What is realism? Does it kill simulators?

[DD_bongodriver]

Feel free to elaborate a better choice of words to convey the same message......persons such as yourself? other beings of similar disposition? those of similar viewpoint to yourself?

 

Nothing antagonistic at all.......clearly you just want an argument with me.

 

 

See, this is nonsense Bongodriver. You should learn the difference between illustrating the tedium of utilizing a mouse to operate switches than actually clicking keys that replicate actually clicking buttons and switches.

 

I never once said anything about one or two buttons, but since I see the ridiculousness in the mouse clicking buttons in a cockpit I must be arcadey. I have DCS and that miserable abortion CloD, and the mouse is backwards in realism to clicking keys that actually replicate clicking buttons without having to hunt and find them on the cockpit while staring intently at the dash when in reality just a quick glance to locate the button/knob/levers is all that is needed.

 

You guys have fun with your elitist mouse clicking tedious nonsense. I'll replicate clicking buttons with clicking keys and switches on my HOTAS.

 

 

 

melodramatic.....

 

 

The key combos are more accurate representations than reaching for a mouse to then manipulate a switch that you have to adjust your entire to view to stare at because you can't adjust those dials/switches/etc without staring directly at them in a game.

 

In reality, however, that is much different. No staring, maybe a slight glance but most importantly you don't have to reach for another device to manipulate something on screen. The latter is just silly and foolish, but you've convinced yourself that is the best reality because "clickable cockpits!"

 

The day you have to grab another pilot's hand to reach for a button/dial/toggle and stare at it while you manipulate it is the day you can argue utilizing a mouse for manipulate something on screen is more realistic than a button programmed on a HOTAS or even a key combo that requires a quick glance to locate and operate.

[76SQN-FatherTed]

Yet again, my point is being missed entirely, neither are realistic compared to real life, I say click pits are 'more' realistic because you are interacting directly with the virtual cockpit and are actually looking at the specific controls/instruments/knobs/dials/switches you want to operate as opposed to operating a querty keyboard, I will say again this has nothing to do with combat, any functions likely needed during combat will intuitively be mapped to HOTAS, but for the more 'mundane' operation of aircraft systems during times without action.

 

I know you're fighting on several fronts here Bongo, but my premise is not that either clickpit or keyboard is realistic compared to real life, but that the keyboard option is the more realistic of the two. By your second sentence above I understand you disagree.  That is fine and all I wanted to do was to enter a more general debate about the nature of "realism" in videogames and how maybe its pursuit requires a degree of abstraction: a realistic experience for the player maybe achieved by not necessarily chasing the obvious path.

[DD_Arthur]

I know you're fighting on several fronts here Bongo,

 

 Don't worry FatherTed.  I'm quite confident BD, like the USA, has the capability to wage two major wars simultaneously.

[DD_bongodriver]

I guess I may be too influenced by my real life experience as a pilot, for me abstraction is exactly that, for others perhaps not, we should get the choice is all I am saying, for me, and I will obviously have to emphasise it is my opinion, a lack of a clickable pit is a step down in realism based on my real life experience, I find using the mouse more intuitive on 2 levels, the first is in the quote and secondly I use a mouse to click stuff for every other application on my PC, us pilots are simple souls and we like to press buttons that are clearly labelled and often placed in standardised locations in the cockpit, this malarkey of remembering which of the querty keys I mapped to what function and whether I have to SHIFT or ALT or CTRL it for another function becomes too archaic, at least if I can read the placard I know I'm using the correct switch, visually identifying systems controls is pretty important in real flying, buttons and switches are often identical and can be clustered in a similar location.

 

Pointless discussion now anyway, I never intended to sound like I want to impose this feature as mandatory, I certainly am not making a campaign to get it implemented in BoS, I simply entered into a discussion about realism in simulators and gave an opinion.

[SGCstavka]

Exactly bongodriver, as i explained in my first posts!

 

Mouse clickable cockpit also with all buttons mapped on keyboard is the best choice. Mouse clicking is not the most real way, but using keystrokes using combinations on keyboard to move levers and knobs is also not realistic. But both options implemented combine their pros vs cons is a win-win situation or a better choice for what we have between screen and chair. And sorry to repeat but if people likes realism, real pilots not study keystrokes like CTRL+F for open flaps (for example), they learned where is that lever on the cockpit and go with their hand there to use it. Sorry to say but in a man-machine interface trying to give some realism or immersiveness using mouse and going to the virtual cockpit place and click on there is better in many situations. Mouse gives in many situations the prespective of your hand extension in a vision<->interaction situation. As so that almost all prefer using mouse oriented operation systems (like windows) for non professional stuffs than using only console text commands. But that i remenber the old discusions of purist VI users versus editors more user friendly or the autocad using only console to write commands vs using mouse. Always exist extremists/radicals in all places (without offense)

