SOW: your thoughts on clickable cockpits and realistic start-up

[usagold2004]

having flown real planes, i promise, the start up is not the highlight of the flight. the only thing that makes start up interesting is the fact that you are watching your gagues for any sign of engine malfunction. unless these malfunctions are present, the start up sequence is merely an un rewarding and time consuming process. Supposing they did implement malfunctions in startup, you would simply be forced to restart your mission with an airplane that would crank up. The only reason we have "complex" start up sequences in real life is because things break exactly when you dont want them to.

Clickable cockpits are good for some functions, but i would not want every item in the cockpit clickable. When you fly a plane, much like driving a car, you dont always look at what button you are pushing. You do so much of it by feel that its hard to express how important it is to know your cockpit literally blindfolded. that doesnt mean that you never take a quick glance to ensure that you have achieved the desired effect of whatever switch you are manipulating though! but you dont look AT the turn signal when you switch it in your car do you? to have clickable buttons in such a simple (relatively) airplane means that you would have to have it displayed on your coputer screen (since you cant do it by feel) and that you would have to focus on clicking that switch. The reality is that this is LESS realistic than having it mapped to a button on your controller or keyboard.

[SlipBall]

Originally Posted by usagold2004

having flown real planes, i promise, the start up is not the highlight of the flight. the only thing that makes start up interesting is the fact that you are watching your gagues for any sign of engine malfunction. unless these malfunctions are present, the start up sequence is merely an un rewarding and time consuming process. Supposing they did implement malfunctions in startup, you would simply be forced to restart your mission with an airplane that would crank up. The only reason we have "complex" start up sequences in real life is because things break exactly when you dont want them to.

Clickable cockpits are good for some functions, but i would not want every item in the cockpit clickable. When you fly a plane, much like driving a car, you dont always look at what button you are pushing. You do so much of it by feel that its hard to express how important it is to know your cockpit literally blindfolded. that doesnt mean that you never take a quick glance to ensure that you have achieved the desired effect of whatever switch you are manipulating though! but you dont look AT the turn signal when you switch it in your car do you? to have clickable buttons in such a simple (relatively) airplane means that you would have to have it displayed on your coputer screen (since you cant do it by feel) and that you would have to focus on clicking that switch. The reality is that this is LESS realistic than having it mapped to a button on your controller or keyboard.

For me starting the engine was alway's a highlight...but I very much enjoy engine's, the sound's, the feel, and the respect deserved of a well designed combustion engine. I can see why others can't be bothered with such matters, but I would totally enjoy the experience each time. I think that we are talking a switch here, so no one would have to use the feature. And yes, I'm not a big mouse fan either, but would enjoy function bind to key. I would go even further, with temperature affecting start up

[tagTaken2]

Originally Posted by usagold2004

having flown real planes, i promise, the start up is not the highlight of the flight. the only thing that makes start up interesting is the fact that you are watching your gagues for any sign of engine malfunction. unless these malfunctions are present, the start up sequence is merely an un rewarding and time consuming process. Supposing they did implement malfunctions in startup, you would simply be forced to restart your mission with an airplane that would crank up. The only reason we have "complex" start up sequences in real life is because things break exactly when you dont want them to.

Clickable cockpits are good for some functions, but i would not want every item in the cockpit clickable. When you fly a plane, much like driving a car, you dont always look at what button you are pushing. You do so much of it by feel that its hard to express how important it is to know your cockpit literally blindfolded. that doesnt mean that you never take a quick glance to ensure that you have achieved the desired effect of whatever switch you are manipulating though! but you dont look AT the turn signal when you switch it in your car do you? to have clickable buttons in such a simple (relatively) airplane means that you would have to have it displayed on your coputer screen (since you cant do it by feel) and that you would have to focus on clicking that switch. The reality is that this is LESS realistic than having it mapped to a button on your controller or keyboard.

+1

Well put too.

[ElAurens]

Originally Posted by tagtaken2

+1

well put too.

+100000000000000

[Abbeville-Boy]

i think only peoples who are real life pilot want to have this. Fur ball peoples just want some quick fur, have no time to dream or learn or do right steps to fly

[II/JG54_Emil]

Originally Posted by Abbeville-Boy

i think only peoples who are real life pilot want to have this. Fur ball peoples just want some quick fur, have no time to dream or learn or do right steps to fly

I´m not areal life pilot but I want to have it as I like authenticity and realism in a sim.

[jasonbirder]

There seems to be a little blurring between clickable cockpits and realistic start up/flight processes...
A clickable cockpit is just an interface...if its not a method of input that you favour those inputs can be mapped to HOTAS buttons and/or kekboard inputs...despite the huge number of functions in games like Falcon 4.0/Black SHark etc...the overwhelming majority of them are mapable...so dislike of a "click-pit" interface is no reason to throw out the idea of more realistic engine management/systems...
Its just being used as a red herring by those that favour the all action "sim light" aproach we have within IL2 1946...but a move to fewer more detailed flyables could give us the opportunity to have realistic engine/fuel/systems management...making actually flying and fighting the plane more interesting and challanging...rather than the over simplified models we have currently.
It would be a step towards making SOW-BOB a Combat FLight Simulator rather than a Combat Game with a flight element.

[robtek]

@jasonbirder

+1

And i really wait for the whining when the reduced workload of the "automated" planes like the FW190 "destroys" the "balance".

[Antoninus]

Nobody wants to operate every switch, lever or rheostat with the mouse but there many functions where it makes sense and it would only be an additional option to control more complex (3rd party?) planes.

Originally Posted by usagold2004

to have clickable buttons in such a simple (relatively) airplane means that you would have to have it displayed on your coputer screen (since you cant do it by feel) and that you would have to focus on clicking that switch. The reality is that this is LESS realistic than having it mapped to a button on your controller or keyboard.

Well in my car I can't operate each system quickly without at least one quick look and it's much simpler than any WW2 fighter. Buttons for the rear window heater, air conditioner or air re-circulation are identically shaped and placed close together. Impossible to manipulate the car audio system to select another channel without looking at the display or buttons for pre saved ones.

WW2 era aircraft weren't known for their superior ergonomics. Nobody can tell that he quickly identify each switch here blindfolded: