Vote your choice - Clickable Cockpits or Not

[Blackdog_kt]

I know it's your opinion and you're entitled to to it. Sorry if my post came out looking all mean and aggressive, that was not my intention. It's just that i usually type long posts and do it fast, so sometimes something will slip by my "politeness filter" and end up looking insulting before i know it

So, let me rephrase. If you can turn off a feature that you don't like in the options screen, then why would that feature be a disaster for you?
The only reason i could think of is "let them finish the game already, this is taking too long", but a previous quote by Oleg states that they have already added support for these things in the simulator, so it's already done and won't delay the release of the game any further. I'm not looking to pick a fight here, i'm just genuinenly curious to learn your reasoning behind this since i can't think of any other reason it shouldn't be included. Maybe i'm missing something, who knows?

[Flanker35M]

S!

And if a clicky cockpit is there I am sure it will work using either key strokes or button press as well, at the same time. People most of times oppose anything they are used to, out of their range of habits. I can use clicky cockpit, button or keys..no real matter to me. I am sure Oleg's way implementing will be very straightforward and simple, making it complicated is not his way nor serves anyone.

[AndyJWest]

Blackdog_kt writes:

...Oleg states that they have already added support for these things in the simulator, so it's already done and won't delay the release of the game any further

Um, that isn't how I read what Oleg wrote. He has included general support for the principle (not that difficult in a system already designed for expansion, but he doesn't specify what this 'support' consists of anyway), but that isn't the same thing as it being 'already done'. Implementing and testing it for each aircraft would take time.

If it was 'already done', I can think of no obvious reason why he wouldn't include it, except for possible processing overheads.

[zapatista]

pretty gay poll

oleg already stated his reasons ages ago why he didnt think this was a priority in a ww2 combatsim

you really want to add another 6 months in development time with all those silly requests ?

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Although I don't think it's essential in this case, I'd like to have it.

But the fact is: 1940 aircraft aren't complex enough to make 'switchology' fun.

Maybe for next Storm of War module, considering they're planning to make it Korea, it will work better.

Zapatista, most requests aren't silly requests. The soul of a flight sim is on detail, and the more options it has, the better it is. But I do agree that, in this exact module, it's not a priority (but still a nice feature to have).

[Azimech]

Voted no. For the same reasons already given.

Instead, I'm building my own setup with lots of buttons and levers, not accurate but even more fun.

[Warhound]

Oleg has allready commented on this last year saying he doesn't see the benefit in a combatsim and it would require quite alot of work adding it to every plane.

Personally I'd rather see Project Galba (or a Western Europe ; Africa ; ... project) see the light than maddox games and friends working a year on implementing clickable everything in each plane.
I'm pretty sure he will code the needed basics so 3rd party addonmakers can make lovely payable addons with clicky cockpits though.

3rd thread about this subject in about 6months, with very active pro posters who make it seem like almost everyone wants clickable pits...thank god this one has a poll.

[Blackdog_kt]

Well, maybe it's time for another poll to showcase the real question:

Do we want realistic engine and systems management that will cause failures if we exceed the normal operating parameters? I'm not talking about random failures here and keep in mind, all of these should be options that we can turn off in the realism settings. For example, random failures and warm-up would be a nice option for single player but not so good for multi-player, no problem, just select a server that has them turned off. Now warm up in these planes is very fast, but even if it was slow there's the example of RoF, where, most people only use it for single player and the online servers turn it off.

So, this is mainly an issue of added realism with a couple extra options in the realism settings, i don't think anyone in their right mind would try to force the rest of the community to use their choice of settings if they want to fly some other way. It's just like flying in open or closed pit servers, you decide what you like and you make your choices.
The way i think about it, we could have the following realism options about it all:

Random failures: Just what the title says. I can't see this getting much use in multiplayer, but it will give some nice thrills in single player campaigns.