Edited October 9, 2013 by KNBstavka

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Mouse clicking of the cockpit adds the realism of a pre-flight as you would in the real world if you could be bothered making the check lists to go with it, when I flew I always used the check list. I'm not really sure if having that level of realism is really necessary for a Combat Sim like BOS/CLOD/ROF although I think the level it is at in CLOD is more than enough. For sure there are those who get a lot of satisfaction from doing it in DCS and MSFS but then I see those guys as after something slightly different to what most people enjoyed in IL2.

[SKG51_robtek]

I also believe the difficulty - level there as it was in CloD was ok.

WHEN everything would have worked as intended -> i.e. fuel tank switching, fuel transfer etc. in the planes that had the option.

[Furio]

To begin with, I would like to have a flight manual for each flyable plane, listing operational speeds (best climb rate speed, best climb angle etc.). The system adopted to operate the trim wheel comes second in importance, my preference going to the simplest method: going to the desired speed with the stick, then pressing a key to fix that as trimmed speed (similarly to what I do in a real plane: operating the trim first or alone is impractical).

 

Just to dream a little, I would like a “voicepit”. Flying a bomber, I would like to ask courses to my navigator, or engine settings and fuel management to my second pilot. Of course, I would ask this as an option, in respect to other people’s tastes or needs (by the way: someone may have difficulty with speaking or hearing).

 

But...

 

As someone already pointed out, all boils down to money. Each new option we want or ask for costs development time. How much? To be honest, I haven’t the slightest idea, and I dare to think that the same is true for most of us. In my opinion, the best we can do is to ask politely, and let the devs make their decisions without too much pressure.

[DD_bongodriver]

^{then pressing a key to fix that as trimmed speed (similarly to what I do in a real plane: operating the trim first or alone is impractical).}

 

 

I'm curious, are you saying you fly an aircraft that has a switch that automatically trims the aircraft to whatever stick position is being held? I've never experienced this but I assume stuff like AIRBUS or some modern military fast jets have something like autotrim as part of fly-by wire, are you military or do you fly AIRBUS?

I'm really not sure what you mean by operating the trim is impractical, most HOTAS joysticks have a spare rotary which lends itself perfectly to a trim function, it is also possible to assign trim to a hat switch which is quite similar to having electric trim in a real aircraft.

Even more confusing is why trimming is part of a discussion on click pits, as far as I'm concerned a trim is a secondary flying control and therefore I would have it assigned to HOTAS.

 

The issue over how much it costs to implement a clickable pit is something I'd like to know, if the aircraft have the systems modelled and the controls are animated and the user has control over them, surely it can't be a massive expense to code in an ingame mouse cursor to operate them.

[Stig]

Forums aren't the best place for making a point, and I'd bet money that every single one of us here could sit down at a table over a beer, or a cup of java, and have a really interesting discussion about the pros and cons of this control setup and that one without the least bit of animosity towards one another.  I mean heck, we've got years of experience flying this sim and that one.  Can't we just agree, to disagree on some of our more personal choices and appreciate the input that everyone has here.  I learn all kinds of stuff from you guys all the time, especially about the technical stuff, which I don't have a clue about.  I'm not talking about a "group hug" but just treating one another as friends who share a passion for history, airplanes and the like.

 

+1

[mondog]

If you want realism put a gun on your desk and when you get shot down, shoot yourself;). IL2 always had a nice middle ground, it was a sim but with HUD warning messages, CEM wasn't complicated enough to get in the way but had an impact. It had immersion yet was accessible, it had reality and detail without going into tedious button clicking. As said before excessive realism kills it for many people. IL2 managed to avoid that but still retain credibility. 

 

Clickable cockpits with keyboard shortcuts is Ok for a true study sim like DCS Blackshark but its the same thing thats prohibited me from ever going online with it. I did a few co-ops with both the A10 and Blackshark and while it was fun, its not like the old days of IL2 where you sit in a HL co-op or join a server, select a plane and go with minimal fuss but still get the immersion factor. I don't want to go through a 20 minute start up process just fo fly, then realise I've forgotten a switch and have to go back through the entire process while everyone else has taken off. I don't want to have to know the start up procedure for 30 different aircraft especially if I want to go online where the selection of aircraft may not be one I've spent 20 man hours learning. 

 

I hear people talk about War Thunder as dumbed down, however in FRB mode it actually feels like a spiritual successor to IL2s online component, there isn't really to much difference other than the dreaded balance word. 

