Vote your choice - Clickable Cockpits or Not
 

Clickable cockpits who wants them?

I voted no. In an air combat sim, you want controls which you can use without having to look for them - a good HOTAS setup. This is essentially what the real aircraft had anyway, at least for the important controls. Even making them optional is going to increase the complexity of the sim, and I'd rather see scarce resources used for the more immersive parts of the program: good AI, realistic FMs and all the rest. It is ok to have clickable controls on MSFS, where the pilot workload is lower, and being able to twiddle a knob is simpler tan having to remember some obscure command to adjust the autopilot rat-of-climb or something, but nobody is likely to use such a system in combat, if they actually expect to survive.

I voted Yes.

I don't expect Oleg to make a fully clickable cockpit, nor do I want him to spend time and resources doing it at this very moment. However, I think the engine should be constructed in a way to accommodate these options when done by third party developers, or later by Oleg's team.

That said, I probably won't use the fully clickable cockpit except on pre-takeoff or post-flight shutdown or messing with my circuit breakers/electrical switches. Otherwise, I'd like a nice touch-screen monitor :-P That will be a few years at least though.

However, since I can't have a proper fully clickable cockpit, I would like a fully functional cockpit. That means I would like every function to be accessible by keyboard and I would like every instrument to give an accurate and meaningful measurement..

I think it would be really funny watching people fumbling around with their mouse trying to click the right little switch..."Right hand stick...then right hand mouse...then back to stick...zoom in close to check the right lever...zoom out to scan horizon...right hand back on mouse...OOppps, Sh!t, a bad guy...right hand back on stick"

LOL!!!!

Clickable cockpits were in Microsoft's Combat Flight Simulator (CFS) series also, a conversion of Flight Simulator. They also had a checklist for start-up procedures and notes on other important info for the perticular plane being used, which was kinda nice.

Voted no. Clickable cockpits belong to a civil flight sim, or a sim that focuses on one plane / helicopter. In my opinion it's making things complicated that should be easy during combat and there are too many different planes and cockpits around.

In bombers maybe, fighters no. Too much going on during a dogfight/mission to have a good chance of hitting that small button with your mouse really and still being in control of the situation. Maybe a touch-screen feature would be nice in the future, just touch your screen where the button is to activate.

You can have both, you either use the clickable objects or use a hotkey. It's not like you have too use one or the other - it's optional.

S!

Would work with TrackIR perfectly, just look around and clickety click :)

I would say more realism and prefer key options instead of click.

I think it is a very good option for all the people who have Track Ir,DCS Black Shark have it and it its awesome(clickable cockpits)

I've wondered the same thing myself. I have used a Kensington Trackball with my left hand for years for viewing. Almost as good as TrackIR.

It is amazing to me that anyone would want to have clickable cockpits.

My time with MSFT flight simulator educated me soon enough.

All those + and - beside knobs. Not only clickable, but you had to be on a certain side of a knob to + or - the value. Then of course how many times do you spin past the value you want to set?

I've got a CHProducts fighterstick, a MSFT Reclusa keyboard (10 programmable keys), a CHP pro throttle, and a CHP MFP (50 programmable keys). I can set every possible command I can imagine in IL2 with what I have. THe newer sticks and hotas combos have even more control selections.

It is beyond me why anyone would select a tedious control method such as clickable cockpits.

Yeah, this thread is probably pretty worthless. I was interested to see just how many people want Clickpits. Then of course there is no competent way to know just how serious people that want clickpits are about air combat, how many fly online, how much experience they've had, and what kind of controller devices they own.

I'm just glad Oleg has sense about this.

Voted no but it seems there are a lot of people who'd like this so hopefully it's possible for 3rd party devs to develop clickable cockpits or maybe it can be added in future releases. I just don't want SoW to be delayed because of this.

I used to think clickable cockpits were a gimmick but this video convinced me:

BlackShark clickable cockpit with a PowerGlove:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLkfx6QxLfg

Exactly :grin:

The clickable cockpit isnt for me. I'd much rather have more realism in the flight dynamics, damage modelling, weapons effects, visuals and sounds. From the Spitfire video that was recently released as far as graphics go, we seem to be there.

Adding a clickable cockpit now would only delay further the release IMHO

Guys, you're still missing the point. It's not about clickable cockpits, it's about having the systems modelled in high fidelity and that's not a gimmick, it's realism that will finally take us beyond the easy-mode flying we've been doing all these years.

Yes, easy mode flying and i stand by it.

First of all, WWII cockpits are much simpler than Black Shark's cockpit. Second, startup in most fighters of the time is usually all about flicking 3-10 switches. If you can take the time to study charts and practice energy retention in high altitude fights, you can surely remember the right sequence of flicking a mere 10 switches.
Third, warm-up in normal weather (which is most dogfight servers) takes less than half a minute. All you need is to idle until you get an oil temperature of about 40-50 celsius for most engines (this happens in seconds, even before you've oriented yourself in regards to where the runway is), then you keep your RPM above 1000 to avoid spark-plugs getting fouled, at which point you're already taxiing for takeoff anyway, so the engine will be ready before you'even said "hi" on teamspeak.
Fourth, the run-up procedure is not necessary unless you have random failures modelled and even if it was, all it takes in most of the cases is throttle up to X amount of RPM, cycle the magnetos and watch RPM drop, move the pitch lever to make sure it works and off you go.

Total time from start-up to take-off with realistic systems modelling and a slightly abbreviated version of "by-the-book" procedures? I'd say about the same amount of time it takes you to press "I", taxi to the runway and shove the throttle forward like we do in IL2.
Both are easy and fast, but one is more realistic and immersive.

I can agree with you if you mean that the interfacing should be easy and natural and we should have options to tailor it to our taste. I disagree if by easy you mean "not modelling things that don't directly relate to the shooting part", because in that case we're missing half of what it really was to fly a WWII warbird.

That's my thoughts exactly. Download the Black Shark manual people, i think there's not a single switch or button in there that doesn't correspond to a keyboard or joystick command, or can't be assigned to one. Of course, nobody can remember all those key commands, but the important ones that you need in combat are all mapped to keyboard and stick, the rest are for start-up/shut-down and non-combat stuff things that can easily be done with the mouse, just like Romanator said he would use it. Even more so, the amount of switches on a WWII fighter are probably less than 10% the amount of switches in Black Shark, so anyone with a half-decent HOTAS will not need to use the mouse AT ALL.

The important question is not how the virtual buttons are pressed, but how well the systems of the aircraft are modelled.People who want to press their switches with the mouse can do it with the mouse, people who want to do it with the keyboard or HOTAS can do so as well, what's the problem really?

Well, i think the problem is that some simmers don't want flight sims to become more complex but instead remain more on the game side of things, and focusing on interfacing instead of on the real question is just a smoke-screen to cover this up behind a dislike for a certain user interface. Nothing against them really if that's the way they like it, i just can't see why the rest of us who want something more should be denied it.

It's not like we said "we want this on release", just make the cockpit switches animate correctly and have the correct functions and the community will mod the cockpits to work with whatever interface they want, clickpits or power gloves or HOTAS scripts.

It's not like we said "make this mandatory for everyone" either, it would be one more setting in the difficuly panel that you could turn off if you didn't like or if it wasn't practical for an online scenario.

