Plans for Cockpit interaction ??

[JFM]

I’m here to neither persuade nor dissuade, just voice my opinion. 😀

I like clickable cockpits but would like a combo of CLoD and IL2. I.e., startup could be automated, or I could do it myself, via clicking switches or having assigned key commands. I’d like an option. 
 

What I’ve always disliked is starting SP career mission in an already running plane sitting on a runway. I’d love to start up, set/manage controls as I want, and taxi to the active runway (in ground units, not carriers). Yeah, it takes longer, but I don’t mind. At least you don’t have to spend time doing any run ups, because there are never any bad mags, iced carbs, low oil pressure, etc. Everything always works perfectly, outside of A2A’s “Accu-Sim” feature for their MS products—a feature I’d love in combat flight sims. 

Along that line, though outside the scope of this thread, sorry, but in an SP career I think it’d be cool to have victory flag markings automatically added to your plane to be seen in the next mission, as well as visible repairs of battle damage from the previous mission. I don’t know if this could even be done, but re-read my first sentence in this post. 

I’ll stop hijacking. 😀

[III.JG52 Al-Azraq]

On 9/8/2023 at 2:34 AM, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

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.

I completely agree with you, if one thing has to go that's engine timers. It really weakens many planes as in reality pilots pushed the engines way more than timers allow.

The rest it can be as in IL-2 as far as I am concerned, but any addition to realism is welcome but what is more important to me for immersion, is to have a fully fledged battlefield with at least 3-4 controllable planes per side (fighters, fighters-attackers, and medium bombers at least) and AI units.

If adding clicky cockpits compromises this, then in my opinion they should stay away from it.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

On 9/12/2023 at 1:13 AM, III.JG52 Al-Azraq said:

I completely agree with you, if one thing has to go that's engine timers. It really weakens many planes as in reality pilots pushed the engines way more than timers allow.

Yes, it's one of those weird features that's neither realistic nor truly necessary for playability, so it leaves me wondering why the devs felt it was necessary. It's sad to see otherwise beautiful aircraft crippled by limits that historically had nothing to do with actual engine durability.

 

On 9/12/2023 at 1:13 AM, III.JG52 Al-Azraq said:

The rest it can be as in IL-2 as far as I am concerned, but any addition to realism is welcome but what is more important to me for immersion, is to have a fully fledged battlefield with at least 3-4 controllable planes per side (fighters, fighters-attackers, and medium bombers at least) and AI units.

Exactly. I still love the detailed DCS planes, but after a decade of development, we have about 8 WW2 aircraft, some of which don't even have relevant maps or opposing units. War Thunder on the other hand has an amazing library, but the interaction is quite superficial and it comes with all the annoyances of multiplayer F2P business.

[III.JG52 Al-Azraq]

On 9/14/2023 at 2:15 AM, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

Yes, it's one of those weird features that's neither realistic nor truly necessary for playability, so it leaves me wondering why the devs felt it was necessary. It's sad to see otherwise beautiful aircraft crippled by limits that historically had nothing to do with actual engine durability.

I think that modelling the engine damage realistically based on temperatures is not as easy as just inserting the timers found in the manuals. I guess that it was fine for the first expansions of IL-2, but it really harmed the experience in many planes that they released later.

Edited September 15, 2023 by III.JG52 Al-Azraq

[Dartag]

Full fidelity or not Full fidelity...

In two senteces:  The only fidelity that matters is the one that will be or could be used in flight. all the buttons that just serve a cold start up procedure are not usefull in my opinion.

On the other hand, any switch or wheel the pilot can move to prevent his airplane to fall or just to get himself back home... that I want... Fuel management, prop management, electrical power management, emergency landing gear, etc

thx

[dburne]

On 9/27/2023 at 9:13 AM, Dartag said:

Full fidelity or not Full fidelity...

In two senteces:  The only fidelity that matters is the one that will be or could be used in flight. all the buttons that just serve a cold start up procedure are not usefull in my opinion.

On the other hand, any switch or wheel the pilot can move to prevent his airplane to fall or just to get himself back home... that I want... Fuel management, prop management, electrical power management, emergency landing gear, etc

thx

 

Fwiw all the buttons required to startup in a WWII bird are in fact very few. I can have my engines running and warmed up to begin to taxi in like 5 minutes. This is with the Spit and the P-51 in DCS.