Gambit21

Good times ahead my friend 🙂

They’re working on making it an A6m-2. Relax 🙂

Wildcat gear on an axis? 🤪

Absolutely. I’d be happy with even fewer flyable for a long time, so long as the environment itself (AI aircraft being part of that) was sufficiently fleshed out. That’s one thing I’ve always missed from 1946. I could place a huge variety of ‘scenery’ target/friendly aircraft on the map.

Of course - I mean aside from what you mentioned.

Cactus is the dream.

This is not a good path to go down for several reasons. For one thing, anyone building content would have to hope that everyone had the plane/ship packages he used in his mission or campaign. Worse, he can't include any ship in the campaign that's in one of the "packages" because not everyone owns it, this the list of potential customers plummets. Ships need to be part of the 'background' included assets and funded in another way...any other way.

Well said.

I guess I mean "complex" not messy. Yes it is my work.. but not a big deal...that just means I know more than you. 😜 (said with tongue firmly in cheek by the way)

lol...that's not it. 🙂 The point I think is that with power, comes some degree complexity, and thus some degree of "non user-friendliness"....and that's OK. All 3D programs have a "messy " UI, but that's because of the massive number of tools available...no way around it. Simpler interface/fewer tools...that's just how it works. The DCS editor is a great example of an editor that mostly strikes a good balance in most ways, but needs a few things (borrowed from IL2) to put it over the top. Namely graphical representation of logic on the map (as an option to be visible or not) and the ability to cut and paste logic...the ability to assign logic to more than one aircraft simply by select/shift-click, etc.

I get it. I just think we have to careful about assigning “better” results to a simpler piece of software. To be clear, I’m a fan of keeping logic simple 95% of the time even though I have more complex functionality at my fingertips. Scaleability is key. Have an easy to grasp interface, simple tools on the surface, with the ability to dive deeper if you wish. I really think an editor that takes the best from all worlds is possible. That said, I think those who suggest 2 versions, a “QMB” and a full editor are on the money.

I never knew this little piece. I know that it was one of my favorite ‘crap planes’ in the old IL2 🙂

Yes! I’m more looking forward to sneaking up underneath them in my Zero…but still…yes. Love that plane.

Research the trigger options/conditions/logic layering capability etc. 🙂 Yes I looked into Arma a long time ago after seeing a number of posts like yours. No comparison in capability. If you want to look at any specific official, 3rd party campaign and tell me, IN DETAIL, using specific logic/examples, how it would have been better using Arma’s simplistic editor, please do. Edit: In fact, pick the Reflected campaign of your choice, or Hell Hawks. Compare and contrast results obtained with the DCS or IL2 editor vs what would have been obtained with the Arma editor. Go…

Yes it’s simple - it’s also remedial and simplistic. It’s a Crayola box of 8, while the IL2 and DCS editors are an artists pallet of almost endless colors. It’s like comparing the old, original, ‘easy to use’ Microsoft Paint to the (yes more difficult to learn) but much more capable Photoshop. Anyone claiming “more complex than IL2 or DCS ever had” has not spent any time learning about just how deep either or both editors go, or about the actual logic being layered by the more accomplished mission designers. (That’s leaving me out of it btw) Just look at trigger types, conditions, outputs, triggered actions, variable flag conditions…etc etc in DCS. The Arma editor is not in the same class and no offense, irrelevant to a hard core flight sim editor discussion. Want to talk QMB? Fine in that regard it’s more relevant but even then, a QMB must be more simple even than the Arma editor.

Absolutely...and you just end up with a sea of mediocre content anyway. The DCS editor as a good example. Most think it's "easy" but they're only building very simple missions. Once you get into a complex build then if anything it's more complex than the IL2 editor...(in some ways) Really depends on what you're doing. Yes! The trouble with scripts though is that they tend to break as the product develops, thus increasing the maintenance burden. Useful, yes and a great tool. I tend to stay away from them except in special circumstances. Now if there was some sort of graphical "flag" in the UI that told you a script was no longer functioning properly, then I'd be more likely to use them. Otherwise it's another thing to pull hair out over trying and trouble shoot later. Unless you're a LUA guy...which I'm not. I have to borrow a script from someone, past it in, and hope it doesn't break. 🙂

Yep...actually just don't put a limit on the numbers, or make the limit much larger. I think a QMB is essential. One of the great things about the IL2 MCU system is that once you know the language you can look at your map and visually decipher what's going on and troubleshoot etc. You can't do that in DCS...it's all text, and trying to forensically bug-hunt in that environment is a nightmare until you're accustomed to it...but it's always more difficult.

The IL2 editor is easy enough to use if you bother to spend a bit of time with it. There are things I like better about it than the DCS editor and I know both inside and out. Both have their pros and cons. A good builder will take the time to learn the tool - the end. Yes the old 1946 editor was easy to use but it lacked much of the functionality I wanted even at the time. I don’t want to revisit that. It’s interesting that you can tell who did and did not take the time to really learn the IL2 (or DCS) editor based on what he lists as a “problem” Often these so-called problems don’t even make the list of a builder who’s actually bothered to learn the editor and knows how powerful it is. Yes a QMB as well as a ‘real’ editor would be desirable. 🙂

That's my girl.

3D mesh density/standard and texture resolution. I won't elaborate here beyond that, but I'd like to see multiple 4K textures, and mesh resolution that splits the difference at least between DCS and IL2.

And the A6m2-N. I will probably type "R Area Air Force" a lot here over the coming years. See once you model an A6m-21, you basically get the float version for the price of adding pontoons. 🙂

I love that this thread already exists lol...good stuff. In response to some posts above...there is no reason to move away from the PTO...ever. There's no reason to even bring it up. We'll all be dead before there's time to cover all of the PTO...so no point in talking about ETO or 'gag' 109's 'gag' Too many Zekes, Corsairs, P-40's and Grumman hardware to cover, not to mention Jap and Allied float planes. Solomons... "R Area Air Force" Did I ever mention that I like float planes?

Anyway with regard to systems/switchology, I’m guessing something that splits the difference between IL2 and DCS. DCS aircraft take years each to develop. That can’t work here.

No I get where you’re coming from now - you’re talking system’s fidelity…not cold start vs engine running. This wasn’t clear to me based on your first post…because of the words you typed…or my brain. I mean the thread IS about cockpit interaction. 🤔

You thought Jason might design a sim where the only thing possible was booting the mission with the engine running on the runway? lol Even pressing "E" is still a cold start FYI. Based on your posts I wasn't sure what you were, and were not aware of as far as what is a mission design vs sim capability consideration.