|
|
#91
02-11-2009, 09:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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.
|
|
#92
02-12-2009, 10:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
They are thinking "When will the game actually come out"
|
|
#93
02-13-2009, 01:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. Last edited by TX-EcoDragon; 02-13-2009 at 02:59 AM.
|
|
#94
02-13-2009, 01:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#95
02-13-2009, 02:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 . 
|
|
#97
02-13-2009, 04:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
|
#98
02-13-2009, 06:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#99
02-13-2009, 10:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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) Quote:
I understand that some do... but it's far to be generalizes as you pretend. Quote:
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.
|
|
#100
02-13-2009, 10:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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...
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
