343KKT_Kintaro
-
Posts
46 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by 343KKT_Kintaro
-
-
I'm not sure but I think Jason said that the further development of this sim will depend on success of the first instalment. So, if I got it right, at first we won't have neither Hellcats nor Corsairs... but later we will possibly have them. Fingers crossed.
-
1
-
-
Please @III.JG52_Otto_-I-, let me copy-paste one response I gave to another elsewhere:
Just consulted the infos on Wikipedia:
The Imperial Japanese Army Air Service received one Fw 190A-5 for evaluation purposes.
Imperial Japanese Army Air Force purchased 5 [Bf 109] E-7s in 1941. The aircraft were used for tests and trials.
Five Japanese Bf 109s only... one Japanese Fw 190 only... and none of them had been used in real combat missions. So it is very unlikely that the "Combat Pilot" engineers develop one of these German planes, at least not as long as they stay in the Pacific theatre of operations. Maybe someday, if the project develops further into a "generic" WWII series of combat flight sims. I may be wrong, but that's what I think. Sounds logical to me.
-
3
-
-
Ok, so everything has been clarified now... 🤣
-
Just consulted the infos on Wikipedia:
The Imperial Japanese Army Air Service received one Fw 190A-5 for evaluation purposes.
Imperial Japanese Army Air Force purchased 5 [Bf 109] E-7s in 1941. The aircraft were used for tests and trials.
Five Japanese Bf 109s only... one Japanese Fw 190 only... and none of them had been used in real combat missions. So it is very unlikely that the "Combat Pilot" engineers develop one of these German planes, at least not as long as they stay in the Pacific theatre of operations. Maybe someday, if the project develops further into a "generic" WWII series of combat flight sims. I may be wrong, but that's what I think. Sounds logical to me.
-
On 2/28/2024 at 8:31 AM, ZachariasX said:
This would include the Oscar (to get stomped on)
It'd end up stomped for sure... but your photograph shows a Frank 😉
MY WISH FOR A FLYABLE IN THIS GAME... if it really has to be one only... same as Props, my wish goes to the Kawanishi N1K2-Ja Shiden Kai.
-
6
-
-
On 3/28/2024 at 4:20 PM, CPT Crunch said:
I want control over the complete functioning of things like the gun sights, able to set depression angles and adjust the light intensity and turn the bulb on and off. Also the weapons controls to be able to turn the selectors and set the modes, same with fuel systems. Anything having to do with a combat system or basic engine and system controls. Could care less about start sequence beyond setting all the levers we do have control into their proper positions for start, like throttle, mix, and prop levers along with cowl flaps and such when in the start sequence. Control over any system having to do with actual flight and combat operations.
In actual air combat you may manage to extinguish an engine fire... but you'll need to cut the magnetos (and fuel cocks) off so that no oil/fuel lines set other elements on fire again somewhere else on your aircraft. Not even need an on-board fire for the use of magnetos, you might need them to restart an engine while your aircraft still is in full flight. Magnetos and fuel cocks are a must!
-
1
-
-
My friend Trooper will always be granted with cool songs! (the misunderstanding is over gentlemen, let's go back to our discussions...).
-
4
-
-
3 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:
OMG... I stated I wouldn't want a study sim like DCS, mainly because of the length of time (years) it takes to make the bloody planes... not that I didn't want a clickable cockpit.
Jesus...
Easy Trooper, I was responding to your very first post on the thread... assuming that you have read the title and that your post was dealing with the same matter: the bloody clickable cockpits. So there's no need to appeal to Jesus...
-
1
-
-
@Trooper117, clickable cockpits don't necessarily mean study level. See for example "IL-2 Cliffs of Dover" and "DCS", both present clickable cockpits but DCS is a study while IL2CoD is a survey. "IL-2 Great Battles" is a survey sim as well... but its start-up procedures are extremely simplified. Typically, in Great Battles, you simply need to properly set a few levers, press a key, and the engine starts roaring after a beautiful sequence of animated controls on the dashboard and cockpit... controls that in fact you witness yet you do not control you yourself. What makes a study-level sim is the number of required controls and how demanding the procedures are in the sim, but a few steps and controls being required for a start-up, this doesn't really make a sims is a study. DCS modules are study flight sims, sure they are... but Great Battles and Cliffs of Dover are not. That being said, regarding the start-up procedures these are the required steps I'd like to have in "Combat Pilot":
1) Magnetos
2) Fuel cocks
3) Radiators
4) Check the position of the boost cut-out, WEP and, in general, this kind of device.
5) Proper setting of the propeller pitch lever
6) Proper setting of the mixture lever
7) Proper setting of the throttle
And that's all. More or less like in Cliffs of Dover... but with magnetos working. As just described above, with so few controls being required for an engine start-up, we still are at survey level, not study. DCS is much more time-consuming 'cause much more realistic.
