manual engine start up

[ATA_Vasilij]

Oh the highest glory of endless improvements - Please - Give us the manual start up procedure, and I will love you forever. !!

 

Spasiba.

(with clickable cockpit, which can be turn on turn off, just for this starting. In flight disabled, to save pc resources..)

[TheWarsimmer]

I would love this feature as well. It should be optional, of course. Unclickable cockpits are the only reason I sometimes go back to DCS.

 

The devs have flat out said that it isn't happening, but I have a feeling when next gen VR comes and finger movements can be detected, things will change. The cockpit instruments already respond to your inputs. Allowing manual clicking won't be too much work. It's going to be amazing and the immersion will be unmatched, and I can't see the BoX series passing up such an opportunity while other devs pick it up when next gen comes.

Edited May 22, 2018 by baylor703

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

@LukeFF I'd like to order one flogged equine with a side of horseradish, please.

Edited May 22, 2018 by Space_Ghost

[Herne]

I don't really miss clicking stuff for a start sequence, and the thought of trying to remember the checklist for all BoX AC is quite intimidating. Especially if you fly in VR and the language for the AC you are flying is different to what you understand. 

 

 

[TheWarsimmer]

It should definitely be an option you can toggle on and off. In regards to memorization, the startup sequence would obviously make things more complex. But sometimes that's a good thing. It's why I enjoy the P40 at times, and it would do wonders for immersion. There are also times in flight when having to remember what random buttons on the joystick coorespond to each action can get a bit confusing, and clickables would actually be more intuitive imo. I think a lot of people would get used to it rather quickly, and come out enjoying the experience more.

 

If I recall correctly, I think the devs were initially against vr. Something about it being tough to work into the engine. Eventually the tides turned and look how great that turned out. Things change.

Edited May 22, 2018 by baylor703

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

It should definitely be forgotten about and moved on from being that it's been discussed for 5+ years and isn't going to happen.

 

The devs were never against VR - more like lacking support from the VR industry, standards that (at the time) couldn't be met, etc.

[Herne]

Regarding VR I think the Dev's always wanted it. I seem to remember reading news that the VR integration was going rather well early in development. The problem was that oculus moved the goal posts and no longer supported anything before DX11, and BoS was built on DX9.

 

As for clicky pits I don't know if they will or won't be a thing. All I can say is I'm quite happy to be an observer and watch things being operated during start up.

[dburne]

11 minutes ago, baylor703 said:

If I recall correctly, I think the devs were initially against vr. Something about it being tough to work into the engine. Eventually the tides turned and look how great that turned out. Things change.

 

I think main reason was Oculus moved the goalposts, to where it would require DX11 and at that time IL-2 was DX-9.

 

It was not very long after 1CGS moved the sim to DX11 that VR support was added.

[-332FG-Gordon200]

Note in this video the player is flying DCS flight sim wearing vr glove controllers @ 1:15.

He doesn't have a joystick. He's flying by the flight control in the cockpit of the sim.

 

 

[dburne]

I feel "fairly" confident the Oculus Rift CV2 will ship with tracking gloves as an option.

They certainly are working on them, will be interesting to see if they have the tech available for the next gen headset.

[Herne]

Yes the gloves have a lot of potential in Flight Sims, I have played and enjoyed vtol VR using the touch controllers. Love them for operating things, but I don't think I'd ever want to give up that tactile feel of a stick and to lesser degree throttle. especially for long flights where your hand rests on the stick

 

[TheWarsimmer]

I agree. Will be much better to always have a real stick and rudders.

24 minutes ago, Space_Ghost said:

It should definitely be forgotten about and moved on from being that it's been discussed for 5+ years and isn't going to happen.

 

The devs were never against VR - more like lacking support from the VR industry, standards that (at the time) couldn't be met, etc.

Is there a reason you are deadset against having the option? People do enjoy the ability. I know there is a sizeable group, just from what I've seen in forums and dcs. If the workload required by the devs isn't too great, I don't see much negative in providing the choice. 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Well, I'd be happy if the Start Up Sequence didn't take away the Engine Controls from the Pilot and allow us to Control the Starter. 

 

So all the Pumps, Hydraulics, Electrics would be done by the Start Up Sequence, but Throttle, Mixture, RPM, Cowls, Fuel Selector and Starter would be done by the Player. Same as Rise of Flight did. 

