Notice the height of the cockpit canopy in those two shots... Very different!

Freycinet

I think we've been informed, thoroughly. LOL

Now, if my eyes will just stop blinking

Good point, but in many respects it is possible in Il-2 with the adjust-seat position command. however, I don't know how hard it'd be to model this having an effect (visually) on the pilot...and then you need to program it for the AI too and have it affect visability...man it gets complicated. :-P

edit post is your friend.

as for the epilepsy inducing picture, it's two different angles, what appears to be a different mark of hurri, and the pilot is wearing a huge helmet. the underside of the two images doesn't match, and in fact the only bit where they do is on the front canopy frame and mirror. even then, the different height of the camera between the two images renders it pretty useless.

talk about irrelevant.

and that probably counts for most of the last 29 pages.

Why are you trying to compare a guy with a modern helmet on and a different model hurricane with a picture at a different angle, model and helmet?

I just can imagine what will happen here when the Focke comes and when someone will first talk of the b*r !!!!!!!!!!!!

Sometimes you guys are just ridiculous.

Somebody tried to compare just pictures to come to a conclusion that Oleg is wrong. Worse, these pictures are from different angle, different distance and with different pilots. I just don't understand how you guys can't figure the simplest solution out: take the manufactory datas of Hurricane, see how high/ how low the seat could be, compare them to the size of "SOW pilot" (which, IIRC, is 175cm high) and come to a conclusion yourselves.

I know not everyone of us have access to those datas. I don't, but Oleg surely does. But, for God sake, whoever doesn't have them, don't try to be an expert and outsmart the ones who know Hurricane "mathematically", not just from a few pictures. Unless someone can show us the right datas and prove that the picture is wrong, the discussion is pretty pointless.

Ok forgive me,
I didn't menage to attach the right picture to better explain my arguments, obviusly I compared images/pictures taken in quiet same perspective conditions. I feel ridicolous cause I wasn't able to correctly post with correct attachments, not because I pretended to compare 2 incomparable pictures representing 2 incomparable objects. I would be foul in this attempt.
Moreover, I'm far to 'outsmart' anyone, it's not my hobby. My argument came to a conclusion that Oleg was right (or not so wrong).
Topic closed.
Cheers

I appreciate what your trying to do...but your presentation might be more effective if the angle of the aeroplane (from the viewers perspective) was the same in both pictures.

I'm the 'author' of that animated pic. Sorry if it's causing epileptic seizures :)

I had to make do with what I could find online. Most pictures are shot by people standing level with the plane. The SOW shot is from higher up. The photo I used had to be flipped over and I adjusted the scale to match it to the SOW one based on the size of the tires.

I realise there's a lot of variables b/w the two (angle, model, helmet etc.) but despite these differences, the pilot in the SOW screenshot appears tiny to me. It could be an optical illusion or a number of things others have written about but the bottom line is that the SOW screenshot looks odd to me.

I any case, it's just something to talk about until the next update and this will be the last thing I'll be worrying about when the game's finally in my hands. Hopefully soon now.

cheers!

as far as i understood, it is about a month or so left before the game will see the world?

Fraid not. There have been several of those completion dates mentioned by the devs over the years. The most recent one is also likely to come and go. Never mind though. There's still girls eh? ;)

wife and daugter - that's my girls now )))
it was last hope about "70 years of BoB" date... but is died.

We have respectfully asked Oleg and co if they are going to release this year, but as of yet they have not replied, Obviously there is not going to be any kind of BOB anniversary release it simply isn't going to happen. Hopefully next years completeion date will be 4th or is it 5th time lucky :grin::grin:

Ah, so moaning :mad:and complaining :cry: endlessly about the release date is now considered "respectful" That makes complete sense.;)

No ones moaning or complaing we have respectfully asked, simply presenting a fact that SOW will not be released this or next month is not moaning or complaining either.

Moaning and complaining is what you do after every post i make, obviously you cant help it being a woman but please try a little restraint. No offence of course honey.

So release will be at year 2015, when will pass 75 years form BoB. And it will be enough time to do all, that must be done to complete this sim. And in 2015 users hardware will be enough to handle load which SoW will produce ;)
Just joke... just joke... Let's be patient.

Well considering the request list from everyone and his grandma ranging from the right text on tyres to folding chairs with the correct color im gonna be suprised its ever released.

To me the SOW image hurri pilot does not actually look all that different from the historical pictures produced of the hurri pilots in the 2-bladed propped hurris in the flight line on the ground.
That picture clearly shows many of the pilots sitting quite low in the pit while others are higher up. Sure the angle is different but the fact remains that the "lower seated/shorter" pilots are clearly seated much more "deeply" in the pit than others.
The other picture of the hurris flying in line-abreast also shows many of the pilots behind the one in the foreground to be seated at approximately the same height as the SOW screenshot.
Two options and/or options: 1) the additional height added by sitting on the parachute has not been implemented (yet), and/or
2) the adjustability of the seat height has not been implemented (for this image).

Either way, what a mountain out of a mole hill!

Oleg: Luthier, we are running short of time, I'm afraid that with those crazy inscriptions on the plane tires and the research on the right color of foldable chairs, we will surely miss the BoB anniversary ...

Luthier: My God Oleg, who the hell has the guts to tell the bad news to the angry mob on the banana forum? Some of them are just INSANE!

Oleg: Don't worry mate. Tree is a smart guy, he will understand the situation and tell it to the mob. Let him do the dirty job ...

:D

:grin::grin:

That is so funny...

You aren't wrong either.

It may be same situation like with 'Rise Of Flight' and 'DCS Black Shark', when 2 sims had to fight for the market.

It looks like new DCS A10 and BoB will have approx the same release date.

And it will be funny to the madness if we will get 'Flight' from Bill at the same time. It is already represented.
Especially if we will remember almost 10 year old story about total fail of the CFS3, and who is responsible for that:grin:

Any screenshots of our first person avatar holding flight controls? I certainly hope we dont get stuck with the invisible man view in pit again, like in IL2

Guys, don't forget that Tree and I came from the future...

Some future where an apocalypse has rendered a generation utterly ignorant?

"Tucker Hatfield" = CFS3 fail leader

He went over to MSFT after "Red Baron", and somehow sold his way into a complete redo of an otherwise great sim, CFS2.

better the invisible man and visible instruments, don't you think old boy?

With all the bickering that goes on over the smallest of details...it makes me wonder if Oleg and crew are feeling "more" pressure to deliver a "near perfect" flight/combat/sim?

It makes me wonder if they decided to push the date (& not worry about) back because they where afraid of the negative reviews over a game that felt "unfinished"? Maybe they feel the community would rather have a game that was "right" as apposed to one that needed to be "patched" to correct a bunch of "little stuff".

Lets face it...at this point expectations are running pretty high, at this point people are expecting to be "impressed" with the final product.

p.s. I hope that no one if offended by my OT ruminations... ;)

The more people talk about it on this forums the more their expectations surge.

Don't hang here so much, drop in every day or so. Give yourself a break, it doesn't matter what anyone says. The SOW will be released when Oleg is ready.

Well said. People would do well to remember that Oleg's crew are professionals.

When members of the public post something they think is important they should remember that this is something they only think about in passing - it's not as if they earn their daily bread on this subject.

Most members of these forums have day jobs. They are first and foremost, call-centre operatives, or unemployed, or at the very least - not working in modelling WW2 combat.

This might be news to many, but you heard it here first: Oleg's team are employed because they are experts in their field, with access to experts on WW2 flight.

Please read that again.

So, could you all possibly just stop for a minute and ask yourself: hey, I think I know a lot: but am I actually paid for my knowledge? Is that a no? Then, perhaps is it possible I don't know as much as someone who is paid for their expertise?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: nearmiss has much more patience than me. I'd ban anyone making stupid remarks. You spoil this forum for everyone, as 1C become ever more reluctant to speak with the idiots who misunderstand their work and then post stupid criticism.

^^ and well said Nearmiss.

Novotony, I hear you mate. I think that sometimes humour is the best way to deal with such controversial debates, but if this serves to stand as another stupid remark then it is clearly misplaced.

We all need to understand that we are similar in the sense we share the same hobby, but in many respects we will always have conflicting opinons. A forum is very much a microcosm, and conflicting opinions will only serve to create a type of Lord-of-the-Flies environment.

you complain too much every week and drove oleg away from the fri update seine :evil::grin:

I'm getting deja vu feelings about the Tree <Insert a comment about release date here> replied by Eries <Say something about release date comment> cycles repeating themselves in here. I loose track of time not knowing which week's updates we're looking at. :o

Wonderful pics, would love to see propwash effect on the grass!

