Vote your choice - Clickable Cockpits or Not

[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.

[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).