just want to feel more like I've been there and done that when I'm reading these first hand accounts. Giving us things like fuel master switch, primer, battery switch and proper mixture and turbo controls (on US planes anyway) would go a long way to allowing us to follow procedures fairly closely.

Hitting the I key and going to full throttle was not the way it was done in the war and since this is a simulator, shouldn't we have an option that requires a good knowledge of the procedures required to fly a real mission?

I hope this doesn't come across as over demanding or a rant. I just want to express what I think the second camp of simmers might be looking for in SOW, including all the guys coming over from FSX etc.

[=815=TooCooL]

No thanks for me.

[P-38L]

I hate to use the mouse to click on some switches in the cockpit.

A good joystick, pedals and TrackIR. no more.

I don't want clickable cockpits, instead of that use a real joystick to select and switch the options of the cockpit.

I have a Saitek X52Pro you can setup it with 202 buttons and 7 axis, I think is enough. When you use the TrackIR (my case) is not easy to focus on some areas to use the mouse to click.

NO, I DON'T WANT A CLICKABLE COCKPIT

But I DO WANT a complex engine management, more real, all the necesary steps to start the engine, to take care and not exceed in maniful pressure and all that.

[nearmiss]

This thread was started a year ago and every time you look at the forums someone has resurrected it again.

No clickable, if you want clickable and full sequence controls go to MSFT Flight Simulator or Falcon. You can get all that time wasting stuff to give you the whole banana.

Most Falcon users create a one button programmable switch for start sequence.

Take real flight training flight lessons they are not that expensive. You can get all the feel and click you want, and it will actually mean something.

Lookup the CHPRODUCTS MFP and other control devices. You just program them. They beat heck out of trying to shake the hun on your bum, while trying to locate the flaps on the screen to click it. LOL

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[ElAurens]

While better mix management is a good idea, doing it for increased range makes no sense. Even the largest mod maps out there do not require that kind of micro management of fuel. And as an aside, no aircraft in this sim have the range of their real counterparts anyway. And even though I've flown 1+ hour one way missions on the "Slot" map, there is no way anyone is going to fly a 6 odd hour mission to Berlin and back, or one in the Pacific.

A. No maps that large.

B. Why?

I've flown IL2 since December of 2001. One thing I've noticed is that as servers become more strident in their quest for "hyper-reality" in re-creating WW2, the fun factor goes way down.

[Blackdog_kt]

I can't believe this is ressurected, but it's somewhat of a weird coincidence because i've spent quite some time with clickpits lately.

The last couple of months i've been flying FSX on a friend's PC when i visit him. I never got into FSX before, i don't own FSX and i don't believe the flight models are necessarily better than the combat sims we usually fly. I just got interested one day when i went over his place to visit and i saw the shiny graphics (he's got an environment add-on that is the best thing i've seen up to the latest spitfire video we've seen a couple of weeks back) and sat down to see what he was doing out of sheer curiosity.

I also don't fly trans-atlantic flights in an Airbus or do airline stuff. You see, that buddy of mine has spent quite an amount of money over the years and has amassed a collection of add-on aircraft for FSX that blow the stock ones out of the water.

So, what we do take turns flying when we are having a flight-sim evening is mainly small, bush-flying aircraft with STOL capabilities, amphibians or vintage birds and that includes warbirds as well. I also have spent minimal time on IL2 since i started getting into this habit, because the aircraft suddently started feeling too "easy" for lack of a better word. Not that i wouldn't get my behind handed to me online if i didn't have network problems, what i'm talking about is not easy in the sense that the FMs are not good (to the contrary, most of the FSX FMs are worse than IL2's), but i feel like the planes in IL2 are suddenly "empty" and too predictable and they don't give me the feeling that there's a bazillion nuts and bolts and turning bits that might fail. To put it accurately, the aircraft in IL2 don't scare me anymore and they don't strike awe and fear anymore into my flight-simming soul as they used to do in the past.

Let me tell you that clickpit or no clickpit, just flying around in the A2A P-47 and watching all the gauges move, with display errors as well due to engine vibration, is one of the best simming experiences i've had in my life. If you think you know the way to execute a boom and zoom attack in a Jug because you fly IL2, think again because you know NOTHING. I didn't know either and we could say that i still don't since i haven't actually done it, but i can at least finally feel and appreciate a tiny bit of the workload involved without the anxiety of possible fiery death that comes with real air combat.