I just get the feeling that some people are against it, simply because it would mean that they would lose the pride associated with flying "full real" when they turn off the complex systems management options. Well, IL2 full real is not exactly real, just like it's not for any other sim. What matters in any sim is trying to get as close to the real thing as possible for those that want it, while providing enough difficulty options and setttings to turn off certain features for those that don't. The thing is, times have moved on and now there's new products to compare to for the people that want the "complicated, massive, awe-inspiring machinery" experience.

I sincerely feel that if SoW doesn't have adequate modelling of aircraft subsystems, or at least the provision to add it later, it will be just a re-hash of IL2 with prettier graphics and nothing more.

I get you point, but my gosh... you'll never get to fly that aircraft.

The only sense I can make of it. If it was being used as a simulator for "REAL" pilots. You'd need two power gloves of course. Along with a the virtual systems helmet,etc.

Sorry, I'd rather watch paint dry than flip a hundred buttons and be going nowhere. (sitting in my chair)

Blackdog

Do you have any idea how much work it would be to setup ever cockpit for all the aircraft we have in IL2.

Do you have any idea how difficult it would be to move between aircraft as a player. You'd practically have to marry one aircraft and stay with it or relearn all the controls and locations of those controls every time you attempted to fly the aircraft.

The startup sequence would run off users faster than you could give the software away for free.

The level of difficultly would take a air combat sim game that is pretty darn extraordinary for the genre and turn it into almost "full real" flight simulator. That is not what IL2 is about.

Airmailik above has the answer. Go buy the Black Shark and you'll have what you want. Remember how long it takes the devs to produce one aircraft, and think about how long it takes to become familiar enough with each aircraft to fly and fight with it well enough. Then you add on the weapons systems, counter-measures, radars, etc.

Most enthusiats of IL2 enjoy the WW2 genre air combat, because technology wasn't too developed. The aircraft were powerful enough, weapons were powerful enough, navigation wasn't a brain drain, flying and fighting required more skill than techno management.

That's not quite correct. Olegs latest statement about this issue quoted below says
something different. But I agree since the decision was already made it's pointless
to discuss this any further. Sometime in future the naysayers can convince
themselves that clickable cockpits can be indeed useful in a combat flight sim.

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.ph...ml#Post2732404

Hi!

Weird, people seem to be talking like you cant use the keyboard commands and have a clickable pit..

I would love this feature to be implemented, I think all sims should have this option. Black Shark took so long to develop because it is far more complex than a WW2 plane, not because they included a clickable pit..

Black shark was the first sim I played with a clickable pit and its so intuitive. The reason they implemented it in BS is the complexity of the sim, but another aspect of it is the immersion and familiarity you gain. Even if I was to never use the clickable pit in flight with SoW, it would be great to use it when starting up your plane for take off or landing. I would much rather click a switch with my mouse to turn on navlights for example.

With IL2 (and alot of other sims) I never really got to know the planes interiors very well apart from a few dials, but when you have a fully clickable pit you know every inch of the control panel and that feels good. You feel more connected to the sim, which is in essence what all simmers are after is it not?

But, like has been said, Oleg says it is not planned. So I guess it doesn't really matter. I am very surprised at the amount of people against including this excellent feature however.

Definitely NO.
And it's of the very few times that I won't bother arguing in the forum.
Simple as that: no clickable cockpit please.

No to the mouse, yes to the programed key's:grin:

Jesus, some of you guys are dogmatic or what? :-P
The amount of switches included in Black Shark is so huge compared to a WWII fighter, that you could probably do all of the cockpits for the 11 flyables planned for SoW in the same amount of time. Nobody's forcing you to like it or use it, or telling you how to use it (mouse clicks or keyboard and stick buttons).
So, If you don't have to use it, why does it bother you if the rest of us get the option to?

No ill will against you, but i disagree completely. What you state is a perfectly respectable personal opinion, one that my opinion is directly opposite to. I'm not trying to convince you that my opinion holds more merit either.

What i'm saying is very simple but i'll have to say in the simplest of words and it might sound offensive to some. Let me assure you that it's not my intention to offend anyone, but i think that i'm not getting through because of my efforts to say it in pretty words and be polite, so i'll be blunt for a change. Again, this doesn't make you lesser sim pilots and it doesn't make me a better sim pilot, but it will sound bad even if i don't intend it to. So, now that we're done with disclaimers, what i'm trying to say is that the logic you outlined is exactly what i talked about before, it's what i feel is holding back the propeller era sims and dumbs them down.

I don't want to go fly Black Shark, because i too like simpler aircraft. What i want is to have the option to use a version of these aircraft that closely mimics the original in its entire operation and not just the parts of it that relate to shooting, because there are a dozen extra parameters that can affect survival and mission completion that i feel i'm missing out on. If you don't want it, you have the option to turn it off from the realism settings and fly IL2 with updated graphics and FM/DM. Nobody is going to hold it against you and it's not a criterion of superiority, after all sims are still games and each person is entitled to their fun.

So, my question to the people who object to this is as follows. Why do you want to force on the rest of us a style of gameplay that we find obsolete, less challenging and dumbed down, when it's clear that if we get it it won't be mandatory for you to use?

The only real reason one could argue against this is development time, but i think the argument doesn't hold much water, first because we've seen every nut and bolt modelled on vehicles that we will never have the chance to admire as we scream past at 300mph on a strafing run, and then because of certain bits of information that have surfaced.
From what we've seen in screenshots the past few months, there are a lot of HUD messages that mention specific aircraft subsystems so it seems they are infact already modelled.

If they are already in the game engine, all it takes is a patch 6 months after release to enable them and then the community will take it from there, making clickpit mods and HOTAS scripts for people to use them whichever way they find comfortable, whether that be mouse clicks, HOTAS buttons or telepathy. We don't care how it's done, we would just like to see it at some point and it will propel the title and the entire genre forward. You want a combat flight sim, i want a combat flight sim with a few extra goodies, the only difference is a couple of options in the realism settings and we can both fly the way we like.

I don't see what the problem is here, apart from development time which again, i think is a moot point if these things already exist in the game engine.

P.S. It seems they already are, i missed that post,thanks.

So, i guess we're all happy, both versions will be possible. If the two cockpit versions are also compatible online then the problem is solved :cool:

I voted no....
as many mentioned... it would take extra time that could be alocated elswere.
BUT
maby make the SOW engine capable of, so 3rd party developpers can do som clickpit n the future.
Could be cool on bombers though....

Using switches/keyboard/buttons etc to operate a control isn't 'dumbed down' at all - if anything it is more realistic than using a mouse. Real cockpits have switches, buttons, and levers. I've never seen a computer mouse in a cockpit...

The reason I think it would be a mistake to include it in stock BoB is because most people are unlikely to want to use it in a combat context, so they will have to have the controls on a key or whatever anyway. Adding an 'option' that is of limited use will just add to the complexity of an already complex program - one more delay in development, one more thing to test (for each aircraft), and one more thing to produce potential bugs. A properly-done clickable cockpit might also cause a further overhead in processing time.

In any case, if Oleg has said he isn't including it in the stock game, but 3rd parties may be able to add it, if there is a market for it, it will be provided for those that want it.

Big fat no from me. But "touchable" cockpit switches....maybe!

Touch screens are getting more and more popular, so this may be cool to have in a WWII combat sim.

I can see this in a civ flight sim as it is a learning tool. Who needs to learn the switches on these birds. We sure as heck aren't ever going to fly them.