This could be the wackiest update thread I've seen in the past few years I've been looming around here. :grin:

Their expertise on WW2 Russian aircraft is probably irreproachable, and they are pretty good on the RAF.

Stupid criticisms or not, I know more about UK railways than anyone who thinks that level crossings without gates or signals were common in the UK in the 1940s. The railways as shown in the image in the first post are knackered, useless, rotten.

Sure, in a flight sim the railways don't matter, trivia about head sizes is more important, that is at least fixable if it's really wrong, which I doubt.

Meanwhile, one of the world's great railway systems lies utterly broken.

There was a branch line, it barely survived the Beeching axe in the 1960s, do you know how the British got it across an inconvenient valley? We built a viaduct.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ordviaduct.JPG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pensford

It's not of itself important, or a significant target, but it goes to show how much money was spent in the UK to to make the railways efficient and therefore profitable. Cuttings and embankments were cheaper, and thus much more widely used.

The one thing there weren't, were unmarked unguarded level crossings, where a random car could destroy or delay an important train, or an unimportant train could delay an important car.

That would be a very scitsophrenic and ecstatic time that would need some kind of a vacation but I doubt BOB would let me enjoy A10 that much.

Since i play IL2 only for 2 months i dont know how it is there.

Will there be real steam smoke from the steamtrains in SoW BoB i mean real dynamic smoke?

I agree wholeheartedly about train importance...The situation was quite different in France, not concerning the importance given to railways system (it must have been on par with the British one), but in the way it dealt with the environment: like in UK embankments and cuttings were largely used, but almost only on the main gauge network.
It was not so on the narrow gauge network, which was using occasionally embankments but few cuttings. Most of the time the train was going along the landscape, and this gives the narrow gauge network a very much different aspect from the main gauge one. These two networks were complementary and saw much use during all of the war as it was the only "mass" transportation mean left...as it was using coal, not fuel.

In opposition to the English system unguarded and unmarked level crossings were many (almost all of the narrow gauge system used them), and no fences exist on either network railroad, except maybe in large towns.

Like I said to Oleg railways are very much a structuring feature of the landscape as well as a great target. And this not mentioning other great targets like the so well recognizable steam depots and marshalling yards...and the very special network used by the Germans in Pas de Calais after July 1940 to move and fire the K5 and K12 very long range guns of the "EisenBahn Artillerie"...

JV

There's smoke from the trains in IL*2. Or do you mean smoke coming from your computer's casing? :)

Exactly what instuments cant you see? The most important ones are visible.

In IL2, some of the Russian fighters have their turn and balance instruments obscured by the joystick. If your trying to trim your self for straight and level, you have to twich the stick to the side to see the ball. Other planes have similar problems.

If you put a pilot in there you'ld obscure a lot more.

6DOF in SOW will help some but then there is always going to be some switch or dial that is out of view due to the pilot.

cheers!

I think it has to do with the inclusion of clickable cockpits as an option.

If the virtual legs are in the way, there might be some switches you can't operate.
If you can't click on the switches, you'll want to map them to keyboard or HOTAS.
If you map everything to keyboard or HOTAS, you might run out of buttons :grin:

Look at Black Shark for example. Every single function has a keyboard shortcut and can be mapped to a joystick button. The reason people use the mouse is not because it's intuitive or realistic. Actually, using keys/buttons is more realistic, as in reality even when driving your car you rarely look at which button to press to turn on the air-conditioning, you remember its position, fumble about a bit maybe and flick the switch.

However, unless we have custom made sim-cockpits or expensive HOTAS sets with good profiling software, we will soon run out of buttons to map. Mapping everything to HOTAS also presents another problem...using the same key for many different things depending on shift toggles and profile changing switches doesn't help muscle memory a lot, in fact someone might be unable to avoid looking at his HOTAS, so that to make sure he has the right profile selected before pushing the button.

That's why the mouse is used increasingly in flight sims as a control input, at least for the non-critical controls and i guess that's why even sims that display a pilot have the option to turn him off, so that you can click what you need to click.

Ooooooh!

