Plans for Cockpit interaction ??

[dburne]

2 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Those are both mission design, not simulation design.

 

Really? Cool I did not realize I could go through a cold start routine in IL-2. Has been a while though. I assume you did notice I was talking about two options - runway start with engine running and cold start - go through start up routine taxi and take off? Not a simulation design? I would think it would very much be - if not , then a mission could not be designed around it.

Edited May 20, 2023 by dburne

[Gambit21]

1 minute ago, dburne said:

 

Really? Cool I did not realize I could go through a cold start routine in IL-2. Has been a while though. I assume you did notice I was talking about two options - runway start with engine running and cold start - go through start up routine taxi and take off? Not a simulation design?

You know I'm not talking about IL2

....and no both of the things you describe are mission design considerations (assuming all is possible in the sim) which for instance in DCS I can script either one.

 

 

[dburne]

Just now, Gambit21 said:

You know I'm not talking about IL2

....and no both of the things you describe are mission design considerations (assuming all is possible in the sim) which for instance in DCS I can script either one.

 

 

 

I guess I need to spell it out further - obviously when referring to cold start routine I was referring to being parked, going through the startup procedure and taxi to runway. I am speaking of hoping all is possible in the sim, not assuming.

Goodness I am quite aware of how I can do both in DCS, I do it every day. Let's not get caught up in semantics.

[Gambit21]

25 minutes ago, dburne said:

 

I guess I need to spell it out further - obviously when referring to cold start routine I was referring to being parked, going through the startup procedure and taxi to runway. I am speaking of hoping all is possible in the sim, not assuming.

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.

 

25 minutes ago, dburne said:

Goodness I am quite aware of how I can do both in DCS, I do it every day. Let's not get caught up in semantics.

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. 

 

 

 

[dburne]

2 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

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. 

 

 

 

 

Whatever man, you have a nice day. And no I was not talking about "pressing E to start" and am pretty sure you knew that. 

Edited May 20, 2023 by dburne

[Gambit21]

16 minutes ago, dburne said:

 

Whatever man, you have a nice day. And no I was not talking about "pressing E to start" and am pretty sure you knew that. 

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. 🤔

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 20, 2023 by Gambit21

[dburne]

13 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

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. 🤔

No worries.

[Gambit21]

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.

 

 

[III.JG52_Otto_-I-]

full clickable cockpits are a very interesting feature, because it do the keybinding easy and could be limited to most used keys/buttons in combat. Rest of the aircraft system could be used clicking with mouse or virtual gloves.

other interesting feature would be an automatic engine start routine and checklist, as second choice for the player.

By the way, we must remember, that in WW2, scramble aircrafts were usually started by the mechanics, and they also were keep engines warm, starting them time to time for a warm up.

[Baldrick]

9 hours ago, dburne said:

 

I guess I need to spell it out further - obviously when referring to cold start routine I was referring to being parked, going through the startup procedure and taxi to runway. I am speaking of hoping all is possible in the sim, not assuming.

Goodness I am quite aware of how I can do both in DCS, I do it every day. Let's not get caught up in semantics.

Given this is a thread on cockpit interaction it seems pretty clear to me that a cold start involves the player doing everything the real pilot and in some cases ground crew might do to get the aircraft started. Which requires the options for either clickable cockpit or mappable controls. My preference would be both.

Mission designers can opt for what they want but the options need to be built in to sim.

IMHO the player should have access to quick missions that don’t touch the mission builder to be able to start in the air, on the runway or do a full cold start with full interaction.

It is a curious thing, MSFS leaves me cold (no pun intended) without the combat element, yet I can often find myself using DCS to fire up an aircraft and simply take off and land. I can get great enjoyment from doing that but it wouldn’t be what I would expect to be my requirement from a combat sim. Sometimes it seems I spend more time mapping controls than flying a new aircraft to get it perfect but although it might seem a chore the results are worth it.

[Chief_Mouser]

Whatever Combat Pilot ships with, and lets hope that it has as many options as possible; what we don't need is being forced into one method and nothing else.

Personally I don't like clickpits, but I do like the fully manual cold startups in DCS; and I also appreciate the Press E startups in GB.

So Full cold starts - yes. Clickpits - yes, necessary for those who don't have the controls setup to assign everything to keys. Simplified Press E startup - yes. Spawn with engine running - yes, especially on carriers. Air Starts for Quick Missions - yes. Total Autopilot mission startup  - no; not so keen - Autopilot for in air only.

Cheers.

[Gustav]

For me it's a must for immersion, it's not only about starting the engine but also includes fuel management. That itself would solve a lot of issues there are in GB, such as fuel switching back and forth in some planes such as in 190s, where I need to wait some time to finally see which tank is running and for how much left I have, that's REALLY annoying. Imo aircraft systems are part of simulation and flying experience and leaving it behind would only open up for the competition to take over, also it's clear at this moment looking at the the market and what simmers want, that fidelity is a requirement.

[Blue 5]

CLoD, IIRC, had quite a good half-way house whereby you could follow a historical start procedure but the engine had been - realistically- primed by the ground crew. That I recall as a satisfactory approach.

DCS has already anticipated the hepatic glove. I would guess that this needs to be considered now for the coding in time for it to become common in the mid-2020s.

Is it too early to start the ‘engine timer’ debate?

[Feldgrün]

I think IL2 CloD is a good version for cockpit interaction. Being able to either use my mouse to "flip a switch" to start an engine, using my keyboard or dedicated HOTAS buttons gives lots of options. However, I'm not interested in a full DCS experience, where I have to click every switch or button to fly. However, having that option may be interesting for someone who wants the full experience. I'm not sure that all of the planes that they plan to model would have that historical information available. 

