Vote your choice - Clickable Cockpits or Not

[F4U Corsair]

You can have both, you either use the clickable objects or use a hotkey. It's not like you have too use one or the other - it's optional.

[Blackdog_kt]

Guys, you're still missing the point. It's not about clickable cockpits, it's about having the systems modelled in high fidelity and that's not a gimmick, it's realism that will finally take us beyond the easy-mode flying we've been doing all these years.

Yes, easy mode flying and i stand by it.

First of all, WWII cockpits are much simpler than Black Shark's cockpit. Second, startup in most fighters of the time is usually all about flicking 3-10 switches. If you can take the time to study charts and practice energy retention in high altitude fights, you can surely remember the right sequence of flicking a mere 10 switches.
Third, warm-up in normal weather (which is most dogfight servers) takes less than half a minute. All you need is to idle until you get an oil temperature of about 40-50 celsius for most engines (this happens in seconds, even before you've oriented yourself in regards to where the runway is), then you keep your RPM above 1000 to avoid spark-plugs getting fouled, at which point you're already taxiing for takeoff anyway, so the engine will be ready before you'even said "hi" on teamspeak.
Fourth, the run-up procedure is not necessary unless you have random failures modelled and even if it was, all it takes in most of the cases is throttle up to X amount of RPM, cycle the magnetos and watch RPM drop, move the pitch lever to make sure it works and off you go.

Total time from start-up to take-off with realistic systems modelling and a slightly abbreviated version of "by-the-book" procedures? I'd say about the same amount of time it takes you to press "I", taxi to the runway and shove the throttle forward like we do in IL2.
Both are easy and fast, but one is more realistic and immersive.

Originally Posted by KOM.Nausicaa

Voted no. Clickable cockpits belong to a civil flight sim, or a sim that focuses on one plane / helicopter. In my opinion it's making things complicated that should be easy during combat and there are too many different planes and cockpits around.

I can agree with you if you mean that the interfacing should be easy and natural and we should have options to tailor it to our taste. I disagree if by easy you mean "not modelling things that don't directly relate to the shooting part", because in that case we're missing half of what it really was to fly a WWII warbird.

Originally Posted by Romanator21

I voted Yes.

I don't expect Oleg to make a fully clickable cockpit, nor do I want him to spend time and resources doing it at this very moment. However, I think the engine should be constructed in a way to accommodate these options when done by third party developers, or later by Oleg's team.

That said, I probably won't use the fully clickable cockpit except on pre-takeoff or post-flight shutdown or messing with my circuit breakers/electrical switches. Otherwise, I'd like a nice touch-screen monitor That will be a few years at least though.

However, since I can't have a proper fully clickable cockpit, I would like a fully functional cockpit. That means I would like every function to be accessible by keyboard and I would like every instrument to give an accurate and meaningful measurement..

That's my thoughts exactly. Download the Black Shark manual people, i think there's not a single switch or button in there that doesn't correspond to a keyboard or joystick command, or can't be assigned to one. Of course, nobody can remember all those key commands, but the important ones that you need in combat are all mapped to keyboard and stick, the rest are for start-up/shut-down and non-combat stuff things that can easily be done with the mouse, just like Romanator said he would use it. Even more so, the amount of switches on a WWII fighter are probably less than 10% the amount of switches in Black Shark, so anyone with a half-decent HOTAS will not need to use the mouse AT ALL.

The important question is not how the virtual buttons are pressed, but how well the systems of the aircraft are modelled.People who want to press their switches with the mouse can do it with the mouse, people who want to do it with the keyboard or HOTAS can do so as well, what's the problem really?

Well, i think the problem is that some simmers don't want flight sims to become more complex but instead remain more on the game side of things, and focusing on interfacing instead of on the real question is just a smoke-screen to cover this up behind a dislike for a certain user interface. Nothing against them really if that's the way they like it, i just can't see why the rest of us who want something more should be denied it.

It's not like we said "we want this on release", just make the cockpit switches animate correctly and have the correct functions and the community will mod the cockpits to work with whatever interface they want, clickpits or power gloves or HOTAS scripts.

It's not like we said "make this mandatory for everyone" either, it would be one more setting in the difficuly panel that you could turn off if you didn't like or if it wasn't practical for an online scenario.

I just get the feeling that some people are against it, simply because it would mean that they would lose the pride associated with flying "full real" when they turn off the complex systems management options. Well, IL2 full real is not exactly real, just like it's not for any other sim. What matters in any sim is trying to get as close to the real thing as possible for those that want it, while providing enough difficulty options and setttings to turn off certain features for those that don't. The thing is, times have moved on and now there's new products to compare to for the people that want the "complicated, massive, awe-inspiring machinery" experience.

I sincerely feel that if SoW doesn't have adequate modelling of aircraft subsystems, or at least the provision to add it later, it will be just a re-hash of IL2 with prettier graphics and nothing more.

[Warhound]

Oleg has allready commented on this last year saying he doesn't see the benefit in a combatsim and it would require quite alot of work adding it to every plane.

Personally I'd rather see Project Galba (or a Western Europe ; Africa ; ... project) see the light than maddox games and friends working a year on implementing clickable everything in each plane.
I'm pretty sure he will code the needed basics so 3rd party addonmakers can make lovely payable addons with clicky cockpits though.

3rd thread about this subject in about 6months, with very active pro posters who make it seem like almost everyone wants clickable pits...thank god this one has a poll.

[Blackdog_kt]

Well, maybe it's time for another poll to showcase the real question:

Do we want realistic engine and systems management that will cause failures if we exceed the normal operating parameters? I'm not talking about random failures here and keep in mind, all of these should be options that we can turn off in the realism settings. For example, random failures and warm-up would be a nice option for single player but not so good for multi-player, no problem, just select a server that has them turned off. Now warm up in these planes is very fast, but even if it was slow there's the example of RoF, where, most people only use it for single player and the online servers turn it off.

So, this is mainly an issue of added realism with a couple extra options in the realism settings, i don't think anyone in their right mind would try to force the rest of the community to use their choice of settings if they want to fly some other way. It's just like flying in open or closed pit servers, you decide what you like and you make your choices.
The way i think about it, we could have the following realism options about it all:

Random failures: Just what the title says. I can't see this getting much use in multiplayer, but it will give some nice thrills in single player campaigns.

Wear and tear accumulates on the aircraft: Just like the previous one, this will mostly be for single player. Get a cannon shell in your wing and it might snap during a high-G maneuver in the next mission, unless your aircraf is factory overhauled or you get a new one. Stress your engine too much in consecutive missions and after a while the crew chief can't bring it up to factory specifications, again you'll need a factory overhaul or a new engine. Things like that.

Realistic engine operation and limits: Improved over what in IL2 is labeled as CEM. If you don't know what you're doing you'll be able to cause failures, regardless of what the previously mentioned random failures setting is. You could have random failures turned off and still cause your engine to seize if you have this one enabled. It's not random in this case, it's the pilot not knowing how to take care of the engine.

No more flying around with the throttle wide open for extended periods of time, especially at low altitudes where this would exceed the maximum manifold pressure limits.
No more abusing the on/off nature of overheat timers that don't take into account the damage done while in overheat, as long as you manage to stop within 5 minutes the engine condition magically reverts to that of a brand new or recently overhauled engine.
No more possible to dive at high speed for a long time with the engine at idle and the radiators full open without causing damage from shock cooling.
No more exploiting of the faulty prop pitch mechanics to run the engine above it's maximum limits, in reality when the throttle is high and you lower the RPM too much you can destroy the engine because of excessive torque (high RPM=high horsepower, low RPM=high torque).

I'm sure real pilots can provide even more feedback about what is not just simplified, but sometimes totally opposite to the way a real engine operates. These things need to go and a new engine handling model installed that more clolesy mimics real world operating constraints.

Realistic systems and engine management: This is the "flick the switches part. Do it with the keyboard or the mouse, or whichever way you want, but if it is on you'll need to flick the switches somehow (or let your imaginary copilot do some of it for you if you have the next option set to easy). Arm your guns before combat or they won't fire, turn on your gunsight, switch your fuel tanks manually, go through start-up and shut-down sequences, calibrate altimeters, correct the directional gyro drift by referencing the compass and so on.

While this mode is active gauges and instruments may show incorrent readings depending on atmospheric conditions, maneuvering state, speed, engine vibration etc. The RPM needle jitters before stabilizing when you change the prop pitch, the "whiskey" compass spins wildy round when you accelerate or maneuver violently and you have to let it settle down before taking a reading, supercharger turbines don't spool up/down instantly so you have to be gentle with the turbo levers and so on. Most of all, just like in the engine management section, you have to stay within the recommended parameters or risk causing a failure. This will open up a whole new dimension in combat, preserve the good working state of your aircraft's components for when your REALLY need to stress them to escape death.

Automatic start up and shut down: This is a toggle that will enable you to have all the realism options on, but still not do everything yourself if you don't feel like it. Think of it as the automatic start up/shut down sequence in Black Shark, where the engine doesn't magically start but your imaginary co-pilot flicks the necessary switches for you.
This way, if this is enabled you'll be able to join a server where the previous two options are active but you still won't have to do everything by yourself. You will have the option to press the start up key and you'll see the switches getting flicked on their own as the "ghost" co-pilot goes through the start up procedure.

That doesn't mean the engine will magically and perfectly start every time, nor that it will be the most efficient way to do things, or that it will bypass the ability to cause failures because of improper operation of systems. It will just be a means to bridge the gap between those who want to fly full-switch and those who want realistic servers without having to click buttons all the time, but there will be an incentive to go manual.

The incentive is that the automatic start-up will go through the full checklist, while a guy who knows his plane well and does a manual but quick and dirty start up will gain quite some time. In Black Shark, there are people who can manually start the chopper about 30 seconds faster than the automatic start-up can. This will not be so much for WWII birds because they are simpler with fewer buttons to press, but if for example i have just landed and shut my engine off and decide i need to get back up again in a hurry, i can safely skip about 3/4 of the procedure if i do it manually and i won't even need the 10-15 second warm up. The automatic start-up key won't do this though, it will go through the full start-up, so this is an incentive to watch what it does on auto so that you'll learn how to do it yourself in a hurry.




Regardless of the way to control such things in flight, i think this is the main reason you see quite a few people campaign for clickpits, because they are an interface that is generally associated with more in-depth modelling of the aircraft as a whole.

Personally, i don't care if it's a clickable cockpit, a clever system of keyboard commands or a mix between the two and a HOTAS interface. I don't care either if it will be done by Oleg's team a few months after release, or if we will have to edit xml scripts to add clickable zones ourselves.

I just want my engine and the aircraft in general to be more than "swich on engine, maneuver, shoot, repeat", because it's unrealistic for a 2010 simulator, it's gotten less and less satisfying after all these years, it bypasses a whole lot of important decisions that have an importance in matters of tactics and the ability to complete a mission that would coax players into a more realistic way of fighting and it pales in comparison to what other modern simulators can do. Clickpits or not, realistic modelling of certain subsystems is a must for a next-gen simulator.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Well, maybe it's time for another poll to showcase the real question:

Do we want realistic engine and systems management that will cause failures if we exceed the normal operating parameters? I'm not talking about random failures here and keep in mind, all of these should be options that we can turn off in the realism settings. For example, random failures and warm-up would be a nice option for single player but not so good for multi-player, no problem, just select a server that has them turned off. Now warm up in these planes is very fast, but even if it was slow there's the example of RoF, where, most people only use it for single player and the online servers turn it off.

So, this is mainly an issue of added realism with a couple extra options in the realism settings, i don't think anyone in their right mind would try to force the rest of the community to use their choice of settings if they want to fly some other way. It's just like flying in open or closed pit servers, you decide what you like and you make your choices.
The way i think about it, we could have the following realism options about it all:

Random failures: Just what the title says. I can't see this getting much use in multiplayer, but it will give some nice thrills in single player campaigns.

Wear and tear accumulates on the aircraft: Just like the previous one, this will mostly be for single player. Get a cannon shell in your wing and it might snap during a high-G maneuver in the next mission, unless your aircraf is factory overhauled or you get a new one. Stress your engine too much in consecutive missions and after a while the crew chief can't bring it up to factory specifications, again you'll need a factory overhaul or a new engine. Things like that.

Realistic engine operation and limits: Improved over what in IL2 is labeled as CEM. If you don't know what you're doing you'll be able to cause failures, regardless of what the previously mentioned random failures setting is. You could have random failures turned off and still cause your engine to seize if you have this one enabled. It's not random in this case, it's the pilot not knowing how to take care of the engine.