Here the road is a wide as (the length of) a railway locomotive:

http://www.rossallbeach.co.uk/thornt...20crossing.jpg

Yeah. Notice the gates on the level crossing.

That is a pretty short locomotive too, probably a shunter/tank engine.

As a video game player my whole life I can honestly say 95% of all video games suck, I've never played a "perfect" video game, the closest I think was Medal Gear Solid on PS1. Even the greatest video games (except for the 8bit classics) I can pick apart for hours on imperfections, things that could have been done better. I only play the best games because they are the only ones worth the time. That's how I was led to IL2, I wanted the best WW2 flight sim, I did my research and bought it - For people who are only flight simmers you can put the blind faith in SOW because, frankly, there is no competition in the genre. But for people like me who will gladly move on to another genre if the quality is not up to par to the best games out (of any genre) I'm not so blind. I do give Oleg and the crew serious props for giving these screens in the WIP stages - most studios would never release screenshots that look like these, because even a few bad screenshots could be suicide to the hyper-critical gamer such as myself.

Of interest to note is that in the upcomming DCS A10 sim they a planing to include a pause mode that will allow users to pause the sim while they perform complex tasks.

Cheers!

Bloody good post Adman.

Agree

If you wish to feel that then you're entitled to your own opinion. But please, look through my posts. I don't complain; I just say what I think could be changed but I always say how it should look/be. In most cases I use demonstrations to show what I feel. If this is called complaining, then I am a complainer. But I've been more than happy with most of the shots shown for SoW and would buy the game in an instant today if it were released. I said a week or so ago, if updates to the game can be released in patches then that is a good way to improve the game. All of the topics are still here for Oleg and co to look through whenever they wish to improve the game.

;)

Olegs been on holiday...jeez

Exactly, and luthier said the other week that he had the flu too.
Relax everyone. Your life doesn't depend on weekly Friday updates.

I did some very painstaking calculations during the past week, and found out exactly what the correct size of head a 1.70 male should have. It differs from that you would get by merely scaling down from a taller male..difficult to explain. The picture tells it better:

http://www.hyperscale.com/images/spitsfiretm_1.jpg

:-)

LOL! Ya ain't afraid of nothing, ain't ya?!? :D

Back to serious things: it's time that the adults of this forum take back the steering wheel from the children. :D :D

Questions raised on this thread that deserve some attention from OM:


1. blending of 3D objects into the landscape (namely trees)
2. size of country roads
3. hedges
4. railroad bridges / tunnels / trenches
......
1001. Size of pilot

You are free to fill in the empty places from 4 to 1000, of course.

Cheers!
Insuber

Through astute observation I concluded that Spitfire Pilots should have bigger heads!

Sorry Insuber, I was just trying to get a witty remark in before you called us to order! My bad!

Hate to break it to you Major but you can't base your findings on a replica. The original roundels didn't have numbers for one!

p.s. love the fratricide marking :)

-Prop-Wash
-Changing colours of grass due to change in weather (affecting the way this affects landings too as well e.g if the ground is wet)
-Animation of pilot...putting his helmet on, plugging in his wiring loom and oxygen hose (unless they were already plugged in)

etc etc

4. Oleg has already stated that the engine can handle tunnels, that they looked into it, but that they might not get a chance to do it with the initial release.

1001. I doubt Oleg will make a mistake here. Remember that people were smaller then.

Do you know why they often refer to gang bangers in LA, California as low riders?

One reason is..they drive their cars with the front seat as far down and back as possible. The driver can just barely see over the steering wheel. Why? so opposing gang members/bangers on driveby can't get a clear shot at them.

So... concluding from that I would say having a little head would be beneficial when you are getting shot at.. in East LA or in the virtual skies of IL2 SOW.

Therefore, SOW needs to have little pilots with little heads. It's logical... LOL

It make sense, afterall we have clickable cockpits, some are wanting virtual knees and knuckles...why not clickable pilots and head sizes.

all instruments are important.
thank you for clarifying my point skoshi, you have more patience than i!
not enough tbh.

The gauges you refer to are typically NOT critical.
Realistically online all you need are airspeed, vsi, manifold, fuel sometimes if you take a gas guzzler, compass, (might be 1 or 2 more cant think of them now) anything more is not really critical as triming can be done by eye/feel.

