Jump to content
BryanHolland

Will there ever be a manual engine startup?

Recommended Posts

 

11 hours ago, ACG_Woop said:

Would be amazing to have. At least to some extent like in CloD. Once you learn it, it becomes second nature and you can start up at the same speed as the automated one-button-start-procedure. I have the DCS Spitfire and it's easy peasy. Sadly not going to happen.

 

I don't care for DCS or CloD because of their emphasis on the technical and mechanical aspects of combat simulation.

 

Anything which requires more effort, orientation or time in a simulation than it requires in real life does not add realism. For people with rapid eye movement and good sight; no VR or head-tracker is going to come close. The very last thing I want to be doing is focussing on and "aiming" for buttons I can find real life (on the periphery of my focus) in a fraction of a second.

 

Clickable cockpits simulate procedure rather than experience.


I understand the value of clickable cockpit interiors for training airline pilots where safety is so dependent on procedure. In historical combat sims where so many actions are blind, reflexive, conditioned and instictive the same emphasis simulates unrealism.

 

11 hours ago, ACG_Woop said:

Devs are dead set on making IL-2 more as a fun game, than a fun sim. 

 

You are mistaken good sir. There's so much more productive work the devs could engage in.
 

  • Upvote 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, dburne said:

 

No, the big part of the failure was the broken state they released that sim in. Nothing to do with the few switches that could be flipped.

Their click pits were so limited it was not that big a deal. It was not like full fidelity click-pits.

 

Really no reason for there to be even a debate on this guys, it has been stated several times in the past this is not a road they are going to go down.

Love the sim for what it is ! I know I do each and every day!

 

BTW for you SP guys , PWCG is working on a version to have cold start and taxi to runway at mission start. Hopefully they will be able to accomplish this and have it offered as an option/version for guys that enjoy that sort of thing.

 

 

 

One of the main reasons that CLoD was released in a broken state was that 'feature creep' caused massive delays and huge budget over run, directly causing the poor state it was (forcibly) released in. In my opinion there is a direct relationship, (half done) clickable cockpits were one of the over ambitious features that made the selling price (even if running properly) unrealistic to ger proper returns on investment, but seeing that it did not work correctly that will remain speculation. 

Crrently the 'features' you get strike the correct balance of detail for the (overall) price paid per aircraft. 90% of people would use a full start up a few times at most

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dakpilot, I think your last sentence would be closer to 97%. For me in CLoD it got very boring very quickly. Twas bad enough in real life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we could at least get out of this topic is some more control in the cockpit. Why are we not able to switch the gunsight on and off separately for example? 

 

All other things said here are down to personal preference. I see the points made however, but don't really understand the heat with which they are made. 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a poll running maybe 3 years ago to see, if the players are interested in the ability to switch the gunsight on/off. 

This sole feature I miss the most. Hope it will be added one day together with the more dedicated fuel management. 

 

No need for manual startup procedures though. They're fine in DCS but due to reasons explained above not necessary here. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, LukeFF said:

If I may...

 

giphy.gif

It's been a while heh, that horse deserves it's own il2 account!

 

@OP everything comes at it's price, having clickpits would mean we would still be on BoS expansion  with only few planes, look how much time does it take to develop single DCS aircraft.

 

I like clickpits and i go in DCS for that, but after a while startup procedure become irrelevant/boring and once you're airborne it doesn't differ much from il2 with rpm/mixture/throttle/rads assigned to hotas.

In short i'd rather have more maps, updates and planes with good realistic FM and DM than lesser with clickpits which are mostly used only on startup.

It could also have big impact on game performance.

So good performance, variety and amount of content vs. clickpit, i choose first one!

Edited by EAF_Ribbon
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Blooddawn1942 said:

Hope it will be added one day together with the more dedicated fuel management. 