Edited October 9, 2013 by mondog

[SKG51_robtek]

If you want realism put a gun on your desk and when you get shot down, shoot yourself;). IL2 always had a nice middle ground, it was a sim but with HUD warning messages, CEM wasn't complicated enough to get in the way but had an impact. It had immersion yet was accessible, it had reality and detail without going into tedious button clicking. As said before excessive realism kills it for many people. IL2 managed to avoid that but still retain credibility. 

 

Clickable cockpits with keyboard shortcuts is Ok for a true study sim like DCS Blackshark but its the same thing thats prohibited me from ever going online with it. I did a few co-ops with both the A10 and Blackshark and while it was fun, its not like the old days of IL2 where you sit in a HL co-op or join a server, select a plane and go with minimal fuss but still get the immersion factor. I don't want to go through a 20 minute start up process just fo fly, then realise I've forgotten a switch and have to go back through the entire process while everyone else has taken off. I don't want to have to know the start up procedure for 30 different aircraft especially if I want to go online where the selection of aircraft may not be one I've spent 20 man hours learning. 

 

I hear people talk about War Thunder as dumbed down, however in FRB mode it actually feels like a spiritual successor to IL2s online component, there isn't really to much difference other than the dreaded balance word. 

The first sentence is completely out of order! 

For the following sentences the keyword is 'had'!

IL2 did is this way because there was no way to do more with the available computing power.

First thing is: the maximum possible realism regarding FM, DM, CEM, environment and user interface must be there.

Second thing: Make it adjustable, individual for single player and user interface and server settings for online.

This way everybody can do it the way he/she/it likes.

[VeryOldMan]

Problem is that increases massively the cost of development and  make less work and money available for  more  INTERESTIGN content, like extra planes. And this approach   of  wantign everythign is  what makes  flight sims expensive to develop and might eventually kill the industry.

[Mac_Messer]

Clickpits might kill the industry? I don`t think so.

 

Rather lack of understanding that nowadays online is where it`s at might kill it. Not giving onliners enough adequate content and options might kill it.

Edited October 9, 2013 by Mac_Messer

[VeryOldMan]

Clickpits might kill the industry? I don`t think so.

 

Rather lack of understanding that nowadays online is where it`s at might kill it. Not giving onliners enough adequate content and options might kill it.

I helped the team of Jet Thunder years ago to  organize their  codebase and basic software engineering.  The  project lead explained me  very well how cosltyt he  clickable cockpit woudl be because they tried. Basically  it was at time the most costly thing to implement.. by far.

 

Its a business   you   can make  it work by  increasing the  market or reducing costs..   clickable cockpits  increase massively the cost... and that is not good for the market unless the  income generated is larger than the cost.

[6S.Manu]

I helped the team of Jet Thunder years ago to  organize their  codebase and basic software engineering.  The  project lead explained me  very well how cosltyt he  clickable cockpit woudl be because they tried. Basically  it was at time the most costly thing to implement.. by far.

 

Its a business   you   can make  it work by  increasing the  market or reducing costs..   clickable cockpits  increase massively the cost... and that is not good for the market unless the  income generated is larger than the cost.

 

[Mac_Messer]

I helped the team of Jet Thunder years ago to  organize their  codebase and basic software engineering.  The  project lead explained me  very well how cosltyt he  clickable cockpit woudl be because they tried. Basically  it was at time the most costly thing to implement.. by far.

 

Its a business   you   can make  it work by  increasing the  market or reducing costs..   clickable cockpits  increase massively the cost... and that is not good for the market unless the  income generated is larger than the cost.

Did you actually see a clickable cockpit feature killing a flighsim? Do you think that DCS is bound to fail? What rank , amongst other causes of killing a sim, would clickpits get?

[VeryOldMan]

Did you actually see a clickable cockpit feature killing a flighsim? Do you think that DCS is bound to fail? What rank , amongst other causes of killing a sim, would clickpits get?

 

You really try  to create fights and   not understand the statements of others don  you? Then you think people are harassing you?  Hint.. if    almost  every thread a same person  gets into a discussion creating problems of communication... who do you think is the problematic part?

I wont waste my time with someone that never developed a game or even a software and cannot  have any idea on how this business is ran . 

 

A single thing will not force ANYTHING into failure. That would be a childish argument. My statement is SIMPLE.. businness  is a balance of COST and market increase...      Fact. clickable cockpits increase cost massively.    HINT  to make an equation match you can    use more than one variable. But  its a FACT that clickable cockpits  on  very high fidelity   are among the most expensive things you can have on a flight sim. Try to solve the math yourself... its not hard.