A toggle key could be added to show instrument panel as in Falcon 4. Which has a virtual pilot body in pit.

No need for a virtual pilot to get in the way of the gauges. I can see my own legs and arms in my peripheral vision.

1002. Size of pilots HEAD

Skarphol

Sorry... don't agree at all.

You need the slip and ball to make sure your aircraft has best registration on targets. Many people ignore the slip and ball and screw around for a year or two wondering why they can't shoot straight. LOL

On several aircraft the slip and ball is lined up in line of site behind the joystick. That is a nuisance, but with a big old virtual fist wrapped around the stick (which means nothing) you can't see it at all.

That looks like Saxmundham in Suffolk. Is it?

That is half-way true for IL2. We don't know if it will be true for SoW, especially when all indications point to increased systems modelling at higher difficulty settings. You might need to manipulate fuel tank selectors in mid-flight, you might need to air-start a damaged engine that cut out during violent maneuvers, or got choked/starved due to incorrect fuel mixture, etc etc. Things like that require quite a few controls, which are not in direct visibility of the pilot most of the times. The reason? Well, they keep the instruments you mentioned in his immediate field of view because they are important. The other stuff gets tucked away on side consoles and in all sorts of weird places depending on aircraft. Most of the controls required to start a P-47 for example, are situated left of the pilot at about the height of his legs, so they would be obscured if a pilot was displayed in the first person cockpit view.

I have a TrackIR3 that helps quite a lot, but only a MS sidewinder precision pro 2 stick. It has a single throttle, twist rudder, a hat switch and 8 buttons, that's all.

So, how am i going to start up my engine and manage non-critical but nevertheless important systems of my aircraft in a full difficulty SoW server, when all i have is 8 joystick buttons and a keyboard? By clicking things with the mouse of course. As you can see, non-critical controls means controls that are not used in combat or emergencies. They are still pretty much a necessity for starting and completing the mission though, things like starter, battery switch, fuel tank selector valve etc. I don't mind seeing a pilot in the cockpit, but if i can't click on what i need to click i want a way to turn him off instantly. Maybe a toggle key can be added to turn off the pilot, if it is in fact decided to display him.

As i like to say, i don't want to force my opinion of how the game should be on other people, but i also dislike having the same done to me (not accusing you of such by the way). So, when in doubt, the best thing is to use toggles and option menu parameters and keep everyone happy ;)

I'd say the scale of the pilot is pretty important, your concerned with the size of roads but not the size of the pilots?

I appreciate the attempt to belittle other posters tho

How you going to start your engine...E is usually the defualt key. No need for gauge, all functions mapped to keystrokes.

That's why i said it might work for IL2 but it might not for SoW.

A single command engine start works in IL2. You seem to think that this will be possible in SoW as well and it will most probably, but only on lower difficulty settings.

According to the interview of the development team posted on the forums of the check-six simulation community, in higher difficulty settings this doesn't work for SoW because there's a detailed start-up sequence. Just like the ones used in Black Shark and FSX, but with fewer things to do because WW2 aircraft are not so complex.

So to put it in simple terms, if i had a virtual pilot modelled in the cockpit at all times, i might be forced to fly certain aircraft at reduced difficulty settings because i wouldn't be able to see and click some of the switches needed for the higher difficulty settings.

WW2 aircraft are not as complex as modern ones, but you still need to flick anywhere between 5 and 20 switches to turn the engines on, depending on airframe. There's simply not enough buttons to map everything if all you have is a Sidewinder joystick and a keyboard.

I prefer using a hybrid control scheme, with flight controls, flaps, gear, guns and engine controls mapped to joystick and keyboard, leaving all the other stuff to be operated by the mouse. I think it's easier than having to map and remember that ctrl+shift+F turns the fuel selector valve counter-clockwise and ctrl+alt+F turns it clockwise.

As i said before, i have no problems with a pilot being modelled in the cockpit, as long as i can turn him off whenever i want to. You can keep him on at all times and map everything to your HOTAS set, i can keep him off most of the time and use the clickable cockpit interface, we both get what we want and that's pretty much it ;)

You got it right mate. Pilots' size is easily adjustable = it is a false problem. On the contrary, landscapes need a long work: if you ain't it right in the beginning it's more difficult to correct things. Moreover, when I fly I see the landscape all time long, while I hardly see any pilot at all in game. But maybe it's just me ... :D

Cheers,
Insuber

I'm with you AdMan!

