Is there a pilot in the plane ?

[IckyATLAS]

I mentioned it once long a go, but I agree maybe it was too early. 

But now that graphics are starting to become just excellent, instruments in the cockpit, light, and shade effects, you name it, I would like to insist on how empty this cockpit is.

When I am in a cockpit and when I look around it is just an empty seat, it is a strange feeling of a plane flown by a phantom, or the plane acting like a radio controlled model type.

Even in the race car sims you have the hands moving with the steering wheel or more.

I would like to see my arms legs, say my physical body animated in this cockpit when I fly.

It is some additional modeling work yes, I agree, but if your aiming for excellence then this feature is a must have.

 

 

[=SqSq=switch201]

I believe there was survey (in the Poll forum) asking what people preferred on this, but I don't remember the results. I think the biggest problem is that the pilot would probably end up blocking your view to some of the instruments. The P40 comes to mind with the fuel gauges being on the floor. If there was some legs there, I am not sure if you would be able to see these gauges.

[Pupo]

I support this motion! One of the few things where War thunder feels more immersive than Il-2. One can dream...

Edited November 13, 2017 by Pupo

[Finkeren]

Lots of people requesting this. Personally I don't think it adds much to immersion, and at times it looks really weird. 

 

The devs might do it at some point, but honestly it is going to be a lot of work. Basically we'd need at least 10 different body models (summer + winter versions of LW fighter pilot, LW bomber crew, VVS fighter pilot, VVS bomber crew and Italian fighter pilot - and that's if we don't take into account the change in VVS uniforms in early 1943) 

 

These body models would then have to be animated to fit into cockpit and crew positions of every single aircraft in the sim and have animations for all the different functions (flicking switches, moving levers opening canopy etc.) or at a bare minimum have one hand on stick, one on throttle lever moving with both (in which case we'll still have switches and levers moving seemingly without anyone touching them, and then the gained immersion goes right out of the window) same goes for the gunner positions.

 

If it was done right, I might be more interested, but I'm not sure it's worth the effort.

Edited October 27, 2017 by Finkeren

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

I think the practical concerns that Finkeren raised are the biggest problems with this. That doesn't even take into account the different head positions people can use, and movements of the head with head tracking that would need associated body movement.

 

On a personal note, I've never seen a pilot body in a cockpit that didn't either A: Look bad or weird, or B: Get in the way of things I want to be able to see.

Edited October 27, 2017 by hrafnkolbrandr

[sniperton]

A static pilot body (just sitting there and doing nothing or just scraping his nose) would not be that difficult to do. A dynamic pilot body (doing whatever you do) would be impossible unless we have anthropomorphic controls. It's as simple as that, I think. For me it's low priority. Once we have a signalling officer on the deck of a carrier, we can give it another thought.

Edited October 27, 2017 by sniperton

[Pupo]

These body models would then have to be animated to fit into cockpit and crew positions of every single aircraft in the sim and have animations for all the different functions (flicking switches, moving levers opening canopy etc.) or at a bare minimum have one hand on stick, one on throttle lever moving with both (in which case we'll still have switches and levers moving seemingly without anyone touching them, and then the gained immersion goes right out of the window) same goes for the gunner positions.

 

Having the hand stay put in the stick and throttle seems like a decent compromise. Having a ghost hand moving switches only is already an improvement over a ghost hand moving literally everything. Also the pilot models already exist and they are superbly detailed. It's just a matter of rendering them in the cockpit and making the typical adjustments to avoid the usual glitches. Not saying it would be an easy task, but it is not half as complicated as you make it seem.

 

To make everyone happy, this model should be optional. If i'm not mistaken DCS pilot model can be show/hidden with a key press, just in case the model is blocking some instrument you really need to see.

Edited October 27, 2017 by Pupo

[[APAF]VR_Spartan85]

I don't mind having no body in cockpit but I would like it if some how a shadow could be modeled when I look out onto the wing instead of creepy empty cockpit....

