Poll: Interactive Cockpits

[ElAurens]

Somehow I find it hard to believe (and it's possible I'm quite wrong about this) that anyone who thinks that piloting a flying cattle car for 6 hours in a simulation is "fun" is going to find anything they like in a combat simulator. What are they gonna do for that amount of time in a WW2 bird? No ATC to chat with, no autopilot to take over when nature calls, or the phone rings. Of course there won't be many aircraft with that kind of range anyway in BoB.

I'm just trying to understand this type of virtual flying. I have FSX, and after the "new" wore off, it just sits on my HD now, collecting virtual dust. I don't know what I'm supposed to do with FSX other than fly around doing, well, nothing. But I digress.

I'm not against a more immersive and detailed experience in the cockpit, but there has to be some sort of middle ground, some scalability that will allow all of us to have our cockpit options and still fly on the same servers. I sure don't want to be stuck in "kiddy car" servers just because I don't want to use a "clickpit".

I have DVDs of the training films for most of the USAAF combat types flown in the war, and after watching them I will say that if absolute strict startup, fuel management, etc... proceedures are enforced you won't ever see a P-38 in the virtual sky again.

That thing is an ergonomic nightmare.

[Supah]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

Somehow I find it hard to believe (and it's possible I'm quite wrong about this) that anyone who thinks that piloting a flying cattle car for 6 hours in a simulation is "fun" is going to find anything they like in a combat simulator. What are they gonna do for that amount of time in a WW2 bird? No ATC to chat with, no autopilot to take over when nature calls, or the phone rings. Of course there won't be many aircraft with that kind of range anyway in BoB.

I'm just trying to understand this type of virtual flying. I have FSX, and after the "new" wore off, it just sits on my HD now, collecting virtual dust. I don't know what I'm supposed to do with FSX other than fly around doing, well, nothing. But I digress.

I'm not against a more immersive and detailed experience in the cockpit, but there has to be some sort of middle ground, some scalability that will allow all of us to have our cockpit options and still fly on the same servers. I sure don't want to be stuck in "kiddy car" servers just because I don't want to use a "clickpit".

I have DVDs of the training films for most of the USAAF combat types flown in the war, and after watching them I will say that if absolute strict startup, fuel management, etc... proceedures are enforced you won't ever see a P-38 in the virtual sky again.

That thing is an ergonomic nightmare.

Hey way to talk down people from the FSX community. Yeah let's be rude and offensive that's one sure way to draw in new players to this game and make Oleg loads of money. I for one would love to see C-47's etc. and perhaps troop gliders piloted by real players online or on LAN games. Operating a bomber requires a lot more instruments and controls then a single engine fighter and I think a clickpit would be a real boon for the bomberboys (and galls).

It's not like because of a lot of controlls being useable by clicking the cockpit that you will not be able to map them to a key on the keyboard or to a button, axis or slider on your throttle. I use a HOTAS too in FSX and have almost all the buttons mapped, I still use the clickpit for a lot of functions like adjusting the fuelselector, fiddle with radio's and adjusting the navigational instruments. In a real plane (well the ones I can afford to fly anyway ) I need to reach out to adjust the barometric pressure on the altimeter too, that takes about as much time as it does to put the mouse cursor on it. Same goes with transponder, HSI gyro drift etc.

To those saying it is merely a gimmick, I use the clickpits in FSX and Falcon 4 on every mission. I start ever flight or misson cold and dark. Having the overly simplified startup procedures you have now is way more unrealistic then a clickpit will ever be, even a awfully implemented one. This is not a procedural training thing, I can have falcons jet running in seconds, it doesn't take forever and I don't even need a check list anymore (though IRL for safeties sake and the fact that there is no refly button you should use it when at all possible). I urge people to try sims with this feature like FS2004, FSX and Falcon 4 Allied force before they pass judgement on this feature. The numbers of this poll do not lie, a third of users who voted wants it, I think it's rather foolish to ignore such a large part of your customer base. Add to that people coming from other communities like FSX who might be interested in say the Tiger Moth might be a bit turned off by this omision.

[robtek]

@supah
please do not forget that what is posted here are opinions of individuals.
You do not have to share them, but you must accept them.
In my own personal opinion i find it also very boring to fly a cessna or a boeing
in a civil - Flightsim once the new has worn off.
But thats it, my opinion. I didn´t say that civil - FS - Fans are queer or something.
I just stated what i like and like ElAurens didn´t "talk down the people of the FSX community"

[nearmiss]

If we had a change for every tweak like this one...

Did you know there a players, like myself that can use both hands competently.

I fly with a MSFT FF2 stick in my right hand, a Kensington Expert Mouse (trackball that looks like a queball) on my left hand, and keyboard between.

http://us.kensington.com/html/2200.html

I use the trackball for viewing. I have used it now since Il2 1.0. I click on the #2 button on my joystick or #5 on number pad to go front and center for targeting and I move my index and middle finger tips across the trackball (slight movements) and it moves my view very quickly and I can see as well as anyone using a TrackIR and I never have a stiff neck. I don't have to make sure I hold my head still or not move my head from side to side. I don't lose situational awareness, if I fly with the cockpit just like someone flying TrackIR. I like the trackball, because where I move my view... it stays until I move it.

