"no cockpit" view previewed in new game or not ?

[Heywooood]

I get that Rollo - but so does practice - you soon learn where the crosshair has to be in the same manner as the actual combat pilot did back in the day...

 

from inside the 'pit - with no tricks or windows or invisibility of the airframe - just blood sweat and bocci balls

[Bearcat]

So where exactly the devs said no to "no cockpit" view? It's not in developer diaries. Was it on the russian forum?

We do not know yet.. that is the only reason why I continue to post in this thread because it has not been stated with finality that that will be the case.. otherwise I would not even bother with the discussion. I am hoping that comments in this thread may have some weight on the matter depending on how hard it would be to do and if any major recoding was involved.

[Rjel]

I get that Rollo - but so does practice - you soon learn where the crosshair has to be in the same manner as the actual combat pilot did back in the day...

 

from inside the 'pit - with no tricks or windows or invisibility of the airframe - just blood sweat and bocci balls

 

Maybe, but that might well depend on how good the flight recorder is too. If it's views are limited then you might not get the angle you need to see your bullets true flight path. I would imagine a great many sim fliers never have handled a real firearm and might not get "leading" a target. A nice clear view would benefit that flier a great deal. Without a lot of frustration, IMO. 

[Bearcat]

I get that Rollo - but so does practice - you soon learn where the crosshair has to be in the same manner as the actual combat pilot did back in the day...

 

from inside the 'pit - with no tricks or windows or invisibility of the airframe - just blood sweat and bocci balls

 

 

All that is fine and dandy.. and having the option to fly open pit if one chooses to takes absolutely nothing away from that .. Not having that option at all takes away from the sim..

[Heywooood]

sure - people can use flight sims any way they want to - the more options the better...why I said I get it for those with home built sim 'pits in the prior post

 

its the other reasons that I wondered about.

[III/JG11_Simmox]

it certainly divides the games player base.servers with/without etc.

 

ROF handles it quite well i think.

 

no WWV doesnt bother me at all.its not really a sim with WWV

plenty of other games that have it.

 

on the other hand

from a purely marketing/profit perspective,having WWV would sell a few more copies i suspect.

but as a purist,WWV is a waste of perfectly good time,which could be better spent learning to fly properly.

[Furio]

 

but as a purist,WWV is a waste of perfectly good time,which could be better spent learning to fly properly.

 

 

This post, and many similar ones, reminds me of an old primary trainer. It was designed around flight instructor???

[hiro]

I'm of the school That a sequel should do everything the original did and more.

It's more advantAgeous in many respects than if not to have wwv

More options is better. Think about this. If 10 years from now if Bos sequels only had 20 planeset and only 4 theaters (none Pac or late war) ppl would be feeling short changed .

I known some gamer pals that tried il 2 had fun w no pit and one is a casual player that flew pit half the time online. The same guys tried ROF and uninstalled it after an hour b/c they didn't like the pits only (I know this is a lame excuse but some people have short attention spans)

At this point flight sims need as much exposure and if WWV helps , I'm all for it since il 2 had it to begin with (and it's a standard feature in flight sims)

Look a all the flak microsoft for removing a standard feature for it's new OS .

ROF is different part of the Appeal is the difficulty of early flight and the stuff in the way like struts wings and spars.

Ww2 and il2 was designed in a different way, like bear stated, serious and realisitic but with fun and game options.

Wwv fliers has a stigma like air quakers, but those servers in il2 were packed. Sure it's more legit to go full pit, but it's arrogant and selfish to force those and potential future full pitters to fly that way . if the topic was different like one where safety and lives are at stake then it's one to be unmovable  but this is a game feature not something like mandatory helmets for moto or life jackets for sailing.

Plus full Pit only limits exposure of the game in the long run which can harm it . It's better to give a bit and compromise ( after all it's not they are making wwv the only view) if it helps the game sell more .

there's the machinima and movie making aspect, and it's alot easier to try a scene in game than spend time recoding a mission then review footage esp if one ain't got a beast of a pc. Guncams can't give the 'free bird' effect WWV does. Also putting WWV or guncams only once you record, limits a director to film footage first, then edit. There is no ability to film a scene on the fly, do a practice run to see how it looks like . . . then they can record the parts they want as the action unfolds.

I'm cool with not having WWV at the start, if the devs put this on the future features list, cuz a working game is better to have at start

Edited March 27, 2013 by hiro

[elf2010]

I was on hyperlobby today and minimum 40 procent of the players are flying in wwv servers.

10 procent flying pits of and 50 procent full real.

I realy hope that the devs don't forget the people that will play this arcade mode.

We will a upgrade version of il2 and no ww2 RoF.

Edited March 23, 2013 by elf2010

[sop]

I have to ask cause I have no idea but, did cliffofhover have this feature?,(last il2 bench mark) I know old il2 had it, and also with the recording in rof making vids is not so hard go look youtube..

thanks

Edited March 23, 2013 by sop

[DD_fruitbat]

I have to ask cause I have no idea but, did cliffofhover have this feature?,(last il2 bench mark) I know old il2 had it, and also with the recording in rof making vids is not so hard go look youtube..

thanks

 

yes

[dburne]

I personally do not get why anyone would want to fly, with all those wonderful graphic details of a cockpit, and being in one simulating flying the plane, would want to have that all turned off.