Wear and tear accumulates on the aircraft: Just like the previous one, this will mostly be for single player. Get a cannon shell in your wing and it might snap during a high-G maneuver in the next mission, unless your aircraf is factory overhauled or you get a new one. Stress your engine too much in consecutive missions and after a while the crew chief can't bring it up to factory specifications, again you'll need a factory overhaul or a new engine. Things like that.

Realistic engine operation and limits: Improved over what in IL2 is labeled as CEM. If you don't know what you're doing you'll be able to cause failures, regardless of what the previously mentioned random failures setting is. You could have random failures turned off and still cause your engine to seize if you have this one enabled. It's not random in this case, it's the pilot not knowing how to take care of the engine.

No more flying around with the throttle wide open for extended periods of time, especially at low altitudes where this would exceed the maximum manifold pressure limits.
No more abusing the on/off nature of overheat timers that don't take into account the damage done while in overheat, as long as you manage to stop within 5 minutes the engine condition magically reverts to that of a brand new or recently overhauled engine.
No more possible to dive at high speed for a long time with the engine at idle and the radiators full open without causing damage from shock cooling.
No more exploiting of the faulty prop pitch mechanics to run the engine above it's maximum limits, in reality when the throttle is high and you lower the RPM too much you can destroy the engine because of excessive torque (high RPM=high horsepower, low RPM=high torque).

I'm sure real pilots can provide even more feedback about what is not just simplified, but sometimes totally opposite to the way a real engine operates. These things need to go and a new engine handling model installed that more clolesy mimics real world operating constraints.

Realistic systems and engine management: This is the "flick the switches part. Do it with the keyboard or the mouse, or whichever way you want, but if it is on you'll need to flick the switches somehow (or let your imaginary copilot do some of it for you if you have the next option set to easy). Arm your guns before combat or they won't fire, turn on your gunsight, switch your fuel tanks manually, go through start-up and shut-down sequences, calibrate altimeters, correct the directional gyro drift by referencing the compass and so on.

While this mode is active gauges and instruments may show incorrent readings depending on atmospheric conditions, maneuvering state, speed, engine vibration etc. The RPM needle jitters before stabilizing when you change the prop pitch, the "whiskey" compass spins wildy round when you accelerate or maneuver violently and you have to let it settle down before taking a reading, supercharger turbines don't spool up/down instantly so you have to be gentle with the turbo levers and so on. Most of all, just like in the engine management section, you have to stay within the recommended parameters or risk causing a failure. This will open up a whole new dimension in combat, preserve the good working state of your aircraft's components for when your REALLY need to stress them to escape death.

Automatic start up and shut down: This is a toggle that will enable you to have all the realism options on, but still not do everything yourself if you don't feel like it. Think of it as the automatic start up/shut down sequence in Black Shark, where the engine doesn't magically start but your imaginary co-pilot flicks the necessary switches for you.
This way, if this is enabled you'll be able to join a server where the previous two options are active but you still won't have to do everything by yourself. You will have the option to press the start up key and you'll see the switches getting flicked on their own as the "ghost" co-pilot goes through the start up procedure.

That doesn't mean the engine will magically and perfectly start every time, nor that it will be the most efficient way to do things, or that it will bypass the ability to cause failures because of improper operation of systems. It will just be a means to bridge the gap between those who want to fly full-switch and those who want realistic servers without having to click buttons all the time, but there will be an incentive to go manual.

The incentive is that the automatic start-up will go through the full checklist, while a guy who knows his plane well and does a manual but quick and dirty start up will gain quite some time. In Black Shark, there are people who can manually start the chopper about 30 seconds faster than the automatic start-up can. This will not be so much for WWII birds because they are simpler with fewer buttons to press, but if for example i have just landed and shut my engine off and decide i need to get back up again in a hurry, i can safely skip about 3/4 of the procedure if i do it manually and i won't even need the 10-15 second warm up. The automatic start-up key won't do this though, it will go through the full start-up, so this is an incentive to watch what it does on auto so that you'll learn how to do it yourself in a hurry.