Loved Black Shark at the time of release for a few months but finally I realised button-fetish clickable cockpit never gives essential fun.
After all, enjoying all that steep learning curve with manual and videos and practise, I eventually lost interest to all the procedures like warming up, turning off and just mapped essential keys onto my HOTAS and forgot clicking afterward.
I admit it was damn cool for a month, but just that.
Even an option for it in SOW is disaster for me.
I might live with it cause I'm a hardcore but what about other flight gamers (I mean, those lovely preys :-) )? Explain plane by plane every sortie in online? Click bottom right switch.. not there.. no.. upper one... doh! :(

I want flight simulator, not a procedure simulator.

Don't worry. Oleg already remarked firmly he would never include mouse-clicking cockpit.

I don't disagree with the first part of your post, in fact i do think it is preferrable to have it mapped to keyboard or HOTAS, especially if we're talking about combat related and critical functions. What i mean by dumbing down the game is to exclude the possibility of modelling aircraft sub-systems in detail because we're too hung up on what the eventual interface to operate them will be ;)

The need for clickable functions stems from elsewhere and it's mostly related to more modern and complex airframes and not so much WWII aircraft: if you model all the systems in high fidelity you'll soon run out of available keyboard functions, or at the very least be unable to remember all of them. But like i said before, the amount of switches to flick on a WWII plane is vastly reduced compared to a modern airframe, so a combination of stick buttons and keyboard will be sufficient for the scope of SoW, so why not include those sub-systems?

To put my money where my mouth is, my FSX buddy just sent me a copy of the PDF manual for the A2A simulations P47 FSX add-on and i'm looking at it right now.
The total amount of controls in the cockpit is 61. This includes the whole nine yards, like things that are already mapped to keyboard or HOTAS (cowl flaps, throttles, prop and micture levers, gear, flaps, manual gear operation), as well as things that are not going to be used in combat, things you either set once and don't bother for the rest of the mission, or stuff that makes sense to do automatically (gunsight on/off switches, navigation fuel selector valves, radio channel selector buttons, altimeter and heading gyro calibration knobs, parking brakes lever and turning on the oxygen system).

Out of the 61 controls i counted, combat related or otherwise critical items that you need to have quick access to are the following:
1) Tailwheel lock
2) Throttle
3) Prop Pitch
4) Mixture
5) Turbo-supercharger lever
6) Water injection, it's automatic, you just turn it on/off and it kicks in when it needs to
7) Landing gear
8 ) Flaps
9) Intercoolers
10) Manual landing gear operation, actually it's a hand-operated hydraulic pump
11) Aileron Trim
12) Elevator Trim
13) Rudder Trim
14) Cowl Flaps
15) Middle hardpoint release
16) Left hardpoint release
17) Right hardpoint release
18 ) Gun Trigger

Don't tell me we don't have enough keyboard shortcuts for a mere 18 freaking functions, especially since most of them already exist in IL2 and are considered pretty basic in all flight sims. Plus, a mid-range HOTAS like the X52 can map more than 100 different functions. As you can see there's no reason not to have them from a practical viewpoint, especially since we already have most of them.
What i've been saying all along is that just because we need a mouse click or an extra keyboard press to switch fuel tanks, this is not enough reason not to include it as a function in the sim.

You could even go ahead and map the entire cockpit to your HOTAS if you can remember the assignments, as it's so much under 100 controls and most planes of the period have nearly identical systems, so you'd probably be good to go for all the fighters with a single setup. You might also use the keyboard a bit more if you only had a stick and not a HOTAS set, or use a mix of keyboard, HOTAS and mouse so that you can relegate the unimportant stuff like the navigation lights or the gunsight switch to the mouse.

That's the main reason someone might like a clickable pit in a combat sim, to reduce the amount of things one needs to map in the controls screen. If i have half two dozen or so functions that i don't need in combat, i could just as well forgo having to map them to my controls and having to remember the assignments because they are simply not critical enough to warrant that. For example, things like that could be the starter switch, magnetos and fuel tank selector.

Perfectly feasible from a practical standpoint and according to Oleg's quote posted earlier, there's already built-in support for it in the game engine.


That's why i think that steering the discussion towards the interface of things is a (possibly unintentional) smokescreen that masks the real question.

What we need as an extra realism option is an improved engine and systems management model, so that they function in a manner that is more realistic than IL2 managed to model 10 years ago. You know, having them actually break and leave you high and dry if you don't know what you're doing like they do in reality, of course with a toggle to turn it off in the realism settings if you don't like such things. That's the crux of the matter and not how we're going to map a measly 18 critical functions to a keyboard and stick combination because we don't like clicking them with the mouse. Saying that this enhanced potential for realism wouldn be an unwelcome addition to the sim is like saying we don't need cockpits, since we already have wonder woman view and cockpits take time to make :-P

EDIT: Now this i seriously don't get
So, just because you don't like it, it should be denied to a significant portion of flight sim fans that would want it? How would it be a disaster for you if you turn it off, fly in servers that turn it off in their difficulty settings and never have to use it? Just like i said before, to me this reads like this: "Those people don't want to play the same way as i do, please force them to use wonder woman view so we can all play on my preferred server using my preferred set of rules and settings. I want to fly and fight, not dance around the canopy bars! What did you say? Oh, right, well...who cares how they want to play, let's all play the way i want to!"

It's a bit ridiculous to try and force your preferrences on others, don't you think? :cool:

Well, I'd have to disagree there. The original question was specifically about the interface. I don't think there is any smokescreen at all.

AS for 'enhanced realism' I'd agree that IL-2 is a little simplistic in the startup sequence, but what practical difference does this make? The objective is to build an air combat simulator, not a compete 24-hour model of the life of a pilot - and often BoB pilots were scrambled into already warmed-up aircraft anyway. Adding endless layers of complexity for the sake of marginal 'realism' improvements is likely to detract from the core performance of the sim - and that is what is going to matter most.

In any case, as I have already stated, using a mouse to control something is less realistic than using an appropriate physical control.

For me, can't you read? To me, should I stand corrected?
Voted no, Just my opinion.
Cmon, I don't want to persuade or change anyone's opinion. Just let go.

I know it's your opinion and you're entitled to to it. Sorry if my post came out looking all mean and aggressive, that was not my intention. It's just that i usually type long posts and do it fast, so sometimes something will slip by my "politeness filter" and end up looking insulting before i know it :-)

So, let me rephrase. If you can turn off a feature that you don't like in the options screen, then why would that feature be a disaster for you?
The only reason i could think of is "let them finish the game already, this is taking too long", but a previous quote by Oleg states that they have already added support for these things in the simulator, so it's already done and won't delay the release of the game any further. I'm not looking to pick a fight here, i'm just genuinenly curious to learn your reasoning behind this since i can't think of any other reason it shouldn't be included. Maybe i'm missing something, who knows? ;)

S!

And if a clicky cockpit is there I am sure it will work using either key strokes or button press as well, at the same time. People most of times oppose anything they are used to, out of their range of habits. I can use clicky cockpit, button or keys..no real matter to me. I am sure Oleg's way implementing will be very straightforward and simple, making it complicated is not his way nor serves anyone.

Blackdog_kt writes:
Um, that isn't how I read what Oleg wrote. He has included general support for the principle (not that difficult in a system already designed for expansion, but he doesn't specify what this 'support' consists of anyway), but that isn't the same thing as it being 'already done'. Implementing and testing it for each aircraft would take time.

If it was 'already done', I can think of no obvious reason why he wouldn't include it, except for possible processing overheads.

pretty gay poll

oleg already stated his reasons ages ago why he didnt think this was a priority in a ww2 combatsim

you really want to add another 6 months in development time with all those silly requests ?