 

Yup more in depth fuel management would be nice. Being able to select to use fuel from one tank instead of the other would be sweet. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuel management...whomever said on the first page that there is a degree of "simulated pilot proficiency" nailed it on that one.  Essentially, and I get why for immersion's sake, you are asking for something to be able to screw up.  We just assume that our pilot manages fuel in the correct way, because he/we are a trained pilot, then we can get on with fighting a war. 

 

DCS WWII has...4 planes and a terrible Channel map.  Look at all the planes we have to play with. 

 

For full pilot immersion, I am looking forward to Deadstick.  Pre-flight walkarounds.  Maintenance.  Wing-tank selectors.  Will be a lot more fun dealing with that stuff as a bush pilot than a fighter pilot IMO. 

Edited by II./JG1_EmerlistDavjack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dont need it, even waiting for automatic switches fliping that we have now is to mutch after few times, in clod i could start engines faster as i would just need to press 2-3 keys (clicability is waist of time there), il-2 1946 had it best, no bs just one key and you can go

Edited by 77.CountZero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is some satisfaction in the DCS full start for me as I feel a little more ‘bonded’ with the virtual a/c (same in CLoD) and in VR it really is wonderful. But I share the view that it would not be a feature used that frequently and hence there are higher priority features at present.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of more control in the cockpit, the ability to manually switch fuel tanks rather than have it auto toggle or manually switch radiators etc would be rather nice. the same with things like the ammo counters, sight adjustment etc.

the ability to toggle complex management like you can CEM would be useful though and allow at least people to choose

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes,

 

manual fuel management is a must have IMHO, but it was announced as WIP... Priorities have to be carefully managed by the Dev Team because they're a very small team involved in such a HUGE project ( so many fronts at the same time, now tanks too...).

 

 

Edited by jcomm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I'm quite happy with auto-starts, and acknowlege clickable pits probably won't be on the cards any time, my thoughts are...

 

That anyone could play for some time and be a crack Ace of a virtual pilot. Stick them in a real version of the same plane - and they wouldn't be able to find any of the switches, know what any of them do, and hence not be able to even start the plane.

This puts the word 'simulator' in the spotlight for me.

 

Of course many will know their cockpits inside out, but to an exrtent it's optional.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont care for the start, but fuel management is important, you get hit in the left fuel tank, switch to that one until runs empty, then switch to the right one to keep flying.

This could be complicated or not, dont know if how many tanks some of the planes had and also which ones had an electric fuel pump you need to turn on when switching tanks.

But just a simple modelling left and right tank management would be really an improvement.

 

I prefer this to new planes or tanks.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Screw the clickpits, that's never going to happen in this game.

 

Add the option to toggle the gunsight.

Add the option to toggle fuel cocks.

Add option to select fuel tanks.

 

All of the above are some of the most basic switches and it's silly they're not modeled.

Wonder how that's gonna work when the P-51 comes out? Is my pilot going to automatically switch between wing-tanks or am I going to end up dropping a wing halfway through a flight, hello? Let me toggle the gunsight so that I can see the runway when landing at night or so that it doesn't obscure my view when spotting for contacts on my 12 o'clock.

I agree that clickpits are a waste of time for a game like BoX but it feels like some big ole' corners have been cut when choosing which features to implement, and which one to ignore.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

Dont care for the start, but fuel management is important

 

The devs have identified this as a feature they want to implement when time allows. The speculation is that they will get it done when creating drop tanks for BoBP, which makes sense to me.

 

As far as the other cockpit features go, I think Onebad above is the most realistic. Forget clickpits, but I am guessing it would be possible to allow the user to control more of the systems which are modeled, but automatically controlled. Weather the required work to implement those features is warranted is the decision of the devs, and it is safe to say that they have given it much more thought and careful consideration than anyone else here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 4./JG26_Onebad said:

Wonder how that's gonna work when the P-51 comes out? Is my pilot going to automatically switch between wing-tanks or am I going to end up dropping a wing halfway through a flight, hello? Let me toggle the gunsight so that I can see the runway when landing at night or so that it doesn't obscure my view when spotting for contacts on my 12 o'clock.