You cannot use the mouse viewing and have the mouse clickble cockpits. In fact, in MSFT flight simulators (FSX) you either use the TrackIR or POV only. In the old CFS2 you could only use the POV. I don't remember if it is the same in CFS3 I put that "dog down" about a month after I bought it.

So, just because someone thinks it's a simple thing to just add some new thing like mouse clickable cockpits they should realize there are plenty of other people affected.

The most difficult part of flying as I do.. is learning to competently use your left hand. Actually, it isn't that difficult to do... not near as difficult as writing with your left hand. The human mind is amazing I was using the trackball very competently in a very short time.

[Antoninus]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

You cannot use the mouse viewing and have the mouse clickble cockpits.

The solution is a simple button to switch mouse view control On/Off, just as the toggle Snap/Pan View command we have now. It works very well in this way in FSX (Shift + o per default).

[RockStar]

I fly Shockwaves BoB on occasion and I love the clickable pits for startup procedures, it adds a little somthing special IMO.

[Supah]

Originally Posted by robtek

@supah
please do not forget that what is posted here are opinions of individuals.
You do not have to share them, but you must accept them.
In my own personal opinion i find it also very boring to fly a cessna or a boeing
in a civil - Flightsim once the new has worn off.
But thats it, my opinion. I didn´t say that civil - FS - Fans are queer or something.
I just stated what i like and like ElAurens didn´t "talk down the people of the FSX community"

Calling what these guys fly cattle cars etc. isn't exactly friendly If you find flying a cessna boring you should try it IRL once, it mightly look mundane and lowely but for the first 100 hours a cessna is more then able to scare you to death believe me The percentage of people that want clickpits and that don't is approaching 50/50 now, I think that should be more then enough argument for Oleg.

[ElAurens]

Been on an airliner lately, they are indeed cattle cars...


Besides, many of the guys I know in the industry call them that.

Methinks your skin is a bit thin supah. I mean no disrespect to FSX flyers. I just don't understand the lure of that sim is all.

I too would like to see flyable transports in SOW. I've wanted them from the start of IL2. Also more flyable large aircraft of all types, flying boats in particular.

As to control functionality, I don't care what anyone uses, as long as I am not forced into one particular type of setup.

That is my only concern.

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

As to control functionality, I don't care what anyone uses, as long as I am not forced into one particular type of setup.

That is my only concern.

That's the whole point actually. I'm not simply advocating clickpits to the expense of everything else, instead i'm advocating a hybrid between clickpit only and keyboard/HOTAS only. If 99% of the necessary functions could be interchangeably manipulated either via keymapping or clicking the switch in the pit, everyone would be happy. Let's not get this polarised when there's no reason to

As for the procedures part...if it really is such a bore to the majority of players, i'm sure there will be enough servers to cater to that, without being oversimplified.

I seriously doubt that servers with a strong community base that uses forum polls for the slightest change will overlook that. If people want to do away with a detailed start up procedure, that doesn't mean the entire realism settings screen will be switched to off.

I doubt it will end up being a choice between a realistic server with detailed procedures and a server with single-key engine starts that also allow externals, simplified gunnery and/or unlimited fuel and ammo. In fact, i bet that most of the dogfight servers will be running just like they do now, ie full physics/FM difficulty enabled, no externals and single-key engine starts. Why? Well, because they're dogfight servers, the maps are small and going through a 1-2 minute checklist when the enemy spawns 5 minutes away from raiding your base and kill you on the ground will make it no fun. So i guess there should be no need to worry really.

But things like these will add a lot of immersion for offline players, especially if the campaigns are well made, and they will also draw a lot of new people into the game, people who are more concerned with procedural fidelity and flying the plane as close to real life as possible.

It's not a question of which style of gameplay is better, this is a personal choice for everyone of us. It's simply a question of accommodating as many different gameplay styles as possible to secure a wider customer base and a product that will better stand the test of time. I know that i would probably fly with detailed procedures offline and not online, but there's no harm having a choice as long as the developers have the time available to do it. Who knows, maybe after 2-3 years of playing the new sim we will all start to crave that extra bit of challenge and fly online with complex procedures enabled as well.

Guess what, you just got yourself a new game for free as you now have to learn each warbird from scratch. It will also open up a lot of rock-paper-scissors tactical scenarios with mid and late war planes. Do i prefer a solid performing aircraft with an increased workload like the P47, or do i choose a 190 with a (hopefully correctly done) 100% automatic system that will struggle at high alt but give me a reduced workload? I don't know what others think, but i'm totally intrigued by such things.

[wjc103]

Two questions on this topic:

#1 What kind of development time/effort does it take for all thee features?

#2 What potential for other things of interest would be lost by that time/ effort being spent?