Although I don't think it's essential in this case, I'd like to have it.

But the fact is: 1940 aircraft aren't complex enough to make 'switchology' fun.

Maybe for next Storm of War module, considering they're planning to make it Korea, it will work better.

Zapatista, most requests aren't silly requests. The soul of a flight sim is on detail, and the more options it has, the better it is. But I do agree that, in this exact module, it's not a priority (but still a nice feature to have).

Voted no. For the same reasons already given.

Instead, I'm building my own setup with lots of buttons and levers, not accurate but even more fun.

Oleg has allready commented on this last year saying he doesn't see the benefit in a combatsim and it would require quite alot of work adding it to every plane.

Personally I'd rather see Project Galba (or a Western Europe ; Africa ; ... project) see the light than maddox games and friends working a year on implementing clickable everything in each plane.
I'm pretty sure he will code the needed basics so 3rd party addonmakers can make lovely payable addons with clicky cockpits though.

3rd thread about this subject in about 6months, with very active pro posters who make it seem like almost everyone wants clickable pits...thank god this one has a poll. :)

Well, maybe it's time for another poll to showcase the real question:

Do we want realistic engine and systems management that will cause failures if we exceed the normal operating parameters? I'm not talking about random failures here and keep in mind, all of these should be options that we can turn off in the realism settings. For example, random failures and warm-up would be a nice option for single player but not so good for multi-player, no problem, just select a server that has them turned off. Now warm up in these planes is very fast, but even if it was slow there's the example of RoF, where, most people only use it for single player and the online servers turn it off.

So, this is mainly an issue of added realism with a couple extra options in the realism settings, i don't think anyone in their right mind would try to force the rest of the community to use their choice of settings if they want to fly some other way. It's just like flying in open or closed pit servers, you decide what you like and you make your choices.
The way i think about it, we could have the following realism options about it all:

Random failures: Just what the title says. I can't see this getting much use in multiplayer, but it will give some nice thrills in single player campaigns.

Wear and tear accumulates on the aircraft: Just like the previous one, this will mostly be for single player. Get a cannon shell in your wing and it might snap during a high-G maneuver in the next mission, unless your aircraf is factory overhauled or you get a new one. Stress your engine too much in consecutive missions and after a while the crew chief can't bring it up to factory specifications, again you'll need a factory overhaul or a new engine. Things like that.

Realistic engine operation and limits: Improved over what in IL2 is labeled as CEM. If you don't know what you're doing you'll be able to cause failures, regardless of what the previously mentioned random failures setting is. You could have random failures turned off and still cause your engine to seize if you have this one enabled. It's not random in this case, it's the pilot not knowing how to take care of the engine.

No more flying around with the throttle wide open for extended periods of time, especially at low altitudes where this would exceed the maximum manifold pressure limits.
No more abusing the on/off nature of overheat timers that don't take into account the damage done while in overheat, as long as you manage to stop within 5 minutes the engine condition magically reverts to that of a brand new or recently overhauled engine.
No more possible to dive at high speed for a long time with the engine at idle and the radiators full open without causing damage from shock cooling.
No more exploiting of the faulty prop pitch mechanics to run the engine above it's maximum limits, in reality when the throttle is high and you lower the RPM too much you can destroy the engine because of excessive torque (high RPM=high horsepower, low RPM=high torque).

I'm sure real pilots can provide even more feedback about what is not just simplified, but sometimes totally opposite to the way a real engine operates. These things need to go and a new engine handling model installed that more clolesy mimics real world operating constraints.

Realistic systems and engine management: This is the "flick the switches part. Do it with the keyboard or the mouse, or whichever way you want, but if it is on you'll need to flick the switches somehow (or let your imaginary copilot do some of it for you if you have the next option set to easy). Arm your guns before combat or they won't fire, turn on your gunsight, switch your fuel tanks manually, go through start-up and shut-down sequences, calibrate altimeters, correct the directional gyro drift by referencing the compass and so on.

While this mode is active gauges and instruments may show incorrent readings depending on atmospheric conditions, maneuvering state, speed, engine vibration etc. The RPM needle jitters before stabilizing when you change the prop pitch, the "whiskey" compass spins wildy round when you accelerate or maneuver violently and you have to let it settle down before taking a reading, supercharger turbines don't spool up/down instantly so you have to be gentle with the turbo levers and so on. Most of all, just like in the engine management section, you have to stay within the recommended parameters or risk causing a failure. This will open up a whole new dimension in combat, preserve the good working state of your aircraft's components for when your REALLY need to stress them to escape death.

Automatic start up and shut down: This is a toggle that will enable you to have all the realism options on, but still not do everything yourself if you don't feel like it. Think of it as the automatic start up/shut down sequence in Black Shark, where the engine doesn't magically start but your imaginary co-pilot flicks the necessary switches for you.
This way, if this is enabled you'll be able to join a server where the previous two options are active but you still won't have to do everything by yourself. You will have the option to press the start up key and you'll see the switches getting flicked on their own as the "ghost" co-pilot goes through the start up procedure.

That doesn't mean the engine will magically and perfectly start every time, nor that it will be the most efficient way to do things, or that it will bypass the ability to cause failures because of improper operation of systems. It will just be a means to bridge the gap between those who want to fly full-switch and those who want realistic servers without having to click buttons all the time, but there will be an incentive to go manual.

The incentive is that the automatic start-up will go through the full checklist, while a guy who knows his plane well and does a manual but quick and dirty start up will gain quite some time. In Black Shark, there are people who can manually start the chopper about 30 seconds faster than the automatic start-up can. This will not be so much for WWII birds because they are simpler with fewer buttons to press, but if for example i have just landed and shut my engine off and decide i need to get back up again in a hurry, i can safely skip about 3/4 of the procedure if i do it manually and i won't even need the 10-15 second warm up. The automatic start-up key won't do this though, it will go through the full start-up, so this is an incentive to watch what it does on auto so that you'll learn how to do it yourself in a hurry.




Regardless of the way to control such things in flight, i think this is the main reason you see quite a few people campaign for clickpits, because they are an interface that is generally associated with more in-depth modelling of the aircraft as a whole.

Personally, i don't care if it's a clickable cockpit, a clever system of keyboard commands or a mix between the two and a HOTAS interface. I don't care either if it will be done by Oleg's team a few months after release, or if we will have to edit xml scripts to add clickable zones ourselves.

I just want my engine and the aircraft in general to be more than "swich on engine, maneuver, shoot, repeat", because it's unrealistic for a 2010 simulator, it's gotten less and less satisfying after all these years, it bypasses a whole lot of important decisions that have an importance in matters of tactics and the ability to complete a mission that would coax players into a more realistic way of fighting and it pales in comparison to what other modern simulators can do. Clickpits or not, realistic modelling of certain subsystems is a must for a next-gen simulator.

Blackdog, warming up in Battle of Britain would be a bit unusual, considering Jerry could come at any time. And the mechanic would probably heat it up for you before you jump in, probably.

Random failures would be excellent in both MP and SP. If the server feels like tuning realism up, that might be an excellent one (also, frustrating sometimes, but that's how it was back then)

The weathering, I guess it's only used in campaigns. If there's a multiplayer campaign mode, it should work the same way. Dogfights? I don't think so.

Engine limits are modelled to some point in Il-2. Just try to mess with the engine in a 109 for more than 0,5 second to see what happens.