[SharpeXB]

I can understand the need to save effort in developing the aircraft in order to simply have more of them in the game. It’s a combat sim after all and simply having more aircraft is important in order to create scenarios. 
But. I find myself wanting quality over quantity and having interactive cockpits may well be the state of the art these days in flight sims. Without this the game might just feel less sophisticated. Interacting with the cockpit makes you feel like you’re operating a real aircraft instead of playing a game. The bar today is set by products like DCS and MSFS and to compete you probably need to emulate that level of interaction. Plus clicking on controls is much more intuitive than remembering key commands. Bottom line is I think the customer today will expect clickable cockpits. 

[spreckair]

On 5/20/2023 at 3:40 PM, IckyAtlas said:

I prefer to have an animated pilot body in the cockpit and not an empty cockpit.

And in VR I suppose that to have a pilot body in the cockpit would be even better.

I totally agree with this item.  I fly in VR and it is very un-immersive to look down and see that nobody is sitting in the cockpit.  Even if the hands stay on the stick and throttle, that is better than nothing.

[PikeStance]

I guess I am with the majority if I am reading this thread right, I wouldn't mind both options being available. It is fun to have a more "immersive" experience, but you also want to just fly. I've been known to abuse the FF button in SP, but I also do the full experience as well. 

[III.JG52 Al-Azraq]

As much as I love my clicky cockpits for some hardcore simulation, I loved the approach that IL-2 took. It is a great balance of realism, and the ability of the devs to develop more planes for a certain scenario and have way more richer battlefield than we have in DCS for instance.

There a couple of point where I think they really should improve compared to IL-2, which is the engine modelling (please, no timers), and some parts of the damage modelling such as hydraulics. Also I could add gunnery must be improved, IL-2 is really flat in that regards with both sound and bullet drops and simulation having room for improvement.

But when it comes to cockpit simulation, IL-2 is a happy medium for me.

[Trooper117]

To early to tell what they have in mind... but I'll go with whatever they come up with. Let's face it, there's not a lot of choices out there if you want WWII Pacific.

[Hoss]

Cracks me up every time I read about IL2 not having a clickable cockpit for start-ups. Well, I might not be able to sit there and click the buttons, throw switches, or prime engines, with my mouse or HOTAS. But, you do have to sit there and watch the AI pilot go through the steps of starting your engine. It's not like it just starts after you hit E... And then there is engine warm-up time.....

 

[Sea Serpent]

1 hour ago, Hoss said:

Cracks me up every time I read about IL2 not having a clickable cockpit for start-ups. Well, I might not be able to sit there and click the buttons, throw switches, or prime engines, with my mouse or HOTAS. But, you do have to sit there and watch the AI pilot go through the steps of starting your engine. It's not like it just starts after you hit E... And then there is engine warm-up time.....

 

When you see these startup messages in Sturmovik, priming this, flicking this switch, etc, is there actually anything taking place under the hood?   The biggest complaints about IL-2 seem to have been engine timers and damage modeling (and drop tanks, lol).  If the the guts of the airplane systems and engine aren’t modeled to a sufficient level, then I don’t see how you get realistic DM.  So in my opinion, the issue is far greater than whether you can click a switch with the mouse rather than use a keyboard command, or even watch some sequence play out automatically, it’s whether a system is even modelled to any degree to begin with.  And if you -do- model some system (elec, hydraulic,fuel, etc) you might as well let the user actually operate those systems fully.  Using the DCS WW2 planes as an example of full system modeling + clickable/keyboard bindable, some are turned off by this because they think it’s too complicated, or too much of a pain, but I disagree (for WW2 planes).  Throw some circuit breakers here, prime it, run the inertia starter, and there we go.   I’m for full system modeling, and full system control as much as possible.  And even DCS has “cheat” commands that will automatically start up or shut down the aircraft for those that can’t do it themselves.

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

On 6/9/2023 at 1:54 PM, SharpeXB said:

The bar today is set by products like DCS and MSFS and to compete you probably need to emulate that level of interaction

I think there is room for a middle ground. War Thunder is vastly more pore popular than DCS, yet its interaction and system modeling are extremely simple in comparison.

I'd hope for interaction slightly above Il-2 GB standards. Engine timers have to go. Clickpits and switchology are OK provided that they don't bog down development too much and simplified options are available.

Fleshing out the complete battlefield experience is the most important IMHO. Aiming for DCS levels of interaction could slow that down too much, especially when dealing with aircraft types that are poorly documented.

[PikeStance]

Given this is a startup with no current product on the market, then aiming for Il2 level of interaction makes more sense at this time. 

[Trooper117]

10 hours ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

War Thunder is vastly more pore popular than DCS

And yet it's a bag of bollox...

[OriginalCustard]

12 hours ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

I think there is room for a middle ground. War Thunder is vastly more pore popular than DCS

War Thunder is more or less an instant gratification game, something you can drop in or drop out of with little investment in time etc. DCS/MSFS takes a little more dedication and investment and it seems as though a hell of a lot of gamer these days want that instant dopamine hit.

IL2, was in my opinion a very good middle ground with some simplification in many areas but with time investment require. Unfortunately, (IMO) IL2 in the last year or so made some absolutely terrible decisions particularly with AI, the laughable damage model that they currently have and the "updated" ammunition penetration values. 

I don't really care if Combat Pilot has a "workable" cockpit environment. What I do care about is the AI, damage model and flight model are the most realistic we can possible get given current software/hardware limitations.