In IL-2 you just select your thottle setting to avoid overspeed and dive on the bandit. To add insult to injury, regardless of aircraft type most of us follow a completely unrealistic procedure that can cause extreme malfunction in real life, we dive with rads open and throttle at idle to cool the engine fast, so that we can push it to overheat later. Well, if the in-game standard procedure being the exact opposite of what applies to the real world is not enough of an indication that something needs fixing in the next sim, i don't know what is. A real engine might suffer anything from rough running, to cracks that lead to reduced performance and higher fuel burn, to outright seizure with no possibility of restart if the cylinders are cooled from 250 degrees Celsius down to 100 C in the span of less than 20 seconds.

In the A2A Jug before you even think of diving you have to
1) Pull back the turbocharger lever. Yes sirs, the Jug is like having two throttles instead of one, you use the throttle up to about 7-10k ft and from then on you use the turbo lever and you have to develop a feel for it, because the turbocharger fan is slower to react to inputs due to inertia. It certainly isn't a point and shoot aircraft.
2) Pull back the throttle
3) Select a good RPM range to keep from overspeeding
4) Close your cowl flaps to prevent shock cooling of the cylinders
5) Adjust intercooler flaps (for the carburator temperatures) in expectance of cooling due to the high speed dive
6) Now you can dive on the bandit.

Does it sound hard? Yes. Is it really that hard? Not by a long-shot. Is it closer to what they really had to do when flying a Jug? Definitely.

With a fidgety TrackIR set (my track-clip Pro is broken and i have it held together with duct-tape) and no real HOTAS or pedals (just an old sidewinder precision 2 stick), it takes me about 5-7 seconds to put the plane in diving configuration for a boom and zoom attack. If i map the necessary inputs to the keyboard i can probably start the dive immediately and look through the gunsight while i simultaneously press the necessary keys, it's not like we'll exceed safe engine parameters in the first 5 seconds of the dive anyway.

Other aircarft i've flown with my buddy in FSX are Fw190A and Spitfire variants and Catalinas (both vintage and restored versions) and they are a blast just to fly around in. We did a 500km nap of the earh run in a 190 one day at maximum continuous power skimming over the trees at 470km/h, a 10 hour flight in a catalina from the Bahamas to St.Maartin at 7000ft while taking turns at the wheel and doing a measly 100knots the following two evenings.

If the aircraft feels like real machinery and can create the illusion that it's operating like the real one, it's a joy just to operate it and fly around. And that's coming from someone who was never a big fan of FSX or airliner jets, was never a fan of jets in general (except Mig Alley), was never a fan of anything too complicated in regards to air combat simulations and is still not a big fan of the stock FSX aircraft.
But if you see some of the add-on 3rd party vintage birds for FSX and don't think "i wish we get something that feels this real in SoW someday", well, sell your joysticks and your simming gear because you're in the wrong hobby.

So, instead of focusing on wether we want clickpits or not (which is merely an interface question), let's focus on wether we want realistic systems modelling on our aircraft (which is what really has some bearing on the gameplay, since our gameplay is about realism), because the real warbirds of WWII were far more complicated than what we have in IL2.


IL2 is still a great combat sim and it was king in its day, but it's getting old.
In comparison with other simulated aircraft i've recently flown, the aircraft of IL2 feel like a collection of arithmetic properties and not a breathing, living piece of dangerous machinery that's oozing character around you as you sit in the cockpit.
The engines always run the same, always overheat the same, even fail the same if you do manage to push them over the limit, you got 2000 horsepower, a few thousand pounds of weight, a dozen aerodynamic parameters and a bunch of guns, now run wild and play along with them. Sorry, but that is not good enough for a modern sim. It was perfect for the time IL2 hit the market and the following years, because there was nothing with a higher level of detail to compare to. Well, now there is.

That's what mostly missing from IL2, character in the machinery, and is precisely what i hope to see in the next title. We know the graphics are outstanding, we know the FMs and DMs will be top notch, we know the sound will be good and we have received word that the AI and the campaign will be improved. That's the only thing left to truly make SoW shine, make the plane around you feel as real as possible, so that even when flying around the countryside with not a bandit in sight you'll have something to occupy yourself with and feel good doing it, because suddenly you realize...

"Man, it's almost as if i have my personal little time machine here. I'm dodging flocks of seagulls over Dover in my Hurri and while it's not exactly frantic, i still have to flick that switch here and push that lever there and keep an eye on my temps because it's a hot summer day, regardless of the interface i use to do it, and it feels warm, alive and REAL!"

