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

Hi all,

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


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

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

Cheers

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

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

Not for me thanks

Nothing realistic about "clickpits" at all.

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

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

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

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

Flyingbullseye

Black Shark has only one cockpit right?

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

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

Happy landings,

Talisman

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clickable cockpits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Must we wait longer....
 

If you want checklists, create each one:

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

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

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

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

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

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

PEACES

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

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

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

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

CS. :)

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


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

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

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

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

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

Cheers, MP.

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

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

Three things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Was discussed before re start up procedure

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...=2039&page=151

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

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

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

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

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

How bout the SU-26
 

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

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

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

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

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

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


http://www.a2asimulations.com//wings...27s_Manual.pdf

http://www.a2asimulations.com//wings...sim_Manual.pdf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DING! DING! DING!

A Winnah!!!!!

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

Boring "gameplay" thy name is FSX.

good stuff Antoninus
 

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

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

Flyingbullseye

Let's remember why Oleg does what he does.

Shoot first, admire landing gear compression later.

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

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

Interesting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+1...

+2

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

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

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

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

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

It would be great to have it.

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

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

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

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

Guess I'm not getting it said. LOL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Really.

:rolleyes:

Section II -- Allison Starting Procedures

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

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

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

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

Standard Stopping Procedure

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

Correction for Over Primed Engine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+1

Well put too.

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

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

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


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

+100000000000000

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

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

@jasonbirder

+1

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

+ 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm totally wiht Bearcat on this as well.

Using a mouse is gamey, at best.

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

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

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

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

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

So be immersed in another sim?


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

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

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

2.Oleg does like function bind to key

3.He does not like the mouse click thing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We all need to keep open minds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SlipBall,

Good post. Nail and head come to mind.

Happy landings,

Talisman

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

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

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

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

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

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

What I really want.....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I WANT MY SIM!!!!!

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

Just not on release.


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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spot on

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

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

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

Clickable cockpits are not a good idea for combat flight simulation

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

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

Yes we like clickable cockpits.
 

Yes we like clickable cockpits.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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