A bunch of stuff on the 109.

[Fifi]

Any way you turn this out, best would be both options: simplified and full fonctional...to satisfy everybody, the "normal" and "hard core" flyers 

(Maybe like DCS with both "arcade" and "realistic" modes)

[BraveSirRobin]

You probably didn't follow what's been going on with CloD. 

The functionality doesn't necessarily take months to implement, again it sounds like you're making statements based on the fact that you like a simplified game.

 

You'd be wrong on all counts.

[SKG51_robtek]

I kinda like the slightly simplified plane management of BoS. With most of these planes full procedures would only change one button start-up to three button start-up or so. As long as they properly model the stuff that is in (prop pitch, mixture, etc) we won't be losing more than an occasional flip of a switch.

 

While I have nothing against the scalable procedures (and would probably use the full modeling myself if it were available), the current model might be really saving the developers resources. As it is, the start-up is probably pretty much checking if mixture is rich enough and wroom wroom the engine goes. If they added every step of the procedure as manual then they'd have to model every single way one can mess things up and what it leads to. I'd imagine this could easily double the amount of work it takes to make the engine/system management stuff functional. It's awfully lot of work just for a few button presses more.

 

Plus, this would really make the clickable cockpit a must (another thing that would probably involve quite a bit of work). If there were no clickpit I'd probably just map the start-up procedure to 1-9 and slide my finger over it...

About the workload, it is definitely NOT about startup procedures, which are a nice thing for immersion but boring to some, 

In the La-5, to accelerate quick from cruise speed, the pilot has to handle six levers to get optimal performance,

the Bf109F pilot only has to move one lever because of many automated functions.

But as this is a game, the La-5 pilot will always fly with his plane optimized for high speed and no regard for engine longevity or fuel consumption,

so this advantage wont be there anyway in this game.

It would be really nice if a kind of malus would be implemented for i.e. flying not in cruise mode without enemy contacts nearby and for abusing the material without dire need.

As a server side option of course.

[Matt]

We already need to work six levers to get the optimal performance in the LaGG-3.

[Primus_71]

I'm pretty sure that it wasn't that that killed CloD, if anything because there is evidence of fully clickable cockpit sims that are alive and well..

 

Assuming that you are referring to ED DCS line as "evidence of fully-clickable cockpit sims that are alive and well," I'd like to point out that DCSA10 is based on a procedural sim of the A10 that ED had already developed for use by US national guard. The work on the "clickable pit" was already paid for, so converting it for home use on PCs was the smart thing to do and relatively cost-effective.

 

KA50 was, as far as I know, the only "clickable pit" sim that ED developed from scratch. And IMO, it is up for debate whether it is "alive and well." 

 

And besides these two titles, ED roadmap puts the next DCS-grade ("clickable-pit") title (F18) somewhere around 2-5 years in the future. 

 

So, I find it very smart for 777 to omit features that require substantial resources, but yield marginal value for the overall experience. 

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 The workload is not properly modelled in any sim other than DCS A-10C and Ka-50. Even Cliffs of Dover is rather simple in that matter with it's on/off issues on some things. It is what Robtek said. The amount of levers a pilot had to manipulate to fly the plane did add to the workload and detract from combat effectiveness. Germans noted this when flying captured Russian planes, pilot workload was much greater than in Fw190 or Bf109. Also if you look at Allied side the P38 was notorious also on the "lever gym" to get it from cruise to combat. Some sources indicate as long time as almost 30 seconds to get the plane from cruise to combat power as you simply could not slam throttle forward etc. like in Fw190 or Bf109.

 

 So in a way a too simplified presentation of the pilot workload gives an unintended edge to planes requiring it thus closing the gap between planes not requiring it. Sure a hard thing to model unless you had those levers next to you while flying, but from my impression most sim pilots do fly with at least a good HOTAS and more, so it should not be a problem. I like the amount of work needed to fly the LagG-3. Teaches how to monitor gauges and operate the plane between scanning the surroundings and other activities

[SOLIDKREATE]

Wow reading some of that stuff made me fall in love with the 109 again. I still love my Wurger though.