 

THe issue is not clickable cockpits.. ITS TOO MUCH GREED.. on an already  pathetically small market.

Edited October 9, 2013 by VeryOldMan

[Dakpilot]

"You really try  to create fights and   not understand the statements of others don  you? Then you think people are harassing you?  Hint.. if    almost  every thread a same person  gets into a discussion creating problems of communication... who do you think is the problematic part?"

 

LOL   

 

However, perhaps that person does not have English as his first language, and this is the reason for a seemingly aggressive tone in all his posts, although VeryOldMan seems to have summed it up in his second language quite well

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited October 9, 2013 by Dakpilot

[Bearcat]

I guess from the idea that you have to control it using the mouse all the time. Presumably you can in fact assign keys to the functions, too. That would seem more manageable.

 

Yes it would especially from a developer stand point.

 

Ok. So you gave us that "hint" - at the same time you state that anyone who uses keyboard shortcuts is related to something you call "arcade crowd". What point of you insulting litteraly everyone didn't you get?

 

I don't see anyone being hostile towards that idea or concept. As I mentioned before clickable cockpits indeed are a nice addon to have - but not a "must-have" and definitely don't seperate the so called "arcade crowd" from simmers, like "Mac_Messer" is argueing about - which is not only arrogant but kinda ... well ... stupid as well.

Though I repeat myself: Click pits give us a grade of detail realism. They are not really useful nor can they simulate an intuitive plane control. You don't put your mouse onto that virtual control stick of your 109 and drag/move it by clicking ... do you? (I know, a dumb example ... but that's exactly the point).

 

+1 and this attitude that many exhibit causes way too much BS on the boards.. not only here but elsewhere. Personally I don't think anyone who has been flying in IL2 for the past few years would be considered part of the "arcade crowd" . I am of the belief that all of us here want a more immersive environment to do our thing in and while some of us may think that clickable pits are a part of the answer and some, like myself  do not, neither view invalidates the other and I really wish that some of the sly backhanded elitist digs would fade from the vernacular of some of the members of this forum...

 

We can argue the cons and pros with clickable cockpits "in absurdum" but the fact remiains; In the restricted development scope for BoS, - at least now - do the developemt team really have the time to adress this? I think not, maybe in the future.

I would like to hear though from someone on the team discuss  - maybe in a thread, maybe in a stream - how much more time it would demand in order to develop that new interface into the engine, and consistently implement it in all cockpits.  Do it properly or don't do it at all I'd say.

 

At the moment clickable pits are not on the menu... I have no idea if they ever will be.. nor do I care as long as the functions they represent can be modeled, which I think is more important than having the ability to click a virtual switch.. and frankly this "discussion" is the pits..

 

This isn't a competition to see who can be most "realistic" with their settings.  I think part of the point here is:  are HOTAS/ clikpits actually more "realistic" than HOTAS/keyboard?

 

AFAIC as long as the functions are modeled whether they are "clickable" or not is less a factor..

 

if the oculus rift really takes hold then click pits will have to be considered.

 

Have to be... ennh that's debatable as well but I think that for something like clickable pits to take off in OR there will have to be some kind of way for the device to translate the pilot's hand movement to the screen.. sort of like the Kinect on the X-Box..  For me the prospect of fumbling on my desk for a mouse with my eyes covered to click a button seems... counter immersive..

 

See, this is nonsense Bongodriver. You should learn the difference between illustrating the tedium of utilizing a mouse to operate switches than actually clicking keys that replicate actually clicking buttons and switches.

 

You do realize you quoted Mac and referenced Bongo right..?

 

 

I really think that we all need to just kind of ratchet things down and drop the click pit discussion for now because it has already been stated that for the moment the feature will not be in BoS at this time so to continue this debate is to raise the potential of more work for FSM and myself.. so let's just move on from the clickable pit discussion and stow the bluster and chest thumping..

 

Thank you

[DD_bongodriver]

Have to be... ennh that's debatable as well but I think that for something like clickable pits to take off in OR there will have to be some kind of way for the device to translate the pilot's hand movement to the screen.. sort of like the Kinect on the X-Box..  For me the prospect of fumbling on my desk for a mouse with my eyes covered to click a button seems... counter immersive..

 

 

Have to be 'considered' yes, there is no way of telling if oculus will implement the technology you describe, remember they are trying to get VR into the consumer market at affordable prices, if they load the oculus with more gadgets it increases the cost and possibly weight, I use the oculus and can tell you there is absolutely no fumbling to find my mouse, I know exactly where it is and can find mine with my eyes closed and I can find my ass with both hands.