Most of all however, such a thing will add a whole new dimension to combat as well. If you have to keep your systems within acceptable parameters, you'll also have to plan things way ahead. This introduces something that's missing big time from combat sims. We do have the surprise factor, the instinct and talent factor, the tacticians, the marksmen and the oustanding furballers, but we lack a very important aspect that characterized much of the aerial warfare of the time: casualties because of mounting workload. This intertwines with all the rest and will make engagements all the more realistic. People might not press on like there's no tomorrow, more people breaking from fights, conservative survivalist tactics, and yet, even if you do break away that battle damage might mean that you get a cascading failure of aircarft systems that you can't cope with, a mountain that's slowly crumpling all around you and is about to swallow you. This is what makes for exciting flying, having something to scare you even after the combat is over and you're well inside friendly territory.

Don't think that in the heat of combat these guys used to fly with checklists like in FSX, it's just that after a few flights you develop a feel for the aircarft and start understanding what's right and what's wrong without having to look up the manuals all the time, plus most of the instruments are marked and you know not to put the needle in the red zone for more than a couple of minutes.
So, while it's a bit of extra knowledge to learn, it adds tons of immersion and if we have good interfacing options it will not inconvenience anybody. Heck, let's have customized views for each aircraft (like it is in RoF) so we can pan the view and click if we want, and let's also have the possibility of mapping them to keyboard and HOTAS so we don't click anything if we don't want to. In the end, all the important stuff will go on keyboard and HOTAS and the customized,"frozen" snap views will be used for things like startup, shutdown, zoomed in gunsights and switching tanks.

I think all of this should be falling under systems management and not stictly clickpits, as that is somewhat misleading. It's not a question of useless interfacing, it's a question of highly necessary and overdue realism settings that need to be added. And if someone doesn't like it and wants the old IL2 style model, just click "simplified engine management" in the difficulty settings and you're good to go ;)

[Sutts]

Great post Blackdog, I think that sums it up very well. It's a shame about the clickable bit in the title of this thread because that isn't the main issue at all and it's throwing people.

The reason the thread gets resurrected is because the issues it discusses are important to people...sure, maybe not everyone, but there are plenty of us who want a proper simulation of WWII combat, not just a pretty point and shoot.

As for the argument, if you want systems, go play F4 or something, I play IL2 because I'm a WWII fan and nothing else captures the combat side of things better. Why should I want to fly a modern jet? And no, I have no desire to go for my pilots licence and I certainly wouldn't get to fly any warbirds if I did.

This is a simulator, is it not? As such it should simulate the demands of real air combat, including the need to remember the procedures to stop your engine from over speeding or your cowl flaps from being torn off in a dive. I just don't see that as boring and nerdy at all. You really are kidding yourself if you think real pilots had the luxury of floating about watching the pretty scenery until the combat started.

We all love WWII planes don't we? Surely anyone with a love of a certain aircraft would like to think they could sit in the real thing and feel at home, knowing what does what and how to crank it up? Otherwise, what is the point of all the beautifully crafted cockpits we're getting - just glorified eye candy.

I know Oleg will do what he wants at the end of the day. All I ask is that if he really doesn't want to model systems to the degree we desire then please give the third party developers the interfaces to do it for us. It really would increase the fan base considerably and bring over all the FSX crowd too.

[Sutts]

Nearmiss,

You've got me confused. You seem to be telling me to clear off and play F4 because I enjoy learning the ins and outs of a particular aircraft and its systems and yet from your recent post from AAA (quoted below) you like just the same thing.

"So, yeah you might call me an enthusiat with a different approach to the IL2. I enjoy flying the aircraft, but unlike many others I fly one aircraft for months and study all the manuals,etc. Yes, it matters to me to get the most out of an aircraft and better still improve performance where it all makes sense. I mean if you fly the P51D in the HUD, you never learn anything about the aircraft and really all you do is take a virtual aircraft device and shoot at something. IMO, flying the HUD, the little bit learned is missing the whole point of a great air combat simulator like IL2. "

I don't want to start a slagging match here, I just want folk to realise that there are several types of simmers out there - those that want just air action, those that want to feel immersed in a machine of the time with all the problems it posed for the pilot, and those that want a bit of both.

Can't we just accept that and provide options so that everyone is happy?:grin:

[Sutts]

While better mix management is a good idea, doing it for increased range makes no sense. Even the largest mod maps out there do not require that kind of micro management of fuel. And as an aside, no aircraft in this sim have the range of their real counterparts anyway. And even though I've flown 1+ hour one way missions on the "Slot" map, there is no way anyone is going to fly a 6 odd hour mission to Berlin and back, or one in the Pacific.