I agree that clickpits are a waste of time for a game like BoX but it feels like some big ole' corners have been cut when choosing which features to implement, and which one to ignore.

 

It will work like it works currently with the P-40 and P-47, first the fuselage auxiliary tank is emptied, and only then it will go to the wing tanks.

I would like to see the gunsight turn off/on, in the G-14 and K-4 you can fold it down so we at least there is that (they are still on but you don't see the reticle from the normal head position).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

 

It will work like it works currently with the P-40 and P-47, first the fuselage auxiliary tank is emptied, and only then it will go to the wing tanks.

I would like to see the gunsight turn off/on, in the G-14 and K-4 you can fold it down so we at least there is that (they are still on but you don't see the reticle from the normal head position).

 

P-51 will have an issue if they add drop tanks; as I understand it, the procedure is to empty the aux tank before you use the drop tanks on that plane. 

 

It would be nice to have the tank control on the Thunderbolt. Apparently on that one, you are supposed to run the Aux tank down to 25 gallons, then switch over to the main tank, and leave that 25g for reserve. It basically changes the CoG in somewhat in most modes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Voyager said:

P-51 will have an issue if they add drop tanks; as I understand it, the procedure is to empty the aux tank before you use the drop tanks on that plane. 

 

It would be nice to have the tank control on the Thunderbolt. Apparently on that one, you are supposed to run the Aux tank down to 25 gallons, then switch over to the main tank, and leave that 25g for reserve. It basically changes the CoG in somewhat in most modes. 

 

Fuel amount changes the center of gravity on most aircraft, and in certain models the effects might be severe.

The FW-190 Anton, for example, was famous for being faster with a full tank rather than when running on fumes. That's while I'd like to have control over it, and I don't really think it's too much to ask for. Just a normal engine control, another radiator so to speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@4./JG26_OnebadOn the P-51 the effects are severe. The auxiliary fuel tank is completely behind the center of lift and high in the fuselage.

 

It was only put there at all because it gave the plane range to hit Berlin, and was never conceived of in the original design and qual. A P-51 expert can correct me, but I'm given to understand, if the tank was full, the plane willingly went into flat spins.

 

But, that insane range it provided was worth the danger in the first stage of the flight. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Voyager said:

P-51 will have an issue if they add drop tanks; as I understand it, the procedure is to empty the aux tank before you use the drop tanks on that plane. 

 

It would be nice to have the tank control on the Thunderbolt. Apparently on that one, you are supposed to run the Aux tank down to 25 gallons, then switch over to the main tank, and leave that 25g for reserve. It basically changes the CoG in somewhat in most modes. 


If I understood correctly, drop tanks would come when they implement a more detailed fuel manage system, so we would get both features at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zero interest in startup procedure or clickpits. Startup is the most boring thing anyone could ask for, just doing some sequence like a monkey. Not to mention clickpits+headtracking is a nightmare for me.

 

Like many have said, I'd be much more interested in fuel management and radio comms options.

 

 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly I don`t see the atraction OP seems to get from clickpits starting procedures. Or maybe it lost the allure to me once I did it for the 25th time and took me 10 minutes to get the thing airborne. Yeah it`s a plus but I`d exchange it for other features that are better gameplay-wise. I like to sit in me DCS Kurfurst and do some switches here and there with me mouse and dial the radio just for the sake of it until it gets old. For me better immersion is taking off, forming with Staffel and cruising waypoints as I look at the sun and foggy mountains/fields. Each to their own I guess.

 

13 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

Whilst I'm quite happy with auto-starts, and acknowlege clickable pits probably won't be on the cards any time, my thoughts are...

 

That anyone could play for some time and be a crack Ace of a virtual pilot. Stick them in a real version of the same plane - and they wouldn't be able to find any of the switches, know what any of them do, and hence not be able to even start the plane.

This puts the word 'simulator' in the spotlight for me.