 I see there is a stubbornness here with accepting clickable pits as an option, no matter how many times I counter bizarre comparisons of holding pilots hands or using backscratchers, only VeryOldMan has come up with a credible reasoning to not implement it having explained the cost factor, which is also currently the only apparent reason 777 are not implementing it for now, as opposed to some of the weirder theories the anti-click pit campaign are coming up with.

[VeryOldMan]

As I stated the point is not Clickable cockpits. Its any ultra realistic feature that  would cost a lot to develop, but woud bring a very small increase in costumers base.

 

 People must keep that in mind when they ask for features.

 

Simple hypothetical example. I want that If I pass with my plane  low in ground the  "wind"of its passage  would   tumble  pedestrians and  remove cover from weak buildings. 

 

Would it be cool? YES..    would it cost to develop ? YES..  would the amount of  added  costumers  due to the feature cover the costs of development?  Probably not.

 

 

Second one. I  want that if my pilot is hurt, realistic blood splatter in the cockpit to be present. Realistic  includes the density of  the fuild being correclty modeled whiel it flows in the window. And the blood should  coagulate  into solid state after  around 6 minutes at  low altitude, but should take  over one hour at 10 thousand meters!!! 

 

Do you think  that would be cost effective to develop?

 

That   is something you need to analyse in every   ultra realistic  feature   you can  come to ask.

[Bearcat]

I see there is a stubbornness here with accepting clickable pits as an option, no matter how many times I counter bizarre comparisons of holding pilots hands or using backscratchers, only VeryOldMan has come up with a credible reasoning to not implement it having explained the cost factor, which is also currently the only apparent reason 777 are not implementing it for now, as opposed to some of the weirder theories the anti-click pit campaign are coming up with.

 

......  Let it go bongo. If you like clickable pits I am so happy for you... and I am also happy that you will have other sims to utilize them in.. for the moment BoS will not be one of them.. perhaps in the future but just let it go for now. Thanks.

[DD_bongodriver]

Give me a break Bearcat, I only entered a discussion on realism in sims which lead to the topic of click pits, quit patronising me, I simply happen to have a preference for click pits and have given my reasons for it.....my mistake has been forgetting the internet is always full of people who know your experiences better than you.

[Furio]

I'm curious, are you saying you fly an aircraft that has a switch that automatically trims the aircraft to whatever stick position is being held? I've never experienced this but I assume stuff like AIRBUS or some modern military fast jets have something like autotrim as part of fly-by wire, are you military or do you fly AIRBUS?

I'm really not sure what you mean by operating the trim is impractical, most HOTAS joysticks have a spare rotary which lends itself perfectly to a trim function, it is also possible to assign trim to a hat switch which is quite similar to having electric trim in a real aircraft.

Even more confusing is why trimming is part of a discussion on click pits, as far as I'm concerned a trim is a secondary flying control and therefore I would have it assigned to HOTAS.

 

The issue over how much it costs to implement a clickable pit is something I'd like to know, if the aircraft have the systems modelled and the controls are animated and the user has control over them, surely it can't be a massive expense to code in an ingame mouse cursor to operate them.

 

Hello, Bongo.

No, I’m not a military pilot, and I’m not English speaking, so it’s surely my fault if I was unclear. I simply tried to brief a piloting procedure to the bare essential. To brief it a little less (sure it’ll sounds familiar to you), in a real plane you use the stick first, and the trim later.

 

You pull the stick to obtain a slower speed (or push to obtain a higher one).

Once the speed is stabilized, you operate the trim wheel, or the trim switch if it’s electrical (the system I had on my little plane) to reduce to zero the stick force.

Using the trim first produces a slow porpoising motion, while you try to catch up the right speed.

 

I don’t know of a device capable of reliably simulating the above-mentioned stick force shuffle. I see as a solution a simple keystroke to fix the speed (not that much different to my little plane switch).

It’s not realistic, but it’ll have a realistic effect.

And perhaps this is an interesting fact to ponder about while discussing the whole realism topic. 

[Bearcat]

Give me a break Bearcat, I only entered a discussion on realism in sims which lead to the topic of click pits, quit patronising me, I simply happen to have a preference for click pits and have given my reasons for it.....my mistake has been forgetting the internet is always full of people who know your experiences better than you.

 

I'm not patronising you Bongo  (well... ok with hindsight ..   maybe I was a little.. point taken.. )  and I get what you are saying but correct me if I am wrong.. you keep going on and on about the clickable pits .. as if your point was not stated clearly enough and often enough in previous posts in this thread.. I am sure that everyone in this thread who can read clearly and fully understands that you prefer a clickable cockpit interface and why.. but when you make statements like this one..