Regardless of the way to control such things in flight, i think this is the main reason you see quite a few people campaign for clickpits, because they are an interface that is generally associated with more in-depth modelling of the aircraft as a whole.

Personally, i don't care if it's a clickable cockpit, a clever system of keyboard commands or a mix between the two and a HOTAS interface. I don't care either if it will be done by Oleg's team a few months after release, or if we will have to edit xml scripts to add clickable zones ourselves.

I just want my engine and the aircraft in general to be more than "swich on engine, maneuver, shoot, repeat", because it's unrealistic for a 2010 simulator, it's gotten less and less satisfying after all these years, it bypasses a whole lot of important decisions that have an importance in matters of tactics and the ability to complete a mission that would coax players into a more realistic way of fighting and it pales in comparison to what other modern simulators can do. Clickpits or not, realistic modelling of certain subsystems is a must for a next-gen simulator.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Well, maybe it's time for another poll to showcase the real question:

Do we want realistic engine and systems management that will cause failures if we exceed the normal operating parameters? I'm not talking about random failures here and keep in mind, all of these should be options that we can turn off in the realism settings. For example, random failures and warm-up would be a nice option for single player but not so good for multi-player, no problem, just select a server that has them turned off. Now warm up in these planes is very fast, but even if it was slow there's the example of RoF, where, most people only use it for single player and the online servers turn it off.

So, this is mainly an issue of added realism with a couple extra options in the realism settings, i don't think anyone in their right mind would try to force the rest of the community to use their choice of settings if they want to fly some other way. It's just like flying in open or closed pit servers, you decide what you like and you make your choices.
The way i think about it, we could have the following realism options about it all:

Random failures: Just what the title says. I can't see this getting much use in multiplayer, but it will give some nice thrills in single player campaigns.

Wear and tear accumulates on the aircraft: Just like the previous one, this will mostly be for single player. Get a cannon shell in your wing and it might snap during a high-G maneuver in the next mission, unless your aircraf is factory overhauled or you get a new one. Stress your engine too much in consecutive missions and after a while the crew chief can't bring it up to factory specifications, again you'll need a factory overhaul or a new engine. Things like that.

Realistic engine operation and limits: Improved over what in IL2 is labeled as CEM. If you don't know what you're doing you'll be able to cause failures, regardless of what the previously mentioned random failures setting is. You could have random failures turned off and still cause your engine to seize if you have this one enabled. It's not random in this case, it's the pilot not knowing how to take care of the engine.

No more flying around with the throttle wide open for extended periods of time, especially at low altitudes where this would exceed the maximum manifold pressure limits.
No more abusing the on/off nature of overheat timers that don't take into account the damage done while in overheat, as long as you manage to stop within 5 minutes the engine condition magically reverts to that of a brand new or recently overhauled engine.
No more possible to dive at high speed for a long time with the engine at idle and the radiators full open without causing damage from shock cooling.
No more exploiting of the faulty prop pitch mechanics to run the engine above it's maximum limits, in reality when the throttle is high and you lower the RPM too much you can destroy the engine because of excessive torque (high RPM=high horsepower, low RPM=high torque).

I'm sure real pilots can provide even more feedback about what is not just simplified, but sometimes totally opposite to the way a real engine operates. These things need to go and a new engine handling model installed that more clolesy mimics real world operating constraints.

Realistic systems and engine management: This is the "flick the switches part. Do it with the keyboard or the mouse, or whichever way you want, but if it is on you'll need to flick the switches somehow (or let your imaginary copilot do some of it for you if you have the next option set to easy). Arm your guns before combat or they won't fire, turn on your gunsight, switch your fuel tanks manually, go through start-up and shut-down sequences, calibrate altimeters, correct the directional gyro drift by referencing the compass and so on.