I'll vote to switch #2 and #1001 question priorities with pilot size in #2. And the point is that we have very different priorites and one is not any more important than another. So, let's play nice in this sandbox...

Well, tomorrow is Friday...can't wait to see our new themes for 'discussion'!
(Colour of roads? Colour of leaves? Colour of pilot's eyes?)

:lol:

Sounds like a reasonable way to do it.

I wouldn't be so confident about that, remember there are pilot animations already in place, you might have to adjust all the keyframes for those. That's to only scratch the surface of unknown complications that can arise when making changes in the later stages.


As a 3D artist and artist in general it is an utter hellish pain in the ass when you realize fundamental problems in the late stages, but if you want it right you just have to take the time to fix it.

I don't really care about C.E.M. or a full startinng sequence. I'll just program my CHProducts MFP for the keystrokes and start with one key. LOL

It will be about enjoying the air combat simulation for me. I care less about all the button pushing,, been there done that too many times.

Clickable cockpits will mean absolutely nothing to me...except I'll love it online. The clickable cockpit pilots will be doing their cursors and clicking. I'll be all over their six and I won't be spraying Preparation H. LOL

So you are going to "cheat" by artificially reducing your workload???
I really hope that such automated sequences are delayed in some way!!!

Are you serious...

Are clickable cockpit flyers going to say keystroke flyers are cheating?

Keystrokes have been the game for the past 10 years, now because clickable cockpits are being provided we've got to dumb down the game to wait for clicky boys to get their cursor right on top of the up switch to turn on their guns,etc.

I knew it when the clickable cockpit advocates started whining about turning this into another FSX there would issues that were not being addressed about clickable cockpits.

My MFP makes the actual keystroke, it just does it faster because I physically can't move through a sequence of keys as fast as a computer. Also, I don't enjoy all that keystroking. I'd be doing Falcon 4, if i did.

If Oleg drags down the SOW to accomdate Clickable cockpit players he will definitely change the game. I don't think that will be the situation. Clickable cockpits may have to be a choice in the online servers. If clickable cockpits is a requirement for full real servers. I don't know what we'll be thinking, but I don't think it will be good.

Yes your right, but in real life we dont have to remember a keystroke to move our arm or knee out of the way of an obscured gauge. We just move it.

While having the pilots body would be good for movie makers, I'm not sure that I'ld use it too often. ( unless the effect was so good I couldn't play without it on!)

Cheers

I'm wondering if their will be some way of camouflaging targets? During the Battle of Brittan, England went to great measures to hide some of their airfields, factory's and other sensitive installations. Will camouflaging be modeled in the game? For example...as the "time line" progresses will we see (or not see) hidden airfields appear, and will sensitive factory's suddenly be camouflaged as row houses?

I'm sure their is much documentation on this subject...

@nearmiss

of course i am serious.
The workload for a fighter pilot was much to easy in il2.
The different workloads in different planes have a great influence to the sa of the pilots
and so also to the outcome of dogfights.
I want as much simulation as possible, the trend to arcadish shortcuts is imho wrong.
But i shure hope there will be servers for all levels of realism so everybody will be satisfied.

I hope so!

Great idea.. hope there will be something like that made.

Lakes and harbours were camouflaged to throw off navigation.
In FMB it can be imitated.


Even Boeing camouflaged the factory:

http://www.taphilo.com/history/WWII/...ing/H302-5.jpg

Yeah im liking that too :grin:

Глубокоуважаемый Олег.
Я понимаю, что у Вас очень много работы, но могли ли Вы быть столь любезны и благосклонны, чтоб написать сообществу несколько строк (чуть больше, чем просто скрины апдейта) о прогрессе Вашей работы над всеми нами очень ожидаемой игры.
Спасибо, извените за беспокойство.

Translation for English-speaking community (using google translator). Sorry, if something is not right

Trackir in the game
 

Is it possible TrackIR settings in the game so that the pilot turned his head with the rotation of the player who has TrackIR? It would be a wonderful impression and give a lot of realism to the game. ;-)

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________


Можно ли настройки TrackIR в игре, так что пилот повернул голову с поворотом тот игрок, который TrackIR? Это было бы прекрасным впечатление и дают много реализма к игре. ;-)

I've seen it in Il2 (a mod maybe?)

