Vote your choice - Clickable Cockpits or Not

[HFC_Dolphin]

Definitely NO.
And it's of the very few times that I won't bother arguing in the forum.
Simple as that: no clickable cockpit please.

[SlipBall]

No to the mouse, yes to the programed key's

[Blackdog_kt]

Jesus, some of you guys are dogmatic or what?
The amount of switches included in Black Shark is so huge compared to a WWII fighter, that you could probably do all of the cockpits for the 11 flyables planned for SoW in the same amount of time. Nobody's forcing you to like it or use it, or telling you how to use it (mouse clicks or keyboard and stick buttons).
So, If you don't have to use it, why does it bother you if the rest of us get the option to?

Originally Posted by nearmiss

Blackdog

Do you have any idea how much work it would be to setup ever cockpit for all the aircraft we have in IL2.

Do you have any idea how difficult it would be to move between aircraft as a player. You'd practically have to marry one aircraft and stay with it or relearn all the controls and locations of those controls every time you attempted to fly the aircraft.

The startup sequence would run off users faster than you could give the software away for free.

The level of difficultly would take a air combat sim game that is pretty darn extraordinary for the genre and turn it into almost "full real" flight simulator. That is not what IL2 is about.

Airmailik above has the answer. Go buy the Black Shark and you'll have what you want. Remember how long it takes the devs to produce one aircraft, and think about how long it takes to become familiar enough with each aircraft to fly and fight with it well enough. Then you add on the weapons systems, counter-measures, radars, etc.

Most enthusiats of IL2 enjoy the WW2 genre air combat, because technology wasn't too developed. The aircraft were powerful enough, weapons were powerful enough, navigation wasn't a brain drain, flying and fighting required more skill than techno management.

No ill will against you, but i disagree completely. What you state is a perfectly respectable personal opinion, one that my opinion is directly opposite to. I'm not trying to convince you that my opinion holds more merit either.

What i'm saying is very simple but i'll have to say in the simplest of words and it might sound offensive to some. Let me assure you that it's not my intention to offend anyone, but i think that i'm not getting through because of my efforts to say it in pretty words and be polite, so i'll be blunt for a change. Again, this doesn't make you lesser sim pilots and it doesn't make me a better sim pilot, but it will sound bad even if i don't intend it to. So, now that we're done with disclaimers, what i'm trying to say is that the logic you outlined is exactly what i talked about before, it's what i feel is holding back the propeller era sims and dumbs them down.

I don't want to go fly Black Shark, because i too like simpler aircraft. What i want is to have the option to use a version of these aircraft that closely mimics the original in its entire operation and not just the parts of it that relate to shooting, because there are a dozen extra parameters that can affect survival and mission completion that i feel i'm missing out on. If you don't want it, you have the option to turn it off from the realism settings and fly IL2 with updated graphics and FM/DM. Nobody is going to hold it against you and it's not a criterion of superiority, after all sims are still games and each person is entitled to their fun.

So, my question to the people who object to this is as follows. Why do you want to force on the rest of us a style of gameplay that we find obsolete, less challenging and dumbed down, when it's clear that if we get it it won't be mandatory for you to use?

The only real reason one could argue against this is development time, but i think the argument doesn't hold much water, first because we've seen every nut and bolt modelled on vehicles that we will never have the chance to admire as we scream past at 300mph on a strafing run, and then because of certain bits of information that have surfaced.
From what we've seen in screenshots the past few months, there are a lot of HUD messages that mention specific aircraft subsystems so it seems they are infact already modelled.

If they are already in the game engine, all it takes is a patch 6 months after release to enable them and then the community will take it from there, making clickpit mods and HOTAS scripts for people to use them whichever way they find comfortable, whether that be mouse clicks, HOTAS buttons or telepathy. We don't care how it's done, we would just like to see it at some point and it will propel the title and the entire genre forward. You want a combat flight sim, i want a combat flight sim with a few extra goodies, the only difference is a couple of options in the realism settings and we can both fly the way we like.

I don't see what the problem is here, apart from development time which again, i think is a moot point if these things already exist in the game engine.

P.S. It seems they already are, i missed that post,thanks.

Originally Posted by Antoninus

That's not quite correct. Olegs latest statement about this issue quoted below says
something different. But I agree since the decision was already made it's pointless
to discuss this any further. Sometime in future the naysayers can convince
themselves that clickable cockpits can be indeed useful in a combat flight sim.

