![]() |
|
IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator. |
View Poll Results: CLICKABLE COCKPITS - | |||
YES - CLICKABLE COCKPITS |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
124 | 51.24% |
NO - CLICKABLE COCKPITS |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
118 | 48.76% |
Voters: 242. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
![]() 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 ![]() 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? ![]() Last edited by Blackdog_kt; 02-09-2010 at 02:39 AM. |
|
|