 

 

I see there is a stubbornness here with accepting clickable pits as an option, no matter how many times I counter bizarre comparisons of holding pilots hands or using backscratchers, only VeryOldMan has come up with a credible reasoning to not implement it having explained the cost factor, which is also currently the only apparent reason 777 are not implementing it for now, as opposed to some of the weirder theories the anti-click pit campaign are coming up with.

 

It makes me think that you are on some sort of mission to convince people that clickable pits are more realistic than not ... and the bottom line is that that is your opinion and while you and those who share your opinion are certainly entitled to them, you keep going on and on as if anyone who does not share your opinion is wrong .. or as if the developers are somehow short sighted for not implementing this feature into the sim or somehow catering to a less passionate, less informed or less realism oriented group of simmers than yourself.. You stated your case quite clearly and thoroughly ... but when you keep coming back like that what are folks supposed to think about your point? It is the same for other posters in this thread who share your view and say condescending things about folks who do not share your view as if they are somehow less of a virtual pilot or less a true simmer than your selves.. and it is that unspoken but very tangible thread in many of yours and others' posts that has kept this debate going for the past few pages.. because we are all here because we enjoy simming and I can't speak for anyone else .. I consider myself more simmer than gamer and I don't like being lumped into some "arcade crowd".. I have spent too much time and money on this passion of mine and the other things that go with it like research and learning etc etc and I don't think that my passion should be negated by you or anyone else just because I don't share your views on what is realistic.

 

 

Forums aren't the best place for making a point, and I'd bet money that every single one of us here could sit down at a table over a beer, or a cup of java, and have a really interesting discussion about the pros and cons of this control setup and that one without the least bit of animosity towards one another.  I mean heck, we've got years of experience flying this sim and that one.  Can't we just agree, to disagree on some of our more personal choices and appreciate the input that everyone has here.  I learn all kinds of stuff from you guys all the time, especially about the technical stuff, which I don't have a clue about.  I'm not talking about a "group hug" but just treating one another as friends who share a passion for history, airplanes and the like.

 

This post says it very well.

[DD_bongodriver]

Ah, I understand now Furio, yes quite correct, I would say that force feedback is pretty good at simulating out of trim stick forces, it worked pretty well in DCS, I mapped trim on the A-10 to the hat switch and it was perfect at recreating electric trim, rotary dials can be slightly unrealistic depending on what aircraft you are simulating, trim wheels are often multi-turn unlike rotary dials, but on some aircraft I have flown the trim is almost on a slider........I believe this is some sort of classic flight sim meme

 

 

I'm not patronising you Bongo  (well... ok with hindsight ..   maybe I was a little.. point taken.. )  and I get what you are saying but correct me if I am wrong.. you keep going on and on about the clickable pits .. as if your point was not stated clearly enough and often enough in previous posts in this thread.. I am sure that everyone in this thread who can read clearly and fully understands not only that you prefer a clickable cockpit interface and why.. but when you make statements like this one..

 

 

 

 

It makes me think that you are on some sort of mission to convince people that clickable pits are more realistic than not ... and the bottom line is that that is your opinion and while you and those who share your opinion are certainly entitled to them, you keep going on and on as if anyone who does not share your opinion is wrong .. or as if the developers are somehow short sighted for not implementing this feature into the sim or somehow catering to a less passionate, less informed or less realism oriented group of simmers than yourself.. You stated your case quite clearly and thoroughly ... but when you keep coming back like that what are folks supposed to think about your point? It is the same for other posters in this thread who share your view and say condescending things about folks who do not share your view as if they are somehow less of a virtual pilot or less a true simmer than your selves.. and it is that unspoken but very tangible thread in many of your and others' posts that has kept this debate going for the past few pages..

 

1. thanks for acknowledging

2. I don't go on and on because I think everybody else is wrong, I go on and on because bizarrely there are some here who flatly ridicule the entire concept of click pits despite a professional pilot explaining how it compares to real life and having a positive experience,  trying to tell me what is more realistic is using a querty keyboard or having it all done magically by the computer, I don't give a crap if it ends up in BoS or not, I simply explained why I like it but some really have a hard time accepting it, it' as if I am talking heresy or something, but you are right.....simply no point arguing.

[mondog]

The first sentence is completely out of order! 

For the following sentences the keyword is 'had'!

IL2 did is this way because there was no way to do more with the available computing power.

First thing is: the maximum possible realism regarding FM, DM, CEM, environment and user interface must be there.

Second thing: Make it adjustable, individual for single player and user interface and server settings for online.