My wish for Combat Pilot is:
1) That we have the above described start-up procedure. Half way between DCS (which is too much realistic and time-consuming) and Great Battles (which has been excessively simplified).
2) That the cockpits and clickable... but only on those devices on the dashboard that are affected by a survey-level simulator (like in Great Battles, yet with magnetos and fuel cocks)
3) That the rollover labels on the clickable controls can be turned off so that players who simply don't want to see labels on their cockpits... do not see them (while their remain clickable nevertheless).
-
1
-
-
Well, yep, that was what I meant : the physical thing.
I hope that Jason and the devs will read this. Maybe clickable cockpits still are problematic in some regards in already existing simulators, but Combat Pilot is in development and could help to improve the feature.
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, RossMarBow said:
The great
clickable cockpits vs real buttons vs i just want to play the game
debateHumour is welcome RossMarBow! but, if you excuse me... out of these three concepts you mentioned, I get what you mean with "clickable cockpits" and "I just want to play the game"... but what do you call "real buttons"? keys on keyboards and buttons on HOTAS?
-
1
-
-
Thank you for your intervention Aapje. Makes sense but...
13 hours ago, Aapje said:turns the planes into study-level designs.
No, that part is not true, because the clickable controls would be those of a survey, not those of a study. The "Great Battles" series and the "Dover" series are both survey-level combat flight sims, but "Great Battles" hasn't clickable controls while "Dover" has them. What differs with a study-level like DCS is the number of usable controls in the game. I may be wrong, but I assume that "Combat Pilot" is planned to be a survey-level simulator... unless the content in the game, at release, stays with two carriers only, one map only and two fighter aircraft only... all of these elements being modelled at the study level.
-
Thank you for posting that. The photograph in the original post wasn't originally in colour, the photo had been colourised. A French guy recently made one video about that story (sorry, the video is in French):
-
2
-
-
Hey Charon, Skelthos is right. The "Combat Pilot" developers simply need to bring us nice clickable cockpits (with labels that one can turn off please!) and the headsets will make what's left.
Release of "Combat Pilot" is planned for release in a few years' time. We can assume that, by then, fingertip tracking will be a standard among most VR headsets.
For example, this is how it works with the Meta Quest 3 headset, released 5 months ago:
-
1
-
-
I don't know if whether or not the below wish has been expressed before... in such a case please merge this thread with the appropriate one.
My dream is that future flight sims are not only VR-compatible but that they also present clickable cockpits with finger tracking so that all the required hardware is nothing but the computer, the VR headset, the HOTAS and, for those who want them, the pedals. The keyboard and the mouse would be used for the launch of the simulation only... but once we are in the simulation, the simple use of one real finger on the virtual clickable controls would allow us to directly fly our aircraft with no need of previous key bindings (on keyboards) nor previous button bindings neither (on HOTAS devices).
I'm not asking for the entire removal of the key-binding section from the game. Such a section in the game user interface would be useful not only for players still preferring this method, but also because, after the use of VR headsets, from experience we know that, with little training only, there's no need we see our HOTAS to properly use all its buttons. Thus, when using the finger tracking technology in the VR visual environment, we could simultaneously use plenty of buttons on the HOTAS... but nevertheless definitely dismiss the keyboard and the mouse.
Other than using the augmented reality function (which definitely stops my suspension of disbelief), I see no way of pressing keys on a keyboard if not removing (or slightly lifting) the headset. In other words, whether you use the augmented reality or not, you are allways forced to momentarily leave the simulation in order to properly use your keyboard and mouse. This is why, in my opinion, all VR users who seek the perfect simulation should ask for a simulator that dismisses that the use of their keyboards and mouses is mandatory, at least when they're in the simulation.
As a conclusion, the above requested feature should be implemented in "Combat Pilot". You fellow pilots who use VR headsets... don't you agree?
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, OriginalCustard said:
I remember those heady days in the very early 80s when I thought Aviator was the best thing since slice bread 🍞 Hot damn those where the days !
If my memory serves me well, in 1995, at least in France, Microsoft offered that sim as a "Sopwith Camel simulator" with every OS sold (Windows 95). Obviously it wasn't. I think it was one old version of "Flight Simulator" from the period 1979-1982, the one that had become "Microsoft Flight Simulator" in 1982 when they added "Microsoft" to the "Flight Simulator" brand. I was 7 years old in 1982 and didn't start playing flight sims until ten years later in 1992. Congrats Custard for staying so long in the flight sims domain.