[Fifi]

S!

 

 The workload is not properly modelled in any sim other than DCS A-10C and Ka-50. 

 

Do not forget the MI8, the Bell Huey, and the P51 Mustang...and in close future the Mig 21 bis 

[Finkeren]

About the workload, it is definitely NOT about startup procedures, which are a nice thing for immersion but boring to some, 

In the La-5, to accelerate quick from cruise speed, the pilot has to handle six levers to get optimal performance,

the Bf109F pilot only has to move one lever because of many automated functions.

But as this is a game, the La-5 pilot will always fly with his plane optimized for high speed and no regard for engine longevity or fuel consumption,

so this advantage wont be there anyway in this game.

It would be really nice if a kind of malus would be implemented for i.e. flying not in cruise mode without enemy contacts nearby and for abusing the material without dire need.

As a server side option of course.

 

I kinda agree, that it's a shame, we will hardly ever see ppl flying planes on cruise settings, at least not in MP. But to claim, that the entire workload of flying with manual controls in a Soviet plane vs. the automated ones in a German one is just gone, is overstretching the point.

 

In reality, I think we will see pilots using just about every control apart from the rpm governor (pitch control) to a large extent. Managing coolant and oil temperatures will be extremely important, as the Klimov engine runs hot very fast, when run at maximum rpm and manifold pressure. For anything other than extreme low level flying, we will need to adjust mixture and set the correct supercharger gear to get optimal performance.

 

On many MP-servers, it is extremely important to be able to gain altitude quickly after take off, as distances between air fields and objectives is very small, so we will see people experimenting on how to achieve the best climb performance while keeping the temperatures just on the cool side of optimal - it won't necessarilly just be about running full throttle, max rpm with radiators wide open.

[DB605]

Back to topic, nice incoming stuff from Flugmuseum Messerschmitt:

 

http://youtu.be/wkRyFna8IyQ

[OBT-Psycho]

http://youtu.be/IbeRn1rgoIo

 

hear the guy, to add information for OP.

 

I was quite surprised during first flight of the 109 as I found it way less stable than expected. The wobly nose that don't want to stay in the right direction, low speed handling...

 

He confirms the dev got it just right. He said  he have to struggle with the rudder to keep it aligned, taht 3 point landing are more than an option as once at this speed you can forget about any controls, etc.

 

add that to the information we have and ou nderstand how great the sim already is.

 

And I can see more troubles coming with 250kg of dead mass strapped to the belly

[OBT-Psycho]

Actually, I think I kind of see this. when then plane make a loop, once he dives back towards the camera, I think you can see some wobbliness on the nose. It might be due to camera angle or any other optic weirdness, but if not I think you know what it means... 

[AndyHill]

I think one of the issues with iCoD was that it struck an uncomfortable balance between playability and simulation. As already mentioned in this thread, it's not really as complex as many seem to believe - and that's the problem.

 

When I got the game I actually tried to replicate the startup procedure from a real Spit, but it wasn't quite like it in the sim. Maybe I had the wrong manual or something I don't know, but it sure wasn't a DCS game.

 

However, the complexity was at least seemingly high enough to feel intimidating, I know a few people who didn't want to dive in because the felt iCoD was overly complicated - even though it probably wouldn't have been had they given it a go.

 

There have also been good points about the control setup in a real plane vs desktop systems or even home cockpits. It is entirely possible to create a replica of a 109F4 cockpit and have similar usability than in the real thing, but that of course applies only to one very specific plane and an insanely small audience. Just about everyone else has to compromise more or less. Unfortunately there are no good answers to this dilemma either. It's a bit like spotting enemies; many want to make things as realistic as possible, but it's not really realistic if it's much harder than in the real thing, is it? Hopefully BoS finds a good balance with rich systems modeling (especially important for realistic combat damage) and playability.