Most of them are simple and easy for a person who likes WWII aircraft. That said, in this game you have to manage your a/c correctly once in the air or it turns on you. And if you feel there is not enough challenge feel free to turn off the technochat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO currently implemented automated sequence corresponding with RL starting procedure is the best solution for a non-study combat sim.

 

BUT one thnig I would like to see: All Bf 109's (F, G, K) have cooling circuit braker handles on the floor. One for the left circuit and one for the right. So the pilot can switch off the one half of the cooling circuit in case the cooler was penetrated and spare cooling liquid for the other undemaged part of the circuit. THIS should be implemented - sometimes it would help us considerably to bring the demaged ship back home...

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Click pits are interesting for the first dozen times. In DCS the ww2 planes are ok but once you get to the f18 it's literally a 15min process.

 

After that it a chore when really I want get flying with precious time I get for flight some these days. Even in IL2 I fire up the game on the runway with engine running. Especially for the German planes. Even the automated start up seems to replicate hand winding the inertial starter instead of ground power assisted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite some posts here being militantly against clickpits - I don't think OP was suggesting that be the only way to run an aircraft. Even in DCS there is a one button push start option. 

 

Why debate it anyway? Devs have already said no. Womp womp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, [CPT]HawkeyeP said:

Despite some posts here being militantly against clickpits - I don't think OP was suggesting that be the only way to run an aircraft. Even in DCS there is a one button push start option. 

 

Why debate it anyway? Devs have already said no. Womp womp.

Nothing is definite, priorities change all the time, i like these discussions!

 

I like clickpits too and yes DCS has one button cheat start but how much time and resources does it take to develop planes with clickpits, would you trade it for lower game performance and upcoming content?

 

 

Edited by EAF_Ribbon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, EAF_Ribbon said:

Nothing is definite, priorities change all the time, i like these discussions!

 

I like clickpits too and yes DCS has one button cheat start but how much time and resources does it take to develop planes with clickpits, would you trade it for lower game performance and upcoming content?

 

 

 

Well... Some people in this thread have said all the systems are already modeled and included. The switches and knobs are currently operated automatically instead of a manual bind or click. Would this really lower game performance if I was doing it instead of the simulation? I 100% doubt it. Would it interfere with other priorities such as further content? Yes I will concede to that one. 

I'm neither for its inclusion or against. I enjoy the clickpits in XP11 and DCS as it makes me feel more immersed in the operation of the aircraft but it isn't needed in BoX series as I already feel more immersed in the combat and flying to begin with...   I guess I'm just confused by some replies simply stating "If there was clickpits, I wouldn't play"..  Those seem like childish "head-in-the-sand" statements as we all know that if they WERE included, there would still be a cheat button.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want manuel startup, you also need ground crew, which leads you to only be able to fly this on a multiplayer server, and then you have to Hope for someone to act as ground crew. 

 

It is fine as it is. 

Beside, you didn't use a mouse to use the contacts in an aircraft in WW2. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, EAF_Ribbon said:

Nothing is definite, priorities change all the time, i like these discussions!

 

I like clickpits too and yes DCS has one button cheat start but how much time and resources does it take to develop planes with clickpits, would you trade it for lower game performance and upcoming content?

 

 

Is is a LOT more work to develop clickable cockpit aircraft. Again just look at any sim which has these and see that each individual plane costs as much as an entire game/theater here in IL-2

 

The startup animations in IL-2 are really nice. But don’t let them fool you into thinking that it would be an easy step to make them manual. 

 

WWII era aircraft don’t need clickable cockpits for operating in combat, which is the focus here. They only need them to start up. So the cost and quantity trade off isn’t worthwhile. 

Edited by SharpeXB
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Is is a LOT more work to develop clickable cockpit aircraft. Again just look at any sim which has these and see that each individual plane costs as much as an entire game/theater here in IL-2

 

The startup animations in IL-2 are really nice. But don’t let them fool you into thinking that it would be an easy step to make them manual. 

 

WWII era aircraft don’t need clickable cockpits for operating in combat, which is the focus here. They only need them to start up. So the cost and quantity trade off isn’t worthwhile. 