-
4
-
-
Rumours still pretend that this secret weapon wasn't possible without the early stages of development of the turbo encabulator:
-
3
-
-
On 6/8/2023 at 9:45 AM, Chief_Mouser said:
Wildebeest
No problem if the above is a typo, in fact, I know so few English that I had a doubt and checked the orthograph: it's Wildebeest for the African mammal and Vildebeest for the aircraft (Vickers Vildebeest - Wikipedia). So... why the plane'name is spelt with a "V"? Where does this come from?
-
Unavoidable is the word... if not... what "simulation" is? 😉
-
1 minute ago, Gambit21 said:
If you're willing to fly 4 hours, 5 hours, 6 hours etc...you're a true rarity my friend.
Well, as I said, "Time compression and/or other potential solutions should always be reviewed first". So I'm not seeking absolute full realism, I'm ready to accept infringements to realism (if not, what "simulation" is?), but preferably not by means of reduced maps.
-
3
-
-
13 hours ago, Jaguar said:
not considering reduced scale maps
Reduced scale maps not only shouldn't be considered, they simply should get rid of flight sims. Never, never again. Time compression and/or other potential solutions should always be reviewed first.
-
2
-
-
On 5/25/2023 at 6:15 PM, Gambit21 said:
Aye - we need some cheese to go with the whine.
As a Frenchman, trust me, this is much appreciated. We French are famous for our whine.
-
20 hours ago, Jaydee said:
Chuck Yeagers Flight Sim, MS Flight Sim, Red Baron, Janes , Pacific Air War, Apache Vs hind , F3 and F4, IL2 FB and here we are with DCS anIL2 GBs.(just to name a few ).
Thankfully, for us Flight Sims are not dead yet.
Graphics..OMG Would you Believe in 1995 what you are seeing on your Monitor Now ?
With the Yeager's title I think you refer to the "Chuck Yeager's Advanced Flight Trainer" (1987) or maybe to "Chuck Yeager's Air Combat" (1991). I intesively played that latter. So you could have asked "would you believe in 1990"
In my opinion the two most important and revolutionary leaps in the history of PC combat flight simulation happened in 2001 and in 2008-2011:
1) in 2001 with the first "IL-2 Sturmovik"
2) in 2008/2009/2011 with "DCS", "Rise of Flight" and "Cliffs of Dover" ("Great Battles" is part of the second revolution, but it's RoF-based so it's implied in it).
Only Russian developers undertook these two revolutions and what's funny is that they did it because the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. This allowed the ex-Soviet engineers to step into in the competition market of video games, so they read a few books published in USA in the 1990s and they simply took the best advantage of the American ideas in the domain of coding and software development. This is what the Maddoxes (Sturmovik, CoD), Solomikyns (RoF), and Tishins (DCS) really did in the 1990s and this is how we have DCS or Great Battles now. I have no idea if whether or not "Combat Pilot" is about to be a third revolution in the history of PC combat flight sims, but the "PC Combat Flight-Sim Russian Revolution" is a process that seems to be over and "Combat Pilot" could be now a wind of change. I hope it will... because, in my opinion, combat flight simulation for PCs needs new technologies and new methods in terms of coding and development. We really want something new, something better than what we had til now... don't you agree fellow pilots?
-
3
-
-
10 hours ago, IckyAtlas said:
Kintaro you forgot one pacific theater sim that was for me an important one:
Hellcats over the Pacific created by Parsoft and released by Graphic Simulations. They also made an excellent FA18 Hornet sim.
It was on Macintosh and released 1991 or 32 years ago. Yes at that time I had both worlds. And I had a mathematical coprocessor board in the Macintosh to speed up calculations.
However it was the first sim that appeared to me completely fluid high frame rate with no stutter at all. Compared to the others at that time even if graphics where extremely crude by today standards, it was a very nice look and feel when the plane reacted immediately and seamlessly to the Josytick motion. The others I had on PC's were absolutely not at a similar stage.
Surprisingly, even to me, in the 1990s I was a consumer of ETO flight sims mainly. So I picked most sims of that PTO list in the internet. Oh, and I never pretended it's an exhaustive list. For the Pacific I briefly used the second CFS (at release in 2000) and as of 2005 started running "Pacific Fighters", which led me straight ahead to December 2006 (the "IL-2 Sturmovik: 1946" DVD). Other than that, thank you Icky for the mention of Hellcats over the Pacific, I watched one video in Youtube and immediately understood I missed something in the early 90s.
-
1
-
Weather has to be important. Storms, waves, sunrise, sunsets, rain, lightning
in Wishlist and Suggestions
Posted
Well, please let me disagree with that, these war ships on this video should be more intensely tossed about by those quite violent waves. Not realistic to me, not on the above video, but "Combat Pilot" still is under development and will most likely look differently, more realistic... I hope...