While this mode is active gauges and instruments may show incorrent readings depending on atmospheric conditions, maneuvering state, speed, engine vibration etc. The RPM needle jitters before stabilizing when you change the prop pitch, the "whiskey" compass spins wildy round when you accelerate or maneuver violently and you have to let it settle down before taking a reading, supercharger turbines don't spool up/down instantly so you have to be gentle with the turbo levers and so on. Most of all, just like in the engine management section, you have to stay within the recommended parameters or risk causing a failure. This will open up a whole new dimension in combat, preserve the good working state of your aircraft's components for when your REALLY need to stress them to escape death.

Automatic start up and shut down: This is a toggle that will enable you to have all the realism options on, but still not do everything yourself if you don't feel like it. Think of it as the automatic start up/shut down sequence in Black Shark, where the engine doesn't magically start but your imaginary co-pilot flicks the necessary switches for you.
This way, if this is enabled you'll be able to join a server where the previous two options are active but you still won't have to do everything by yourself. You will have the option to press the start up key and you'll see the switches getting flicked on their own as the "ghost" co-pilot goes through the start up procedure.

That doesn't mean the engine will magically and perfectly start every time, nor that it will be the most efficient way to do things, or that it will bypass the ability to cause failures because of improper operation of systems. It will just be a means to bridge the gap between those who want to fly full-switch and those who want realistic servers without having to click buttons all the time, but there will be an incentive to go manual.

The incentive is that the automatic start-up will go through the full checklist, while a guy who knows his plane well and does a manual but quick and dirty start up will gain quite some time. In Black Shark, there are people who can manually start the chopper about 30 seconds faster than the automatic start-up can. This will not be so much for WWII birds because they are simpler with fewer buttons to press, but if for example i have just landed and shut my engine off and decide i need to get back up again in a hurry, i can safely skip about 3/4 of the procedure if i do it manually and i won't even need the 10-15 second warm up. The automatic start-up key won't do this though, it will go through the full start-up, so this is an incentive to watch what it does on auto so that you'll learn how to do it yourself in a hurry.




Regardless of the way to control such things in flight, i think this is the main reason you see quite a few people campaign for clickpits, because they are an interface that is generally associated with more in-depth modelling of the aircraft as a whole.

Personally, i don't care if it's a clickable cockpit, a clever system of keyboard commands or a mix between the two and a HOTAS interface. I don't care either if it will be done by Oleg's team a few months after release, or if we will have to edit xml scripts to add clickable zones ourselves.

I just want my engine and the aircraft in general to be more than "swich on engine, maneuver, shoot, repeat", because it's unrealistic for a 2010 simulator, it's gotten less and less satisfying after all these years, it bypasses a whole lot of important decisions that have an importance in matters of tactics and the ability to complete a mission that would coax players into a more realistic way of fighting and it pales in comparison to what other modern simulators can do. Clickpits or not, realistic modelling of certain subsystems is a must for a next-gen simulator.

Blackdog, warming up in Battle of Britain would be a bit unusual, considering Jerry could come at any time. And the mechanic would probably heat it up for you before you jump in, probably.

Random failures would be excellent in both MP and SP. If the server feels like tuning realism up, that might be an excellent one (also, frustrating sometimes, but that's how it was back then)

The weathering, I guess it's only used in campaigns. If there's a multiplayer campaign mode, it should work the same way. Dogfights? I don't think so.

Engine limits are modelled to some point in Il-2. Just try to mess with the engine in a 109 for more than 0,5 second to see what happens.

Realistic systems are something most DCS fans are already used to, and would sure love to see in Storm of War. Indeed a great thing to hav e. No need for clickable and etc., but at least being able to mess with every possible switch in the cockpit is something everyone would like, I guess.

One thought about it: we'll need a freakin' manual of those planes to use this wisely.

The more realistic the flight and systems, the better it is - NO EXCEPTIONS.

Options are the way to go, IMHO

[AndyJWest]

Well, maybe it's time for another poll to showcase the real question...

It isn't 'the real question', it's a different question. Why not ask it in another thread. Before you do that though, I'd try to see what Oleg has said on the subject, I think he has already commented on most of this.