 

It would go a long way. 

[dburne]

Probably the best use for me at least with flight sims, would be for say the engine startup procedure in DCS, or in the case of IL-2 navigating the menus/selecting options.

 

For me with the gloves, would need to "remove before flight".

Ain't nothing going to replace my great HOTAS setup.

 

They would be really awesome though in like Touch supported games.

[Herne]

2 minutes ago, dburne said:

Probably the best use for me at least with flight sims, would be for say the engine startup procedure in DCS, or in the case of IL-2 navigating the menus/selecting options.

 

For me with the gloves, would need to "remove before flight".

Ain't nothing going to replace my great HOTAS setup.

 

They would be really awesome though in like Touch supported games.

 

 

What could be quite cool is if your virtual hands disappear from screen when the gloves detect something physical in the palm of the hand, like a stick or throttle for instance. So when you let go, your gloves are in "active" mode ?

[dburne]

1 minute ago, =FEW=Herne said:

 

 

What could be quite cool is if your virtual hands disappear from screen when the gloves detect something physical in the palm of the hand, like a stick or throttle for instance. So when you let go, your gloves are in "active" mode ?

Whoa, brilliant!!

 

 

[Trooper117]

If I could have a pound for every time Jason has said full start ups and clickable cockpits = ''No''... I'd be reasonably well off 

[SharpeXB]

A sim aircraft with a clickable cockpit costs anywhere from $30-$60 each. That’s as much as the whole game ie BoS or BoM

It takes over a year for DCS to make a single aircraft too and this series already has 30. 

Theres much more work involved than the animated controls you see here in IL-2S. So no it’s not feasible. 

The devs have clearly stated this feature will not happen. I like DCS too but it’s just a different focus than IL-2 has. They’re both great. But trying to combine high fidelity aircraft operation with the quantities needed for an historical battle recreation like is in IL-2S just isn’t possible. 

[P51DMatt]

This dead horse has been beaten so many times...

[angus26]

We can only hope this topic gets locked due to animal cruelty. 

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, Space_Ghost said:

@LukeFF I'd like to order one flogged equine with a side of horseradish, please.

 

 

I love starting my day with a good horse flogging. 

1 hour ago, baylor703 said:

Things change.

 

It ain't changing.

[BOO]

The devs need..... NEED a clickable horse flogger. Automated horse flogging isn't very immersive. Perhaps something with those gloves so you could strangle the beast first...

[TheWarsimmer]

The devs have said it isn't happening, but that does't mean it can't in the future. Conditions change. Opportunities arrive. Sharpe gave what is most likely a valid point on why it can't at this moment in time, but I don't understand the desire that genuinely good features never be added. If we maintain that sort of frame of mind, then we are purposefully wishing against innovation in the genre, and that doesn't make sense to me. They've handled things very well over the past few years. If the ability to make clickable cockpits becomes feasible, or they find the resources to do it, you can bet that they will. 

[LukeFF]

5 years on, and it's still not even on their development radar. I think that's a pretty safe bet it's not happening. It "works" in DCS, because it's always been marketed as a study sim. CLOD? LOL...we know how that turned out. 

 

Bottom line, it's a very niche feature that very, very few would end up using.

Edited May 22, 2018 by LukeFF

[seafireliv]

8 hours ago, 3.IAP_Vasilij said:

Oh the highest glory of endless improvements - Please - Give us the manual start up procedure, and I will love you forever. !!

 

Spasiba.

(with clickable cockpit, which can be turn on turn off, just for this starting. In flight disabled, to save pc resources..)

I would also like this.

Watching it is nice, doing it would be sublime.

[LukeFF]

34 minutes ago, seafireliv said:

I would also like this.

Watching it is nice, doing it would be sublime.

 

What exactly is sublime about moving your mouse cursor around to find that one small spot where it's going to turn on that light switch? Or work the gunsight dimmer? Etc, etc...

[variable]

3 hours ago, Gordon200 said:

He doesn't have a joystick. He's flying by the flight control in the cockpit of the sim.

That looks exhausting.  I remember having a similar issue trying to play a shooter on the Wii and you couldn't ever relax your arms or you'd start spinning in circles.  To walk straight forward took a whole bunch of effort holding up the controller.

 

I think it would work with a piece of pvc pipe to hold on to.  Or just use an unplugged joystick.

