Poll: Interactive Cockpits

[Supah]

Originally Posted by robtek

@supah
please do not forget that what is posted here are opinions of individuals.
You do not have to share them, but you must accept them.
In my own personal opinion i find it also very boring to fly a cessna or a boeing
in a civil - Flightsim once the new has worn off.
But thats it, my opinion. I didn´t say that civil - FS - Fans are queer or something.
I just stated what i like and like ElAurens didn´t "talk down the people of the FSX community"

Calling what these guys fly cattle cars etc. isn't exactly friendly If you find flying a cessna boring you should try it IRL once, it mightly look mundane and lowely but for the first 100 hours a cessna is more then able to scare you to death believe me The percentage of people that want clickpits and that don't is approaching 50/50 now, I think that should be more then enough argument for Oleg.

[ElAurens]

Been on an airliner lately, they are indeed cattle cars...


Besides, many of the guys I know in the industry call them that.

Methinks your skin is a bit thin supah. I mean no disrespect to FSX flyers. I just don't understand the lure of that sim is all.

I too would like to see flyable transports in SOW. I've wanted them from the start of IL2. Also more flyable large aircraft of all types, flying boats in particular.

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.

[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.

[proton45]

I miss the 3D grass discussions....