I agree as i stated in previous post

On 2/20/2019 at 8:49 AM, EAF_Ribbon said:

 

 

@OP everything comes at it's price, having clickpits would mean we would still be on BoS expansion  with only few planes, look how much time does it take to develop single DCS aircraft.

 

I like clickpits and i go in DCS for that, but after a while startup procedure become irrelevant/boring and once you're airborne it doesn't differ much from il2 with rpm/mixture/throttle/rads assigned to hotas.

In short i'd rather have more maps, updates and planes with good realistic FM and DM than lesser with clickpits which are mostly used only on startup.

It could also have big impact on game performance.

So good performance, variety and amount of content vs. clickpit, i choose first one!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We could all just be happy that we have both 'more' and 'less' to do in the cockpit, all it takes is to play BoX when you want a less study-focused flight, then Clod when you want the opposite.

 

This thread makes it look like we can't have our cake and eat it... but we can! Both games are out there. I fly both depending on what I want for the moment. TBH my favorite thing is to fly in full-archaic hands on mode with the me110 around england, just for the fun of it. 

 

I'll even go further and suggest not DCS, but A2A simulations for a trully complete study level experience with the p51, p47, p40.... heck even the B17, if you can live without combat for a day.

 

Edit: interesting, this forum. You can see Clod get trashed pitylessly in one thread, then see Clod's best features be suggested by a lot of people in another thread!

Edited by danielprates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yes. My DCS world. Spending 20 minutes or longer figuring out what to fumble with before the damn plane even starts. Although I will say it’s the most realistic way to start the plane, I don’t think you’ll find anyone who will deny that. But I don’t really miss it. This relates back to the clickable cockpit fiasco, which at this point even though the animations are there, ain’t gonna happen.

 

This thread may even start to turn towards that once again and we all know what happens when a moderator steps in...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm perfectly happy watching my 'guy' get all the proper switches flipped.

As others have said, this product strikes a great balance.

 

I know I've said it before, but I don't find using a mouse to control a floating white cursor more immersive or satisfying.

Now what I would like is a my crew chief on my wing, climbing down as I shut my canopy.

How cool would that be?

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Now what I would like is a my crew chief on my wing, climbing down as I shut my canopy.

How cool would that be?

 

He could help steering on the ground during taxi, whilst sitting on top of the wing, as it was the case in real life. A mere left or right arm going up and down would do the trick!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, danielprates said:

Edit: interesting, this forum. You can see Clod get trashed pitylessly in one thread, then see Clod's best features be suggested by a lot of people in another thread!

I’ll just say it again in case anyone wasn’t aware. CloD was a commercial failure. So please don’t bring it up as an example of what a fight sim should do. It’s an example of what not to do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know click pits will not happen and I am happy with how it is now and don't really care for a manual start up. But as all the animations are there could a mod be made? Press a button that triggers an animation and write some code that says button 1 then 2 then 3 .. needs to be pressed in order for engine to start playing each animation when each button is pressed.

 

Once again I do not care for this and I'm not saying it should be done, I'm just wondering if it could be moded in this way.

Edited by AeroAce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys click pits, or even just manually pressing a few buttons to go through an engine start, has been discussed on these forums many times over the last few years.

There really is no sense in debating the why or why nots, as most regulars in here know this is not something that is even on 1CGS' radar.

 

No sense really wasting any energy on debating this. 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think Click pits should come to BOX, but I will say that there was one aspect of them that I did enjoy in Clod quite a bit.

 

When bailing out, dropping the stick, grabbing the mouse and clicking the handle to jettison the canopy (in a shaking or rolling airplane) added to the tension a little bit, which was appreciated. 

 

I guess what I am getting at is instead of manual start up, maybe what i want is more in depth bailout controls (open canopy, jump, rip the cord) lol. Not a serious suggestion, but it would still be more fun than...priming cylinder with fuel...ok next one....almost done...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×