[BM357_TinMan]

This is something (manual startups - not clickable cockpits) I would like to see.  There just might be a reason it keeps coming up....hmmm, might be people would like to simulate in a title that claims to be a simulator (or should claim to be).

HOWEVER, there are TONS of other things that I would rather see addressed than this.  As much as I love this feature in DCS, I don't care enough about it to take priority over other things so, although I find the nay-saying/dismissing attitude of some in this very topic distasteful and the dismissing attitude of the developers disheartening; I can understand that priorities need to be elsewhere

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

4 minutes ago, BM357_TinMan said:

-snip-

 

There just might be a reason it keeps coming up....hmmm, might be people would like to simulate in a title that claims to be a simulator (or should claim to be).

-snip-

 

Yeah, cool... Feel however you want... Because for every one person who says "hnnng muh clickpits!!1@!" there's nine of us who feel it would be a complete waste of resources for something that 1/10 users might use until they get bored with it.

 

IL-2: Great Battles is a combat flight simulator - something that it excels in and faces no real competition in... Not a cockpit/switch/instrumentation/systems simulator. If so many of you have such a hardon for clickpits, Digital Cockpit Simulator has you covered.

[SharpeXB]

Clickable cockpits are much more useful, essential even, for modern aircraft with complex systems. Like the A-10C in DCS. 

WWII aircraft, once you’ve started them don’t require you to click on very much in a combat sim. So you’re essentially making an aircraft starting simulator. IL-2S already gives you control of all the important functions. It’s not necessary to be able to click on every singe fuse button or fuel valve. And the cost of doing that per plane would make historical battle scenarios like we have here with a dozen different aircraft simply impossible to achieve. 

If I remember correctly one of the dev team stated it this way back in the beginning. There are two kinds of simulation. Simulation of equipment and simulation of an event. IL-2S isn’t a simulation of how to operate a particular machine. It’s a simulation of air battles. 

[TheWarsimmer]

Sharpe, you're putting up solid points, but I still disagree. When I think of a combat simulator, I think of the experience as whole package, all parts working together to make the combat feel complete. The question is, if we are focusing on combat only, to what degree should auxiliary functions of combat be included? Is landing a part of combat? What about navigation lights? If we wanted to focus on combat exclusively, we could just strip everything not directly related to it, or automate side bits. Il2 allows you to manually perform the two examples above, but I do not consider it only a landing simulator. It's a question of how much these parts add to the entirety of the experience. I believe there is a market for it, shown by the reactions in this thread. It's been brought up a lot, which is why some people get so worked up at the mere mention of it. 

 

I'll always believe that the ability to intuitively control your cockpit with something akin to touch gloves will make the combat side of it feel 100% more alive (see Herne's idea for how it could work). It would be like the plane was an extension of yourself, and would be as big of a difference as going from a keyboard to hotas when the tech gets here. It would be awesome, naysayers be damned. And it's going to happen. Maybe not now. But I'll say it again. A lot can happen in five years. And a lot of people are going to want to move on to the next hotas and away from the kb/mouse.

[angus26]

1 hour ago, baylor703 said:

Sharpe, you're putting up solid points, but I still disagree. When I think of a combat simulator, I think of the experience as whole package, all parts working together to make the combat feel complete. The question is, if we are focusing on combat only, to what degree should auxiliary functions of combat be included? Is landing a part of combat? What about navigation lights? If we wanted to focus on combat exclusively, we could just strip everything not directly related to it, or automate side bits. Il2 allows you to manually perform the two examples above, but I do not consider it only a landing simulator. It's a question of how much these parts add to the entirety of the experience. I believe there is a market for it, shown by the reactions in this thread. It's been brought up a lot, which is why some people get so worked up at the mere mention of it. 

 

I'll always believe that the ability to intuitively control your cockpit with something akin to touch gloves will make the combat side of it feel 100% more alive (see Herne's idea for how it could work). It would be like the plane was an extension of yourself, and would be as big of a difference as going from a keyboard to hotas when the tech gets here. It would be awesome, naysayers be damned. And it's going to happen. Maybe not now. But I'll say it again. A lot can happen in five years. And a lot of people are going to want to move on to the next hotas and away from the kb/mouse.