No more flying around with the throttle wide open for extended periods of time, especially at low altitudes where this would exceed the maximum manifold pressure limits.
No more abusing the on/off nature of overheat timers that don't take into account the damage done while in overheat, as long as you manage to stop within 5 minutes the engine condition magically reverts to that of a brand new or recently overhauled engine.
No more possible to dive at high speed for a long time with the engine at idle and the radiators full open without causing damage from shock cooling.
No more exploiting of the faulty prop pitch mechanics to run the engine above it's maximum limits, in reality when the throttle is high and you lower the RPM too much you can destroy the engine because of excessive torque (high RPM=high horsepower, low RPM=high torque).

I'm sure real pilots can provide even more feedback about what is not just simplified, but sometimes totally opposite to the way a real engine operates. These things need to go and a new engine handling model installed that more clolesy mimics real world operating constraints.

Realistic systems and engine management: This is the "flick the switches part. Do it with the keyboard or the mouse, or whichever way you want, but if it is on you'll need to flick the switches somehow (or let your imaginary copilot do some of it for you if you have the next option set to easy). Arm your guns before combat or they won't fire, turn on your gunsight, switch your fuel tanks manually, go through start-up and shut-down sequences, calibrate altimeters, correct the directional gyro drift by referencing the compass and so on.

While this mode is active gauges and instruments may show incorrent readings depending on atmospheric conditions, maneuvering state, speed, engine vibration etc. The RPM needle jitters before stabilizing when you change the prop pitch, the "whiskey" compass spins wildy round when you accelerate or maneuver violently and you have to let it settle down before taking a reading, supercharger turbines don't spool up/down instantly so you have to be gentle with the turbo levers and so on. Most of all, just like in the engine management section, you have to stay within the recommended parameters or risk causing a failure. This will open up a whole new dimension in combat, preserve the good working state of your aircraft's components for when your REALLY need to stress them to escape death.

Automatic start up and shut down: This is a toggle that will enable you to have all the realism options on, but still not do everything yourself if you don't feel like it. Think of it as the automatic start up/shut down sequence in Black Shark, where the engine doesn't magically start but your imaginary co-pilot flicks the necessary switches for you.
This way, if this is enabled you'll be able to join a server where the previous two options are active but you still won't have to do everything by yourself. You will have the option to press the start up key and you'll see the switches getting flicked on their own as the "ghost" co-pilot goes through the start up procedure.

That doesn't mean the engine will magically and perfectly start every time, nor that it will be the most efficient way to do things, or that it will bypass the ability to cause failures because of improper operation of systems. It will just be a means to bridge the gap between those who want to fly full-switch and those who want realistic servers without having to click buttons all the time, but there will be an incentive to go manual.

The incentive is that the automatic start-up will go through the full checklist, while a guy who knows his plane well and does a manual but quick and dirty start up will gain quite some time. In Black Shark, there are people who can manually start the chopper about 30 seconds faster than the automatic start-up can. This will not be so much for WWII birds because they are simpler with fewer buttons to press, but if for example i have just landed and shut my engine off and decide i need to get back up again in a hurry, i can safely skip about 3/4 of the procedure if i do it manually and i won't even need the 10-15 second warm up. The automatic start-up key won't do this though, it will go through the full start-up, so this is an incentive to watch what it does on auto so that you'll learn how to do it yourself in a hurry.




Regardless of the way to control such things in flight, i think this is the main reason you see quite a few people campaign for clickpits, because they are an interface that is generally associated with more in-depth modelling of the aircraft as a whole.

Personally, i don't care if it's a clickable cockpit, a clever system of keyboard commands or a mix between the two and a HOTAS interface. I don't care either if it will be done by Oleg's team a few months after release, or if we will have to edit xml scripts to add clickable zones ourselves.

I just want my engine and the aircraft in general to be more than "swich on engine, maneuver, shoot, repeat", because it's unrealistic for a 2010 simulator, it's gotten less and less satisfying after all these years, it bypasses a whole lot of important decisions that have an importance in matters of tactics and the ability to complete a mission that would coax players into a more realistic way of fighting and it pales in comparison to what other modern simulators can do. Clickpits or not, realistic modelling of certain subsystems is a must for a next-gen simulator.

Blackdog, warming up in Battle of Britain would be a bit unusual, considering Jerry could come at any time. And the mechanic would probably heat it up for you before you jump in, probably.

