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:(.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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. ;)

Man, you are one negitive dude, chill out.

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

I know a good dozen of pilots flying modern fighters and lot more flying other kind of planes.

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)

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... ;)

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

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

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.

;)

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

[QUOTE=TX-Kingsnake;67023]
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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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?

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.

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...) ...

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.

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

You is wrong, be sure.

:cool:

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

Dont worry, it'll be fine
 

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.

@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.

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.

But you won't get it.

Haha.

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.

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.

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.:)

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.

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.

No thanks for me.

Click
 

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.

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:

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.

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 ;)

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.

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:

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?

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..

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.

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.

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...

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.