Realistic systems are something most DCS fans are already used to, and would sure love to see in Storm of War. Indeed a great thing to hav e. No need for clickable and etc., but at least being able to mess with every possible switch in the cockpit is something everyone would like, I guess.

One thought about it: we'll need a freakin' manual of those planes to use this wisely.

The more realistic the flight and systems, the better it is - NO EXCEPTIONS.

Options are the way to go, IMHO

It isn't 'the real question', it's a different question. Why not ask it in another thread. Before you do that though, I'd try to see what Oleg has said on the subject, I think he has already commented on most of this.

I think that this is something that could be dependent on airfield or mission type. It shouldn't be much of a problem to insert such a feature into the code, after initial release.

The engine limits in Il-2 are almost non-existent. There are really only a few quirks modeled to give some planes individuality, but nothing beyond that.
You can break your Bf-109 engine by putting it in over-boost if over 80% power, and you can over-speed your Hurricane engine in a dive. If your engine overheats for 9 minutes, reduce power until you see "Engine:normal" and now you can overheat it again for 9 minutes. Things like oil pressure, fuel pressure, etc mean nothing.

Fly a Dornier in manual pitch and it should give you just a little taste of how involved managing an engine can be. You will probably break it your first time taking off. Still, one can easily apply more throttle than pitch and fly happily, and most engine instruments are just decoration.

Naturally.

I absolutely, 100% agree. As long as Mr.Madox and his team can code it in a reasonable time frame let us have it, i think most of us would buy SoW even if it was priced 50% higher than most gaming titles anyway. Then each one can decide for himself what he likes and what he doesn't, gather with people that share his opinions and fly together online in environments that follow their desired difficulty settings.

Games are all about fun and if whatever relevant feature can be coded and be optional it should make it into the game, i don't think anyone of us has the right to tell the next guy what his idea of fun should include ;)

Known planes with this bug are at least FW-190A9 and Spitfire IXc 25lbs. Most dont do it... The boost engage limit in order to not over-rev(3000RPM or more) the engine is 2000RPM or enabling it instantly after setting power near-0(engine RPM has no time to jump high enough).

Imho the best-modelled prop pitch is in the Bf109E. In vast majority the "prop pitch" is actually engine RPM anyways, and the on-screen message is misleading.

But didnt you know my fun is better than your fun? :grin:

For me clickable cockpits do not equate to realism. Although the clickable cockpit may has a visually accurate representation of the cockpit, for me, the use of the mouse to select the switches is anything but realistic or intuative.

I will, in all probability, continue to use my hotas controls, expand my home-brew BL0836 based switch box and use the keyboard for other less used functions.

Even though the switches aren't in the correct locations, for me, I find it more realistic and imersive. Lets face it wether your flying, driving or using a keyboard, once you train your body to know the position of a physical switch, you don't have to look for it to use it.

cheers!

Clickpits would be nice to have but not essential. Oleg has already said that everything is there in the SOW engine to allow every switch in a pit to be clicked (either through a keystoke or the mouse). However, from what he says he'll be leaving that up to third party developers. I believe he does recognise the need to bring on board the FSX crowd.

As for improved modelling of aircraft sub systems and engine tolerances, I'm with Blackdog all the way. I really hope the developers listen to his views. Again, I'm quite happy if this is provided in later paid for add-on packs.

Optional of course.....

No! IMHO it´s inmersion killer!

Voted NO. Getting fed up with people keep going on about clickable cockpits. I agree with what Oleg has said in the past and his reasons for not going down this line. For none combat sims fine, but not for combat flight sims. Do not expect to be competative in a combat sim if you have a clickable cockpit. If you want clickable, go for none combat sims and leave combat sim alone.

Thank you.

Talisman

If they have touch screen support I think it would be very innovative.. if not.. for me anyway a waste of time.. I'd never use it.. I would like to see every function modelled in the sim with a moveable virtual counterpart though..

Other people like me are getting fed up with people like you who are going on about the "you won't flick switches with your mouse during combat" and can't get it into their heads that there are many phases of flight which do not involve combat. I can understand if sombody sais that he would like to see the developement resources spent otherwise but your "go fly a Cessna" attitude is out of place.

+1

+2

+3

Well said. +1

If there would be a "clickpit" nobody would be forced to use it.
One still could use keymapping to his stick or keyboard(very immersive also).
To deny the possibility of another way indicates a rather limited view and trying to force the limitations,
well Freud would have to say something about that.
Sadly Mr. Maddox doesn't plan to include this option in the first release of SoW:BoB,
but there is hope that he sees the light, and if he doesn't there is the possibility
for 3rd Party Developers to produce this option as an addon.

I think some of you guys want a shoot em up game rather than a simulation. Why don't you go back to playing quake or something.:roll:

I like clickable cockpits. Why should you set-up and remember 100 key combinations for things that are sitting right in front of you in the virtual pit? I understand that combat essential stuf is more helpful assigned on controlers but so many things are right there in front of you. Why should i remember Alt+Shift+X for something that i use once in a while when i can just reach and touch it?

Why should I remember the key combination for turning the gunsight on in my FSX FW190, when I can "press" the switch that is right in front of me on the gunsight. That way I learn the cockpit layout instead of memorizing key combinations. It makes the whole process a lot more natural.
Think about selecting the proper fuel tanks for example. You would have to remember every key combination for every pump and gauge selector switch. You don't need that. You have to just remember where they are in the pit.

Look at this clip from classic Hangar with the start-up procedures for their FSX FW190A8. It may seem complicated at first, but it is very intuitive and easy to remember:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfbU5DtUPb4

I don't get this 'Clickable pit scare".
This doesn't take away from your ability to assign keys and controlers to whatever function you want, but some things are much easier and more natural to use on clickable pit. This also makes you understand the cockpit and aircraft systems better.

I start to feel sick from going in circles all the time.

Clickable cockpits will up the cost of expansion planes and really do little for the sim IMO. Same for realistic startup. It's a simple matter of resource allocation and I'd like to see resources directed towards extra aircraft, maps, ai, FMs etc. so it's a no for me.

Why people keep insisting that it will be like Rise of Flight and FSX, anyway?

If I got it right, it will be just like in Il-2. Only difference is we won't get planes and maps for free with patches, only with upgrades.

And I wouldn't mind paying 5 or even 10 extra bucks for clickable cockpits and realistic start up (although the second one doesn't add much).

I can understand the people saying they prefer to see development resources spent elsewhere. However, i think there's also a misunderstanding floating about.

After the discussions of the last few days i've given it some thought and i think i know why a part of the community advocates clickable cockpits.

For me at least and if get what other people say for them too, what we would want to see is to have the airframes modelled in more detail.
It's not about the procedures per se or the masochism of memorising operating limits, which you really never have to because all of the gauges in military cockpits of the time have markings to indicate what's the normal operating range of pretty much everything, from hydraulics to engine parameters.
I think it is more about the interesting complications that arise from a closer to life-like operation of an airplane. A by-the-book startup might not add much, but what about engine tolerances, oxygen system and so on?

Say you're in a fight at 20000ft in your brand new Bf109 and your oxygen lines get punctured by a hail of .303 fire. In most combat sims this is usually a non-event, something that's not even modelled, but imagine if it was. Let's say you break hard to evade the bouncing fighter, a wingman clears your tail and after a minute or so the fight ends.
However, in the frantic pace of combat you fail to notice the problem, until a little while later you can hear your pilot breathing heavily while not pulling any Gs at all.
A few more seconds pass and the screen is slowly but gradually getting blurry. You take a quick look around the cockpit and see that the O2 pressure gauge is giving a very low indication. Realising what happened, you announce your need to RTB and dive to altitudes below 10000ft.