I’ll start a go fund me, and anyone that pays me 10 bucks gets to get teleported back into world war 2. All bets are off once you get there in case you die though, cause asking for clickpits and aircraft at a reasonable price and time schedule is impossible. Sorry, but the only way you’re gettin that “whole package” is by hoppin in the ol’ Time machine for ten bucks.  

[SharpeXB]

3 hours ago, baylor703 said:

Sharpe, you're putting up solid points, but I still disagree. When I think of a combat simulator, I think of the experience as whole package, all parts working together to make the combat feel complete. The question is, if we are focusing on combat only, to what degree should auxiliary functions of combat be included? Is landing a part of combat? What about navigation lights? If we wanted to focus on combat exclusively, we could just strip everything not directly related to it, or automate side bits. Il2 allows you to manually perform the two examples above, but I do not consider it only a landing simulator. It's a question of how much these parts add to the entirety of the experience. I believe there is a market for it, shown by the reactions in this thread. It's been brought up a lot, which is why some people get so worked up at the mere mention of it. 

 

I'll always believe that the ability to intuitively control your cockpit with something akin to touch gloves will make the combat side of it feel 100% more alive (see Herne's idea for how it could work). It would be like the plane was an extension of yourself, and would be as big of a difference as going from a keyboard to hotas when the tech gets here. It would be awesome, naysayers be damned. And it's going to happen. Maybe not now. But I'll say it again. A lot can happen in five years. And a lot of people are going to want to move on to the next hotas and away from the kb/mouse.

I like DCS a lot, I really do. but it's a different focus than IL-2S, both are really great. But having that level of aircraft with full systems like DCS has and also creating a full battle scenario like IL-2S is an impossible combination. It has taken ED five years to make 4 planes and one map. Making a game with the content IL-2 currently has would literally take 30 years and the games would sell for $500 a copy. So this horse is dead dead dead and more dead.

[Poochnboo]

I don't think that most people realize the complexity of a clickable cockpit. All the systems that have to be modeled, and the possible failures that go with it. Look at how long it takes A2A to model one airplane. I wanted it too, until I realized what was involved. Forget it and enjoy what you have. Or, I suppose, move on. But we're not getting it.

[Herne]

10 hours ago, baylor703 said:

 

I'll always believe that the ability to intuitively control your cockpit with something akin to touch gloves will make the combat side of it feel 100% more alive (see Herne's idea for how it could work). It would be like the plane was an extension of yourself, and would be as big of a difference as going from a keyboard to hotas when the tech gets here. It would be awesome, naysayers be damned. And it's going to happen. Maybe not now. But I'll say it again. A lot can happen in five years. And a lot of people are going to want to move on to the next hotas and away from the kb/mouse.

 

I can see that years, maybe 5+ if VR starts to become mainstream, then Dev focus for any Flight / Driving style sims will shift their focus increasingly toward the virtual experience, and that may include things like what you are asking for.

For the time being though, it's a waste of dev resource. Even in the few years that BoX has been in development the game has evolved, all things being equal it will continue to evolve. It has to, or it will be in danger of getting left behind. 

Right now as others have said, as a combat sim, it has no equal. The feeling of flight in this game is pretty exceptional and these things are at the core of what IL2 is all about. Would it be cool to reach down to spin the gear handle in the i16 for a minute or two ? perhaps . . . just not worth the dev effort, for a very few to enjoy.

[TP_Silk]

20 hours ago, Space_Ghost said:

@LukeFF I'd like to order one flogged equine with a side of horseradish, please.

 

I know - it's almost like the forum search facility doesn't exist!

[Tapi]

22 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann said:

Well, I'd be happy if the Start Up Sequence didn't take away the Engine Controls from the Pilot and allow us to Control the Starter. 

 

So all the Pumps, Hydraulics, Electrics would be done by the Start Up Sequence, but Throttle, Mixture, RPM, Cowls, Fuel Selector and Starter would be done by the Player. Same as Rise of Flight did. 

 

4

+1

[JG4_Sputnik]

+1 from me.

And while you are at it, make pleas a campaign where startup is actually needed

[dburne]

9 minutes ago, JG4_Sputnik said:

+1 from me.

And while you are at it, make pleas a campaign where startup is actually needed

 

I would like this also, even with automated engine start would be kind of cool to startup and taxi to runway on "some" missions.

[SharpeXB]

Cold starts would be a cool option for the career campaign. Isn’t the problem with the AI taxiing and forming up on the runway?