This way everybody can do it the way he/she/it likes.

 

I was simply pointing out that realism isn't something you can't completely achieve. The little wink should have given away it was tongue in cheek. 

 

I don't disagree with giving people options but not to sacrifice making it enjoyable or adding new content. Maybe I'm lazy or stuck in my ways but I really do not want to see the new IL2 go the way of something like the DCS games, where online is a complete niche due to the complexity of flying the aircraft detracting from the immersive nature of the game itself. Whether the original IL2:FB did it because of limited computing power or not, it did work that way, it was a nice mix. 

[Furio]

Ah, I understand now Furio, yes quite correct, I would say that force feedback is pretty good at simulating out of trim stick forces, it worked pretty well in DCS, I mapped trim on the A-10 to the hat switch and it was perfect at recreating electric trim, rotary dials can be slightly unrealistic depending on what aircraft you are simulating, trim wheels are often multi-turn unlike rotary dials, but on some aircraft I have flown the trim is almost on a slider........I believe this is some sort of classic flight sim meme

 

 

I tried only once a force feedback stick, and it didn’t impress me for precision with low stick force. In any case, as far as I know, most players don’t have force feedback, and my suggestion is probably an acceptable solution for conventional sticks.

 

Of course, I don’t even try to evaluate the development resources needed, but I maintain that it’s a good example of a not too realistic command with a very realistic effect on piloting technique. What’s more, such solution will definitely require a flight manual, listing v-speed and other essential information. In turn, this manual would improve realism.

[=LD=Hethwill]

Oculust and Neural interface will do the trick of bypassing the clickpit urge to NEEED IT. Until then.... wait.

 

 

 

http://www.bcinet.com/products/

Edited October 9, 2013 by =LD=Hethwill

[Mac_Messer]

You really try  to create fights and   not understand the statements of others don  you? Then you think people are harassing you?  Hint.. if    almost  every thread a same person  gets into a discussion creating problems of communication... who do you think is the problematic part?

 

Now that you brought it up, I think that people have problems with me challenging their statements. Most of them don`t take that too seriously, but as it shows there are exceptions.

 

 

 

I wont waste my time with someone that never developed a game or even a software and cannot  have any idea on how this business is ran .

If you won`t waste your time with such people than I suggest you join a game makers forum, because probably 95% people taking part in discussions here didn`t develop any game or ran a game business. 

 

 

A single thing will not force ANYTHING into failure. That would be a childish argument. My statement is SIMPLE.. businness  is a balance of COST and market increase...      Fact. clickable cockpits increase cost massively.    HINT  to make an equation match you can    use more than one variable. But  its a FACT that clickable cockpits  on  very high fidelity   are among the most expensive things you can have on a flight sim. Try to solve the math yourself... its not hard.

What math, OldMan? No numbers here. Empty post by you. With such logics you wouldn`t even have a marketing campaign because it creates massive expenses. By your logic nothing like DCS could ever be made. How does their example compare to your logic?

 

 

THe issue is not clickable cockpits.. ITS TOO MUCH GREED.. on an already  pathetically small market.

I wouldn`t call it greed. I find that a bit offensive to bo honest. I call it passion. No question that sims are made and supported by passionate people. If any of them decided to make big money, none of them ever decided to make sims in the first place. Nevertheless, I`m just a potential customer. I can have suggestions and preferences.

 

Also, I would suggest you do not use exclamation marks and caps lock excessively. It makes your posts look like you were shouting at others which is not needed.

 

Do you think  that would be cost effective to develop?

 

That   is something you need to analyse in every   ultra realistic  feature   you can  come to ask.

No need to operate on extreme and unrealistic examples. Really, proves nothing.

[VeryOldMan]

 

You really try  to create fights and   not understand the statements of others don  you? Then you think people are harassing you?  Hint.. if    almost  every thread a same person  gets into a discussion creating problems of communication... who do you think is the problematic part?

 

Now that you brought it up, I think that people have problems with me challenging their statements. Most of them don`t take that too seriously, but as it shows there are exceptions.

 

 

 

I wont waste my time with someone that never developed a game or even a software and cannot  have any idea on how this business is ran .

If you won`t waste your time with such people than I suggest you join a game makers forum, because probably 95% people taking part in discussions here didn`t develop any game or ran a game business. 

 

 

A single thing will not force ANYTHING into failure. That would be a childish argument. My statement is SIMPLE.. businness  is a balance of COST and market increase...      Fact. clickable cockpits increase cost massively.    HINT  to make an equation match you can    use more than one variable. But  its a FACT that clickable cockpits  on  very high fidelity   are among the most expensive things you can have on a flight sim. Try to solve the math yourself... its not hard.