Things like that will of course complicate flying but will also broaden the ways you can get kills, so in the end it will more or less even out. You might be forced out of a fight because of a tiny malfunction in an otherwise perfectly working airframe, you might do that to someone else and take an enemy out of the fight quick and easy, or you might even come against someone with such a problem and score an easy kill. I think it's not a question of "arcade" vs "artificially harder at any cost", as much as it is a matter of added variety through added realism.

The rest of the discussion springs forth from the need to somehow control all the new features your simulated aircraft comes with. Up till now, most of the sims that feature some sort of complex aircraft subsystems management use clickable pits and that's why there are people advocating it, out of a force of habit.

That doesn't mean it HAS to be this way or more accurately that it is the only way, there are other ways and they can all be combined. And while i understand that many consider a clickpit a waste of programming resources in a combat flight sim, i doubt that they all consider a closer to life operation of an aircraft with all the interesting and varied effects it could produce as an equal waste of time. Combat takes up not the entire flight but a big part of it, addition of certain realistic things to manage will simply give us something to do during the time that there's no combat going on.

I recently made a suggestion in another thread that could probably give us such features while at the same time reducing the time and effort needed to implement them by the developers. We already know from previous updates the airframe operation will be modelled to a greater level of detail. Allowing user input at certain levels of the design will give us the ability to manage things ourselves, without the need to rewrite massive amounts of code. So, assuming that happens, how do we control them? Again, the developing team doesn't have to do it all by themselves.

My suggestion was to keep it simple from this point on and give the community the tools to do the extra bits themselves. If systems mamagement makes it into the release, the easiest and fastest way to provide an interface for it is a branching pop-up menu with sub-options, like the one used for AI wingmen commands with TAB. This could not only be aircraft specific and thus retain a higher level of authenticity, it would also be a trivial affair to do compared to specifying clickable zones for every switch in every cockpit, because it would tie the pop-up commands directly to the switches (which we also know are probably fully animated already). If this is an immersion killer for some, they could use the old method of keyboard and HOTAS commands, or make a clickable cockpit on their own.

We know that there is built-in support for them, so if someone can't live without one he'd be able to make one.All that's needed is a 5-page pdf manual explaining how to add clickzones, which could be as simple as editing a .ini file with a text editor and specifying a set of coordinates with a "clickable" flag. To further simplify things, these coordinates could be the X.Y values for the top left and lower right corners of a rectangle.
For example, open the cockpit layout in an editor of your choice, select the area around the button and copy the coordinates in notepad. Then, go to c:\program files\SoW\interface, open the SpitMKI.ini file and add the following lines

[clickable]
(70,131),(92-155),title=master switch,type=on-off

...save the file and you just made a clickable on/off toggle switch by yourself with a "master switch" tooltip when you hover the mouse over it. You can still map it directly to HOTAS or keyboard, use the popup menu or knock yourself out and go amok on the entire cockpit if you want full clickability, but the best thing is that we get the most functionality and realism with the less amount of extra work for the developers.

With all the hints being dropped along the way about the modability of SoW, this kind of customization potential is something we can reasonably expect. One can build entirely new cockpits with different avionics for FSX by editing text files and resizing a few textures to match dimensions. Personally, i refuse to believe that Oleg, Ilya and their team can't provide customization features on par with a 2006 Microsoft title when they have emphatically stated that the new engine will be highly modable.;)

(quote)
For example, open the cockpit layout in an editor of your choice, select the area around the button and copy the coordinates in notepad. Then, go to c:\program files\SoW\interface, open the SpitMKI.ini file and add the following lines

[clickable]
(70,131),(92-155),title=master switch,type=on-off

...save the file and you just made a clickable on/off toggle switch by yourself with a "master switch" tooltip when you hover the mouse over it. You can still map it directly to HOTAS or keyboard, use the popup menu or knock yourself out and go amok on the entire cockpit if you want full clickability, but the best thing is that we get the most functionality and realism with the less amount of extra work for the developers.

With all the hints being dropped along the way about the modability of SoW, this kind of customization potential is something we can reasonably expect. One can build entirely new cockpits with different avionics for FSX by editing text files and resizing a few textures to match dimensions. Personally, i refuse to believe that Oleg, Ilya and their team can't provide customization features on par with a 2006 Microsoft title when they have emphatically stated that the new engine will be highly modable.:wink:



Very reasonable idea! seems like the best solution to please one and all, I also agree with your other point's

edit: send your ideas to Oleg, I'm not sure he is reading all of the threads

I very much like your ideas Blackdog, and agree with your points. A little more insight from the developers of how clickpit cockpits will be handle by third party on SoW might help on releive this concern on those of us that like clickable cockpits, but i don't think it will happens since they are very busy.

Um, no. If you allow 6DOF head movement, a 'clickzone' needs to have 3-D coordinates. Simplest would be X, Y & Z plus a radius for a spherical zone. To position these correctly you'd need access to the 3-D cockpit model, and software to view it. Unless 1C:Maddox are going to provide the 3-D data, the whole thing is a non-starter for anyone but the most masochistic, or for those who are willing to 'hack' the source: not something the developers would want to encourage.

Once again though, this debate is getting sidetracked from how things are controlled to what controls are available - they are two different issues, and arguing one to support the other just confuses the whole debate.

I was just giving a generic example, you're right that the end result would be a more complicated deal. Still, it's far from impossible and it's how companies like Aerosoft make a good deal of money.

As for hacking the source, i doubt it would be necessary. We've all read in interviews and other snippets of information that there will be tools for 3rd party developers released after the title hits the market.

My point is, that there are more ways than one to skin a cat. The reason people use FSX as an example is that modability is one of the things it does well. If you ever get the chance for some stick time on that, it's very interesting to compare a stock aircraft from the vanilla install with an aftermarket one. They are so far apart by leaps and bounds that the stock MS provided aircraft pale in comparison to certain 3rd party payware and even some freeware. The sounds are better, the graphics are sharper, the FM and systems modelling is better and on top of that all, they are not overly taxing the PC and frame rates are still reasonable despite the added detail. There are also freeware aircraft that are still better than the stock MS ones and nobody had to hack anything to make them. What it did involve was the release of an SDK and some talented hobbyists.

In any case, i think that the people who went through the trouble of modifying a closed engine like IL2 (and did it for free) will be more than willing and able to produce similar or better results with much more ease if they get their hands on officially sanctioned tools with built-in support. That's what i'm advocating in essence, giving the community access to certain tools will not only ease the workload of the development team and draw sales from the civilian sim crowd, it will make for a much more varied experience for all and result in better sales to fund the stream of future expansions.

Maybe i'm reading too much into it and being overly optimistic, but putting together what's been said from official sources during various stages i'm expecting something so modular that it will gradually evolve into a "flight simulator operating system" so to speak. That's pretty exciting if you think about it, especially if the engine is good enough to accomodate all of our possible simming needs as time goes by.

Plus, if there's lots of quality freeware around, competition will result in better and cheaper payware from 3rd parties as well. It's a win-win for everyone.

Voted yes.. and it's the way.
Key options and click. When the dev are doing the click option there is always the key biding.

So you get both.. it doesn't mean that if you have a click sim you will loose the keys.

Simple. the future is ahead.

We have gotten our wish:grin:

In reality to get both isn't simple task as you may think. But we have it.

