Poll: Interactive Cockpits

[proton45]

Originally Posted by TUSA/TX-Gunslinger

This is what you get out of this discussion?

It's not about eclipsing MS - it's about drawing more users in who are familiar with that interface. No one said anything about eclipsing MS.

Also, for serious simmers - it provides more difficulty. If you were to limit the engine to what many folks would want - then Il2 would only have had Wonder Woman view and padlock.

Lastly - if this were solely a 'Combat flight sim' then how do you explain the inclusion of Su-26?

I wonder if you are familiar with all of the folks that use Il2 for acrobatic teams and racing?

S~

Gunny

I think I read somewhere that the SU-26 was included in the development (and plane set) of "BoB SoW" because its performance characteristics where well known to the game developers. With "verifiable real life data" the game developers where able to check that the Su-26 performed correctly under the same simulated conditions as they would in the real world...That way they are able to fine tune the atmospheric effects on the flight model...

[SlipBall]

Yes indeed, the SU-26...can you boy's realize the amount of MS pilots that would buy Oleg's SOW just for that one aircraft!...but the SU-26 needs to be presented in the same way as the owners handbook. That means full engine prep start up too, I still am at a lose to understand Oleg's position on this, I mean he could make a ton of money, I just don't understand his thinking on this. Sims should evolve to the highest level posible, It's what the other half want, and there are alot of them...With the Oleg FM, graffic's, they would be hooked like the rest of us

[brando]

http://mission4today.com/index.php?n...ewtopic&t=3401

Maybe check out Beebop's topic at M4T, then come back and say this is how the average combat sim pilot wants to set off on a mission?

I voted no, and this kind of film doesn't change my mind at all.

[BadAim]

Wow, there is certainly a lot of passion on this subject. I'm actually kind of glad about that, it means interest is alive and well.

I think that really the biggest reason people are against clickable cockpits is that they are afraid recources will be taken away from aspects of the sim that nearly all of us would agree are more important, and I think Oleg as much as said the same himself.

That said, what are we getting all upset about here? Whether anyone wants clickable cockpits and completely realistic procedures or doesn't care about them, I doubt anyone is willing to give up a bit of flight model or damage model for it.

[BadAim]

BTW, Brando, how did your 'bios flash' go? are you getting any relief?

[brando]

Originally Posted by BadAim

BTW, Brando, how did your 'bios flash' go? are you getting any relief?

Thanks BadAim, yes it went well & I'm obtaining considerable relief.

[BadAim]

Originally Posted by brando

Thanks BadAim, yes it went well & I'm obtaining considerable relief.

Good news!

[Abbeville-Boy]

Originally Posted by BadAim

Wow, there is certainly a lot of passion on this subject. I'm actually kind of glad about that, it means interest is alive and well.

I think that really the biggest reason people are against clickable cockpits is that they are afraid recources will be taken away from aspects of the sim that nearly all of us would agree are more important, and I think Oleg as much as said the same himself.

That said, what are we getting all upset about here? Whether anyone wants clickable cockpits and completely realistic procedures or doesn't care about them, I doubt anyone is willing to give up a bit of flight model or damage model for it.

something better than now would be improvement for sure

[proton45]

"Supah" asked for a link to Olegs feeling about "clickable cockpits" and "flight sims" vs "Flight combat simming". Here is a resent post I saw from Oleg that addresses some of the issues (with Evgeny question):

Question...Originally Posted by Evgeny View Post


8. Hello Oleg

I've been flying the IL-2 series almost exclusively since the Beta test days. I've also flown Rowans and Shockwaves BOB WOV off and on since that series began. Recently I have been flying alot of BOB WOV since the stability of the 2.07 patch and because of the engine start procedures, and the ability to simulate refueling and rearming. These few things add alot of immersion for me.

I know you have some sort of rearming and refuelling simulation planned for SOW but I think I remember reading that you weren't too interested in simulating clickable cockpits. I'm not interested in clickable cockpits either, but enjoy having the option to map the fuel cocks, magneto's, fuel pump, and start switch to my Hotas. Do you have any plans to implement optional switches in the Controls section of SOW?



Olegs answer...

Third party would do it I think. Models of aircraft has all features that to program it.
However we don’t plan to make for each aircraft 100% precise start of engine, etc… They are too different and not like it is in simulator above in most cases…
Some aircraft has 20 operations, some up to 40… for each aircraft we would need some sort of flight manual (Pilot Notes) in such a case. This is possible if we would make the sim of just one, or say couple of aircraft. But we will have way more… and we don’t plan to continue development of SOW engine and BoB itself 3 years more.
In my very personal opinion – the main thing in a flight sim of WWII is how the plane is fly and its physics in total + plus features and physics of the weapon and the damage that this weapon would do… say the complexity of the internal construction of aircraft… This would make sim way more realistic that to model instead of it the starting procedure… the gameplay would be in this case more better than the game play with immersion of only starting procedure. Yes, I would say it is also interesting, but for less than 1 % of users… that will use it constantly and will not switch off right after the first attempt.

I hope this helps...

I think Oleg is saying that the "realistic" flight physics and weapons damage ect... would help with the immersion MORE the "clickable cockpits" (or complex starting procedure)...his feelings, his sim.


Oleg makes an interesting point about the difference in making a "flight sim" vs a "flight combat sim"...when your making a "flight combat sim" you have to spend time modeling all the internal systems and structures of an aeroplane while the "flight sim" doesn't have to spend time or resources modeling these things... the "flight sim" just isn't concerned with issues like "what gets damaged if flak hits the engine"...

Their has been some speculation here about M$ modifying their "flight sim" code into a "Flight combat sim", but I just don't see it happening... Adding bombs or machine guns is one thing but I just don't see how they could (write in) modify their code to include a complex "damage engine"... people complain about "IL2's" shortcomings and people complain about how the "Il2" engine was stretched beyond its original design, can you imagine what a M$ "flight combat sim" would be like if it was built on a modified "flight sim" engine? It would be a joke!

[Supah]

Originally Posted by proton45

Their has been some speculation here about M$ modifying their "flight sim" code into a "Flight combat sim", but I just don't see it happening... Adding bombs or machine guns is one thing but I just don't see how they could (write in) modify their code to include a complex "damage engine"... people complain about "IL2's" shortcomings and people complain about how the "Il2" engine was stretched beyond its original design, can you imagine what a M$ "flight combat sim" would be like if it was built on a modified "flight sim" engine? It would be a joke!

For all you know that code might allready be in there Besides MS has a lot of resources committed to FSX, more then Oleg has on BOB. I think oleg will mis out on a lot of sales if he sticks to this road. But oh well, more developers have come and gone due to strange decisions.