 

I know it sounds weird having a shadow with no body.... :'s

 

Also, photos in cockpit... just some way to customise the dashboard in a way...

Rise of flight we had streamers and scarves, clod we have personal photos we can pin up...

 

Sorry, went off topic...

 

Though, a stationary body with just hands on stick, throttle, and rudder would be cool, but bail out animation is a must!

 

edit:  btw. You can see the pilot in aircraft skin reflection

Edited November 3, 2019 by spartan85

[Ribbon]

Lots of people requesting this. Personally I don't think it adds much to immersion, and at times it looks really weird.

 

The devs might do it at some point, but honestly it is going to be a lot of work. Basically we'd need at least 10 different body models (summer + winter versions of LW fighter pilot, LW bomber crew, VVS fighter pilot, VVS bomber crew and Italian fighter pilot - and that's if we don't take into account the change in VVS uniforms in early 1943)

 

These body models would then have to be animated to fit into cockpit and crew positions of every single aircraft in the sim and have animations for all the different functions (flicking switches, moving levers opening canopy etc.) or at a bare minimum have one hand on stick, one on throttle lever moving with both (in which case we'll still have switches and levers moving seemingly without anyone touching them, and then the gained immersion goes right out of the window) same goes for the gunner positions.

 

If it was done right, I might be more interested, but I'm not sure it's worth the effort.

Saved me some typing, in short fixed pilot hands and legs beside obstructing the view could at the end break immersion.

I can see pilot in my plane, me and my sim gear

I don't mind having no body in cockpit but I would like it if some how a shadow could be modeled when I look out onto the wing instead of creepy empty cockpit....

I know it sounds weird having a shadow with no body.... :'s

Also, photos in cockpit... just some way to customise the dashboard in a way...

Rise of flight we had streamers and scarves, clod we have personal photos we can pin up...

Sorry, went off topic...

Though, a stationary body with just hands on stick, throttle, and rudder would be cool, but bail out animation is a must!

For shadow and cockpit photo +2.

[Lensman]

DCS does this and it's not horrible. However, it ONLY really works in VR because of the sight-line issues mentioned above. You really don't want 5 or 6 different zoom keys to see important instruments in combat! In VR you can just look around things as in reality (where apparently a pilot's body in your field of view does tend to work). Even in VR though it should be optional, as in DCS.

Edited October 28, 2017 by Lensman

[Uufflakke]

I think the practical concerns that Finkeren raised are the biggest problems with this. That doesn't even take into account the different head positions people can use, and movements of the head with head tracking that would need associated body movement.

 

On a personal note, I've never seen a pilot body in a cockpit that didn't either A: Look bad or weird, or B: Get in the way of things I want to be able to see.

 

Not to mention all the different uniforms of the pilots per nation and theater of operations. Rather time consuming the team can better spend on more urgent matters.

 

All pros and cons of pilots in the cockpits have been discussed already in several topics.

 

So actually...

 

[sinned]

No. Waste of time and resources.

 

I can already foresee, once implemented ppl complaining about pilot body needs improvements, further draining already tight resources.

[Yogiflight]

 

 

I don't mind having no body in cockpit but I would like it if some how a shadow could be modeled when I look out onto the wing instead of creepy empty cockpit.... I know it sounds weird having a shadow with no body.... :'s

Really a funny idea, having no pilot body, but the shadow, caused by the not existing body. Would make them even more ghost aircrafts. For me the flicking switches and moving levers wouldn't have to be animated. Of course, this would make it perfect, but for me it would be enough, if it was done the way, the copilot in the Ju52 is animated. He doesn't turn the handwheels in front of himself, he is just there and his arms move with the yoke in his hands, and his legs with the rudder pedals. I would be absolutely satisfied with that.

[G_GART]

I hope developers, one day implement this kind of features in the game (BoS, BoM, BoK,..) at least in the Pacific theater!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwK4oKIKrts

[ElPerk]

As far as I can tell, there are several choices:
1. No pilot in the cockpit. The cockpit is controlled by an ethereal ghost. This is the current industry standard.