As an option would be great as well as an alternative to a hotkey. Without sacrificing too much bandwidth/processing power of course!

I know I'll never use it. Way too slow and inefficient.

Shouldn't be using a mouse at all in a CFS imo, except for clicking around on the map I guess, but you don't do that in a dogfight.

Having to click something on the screen to lower flaps would be awful in a dogfight.

Thanks Oleg for giving us click cockpit. I remember before Black Shark that clickpits were a thing of the past, and that they weren't needed, but after Black Shark, and how much it help me to know the avionics using the clickpit, i change my point of view. That's the reason i wanted clickpit, since it seem for the first time we will have in a WW2 sim, aircraft systems and instruments better simulated, and clickpit are IMO one of the best tools to learn them. :)
Also, after some time without flying, you remember better the instrument and its buttons/switches/knobs that the key combinations, and that help to get back on flying faster.

at last we can put this issue to bed...lol

After over 9 years with IL2 there is one thing I've learned. Oleg does pay attention to what people want. All the ridicule and disdainful comments about his lack of response has always been so ill directed.

Indeed. :grin: Thanks Oleg for listening!

Great news, Oleg! I think like in BlackShark I will use a combination of both. For example per startup procedure is clickable great and for combat essential functions I will use the configured controller.

I voted yes. cus it is optional and I like the touchscreen idea ;).

S!

It works just fine in Black Shark so why not in Sow :)

It will be fantastic !

Yes, it has been a very long day on this subject...at least 4 years:grin: nite, nite

To use the mouse?
 

No.

No means no!

It is in, then. Not much to protest in that case for me (I do not mind options, but if resources/development time is limited, I think some things should not be prioritized if at expense of another more important thing).

I guess a mouse will be an option to click stuff, as well as head tracking, or a combination. Head tracking does make things less stable if using them to aim at stuff with. The mouse might be OK (but it moves by itself when using force feedback on the same table!), but it is also affected by the headtracking movement.

I don't want to touch the keyboard under any circumstances when flying. The G940 has loads of buttons that can be programmed, and it might be enough to cover every single function. Only problem is remembering what the buttons do in the three different modes. Printing custom button labels with double or triple markings to indicate which mode the button does what, is in order.

Clickable Cockpits would make things slower, you have to use the Mouse to Click a Switch in the Cockpit, wich is something i really dont see you do that easly in the heat of battle, especialy if your using TrackIR because the view moves with your head so you have to chase the Switch you want to klick around the screen :-P

Keyboard or what ever optional controle you have would be much faster because you just press the key you want instandly.

However i wouldnt be suprised if in the near future games get Touchscreen suport, wich would make a interactive virtual cockpit much more usefull especaily combined with Multi Monitor suport.

WhiteSnake, ever played DCS?

I wasn't really into clickable before I played it, but then I changed my mind.

The mouse and view work independently, so you just look at the panel with your TrackIR/POV hat or whatever you use, pick your switch with the mouse and click, simple as that.

It was just like pilots did. They didn't have to remember "LCtrl+RShift+O" or anything like that. They only needed to know where was what, something easy to do in such simple cockpits, and simple commands as "press"/"pull"/"turn"/"flick". Quite simple, actually.

And for those who dislike it, there's the option of assigning a key command to everything as well, so everyone is happy in the end.

Well, since it's confirmed that it is in as an option, everyone will be able to choose their preferred method.

What i would do is map all the combat-related and critical controls to keyboard/stick: Radiators, throttle/prop pitch/mixture, weapons, flaps, gear, carburator heaters, generally things that i need to get to fast.

Then, i would use the mouse for the non-critical controls, or the controls that are used sparingly (eg, only during start-up and shutdown, or once-twice per mission): fuel tank selectors, magnetos, etc.

This way i will have a fast way to interact with the critical controls that exist on 99% of the aircraft, are similar and will be easy to remember, but at the same time i won't have to map an absurd amount of commands that i won't be able to remember for aicraft specific controls that change between different flyables.

For example, some aircraft might have an all-in-one de-icing system and some might have a separate one (wing de-ice, prop de-ice, canopy heater and so on).
Some people with good HOTAS setups might be able to map everything, but i sure wouldn't want to have to remember that ctrl+H is the wing de-ice,alt+H is the prop de-ice, shift+H is the canopy heater and that only applies to 3 flyables, because when i fly something else it has an all-in-one system that i toggle with ctrl+alt+shift+H. Much in the same way, even if i had a programmable HOTAS i wouldn't waste my time mapping things like that, cluttering up my interface and having to remember to use shift-buttons and mode selector switches.
Much easier to know the place of the switch in the cockpit and click it, because all i'll ever need to do is turn it on once on the climb-out and turn it off once before landing.

The clickpit might be slow and not practical for critical controls, but it is very useful for the non-critical or support aircraft systems because it cuts down enormously on the amount of shortcuts i have to remember.

Exactly, so they didn't have to look at the switch they were operating. So the need to look at the switch to operate it is actually not working in favor of the overall immersion.

@Zorin

be assured that a pilot always looks at the switches he is using, you would too if your life can be forfeit by a simple error.

voted for no. its just clishe which is nice few times and thats it. also its clumsy so it would not be used in combat sim. not really needed in this kind of sim.

I wouldn't risk shutting down the left fuel pump, or doing even worse crap when trying to shut down the nav lights, for example.

And for those who said it's "clumsy" and doesn't work in a combat sim, do yourself a favour and try any combat sim with this feature before saying it. It's really worth it ;)

For those with bad memory (like me), it makes things a lot easier than having to remember and map 200 commands for stuff you could just click at :-P

Because you always look at your gear leaver when shifting, just so you don't end up in reserve...

Pilots spent in most cases their whole war career in one type of plane, with several thousand hours of flight, do you honestly believe they would look at each single switch they operate??

Especially in the Luftwaffe types most stuff is automated and others have a wide range of limiters, so you couldn't operate most switches in a way that would harm the plane/engine.

Many switches are placed so close to each other that you can't operate them without a short look, even in my simple car and especially in WW2 fighter.

Just look at the two Co2 bottles in the F4U cockpit (no 13), placed directly beneath each other. One is for emergency landing gear extension the other for purging the fuel vapor from the wingtanks before combat. Would you risk to accidentally open the wrong bottle?

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/F4U/F4UCPL.gif

Even in the 109 the position of quite a few switches and levers changed with the different versions.
Also in this SIMULATION that BoB:SoW will be the majority of flight-time will be Starting, landing, cruising. The time for battle is severely limited by the fuel situation.
So there will be enough boring minutes that can be filled by operating a clickpit, and one will shurely nurse ones 109 back home with the engine running at max endurance with the fuel warning light on.

Look at it this way... hopefully

If the cockpit is clickable that means there won't be some big knees, hands or feet blocking the cockpit views. I don't know about the moving stick, but I hope it's gone as well. The moving rudder pedals are out of the way, so I don't care if they are moving.

I've always hated a big pair of hands, the stick or knees blocking the view of instruments. I recall trying to see the slip and ball when it is obstructed by the stick and a big hand wrapped around it.

Then of course I've done most of my Il2 flying by using a trackball (mouse) with my left hand for viewing. The mouse being tied to views will probably force us to use a free-track or Track IR for viewing, because the mouse will be used for moving around the cockpit and clicking.

So... I don't see a possible way to use the mouse for viewing and clicking at the same time. Maybe possible, but I don't see it.