Random failures would be excellent in both MP and SP. If the server feels like tuning realism up, that might be an excellent one (also, frustrating sometimes, but that's how it was back then)

The weathering, I guess it's only used in campaigns. If there's a multiplayer campaign mode, it should work the same way. Dogfights? I don't think so.

Engine limits are modelled to some point in Il-2. Just try to mess with the engine in a 109 for more than 0,5 second to see what happens.

Realistic systems are something most DCS fans are already used to, and would sure love to see in Storm of War. Indeed a great thing to hav e. No need for clickable and etc., but at least being able to mess with every possible switch in the cockpit is something everyone would like, I guess.

One thought about it: we'll need a freakin' manual of those planes to use this wisely.

The more realistic the flight and systems, the better it is - NO EXCEPTIONS.

Options are the way to go, IMHO

[AndyJWest]

Well, maybe it's time for another poll to showcase the real question...

It isn't 'the real question', it's a different question. Why not ask it in another thread. Before you do that though, I'd try to see what Oleg has said on the subject, I think he has already commented on most of this.

[Bearcat]

If they have touch screen support I think it would be very innovative.. if not.. for me anyway a waste of time.. I'd never use it.. I would like to see every function modelled in the sim with a moveable virtual counterpart though..

[Romanator21]

Originally Posted by Lucas_From_Hell

Blackdog, warming up in Battle of Britain would be a bit unusual, considering Jerry could come at any time. And the mechanic would probably heat it up for you before you jump in, probably.

I think that this is something that could be dependent on airfield or mission type. It shouldn't be much of a problem to insert such a feature into the code, after initial release.

Engine limits are modelled to some point in Il-2. Just try to mess with the engine in a 109 for more than 0,5 second to see what happens.

The engine limits in Il-2 are almost non-existent. There are really only a few quirks modeled to give some planes individuality, but nothing beyond that.
You can break your Bf-109 engine by putting it in over-boost if over 80% power, and you can over-speed your Hurricane engine in a dive. If your engine overheats for 9 minutes, reduce power until you see "Engine:normal" and now you can overheat it again for 9 minutes. Things like oil pressure, fuel pressure, etc mean nothing.

Fly a Dornier in manual pitch and it should give you just a little taste of how involved managing an engine can be. You will probably break it your first time taking off. Still, one can easily apply more throttle than pitch and fly happily, and most engine instruments are just decoration.

Options are the way to go, IMHO

Naturally.

[Erkki]

Originally Posted by Romanator21

The engine limits in Il-2 are almost non-existent. There are really only a few quirks modeled to give some planes individuality, but nothing beyond that.
You can break your Bf-109 engine by putting it in over-boost if over 80% power, and you can over-speed your Hurricane engine in a dive. If your engine overheats for 9 minutes, reduce power until you see "Engine:normal" and now you can overheat it again for 9 minutes. Things like oil pressure, fuel pressure, etc mean nothing.

Known planes with this bug are at least FW-190A9 and Spitfire IXc 25lbs. Most dont do it... The boost engage limit in order to not over-rev(3000RPM or more) the engine is 2000RPM or enabling it instantly after setting power near-0(engine RPM has no time to jump high enough).

Fly a Dornier in manual pitch and it should give you just a little taste of how involved managing an engine can be. You will probably break it your first time taking off. Still, one can easily apply more throttle than pitch and fly happily, and most engine instruments are just decoration.

Imho the best-modelled prop pitch is in the Bf109E. In vast majority the "prop pitch" is actually engine RPM anyways, and the on-screen message is misleading.

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Games are all about fun and if whatever relevant feature can be coded and be optional it should make it into the game, i don't think anyone of us has the right to tell the next guy what his idea of fun should include

But didnt you know my fun is better than your fun?

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by Lucas_From_Hell

The more realistic the flight and systems, the better it is - NO EXCEPTIONS.

Options are the way to go, IMHO

I absolutely, 100% agree. As long as Mr.Madox and his team can code it in a reasonable time frame let us have it, i think most of us would buy SoW even if it was priced 50% higher than most gaming titles anyway. Then each one can decide for himself what he likes and what he doesn't, gather with people that share his opinions and fly together online in environments that follow their desired difficulty settings.

Games are all about fun and if whatever relevant feature can be coded and be optional it should make it into the game, i don't think anyone of us has the right to tell the next guy what his idea of fun should include