2. Create a weird, headless zombiefied hulk filled with emptiness that imitates just some of pilot's actions, while never being satisfactory enough to really breach the immersion and always blocking the view. Available in some games.
3. Spend an unjustifiably large amount of resources in animating at least some possible gestures for a cockpit, then wonder how the hell a pilot can simultaneously use two controls at the opposite ends of the cockpit with one hand or just ham it and make them "no-transition" states. Create a completely new head camera suite to see instruments behind a knee or below the hand position. Despair and quit your job. I am not certain any game has attempted this..?

4. Create a DCS module with Surgeon Simulator/Ampu-tea style of hand control, create videos where you try to start up an A-10, monetize. I demand royalties.
 

Edited November 13, 2017 by ElPerk

[THERION]

As far as I can tell, there are several choices:

1. No pilot in the cockpit. The cockpit is controlled by an ethereal ghost. This is the current industry standard.

2. Create a weird, headless zombiefied hulk filled with emptiness that imitates just some of pilot's actions, while never being satisfactory enough to really breach the immersion and always blocking the view. Available in some games.

3. Spend an unjustifiably large amount of resources in animating at least some possible gestures for a cockpit, then wonder how the hell a pilot can simultaneously use two controls at the opposite ends of the cockpit with one hand or just ham it and make them "no-transition" states. Create a completely new head camera suite to see instruments behind a knee or below the hand position. Despair and quit your job. I am not certain any game has attempted this..?

4. Create a DCS module with Surgeon Simulator/Ampu-tea style of hand control, create videos where you try to start up an A-10, monetize. I demand royalties.

 

 

Well said - especially point 3!

[Mmaruda]

Having played DCS and BMS, both of which have the option to put a pilot in the seat (in BMS it's a mod I think), I can say with certainty, that I hate the feature. Sure, the alternative is an empty cockpit, but at least there is nothing in the way to view all the instruments and stuff. I do know that in racing simulator, people who use VR need to have a virtual body in the car for some reason, but then again that virtual body does not need more animations than just turning the wheel an shifting gears (at the same time legs are usually not animated, or if they are, stuff like heal-and-toe downshifting isn't modelled). Anyway, I turn off driver's hands in those games as well whenever I can. I'd rather have an unobstructed view of all the stuff in the pit, than some weirdly animated corpse with no head.

[Herne]

I play IL2 exclusively in VR, and the missing body, really doesn't bother me. it looks great in Elite Dangerous, but if we had it in IL2, imagine the start sequence, we currently see all the switches, knobs, and levers doing stuff. If we had a body it wouldn't be enough for him to sit there with his hands on the stick and throttle, we would want him to operate the flaps, the radiators, the tail wheel, etc, etc. This would be an enormous amount of work for the variety of Aircraft that we have. Its to big an ask for this to be done properly, so I think I would prefer that they didn't waste time and resources on this at all

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

No thanks. The phantom body thing is a well thrashed, definitely deceased horse.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

On a side note I do want a block for things that are physically impossible, such as lowering the flaps and gear while flying, in the i16. It always makes me think wtf.

[DerNeueMensch]

Imagine adding some animations to the pilot model, like when you are opening the radiator an animation is played and the left hand moving away from the throttle and to the radiator wheel working it - combined with the prohibition of manipulating the throttle for the time your left hand is on the radiator wheel. Way too work intensive I know, so it's not going to happen, but it would not only add so much immersion-wise, but also to gameplay - simulating a human in the cockpit not an octopus or some indian god with 6 arms. 

 

Edit: AeroAce beat me to it, apparently it took me 6 minutes to write two sentences. 

Edited November 13, 2017 by DerNeueMensch

[Finkeren]

On a side note I do want a block for things that are physically impossible, such as lowering the flaps and gear while flying, in the i16. It always makes me think wtf.

