Poll: Interactive Cockpits

[robtek]

I´d like to remark that NO clickpit and real complex engine- and flight- management don´t exclude each other.

[SlipBall]

Maddox Games just does not see these additions as econimically viable for them (quote)



Would not sales double, triple, quadruple? I think that they would

[Supah]

Originally Posted by csThor

I haven't spent any time in civil sims. My conclusions come from several visits to flight sim conventions. Of course that may have contorted the picture.

So basically you are knocking something you have no idea about as you have never actually tried it seriously. Atleast I've tried both, maybe more people in this community should. I agree with your previous point about there being a lot of work to be done on the offline campaign, its been almost ten years since the release of falcon 4 but still no flightsim has ever come close to it's campaign system. However I got the impression we are going to get even more scripted campaigns with BoB which doesn't bode well for offline players. I often find scripted campaigns have zero replay value.

Originally Posted by jasonbirder

I think its unfortunate that the poll has been worded to refer to clickable cockpits...
In terms of both immersion and ergonomics mouse clickable cockpits (particularly in 3D cockpits) can sometimes leave something to be desired...where bindable keystroke combinations or other input devices can sometimes be prefered.

I think it would have been better to have phrased the question in terms of would you like to see realistically modelled flight, engine, fuel and systems management in this Combat Flight Simulation or would your rather see grossly homogonized and simplified systems implemented?

That way those who want to see the BOB-SOW as yet another Sim Lite at least have to say so...rather than hide behind the smokescreen of saying using a mouse isn't an effective input device.

Very Well put!The furball people have nothing to worry about as the difficulty level is fully scalable.

[csThor]

Originally Posted by Supah

So basically you are knocking something you have no idea about as you have never actually tried it seriously. Atleast I've tried both, maybe more people in this community should. I agree with your previous point about there being a lot of work to be done on the offline campaign, its been almost ten years since the release of falcon 4 but still no flightsim has ever come close to it's campaign system. However I got the impression we are going to get even more scripted campaigns with BoB which doesn't bode well for offline players. I often find scripted campaigns have zero replay value.

I did not knock civil flight sims and simmers - I said they're after a vastly different experiences. All I am doing is doubting that a team as small as Maddox Games can do both worlds justice in one attempt without overtaxing their ressources, without sacrificing details for foul compromises.
And regarding Falcon 4's campaign engine - In my view it was a nice project that stopped halfway down the road (too technocratic presentation, too soul-less, unimmersive GUI), never worked convincingly until after 7 years of fiddling and ultimately broke the back of its creators.

[Supah]

Originally Posted by csThor

I did not knock civil flight sims and simmers - I said they're after a vastly different experiences. All I am doing is doubting that a team as small as Maddox Games can do both worlds justice in one attempt without overtaxing their ressources, without sacrificing details for foul compromises.
And regarding Falcon 4's campaign engine - In my view it was a nice project that stopped halfway down the road (too technocratic presentation, too soul-less, unimmersive GUI), never worked convincingly until after 7 years of fiddling and ultimately broke the back of its creators.

IMO even out of the box falcon 4's provided a lot better experience then the IL-2 one did. However falcon 4 had the advantage of modelling a fictional conflict which BoB won't have. In the end, in a realistic campaign, the germans have to lose (or more not win as I understand the conflict). Now if you don't have a problem with a unrealistic outcome ok, another point being that a single pilot won't be able to influence the outcome of a campaign. I think in a recreation of a real life campaign a semi scripted campaign can do but I think it will stand or fall with how things play out during the mission. If it is totally scripted then it can get boring really fast. If playing the same mission twice leaves you with a different experience both times it could be fun.

In the end I will still buy BoB with or without clickable cockpits or a dynamic campaign just to see if I like the game. If I don't I wont be buying any sequels etc. I buy a lot of flight sims/games (girlfriend might think too many ) over the last year and a half, and including 1946, I still think FSX (and the acceleration addon) is the best and most entertaining yet.

[Therion_Prime]

Blackshark clickable cockpit using a touchscreen:
That's what I call immersive!

http://www.leftside-limited.com/projects.html

[Blackdog_kt]

I can certainly see the deal about limited resources. That's why i'm not demanding anything. I'm simply advocating it.

I'll still buy the game anyway, heck, i'll buy a brand new PC just to be able to run the game when it's ready. That doesn't mean we shouldn't ask for some things if we do it in a nice manner.

As someone said before (i think robtek) and it's a very good point, clickpits and a bit more detail in the functions of each aircraft are not mutually exclusive. It's just that if a higher number of functions is modeled, it would be nice to have alternative control methods.

The only issue is the money issue to be honest. If BoB has an increased/more realistic pilot workload the amount of controls to bind to input devices will rise. I don't have a TIR, so i guess i'll be able to click the buttons just fine. If someone has a TIR and an entire panel of switches then he has no reason to complain, because he doesn't need to click anything anyway. If someone has a TIR but not an extra panel, he will have to use a HOTAS or the keyboard.

It's about options to suit every possible gamer, because let's face it, in the end this is not a gaming genre that gets massive attention. I doubt we can afford to be "elitist" (for lack of a better word, i'm not accusing anyone here) among ourselves.

Now if Maddox and co. can't do it in time, no problem. If it's as simple as EcoDragon says, the community will.

Maybe we could get a blank template text based file for each cockpit and do it ourselves. In order for this to work, it would have to start things out pretty simple, by only adding clickable switches and not movable throttles/sliders/trim.

For example, something like a conf.ini for instrument panels that will look like this

Me109E3cockpit.ini
Magneto1=x1235.67/y1564.56/z8963.45
Magneto2=x1235.67/y1564.56/z8963.35
Magneto1+2=x1235.67/y1564.56/z8963.25

Just an idea here. The thing is that this would need a way to open the cockpit models in a 3d viewer/editor to obtain the correct coordinates, much like it's done with skins in IL2. I don't know if Maddox Games would like this, as it could potentially lead to radical modification of the cockpit panels.

But then again, it doesn't have to be that way, someone could come up with a dedicated cockpit viewer-only application that would provide the coordinates when you mouse over the switches (and if it does that much, i guess it can map the desired function directly to the clickspot in the cockpit, like a joystick profile manager utility).

I know all this takes time, but it's simple ideas like these that got IL2 going for so long. Did anyone of us know when we got hold of the first IL2:FB box about water=3? No, but the option was open in the code for someone to add it later on

That's all i'm saying in the end. I hope we get a working sim first with some decent customization potential to use down the road, just like it was with IL2 but with a few new ideas thrown in the mix.