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.ph...ml#Post2732404

So, i guess we're all happy, both versions will be possible. If the two cockpit versions are also compatible online then the problem is solved

[genbrien]

I voted no....
as many mentioned... it would take extra time that could be alocated elswere.
BUT
maby make the SOW engine capable of, so 3rd party developpers can do som clickpit n the future.
Could be cool on bombers though....

[AndyJWest]

So, my question to the people who object to this is as follows. Why do you want to force on the rest of us a style of gameplay that we find obsolete, less challenging and dumbed down, when it's clear that if we get it it won't be mandatory for you to use?

Using switches/keyboard/buttons etc to operate a control isn't 'dumbed down' at all - if anything it is more realistic than using a mouse. Real cockpits have switches, buttons, and levers. I've never seen a computer mouse in a cockpit...

The reason I think it would be a mistake to include it in stock BoB is because most people are unlikely to want to use it in a combat context, so they will have to have the controls on a key or whatever anyway. Adding an 'option' that is of limited use will just add to the complexity of an already complex program - one more delay in development, one more thing to test (for each aircraft), and one more thing to produce potential bugs. A properly-done clickable cockpit might also cause a further overhead in processing time.

In any case, if Oleg has said he isn't including it in the stock game, but 3rd parties may be able to add it, if there is a market for it, it will be provided for those that want it.

[=PF=Coastie]

Big fat no from me. But "touchable" cockpit switches....maybe!

Touch screens are getting more and more popular, so this may be cool to have in a WWII combat sim.

I can see this in a civ flight sim as it is a learning tool. Who needs to learn the switches on these birds. We sure as heck aren't ever going to fly them.

[=815=TooCooL]

Loved Black Shark at the time of release for a few months but finally I realised button-fetish clickable cockpit never gives essential fun.
After all, enjoying all that steep learning curve with manual and videos and practise, I eventually lost interest to all the procedures like warming up, turning off and just mapped essential keys onto my HOTAS and forgot clicking afterward.
I admit it was damn cool for a month, but just that.
Even an option for it in SOW is disaster for me.
I might live with it cause I'm a hardcore but what about other flight gamers (I mean, those lovely preys )? Explain plane by plane every sortie in online? Click bottom right switch.. not there.. no.. upper one... doh!

I want flight simulator, not a procedure simulator.

Don't worry. Oleg already remarked firmly he would never include mouse-clicking cockpit.

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Using switches/keyboard/buttons etc to operate a control isn't 'dumbed down' at all - if anything it is more realistic than using a mouse. Real cockpits have switches, buttons, and levers. I've never seen a computer mouse in a cockpit...

The reason I think it would be a mistake to include it in stock BoB is because most people are unlikely to want to use it in a combat context, so they will have to have the controls on a key or whatever anyway. Adding an 'option' that is of limited use will just add to the complexity of an already complex program - one more delay in development, one more thing to test (for each aircraft), and one more thing to produce potential bugs. A properly-done clickable cockpit might also cause a further overhead in processing time.

In any case, if Oleg has said he isn't including it in the stock game, but 3rd parties may be able to add it, if there is a market for it, it will be provided for those that want it.

I don't disagree with the first part of your post, in fact i do think it is preferrable to have it mapped to keyboard or HOTAS, especially if we're talking about combat related and critical functions. What i mean by dumbing down the game is to exclude the possibility of modelling aircraft sub-systems in detail because we're too hung up on what the eventual interface to operate them will be

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

Originally Posted by =815=TooCooL

Even an option for it in SOW is disaster for me.

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?

[AndyJWest]

That's why i think that steering the discussion towards the interface of things is a (possibly unintentional) smokescreen that masks the real question.

Well, I'd have to disagree there. The original question was specifically about the interface. I don't think there is any smokescreen at all.

AS for 'enhanced realism' I'd agree that IL-2 is a little simplistic in the startup sequence, but what practical difference does this make? The objective is to build an air combat simulator, not a compete 24-hour model of the life of a pilot - and often BoB pilots were scrambled into already warmed-up aircraft anyway. Adding endless layers of complexity for the sake of marginal 'realism' improvements is likely to detract from the core performance of the sim - and that is what is going to matter most.

In any case, as I have already stated, using a mouse to control something is less realistic than using an appropriate physical control.

[=815=TooCooL]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

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?

For me, can't you read? To me, should I stand corrected?
Voted no, Just my opinion.
Cmon, I don't want to persuade or change anyone's opinion. Just let go.