Poll: Interactive Cockpits

[SlipBall]

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.

Please do remember that many of those that fly MS are real pilots. They enjoy the challenge's and rewards of proper aircraft managment. I know that I do! Also keep in mind the Sukhoi Su-26, and the co-pilot feature promised for SOW. Throw in mapable complex aircraft management, and those MS pilots would be drawn like moth's to a fire, and greatly increase sales for Oleg's sim.When I fly my Messerschmitt, I want as many of the challenges possible in a sim, as those pilots experienced back then. Will I turn it off sometimes, of course I will. All that is needed is a difficulty switch to disable. Remember also that MS did so well in sales because people, especilly pilots want as much "real" as possible, out of a sim

[TheFamilyMan]

I agree that the choices are too polar. I like the clickable cockpit of FSX solely for learning more about the aircraft. In practice I rarely use them, but on occassion for something different I'll "reach over" to adjust the prop pitch or set the radio. But hey, that is for recreational/civil stuff. In combat, I need to do something now and not fiddle with a mouse so in that sense it is completely useless. I won't say it'd be a waste though, for my above reason. As far as immersion goes, IMHO a good HOTAS or cockpit sim setup trumps fiddling with a mouse.

[VMF-214_HaVoK]

Should have had more choices in your poll. Its a great immersive feature but it is also in a sense a waste of time for what a Oleg sim is. He explained his reason well and I agree for the most part but even so it is indeed a immersive feature. So both choices in your poll are correct.

S!

[revi]

I would like it as an option as I think it would add more immersion, but I dont think that current technology ( using mouse, buttons or even touch screens) simulates the process well enough. Maybe we should make some futuristic suggestions of hardware development which might take us to a new level. Like....maybe an eye tracking device that tracks movement of your eye, so you need only to look at the instrument you want to move. Then in conjunction with a universal hat switch you can control that switch/dial or lever. That way you can control everything thru your eyes and 1 switch on your joystick?

[Abbeville-Boy]

Originally Posted by revi

I would like it as an option as I think it would add more immersion, but I dont think that current technology ( using mouse, buttons or even touch screens) simulates the process well enough. Maybe we should make some futuristic suggestions of hardware development which might take us to a new level. Like....maybe an eye tracking device that tracks movement of your eye, so you need only to look at the instrument you want to move. Then in conjunction with a universal hat switch you can control that switch/dial or lever. That way you can control everything thru your eyes and 1 switch on your joystick?

that would be amazing, oleg can i have that please please, ha ha ha

[TX-EcoDragon]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

. . .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 hope this doesn't sound rude. . .but it doesn't really matter if *you* don't get it. It's not your bag. . .and that's fine. That said, there are many who do get it, and it is their bag. . . in fact many, many, more than there are here playing IL-2.

Originally Posted by ElAurens

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 still don't see why this has to be an argument about server difficulty. If people can map things to joysticks and keyboards as they do now, plus have the option to do some things on the panel, what's the harm? Where is the need for a totally different server setting?

[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?

[Sturm_Williger]

Have to vote - No.

I remember this feature in B17 the Mighty Eighth. I learned how to go through the complete startup for all 4 engines on the B17. It was fascinating ... but I only did it about 3-4 times.

The same would be true here ( except for more a/c to learn of course ). Therefore it's a resource and programming-time hog that would not justify itself. IMO.

[mondo]

No thanks. Too much of a pain in the ass. besides, how is clicking on something in a cockpit with a mouse any better/immersive than pressing a buttons on a keyboard? I don't know many planes that are controlled by a mouse.