I would be satisfied just having the I-16 landing gear key function as press-and-hold similar to how many of the flaps are operated.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

but it would not only add so much immersion-wise, but also to gameplay

 

-snip-

 

People belabor this same point over and over and over and over and over again but quite frankly, I don't see it, it doesn't do it for me and I don't feel it adds anything at all.

 

I've played a few sims with the whole disembodied body thing going on and it doesn't add to immersion or gameplay. It's another resource intensive, hokey "feature" that really adds nothing substantial or worthwhile to the sim or its gameplay.

[DerNeueMensch]

I would be satisfied just having the I-16 landing gear key function as press-and-hold similar to how many of the flaps are operated.

Makes no sense, since it's either in or out, not halfway like with the flaps. 

 

 

 

that really adds nothing substantial or worthwhile to the sim or its gameplay.

 It really adds nothing substantial, but it adds more immersion and it would look cool in a video...

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

 It really adds nothing substantial, but it adds more immersion and it would look cool in a video...

 

 

People belabor this same point over and over and over and over and over again but quite frankly, I don't see it, it doesn't do it for me and I don't feel it adds anything at all.

 

I've played a few sims with the whole disembodied body thing going on and it doesn't add to immersion or gameplay. It's another resource intensive, hokey "feature" that really adds nothing substantial or worthwhile to the sim or its gameplay.

 

At least we agree that it doesn't add anything substantial but again, people belabor the point of "immersion" - a virtual disembodied pilot just doesn't do it for me. It's no more immersive, is objectively more immersion breaking and I've yet to see a convincing argument that isn't simply repeating the word "immersive" or the phrase "it adds immersion."

 

Stating that it is immersive is not a factual qualifier for it actually being so.

Edited November 13, 2017 by Space_Ghost

[6./ZG26_Custard]

"Pilots? To god-damned hell with pilots! We have no pilots. In fact, we don't need pilots. We don't have to show you any stinkin’ pilots!"

[Herne]

At least we agree that it doesn't add anything substantial but again, people belabor the point of "immersion" - a virtual disembodied pilot just doesn't do it for me. It's no more immersive, is objectively more immersion breaking and I've yet to see a convincing argument that isn't simply repeating the word "immersive" or the phrase "it adds immersion."

 

Stating that it is immersive is not a factual qualifier for it actually being so.

 

could be quite cool to look down and see arterial bleeding from your thigh spurting all over your canopy or when we are killed you have a fleeting glimpse of your intestines spattering all over the cockpit lol

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

could be quite cool to look down and see arterial bleeding from your thigh spurting all over your canopy or when we are killed you have a fleeting glimpse of your intestines spattering all over the cockpit lol

 

I don't think that's cool at all. 

 

This reminds me of the paragraph I wrote about feature creep a few months back.

 

Edit: Found it.

 

A simple illustration of feature creep:

 

"No collision modeling for trees is unrealistic... I thought this was a sim... Completely unplayable." > Collision model added > "Brushing the tree tops shouldn't blow my plane up" > Collision model tweaked > "The trees should have a generic damage model" > Trees given a generic damage model > "Using generic winter trees to simulate a DM is unrealistic and lazy" > Resources given to creating entirely new damaged tree assets > "The trees don't smoke or catch fire when I crash in to them" > Fire/smoke added to tree damage model > "Forest fires aren't modeled and only 4 or 5 trees burn" > Resources given to modeling forest fires > "The smoke on the trees doesn't last long enough" > Resources given to increase "smoke time" > "Brush fires aren't modeled - game is unrealistic and completely unplayable. I demand that they add brush fires!" > The cycle repeats endlessly until absolutely no worthwhile progress is made and the developer goes bankrupt over completely arbitrary features.

Edited November 13, 2017 by Space_Ghost

[Finkeren]

Makes no sense, since it's either in or out, not halfway like with the flaps. [/i]...