What math, OldMan? No numbers here. Empty post by you. With such logics you wouldn`t even have a marketing campaign because it creates massive expenses. By your logic nothing like DCS could ever be made. How does their example compare to your logic?

 

 

THe issue is not clickable cockpits.. ITS TOO MUCH GREED.. on an already  pathetically small market.

I wouldn`t call it greed. I find that a bit offensive to bo honest. I call it passion. No question that sims are made and supported by passionate people. If any of them decided to make big money, none of them ever decided to make sims in the first place. Nevertheless, I`m just a potential customer. I can have suggestions and preferences.

 

Also, I would suggest you do not use exclamation marks and caps lock excessively. It makes your posts look like you were shouting at others which is not needed.

 

Do you think  that would be cost effective to develop?

 

That   is something you need to analyse in every   ultra realistic  feature   you can  come to ask.

No need to operate on extreme and unrealistic examples. Really, proves nothing.

 

 

 

Math does not need numbers, in fact  very seldom it does. Educated people could very well understand my statement   Profit  =  Market income - cost  , its simple.

 

 

I am not the one that has been seen as  being over agressive in these forums. I just  prefer to use caps lock to  BOLD, something that  I truly find uncorteous. 

 

My post is empty only  to empty minds or someone  taking an effort to be stubborn. Anyone that ever developed a project knows  what I  mean. Its  a FACT, is  based on TRUTH, therefore cannot be empty. A commercial project is like that, and no matter how much passionate or stubborn you are about it, it will not change.

 

You may fake not to have understood it as much as you want, the truth remains there...  if you choose to ignore it, its your loss. 

 

Love does not pay bills, sales do.

 

 

And clearly I need to use overexagerated examples, since  is still hard for you to understand it.   And for the record, I would find  air displacement effects a MUHC more interesting feature than clickable cockpits.

[Mac_Messer]

You did not answer a single question. Hard to believe you want anything else with this thread than to be locked.

[SKG51_robtek]

.............   And for the record, I would find  air displacement effects a MUHC more interesting feature than clickable cockpits.

And for shure much easier to program, finance and to sell to the customers, as they really love more what they sometimes feel instead something that they can see use all the time, if they want.

[Bearcat]

By air displacement do you mean as in when a plane flies by the air around it is displaced..?

[ThudThunder]

Realism is not being able to hit restart.  No realism doesn't kill a simulator, it would kill the pilot.

 

In all honesty, the more realism the better.

[TheNotoriousFNG]

From the look of the conversation here, I feel like I'm one of the few who straddles the fence on the whole clickable vs non-clickable cockpits. I like the idea of being able to going through all the bells and whistles to control the various functions of an aircraft, yet at the same time I occasionally just want to fly, so having a shortcut to getting up and running to airborne, etc. is fine by me. I like the function of later entries in Microsoft's Flight Simulator series where you could do a switch by switch start up or just hit a simple key combo and the program would do it itself. In BoS, I'm hoping for a meet-in-the-middle, as it seems clickpits are not necessarily in the plans, I'm hoping for having to set a few things and then hitting a switch to watch the motions as my virtual pilot starts the engine - at the very least, I'm hoping we'll have realistic startup times and dismissing the old "hit I to fly".

 

In terms of controls, I'll probably build my own generic control system (time and funds permitting) since I'm not a huge fan of pure HOTAS controls. I'd prefer a more immersive experience with moving my hand from the throttle or stick to control other functions of my aircraft, rather than simply moving a finger, ha! Which leads me to my fear with Occulus Rift...while it sounds incredibly immersive - and even if it was possible at the current time, I'm not a fan of neural controls/just thinking about a command to execute it - is anyone else worried about how they're going to be able to access their other controls outside of the device? I'd think one would look rather foolish waving around trying to find their keyboard/tablet/switch board with OR strapped to their head

[dkoor]

We had a good thing going on in IL-2.

We had a great thing going on in RoF.

I don't see any particular reason for this to change with BoS.

 

This would be about it.

 

 

PS. about arcadey label. That argument has to be the next most silly thing since the never overheating Spitfire Mk.IX 25lbs.

[DD_bongodriver]

We 'have' a good thing going on in IL2

We 'have' an OK thing going on in ROF, purely subject to the individuals taste no need to flame.

We don't appear to be getting much more in BoS, not a bad thing......but.

 

I don't personally label BoS as arcade, I'm inclined to think 'sim lite' but really want to get my hands on it to satisfy my curiousity.

[dkoor]

Had.

I don't fly them seriously anymore, perhaps here and there checking some stuff out.