Regardless, it probably isn't a bad thing for users to have to cough up another $200 for a Track IR, afterall we need to support the suppliers that are supporting us. LOL

I have have an aversion to track IR, because they keep banging on us with so called improved versions. They could have just released the software like CH Products and we could use the parts for years, but no they make miniscule changes in the hardware and stick us for another big chunk of money. I always considered Track IR a rip off for this reason alone, not because of product quality.

Now it would appear with Track IR making moves to exclude competition by including special software hooks in game applications and TrackIR software to exclude options like Free-track we'll have to pay to see.

I totaly agrea with that 100%
Its also funny that if you mention an alternative to TrackIR like Free-Track on the UBI forums your post gets removed and you get a warning your not alouwed to discus it on there...

In a Dogfight a Pilot is Not going to look at the Switch or Lever he needs to operate, They design a Cocpit in such a way the Pilot can easly use them with out having to look, some switches, levers are also designed in such a way you cant engage them accedently or by how they feel or by a safety device.
Basicly all the things you would need in a Dogfight are configured in such a way that you didnt need to look at them, and in somecases the Cockpit panel would have an indication of the setting its on also.

Think about your Car, wen you need to use the indicators, whipers, or headlights/highbeam/lowbeam etc. or change gears your not looking at the switches and levers your operating also (i hope) you just do that automaticly and to help you there are lights on your instrument pannel indicating if the lighrts etc are on or not.

Maybe someone will make a Controle Pannel in the future you can use on a Seperate Touchscreen to controle all the difrent functions of the Aircraft, and wen you change to a model or country the pannel changes apearance and functions.

Some people are hopeless!
There is NOT only black and white!!!
NOBODY is forced to use the mouse for flaps, power, firing the guns, prop-pitch etc...
Those controls will still be on the hotas!!! except if one is a hidden masochist and likes to loose all fights:-D
SoW:BoB will have so many additional switches and levers that have to be used in "full real" settings that most hotas systems wont have enough buttons!
It is easier to remember a position in a cockpit and use the mouse than to remember ,say 30, new, obscure key combinations.

I don't think the study of ergonomics was as advanced in late 30's as it is now and standardisation was anything but common when laying out aircraft cockpits. ( Just look in the IL2 aircraft guide!).

Conversion onto type was a fairly detailed process even switching from one mark of an aircraft to another which is why even to this day you need to get endorsements on your licences before flying a new type of plane.

Hey, even switching between European and Australian cars will have you flicking on the wipers when you wanted to indicate!! We don't automatically know where a switch will be, (It's not allways logical, sometimes they were just put where they fitted) We have to learn where they are. And jumping from one plane (or car for that matter) can lead to mistakes (possibly fatal!).

Fortunately with a fairly small plane set it shouldn't take too long to learn our cockpit layouts.


I for one will be mapping all my essential functions to my HOTAS and switch pannel.

Cheers!

It might be interesting to run a similar poll after the clickable cockpits are out for a while. It makes no difference now, since it appears they will be included.

Then again, as I mentioned in a previous posting that Track IR is maneuvering in the flight and air combat flight simulation community. I just hope there is allowance for the mouse to be used as before for viewing, if we choose not to use click cockpits. If we can't use a mouse for viewing with the clickable cockpits I'd say Track IR has pretty well created an annuity for themselves, coupled of course with forcing out applications like Free-track.

The Free-track works very well, if you build a good L.E.D. headset. So... The hooks programmed into the Track IR and applications are intended to prohibit the use of anything like a free-track. Coupled with the autocratic maneuvers at places like Ubi to prohibit talk about Free-track I'd say there is a kind of battle being waged to prevent applications like Free-track. It may be that clickable cockpits play a major role in Track IR strategy.

I don't believe Oleg would conspire and program hooks into BOB SOW to force us to use Track IR.

(quote)
It might be interesting to run a similar poll after the clickable cockpits are out for a while


Another good gauge will be the activity (or lack of) on the "full click servers" if they appear:grin:...I think the click will invite many new faces to our little world, the possibilities for 1C/third parties will be huge.

Oleg might have given some serious thoughts to possibly making a flight simulator, WW2 genre. He has all the makings, especially with the coming weather on the fly, navigation and clickable cockpits.

Afterall, MSFT is out of the picture and the old WW2 warbirds have always been a popular addition to MSFT FS. Afterall, you can't really have a flight simulator without clickable cockpits.

The A2A simulations is still creating warbirds for the MSFT FSX. So, yeah, this might bring in a whole new crowd from the MSFT FS community. I think it could probably be a windfall, if Oleg plays his cards right.

He could introduce some warbirds that have civilian roots and work his way into the "purist" Flight Simulator world

This can be solved by making the mouse independent of view, if only developers would consider it. If I put mouse on a button and then look around, as long as I don't touch the mouse, it should remain over that same button. This way it is more like a real human hand that can be positioned in cockpit and turning head should never ever ever move hand! Then no problem with unstable view.

I would say it in a more polite way, but basically i agree. It has nothing to do with the fact that a pilot has or doesn't have to look down into the cockpit before flicking a switch. It's all about having the option to model an aircraft and its operation in high fidelity and detail, while at the same time not having to map and remember 200 different keybindings and HOTAS controls.

Like i said before, important stuff stays on keyboard and stick, not-so-important or things that i don't want to accidentally toggle stay on the mouse.

Now, as for the necessity of TrackIR in this, if the inteface is "smart" you won't need to buy one. Take RoF for example, a title that i'm not really a fan of for many reasons, but still has some nice features. One such feature is the custom snap-views. Move your camera to see what you want to see, hold down one of the keypad keys, press F10 and it's memorized. The interesting part in this is that when you are holding down the key to activate the snap-view, any kind of panning via mouse or TrackIR is disabled, which gives you a steady picture. Also, each plane has it's own set of different custom views, they are saved as entries in a text file because they are simply a set of coordinates.

Now, add to this the ability to toggle the "hand" cursor on/off to toggle between mouse for panning the camera and mouse for clicking stuff and you're set, maybe by pressing the middle mouse button or any other key you want to map to it.

For example, let's say i map the left cockpit console to keypad 4. I'm flying a FW190 and because i don't consider the "initialize kommandogerat" lever a critical control i haven't mapped it to my stick or keyboard. All that lever does is set mixture to rich and "calibrate" the automatic kommandogerat system for engine start, ergo i have to use ONCE per flight. So, i'm going to click it because i don't want to map and memorize a keyboard shortcut that is only relevant to ONE instance per mission in ONE airframe. Let's say i also don't have a TrackIR. There are two ways to do this:

1) Pan with the mouse to the left, press middle mouse to toggle the "virtual hand", click on lever, press middle mouse again to resume panning or even faster...
2) Press middle mouse button to toggle the "virtual hand", hold down keypad 4 (the shortcut we had defined earlier as the left console snap-view), click lever, press middle mouse again, release keypad 4 and the view snaps back to where it was.

Sorry to have to spell this out in such detail, but i'm getting the idea that a lot of people have the wrong idea that they'll have to click stuff all the time. Maybe it's lack of imagination or they simply haven't tried anything apart from IL2 the last 10 years but trust me, it's way easier than most people think and definitely easier to remember than a full out "all things on HOTAS and keyboard" approach. I mean Jesus, i'm not going to look down so that i can click the gun triggers on the stick in a dogfight, but i sure as heck like to have the option of not having to remember 200 different key combinations either. Neither interface on its own is superior, but when going for high fidelity modelling and including things like carb heaters, fuel pumps and the like, a mix of the two works really well.