The I-16s landing gear was manually operated. If you stopped turning the crank halfway - then yeah: The gear would be stuck halfway retracted.

 

So yes: It absolutely makes sense, and was actually how it was modelled in the original IL-2.

 

Soon it’s not just gonna be the I-16. The US Navy’s F4F had manual landing gear as well.

[sniperton]

I didn't find it immersive in 1946 that I had to push a button 50+ times. I just found it silly and made a key macro to repeat that bloody keypress 50+ times. I never regretted it

[DerNeueMensch]

The I-16s landing gear was manually operated. If you stopped turning the crank halfway - then yeah: The gear would be stuck halfway retracted.

 

So yes: It absolutely makes sense, and was actually how it was modelled in the original IL-2.

 

Soon it’s not just gonna be the I-16. The US Navy’s F4F had manual landing gear as well.

It would make sense if you couldn't operate the throttle f.e. while cranking the wheel, but if not, it's only annoying.

[Finkeren]

It would make sense if you couldn't operate the throttle f.e. while cranking the wheel, but if not, it's only annoying.

Not really. I found the solution in the original IL-2 quite satisfying, even without opening the can of worms that is antropomorphicized controls.

[ElPerk]

could be quite cool to look down and see arterial bleeding from your thigh spurting all over your canopy or when we are killed you have a fleeting glimpse of your intestines spattering all over the cockpit lol

 

I want... no, I need extremely detailed hand customization sliders of the highest quality with a possibility of slapping looted watches everywhere on my muscular* pilot avatar. Also, my flight suit should be open so I could admire myself the Germans would feel despair when observing my apex Soviet body.

 

the terror of the skies, feat. custom characters

 

 *not escapism

Edited November 13, 2017 by ElPerk

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

As others have said, I believe that realistic bodies in cockpits would be a catastrophic waste of resources. 

 

Furthermore, I believe that bodies seem unnatural, at least outside of VR. If I were flying a real aircraft, I would be focusing on the actual controls, not on the appearance of my hands. Yes, the hands are always there, but they fade away because I can feel the controls behind them.

 

On a screen, hands do not feel anything; they just block the view of the thing that I actually want to focus on, namely the cockpit. 

[Lusekofte]

If this is ever going to happened I hope they do as in DCS and make it a choise for each and every one, as a trackIr user I hate this feature in DCS, I simply find it sick to look down the hole on the body where my head suppose to be. I have no problem if it is added as a free choice. But getting it for all I strongly insist we will not have it. 

It might work better for VR users, I do not know

[LukeFF]

[Field-Ops]

I would be satisfied just having the I-16 landing gear key function as press-and-hold similar to how many of the flaps are operated.

Thats actually quite a good idea and I think deserves to be implemented in all aircraft you had to crank a lever, hold a button or hold a switch. Deserves its own thread IMO.

 

Also CLoDs way of limiting controls in the options menu to two operations at a time was highly annoying and if one of your axis was making some "noise" it locked up your throttle, radiators, joystick, you name it. I thought it would add immersion but it did quite the opposite. 

[HagarTheHorrible]

 

 

You do know it's not really dead ?  It's just a very good actor, if you look closely you can see it fart every now and again (that's what a vegetarian diet does for you).

 

The gentleman is simply an early, as yet unknown to science, case of Ritalin deficiency but don't worry another couple of hundred years should cure it.

[[CPT]milopugdog]

I have no problem with the pilot not being visible in cockpit. However, I do wish that the number of operations that can be performed on planes are limited to the fact that there IS a pilot flying the plane.

For example: I was flying the I-16 yesterday. leading up for landing, I lowered my gear, as well as my flaps at the same time only to see my pilot cranking the flaps and gear with both his hands, and flying the plane with his (?)

Another thing I'd like to see (which iirc is planned) is to give the pilot a darn neck! He isn't an owl for Pete's sake!

[Ghost666]

I have no problem with a "GHOST666" flying the plane.