Friday 2010-10-22 Dev. update and Discussion

[Allen63]

I love the cockpits.

Could it be that the finish on the instruments mirrors NOT the reality of the actual Battle of Britain but what one sees in MUSEUMS?

I do wonder about the "wear", "paint fading", "discolorations" shown.

The wear shown seems to indicate months or years in the weather or months of being "banged on" by pilots and ground crew. Presumably, at the BoB, many aircraft were new or only in service a matter of many weeks. Of course, a different theater would be different -- e.g. desert conditions.

I have several antique, original WW2 fighter cockpit instruments on display in my office (from Pacific and European theaters). After 65 years, their finishes don't look any worse than the SoW instruments -- maybe better in some ways.

If time permits, it would be nice to have some textures representing aircraft or individual instruments recently off the production line.

Originally Posted by Allen63

I love the cockpits.

Could it be that the finish on the instruments mirrors NOT the reality of the actual Battle of Britain but what one sees in MUSEUMS?

I do wonder about the "wear", "paint fading", "discolorations" shown.

The wear shown seems to indicate months or years in the weather or months of being "banged on" by pilots and ground crew. Presumably, at the BoB, many aircraft were new or only in service a matter of many weeks. Of course, a different theater would be different -- e.g. desert conditions.

I have several antique, original WW2 fighter cockpit instruments on display in my office (from Pacific and European theaters). After 65 years, their finishes don't look any worse than the SoW instruments -- maybe better in some ways.

If time permits, it would be nice to have some textures representing aircraft or individual instruments recently off the production line.

+1

That's exactly what I was thinking. I think Oleg's artists overdid it quite a bit.

For example here. Why is there circular abrasion? The stick never touches it?
I so much hope we will have less worn cockpits also.

[Foo'bar]

Originally Posted by Hecke

For example here. Why is there circular abrasion? The stick never touches it?
I so much hope we will have less worn cockpits also.

I can imagine that the pilot's glove would do that. For me that kind of slight abraison is truely credible.

Originally Posted by philip.ed

Is the cockpits wear and tear such a huge deal? I'm sure if they looked pristine, a similar amount of people would complain that they look like plastic and are too new and shiney. If we are starting the campaign as sergeant pilots, we'll get the oldest bus anyway

True words.

[Hunden]

Originally Posted by Hecke

For example here. Why is there circular abrasion? The stick never touches it?
I so much hope we will have less worn cockpits also.

thats from the right hand glove

Originally Posted by Hecke

For example here. Why is there circular abrasion? The stick never touches it?
I so much hope we will have less worn cockpits also.

The circular abrasion is from the semi-skilled labourer who installed it in the Messerschmitt factory with leather gloves covered in metal shavings. He wasn't that worried about scratching the paint on the inside of the cockpit since his shift-boss made it quite clear they were 15% behind on their monthly quota, "and maybe he could be replaced by some skilled French machinists who get paid 1/2 as much as he does". The rest of the interior wearing is from him and other similar labourers hurriedly climbing in and out of the cockpit a few hundred times while installing and connecting instruments and controls, all the while scraping their boots and tools around the inside of it.

Christ! Do you want this game to be released some time within the next three years, or are you willing to wait for Oleg to have the "dynamic mud" aspect ironed out so that the cockpit floor is extra dirty if the airfield was wet that morning?

Incorrect gauges and marking are one thing, but . . . wait! You've never kissed a girl have you?

[Insuber]

Originally Posted by speculum jockey

The circular abrasion is from the semi-skilled labourer who installed it in the Messerschmitt factory with leather gloves covered in metal shavings. He wasn't that worried about scratching the paint on the inside of the cockpit since his shift-boss made it quite clear they were 15% behind on their monthly quota, "and maybe he could be replaced by some skilled French machinists who get paid 1/2 as much as he does". The rest of the interior wearing is from him and other similar labourers hurriedly climbing in and out of the cockpit a few hundred times while installing and connecting instruments and controls, all the while scraping their boots and tools around the inside of it.

Christ! Do you want this game to be released some time within the next three years, or are you willing to wait for Oleg to have the "dynamic mud" aspect ironed out so that the cockpit floor is extra dirty if the airfield was wet that morning?

Incorrect gauges and marking are one thing, but . . . wait! You've never kissed a girl have you?

LOL! As I said before, "the perfect is the enemy of the good". If Oleg listens to someone here, we will get SoW in 2025 ... Go on Oleg, finish the job and pass to your next project ...

[Peffi]

Originally Posted by Insuber

Go on Oleg, finish the job and pass to your next project ...

Hear hear! The paint is just about dry and the tanks are full. It's time to scramble and get the bird in the air!

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by Osprey

I agree. Who wants to sit there going through a painful pre-check each time.

DCS Blackshark had a 40+ point procedure to start the engines, it was the singular reason I binned it

Blackshark is a modern aircraft. Most WW2 fighters need 5-10 button presses and guess what, since all of them use piston engines the sequence is pretty much identical. It's not a question of what's best, it's a question of what floats your boat and how you want to play your game.
So, just because all some people want to do is point and shoot doesn't mean they should force their preferred difficulty level on the rest.

I'm slightly disappointed that we won't have complete start-ups, but i understand that things like that take time. I won't hold it against the developers, especially since they say we'll be able to modify things and model it ourselves down the road. It's just a minor incovenience for me.

The important part is to have the dependencies between aircraft systems modelled. This IS a big deal because it affects damage models and tactical considerations for the player. For example, cascading system failures...you get hit, suffer a blown up oxygen tank and have to dive to lower altitudes in order not to die of hypoxia...however, your generator is also smashed and you're running on battery power, temperature changes also affect your battery life and temperature can change with altitude, so what do you do? That's the stuff i'm talking about, not having to click for start-up per se. The bottom line is, point and shoot is not enough in this time and age and it seems team Maddox understands that, even if not everything is modelled due to time constraints.

Originally Posted by Sutts

I am disappointed about no startup procedure. Hopefully third parties can deliver the goodies at a later date. I'm quite happy to wait.

I think many folk have got the wrong idea about these procedures. On most fighters they are very straight forward with very few steps to remember. It's the little details that sometimes give the immersion. For instance the way the engine behaves when you over/under prime it...makes it feel like you're operating a real engine.

I do hope we don't have instant oil pressure and engine temperature. Things like that really kill it for me. I'm hoping the days of hitting the start key, firewalling the throttle and taking off are well and truly over.

At the end of the day I can live without the fully clickable pit but it would be nice to see most systems modelled correctly, either by Oleg or third parties.

Fully agree.

Originally Posted by rollnloop

I intend to use the mouse for every "no need instinctive access" function.

I' ll most probably will use keyboard for gear, flaps, guns, bombs, and so on, but if there are advanced functions like "select fuel tank", "select preset radio frequency" "switch magnetos on", "press ignition buttons", "use boost pumps", "set reticle lighting" "switch windshield deicing" and so on, i'll use the mouse for these, just to know where the levers and buttons are and when and why use them is extremely immersive imho.

I am very happy to know cockpits are clickable and hope 3rd party will add many clicking functions.

That's exactly my idea. Critical things stay on keyboard and stick buttons, secondary controls that you fiddle with while not in combat are nice to operate with the mouse and not have to memorize a bazillion keyboard commands.

[Azimech]

But I like to memorize a bazillion keyboard commands!