A. No maps that large.

B. Why?

I've flown IL2 since December of 2001. One thing I've noticed is that as servers become more strident in their quest for "hyper-reality" in re-creating WW2, the fun factor goes way down.


ElAurens,

I accept your point regarding current map size but in my opinion that's not a good enough reason to skip the need for fuel management in a next gen sim like SOW.

I kind of hope that one day Oleg will give us a mid-mission save capability so that longer missions could be flown. And no, that wouldn't necessarily be boring if we had a good systems simulation where things NEED to be watched and managed to ensure mission success. That coupled with navigating or keeping in formation would keep me very well occupied me thinks. The challenge of getting there and back is just as rewarding as the combat part in my opinion.

I play exclusively offline but if enough people truly want quick fix air combat then I'm sure there will always be a server out there for you with the correct options set. There must be a reason these servers are going for more realism and that usually comes from demand. Perhaps you need to start your own dogfight FUN server to satisfy all this pent up demand?

[Flanker35M]

S!

Cockpits could be clickable to an extent, like those buttons you DO NOT NEED while flying, or very rarely then. Like magnetos, fuel pumps, batter on/off etc. Trims, mixture, prop pitch etc. everyone already has on their sticks and throttles. It is just what you put as clickable and what toa keystroke/joystick button..or both. Really matter of configuring. A button/switch/whatever could be clickable but at the same time used by a key stroke or button press. A win win to me :)

If implemented correctly the clicky cockpit would add to immersion in my opinion. As of engine management..in IL2 it is very easy and hopefully SoW will be closer to real. Maybe many "desktop aces" would see how much work it really was to fly a warbird ;) Not like now, slam throttle and forget about it..Not really convincing to scream for realism if you can't handle realistic engine management. It is part of flying the plane and fighting in it. My 2 cents..

[robtek]

The realistic management of the airplane is also a very important factor in a dogfight!
When your head is in the cockpit you can fall to a surprise attack quite easily.
If your plane has automatic management you have more time to look and less distraction.
If you have to nurse your engine there will be no more 100% throttle turn fights, to loose your engine is to loose the fight and, probably, your virtual life.
Especially the blue planes, like the 190's, will gain a lot fighting power with their automatic engine management.
This will also lead to specialisation, no one can memorize the handling of more than 2 or 3 planes, without loosing the ability to gain the maximum performance.

[zaelu]

Very true Robtek!

I would also like to see the "automated" start up procedure. Like in DCS. If I want to start it up manually (or the server enforce so) I will do it. Else I could just press a startup key and the buttons and switches start to move in sequence and in a predefined time. An optional 3D pilot body that is animated to press those switches would be awesome too.

Last realistic start up mode would be like in the current 10 years old IL-2... Ctr+I and you go.

[robtek]

I'll drink to that, zaelu!
What imo is important is that if one abuses his ride in any way one MUST suffer the consequences!
No more: engine start -> firewall the throttle -> take off.
No more: 5 min. 9g turns.
No more: 9g turns with damaged wings or fuselage.
and so on and on...

[Lucas_From_Hell]

One more thought about clickable cockpits:

They make it easier and more intuitive.

I'll use Lock On and DCS as criteria for this comparsion.

Lock On has somewhat simple systems, so less things to press and play with. DCS: Black Shark has lights, switches and buttons all over, with covers and everything else.

In Lock On, you don't have clickable cockpits. In DCS, you have.

I can't operate a single radar or any sort of system in Lock On properly. In DCS, it's the easiest thing in the world to start the aircraft manually, tune every system to like, set the big guns ready, acquire, shoot, evade, use counter-measures, land and shut down the Ka-50 after.

Even systems present in both simulators - and modelled in a simpler way in Lock On - are easier to use in DCS.

Why?

Very simple: you don't need to remember it. It's easy to click on all the switches necessary to start it up quickly and rush to battle, but try to remember the key assigned to each one and see how do you perform.

You just need to remember where are the buttons - that's all. Then it's just flick switch, press button, pull handle; the same you'd do when flying a real plane.

"Alright, but it isn't realistic to click! They didn't click!" True, but they also didn't have to remember 300 types of movements to press buttons. It was push, pull and turn, that's all. And they used their hands to do so, with the mouse you do it as well. You need to take one hand off stick and throttle and go for your button.

Judging from my experience with these two games and Il-2 as well, it's no big deal to use the joystick hat for view, for those who don't have TrackIR or any fancy device, leaving the mouse for the switches.