The AI do it. Players do not.

Waste of bandwidth to have players doing it in my opinion.
I would rater have an extra player in the server than have everyone moving their blocks about.

But there is a chance to do it right in this game :grin:;)

Ok then.. well..

That's what I meant (from 1:34 on).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gs2d...mbedded#at=107

Heads turning with TrackIR, human pilots, online. A mod however.

Cheers,
Insuber

If someone sets up a gaming keyboard to perform some tasks, it won't be that big of a deal (probably). The vast majority of cockpit clicking will be for prepping engine start, take off, cruise, landing, and shut down. Stuff that is not time critical. There will probably also be keyboard shortcuts that do the same things if you don't want to click switches. I am equally sure there will be difficulty settings that eliminate the need for a lot of clicking.

Once you get to combat, it's going to be stick, rudder, throttle, prop pitch, and trim. Oh, and trigger :).

Obviously those are guesses on my part, but it's the only thing that makes sense. A lot of people are not going to be into the "simulation" part of the "boring" stuff, like engine starts, fuel balance, or even stopping their wheels from spinning before they raise the landing gear. Then again, some of us (me included) want it all if possible.

Nearmiss and those that play like him won't have much of an advantage in combat. He just doesn't much care about how to really start a P39 compared to a BF-109, at least not every single time he flies. I think that's what he was trying to get across.

I know from flying other pure flight sims that the first few times, I want to go by the checklist and "learn it". Once I do, I want to switch over to starting quickly so I can get into the air and have some fun. So even I want both options.

Unless, of course, I am missing something and "script monkeys" (the derogatory term) are going to get some sort of huge advantage in combat.

Splitter

Who made an Aermacchi MB-339 for Il2?

Thanks

Maybe there will be a built-in but delayed sequence. For example, if you use realistic starts in Black Shark you can still start everything by pressin left windows key+home key. The difference is that an experienced pilot can do it as much as 30 seconds faster than the AI helper ;)

After all, if people don't want to use it, they can choose to fly in servers where it is disabled.

As for clicking stuff in combat, that's exactly what i'm not going to do. I'm not going to be dragging the throttles with the mouse. However, if i accidentaly starve my engine of fuel due to prolonged inverted flying, knowing how the whole things works will permit me to restart it. If you have mapped macros to your HOTAS to start-up, you might not be able to do so.

For example, say your HOTAS macros are toggle commands and your engine suffers a fuel shortage and quits. If you press your "start-up macro" key, the toggle commands will not only turn on what was turned off, they will also turn off what was turned on. So, when the start-up macro says "micture:100%" it will work because it's a specific command. However, where the macro says "toggle battery", it will turn it off and you won't be able to start.

I really hope that people who want to fly full-switch will be given an in-game automatic alternative, but at a handicap (longer sequence than what can be achieved if you do it manually), so as to discourage the use of external commands. There's no reason to be flying in a full-switch server with macros when you can just fly on another server that disables CEM without macros.

Another thing is that it might not be feasible to have one macro for all planes due to different start-up methods. For example, inertia starters were used a lot in WW2 aircraft with radial engines. Essentially, an electric motor drives a high-inertia rotor disc and when it reaches full RPM, the pilot connects the disc to the engine drive. This spins up the engine and if fuel and ignition is provided the engine starts. However, the size and the required RPM for the starter depends on the displacement of the engine, but larger starters also take longer to spool-up. For example, a starter for a Curtiss P-36 needs to drive an engine with a much smaller displacement and compression ratio than a starter for a P-47.
If you try to take your P-36 macro and use it to start a P-47, you will probably find out that the engine will never start because your macro is set for example at a 6 second spool-up but the Jug's starter needs a 20 second spool-up.

Not to mention differences between radial and in-line engines, different aircraft manufacturers using the same engine with different sub-systems (eg, direct drive starters instead of inertia, or mixed starters using both methods), or even airplanes of different countries. We've all seen videos of luftwaffe mechanics using a crank on a 109s cowling, well, that's the inertia starter most likely. So, you probably need a mechanic to start the 109 :grin:

I was watching screenshots and I was thinking "Please Oleg makes blood !! we want blood in cockpit and body !!" :-P:-P:-P