I have been flight simming since about 1994, and in all the flight sims I invested in, I could not tell you which ones offered this type of view - as I never looked for nor used it.

 

I am sure for some, especially newer players they may find that helpful somewhat in learning, and I really would care less whether a sim offered it or not - I just know that is a feature I would not use for myself, therefore having it would not preclude me from flying it , and not having it would not bother me either.

 

The reason I love flight sims so much - in fact that is the only real gaming I do on my PC - is the immersion, the sense of being in a cockpit of the airplane I am flying, seeing all those details - the levers moving, the sunglare on the canopy, etc.

 

If there is demand for it, and the developers want to make the investment to offer it, good for all involved. I would have no reason to complain in the least, unless of course there was not a cockpit option lol.

[Freycinet]

Simmers fly with pit on, gamers fly with pit off. Gamers will get War Thunder anyway...

[Mysticpuma]

Simmers fly with pit on, gamers fly with pit off

as do a lot of movie makers....not all remarks are that black and white, but I understand your point. Sadly Movie making tools in games are really lacking but I suppose it's hard to cater for all tastes? I just think that the more options you have available, the grater the user base could be?

 

I thought the main interest for a company was revenue return for a product they create. The more popular, the more money, the more features, the more tastes catered for, the more purchasers? Cutting out some users from the revenue stream doesn't make financial sense to me, but are we saying money isn't important to 777? If so, then the less features would make it a better sim and earn more money? That's what I'm reading in the comments against WWV.

 

Cheers, MP

 

BTW, I did mention, for the purists they could just join locked cockpit servers and let the WWV players have fun with the software they want to? Makes no difference to me as I like closed cockpit servers, but I think it's very elitist to say that those who want WWV should not be allowed to enjoy the software? I find that really mean spirited and really not the attitude I would expect of a Flight Sim community that wants to encourage new players of ALL abilities?

Edited March 28, 2013 by Mysticpuma

[Freycinet]

Mystic,l am just saying that - if the development schedule is as tight as 1C says it is - I don't think it is a good idea to add features. There IS quite some development connected with enabling WWV. For movie making it would indeed be great, no doubt about it, but I'm not about to demand new features if it screws up development of the sim. In any case, the most important feature for any movie maker would be a track rewind (or "play backwards") button, but we still don't have that in any sim... 

[SharpeXB]

WWV is a feature that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for a game that considers itself to be a simulator. No sense at all. None.

Flight sims are about the aircraft! They should be gorgeous, realistic and immersive. No player in their right mind should want to turn off the central feature of the game and fly an invisible plane. Why would the developer spend such time and effort to model the cockpits only to give the option to turn them off? Why spend the effort on developing realistic flight models and then add fantasy game features?

Games of the past had this feature because of all the limitations of that era. Simplistic graphics, small monitors, lack of head tracking. These old "sims" had little resemblance to reality in any case. Today's product is expected to offer a high level of quality and immersion and realism. A cockpit-off view is completely at odds with that goal, it destroys the image of the product.

WWV makes as little sense for a realistic flight sim as adding laser guns and rocket packs to the planes in the hope it will appeal to some wide market. Catering to the lowest common denominator and widest market does not sometimes produce a quality product. It would make a joke out of the whole project.

A realistic flight sim game can't try and appeal to the arcade market either. Games like War Thunder don't have to invest anything in realism. They can have hundreds of planes and fancy graphics and big explosions. The sim game by comparison to this type of player will be too "difficult" and "boring" It's a losing effort to try for that market.

And finally, assuming BoS uses the same system as RoF. The icons, if they are enabled, are visible through the players own aircraft, in effect making it invisible. So a cockpit-off view is not needed. It's a non issue.

Edited March 29, 2013 by SharpeXB

[hkle]

WWV is a feature that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for a game that considers itself to be a simulator. No sense at all. None.

Flight sims are about the aircraft! They should be gorgeous, realistic and immersive. No player in their right mind should want to turn off the central feature of the game and fly an invisible plane. Why would the developer spend such time and effort to model the cockpits only to give the option to turn them off? Why spend the effort on developing realistic flight models and then add fantasy game features?

Games of the past had this feature because of all the limitations of that era. Simplistic graphics, small monitors, lack of head tracking. These old "sims" had little resemblance to reality in any case. Today's product is expected to offer a high level of quality and immersion and realism. A cockpit-off view is completely at odds with that goal, it destroys the image of the product.

WWV makes as little sense for a realistic flight sim as adding laser guns and rocket packs to the planes in the hope it will appeal to some wide market. Catering to the lowest common denominator and widest market does not sometimes produce a quality product. It would make a joke out of the whole project.

A realistic flight sim game can't try and appeal to the arcade market either. Games like War Thunder don't have to invest anything in realism. They can have hundreds of planes and fancy graphics and big explosions. The sim game by comparison to this type of player will be too "difficult" and "boring" It's a losing effort to try for that market.

And finally, assuming BoS uses the same system as RoF. The icons, if they are enabled, are visible through the players own aircraft, in effect making it invisible. So a cockpit-off view is not needed. It's a non issue.

 

No problem with your personal opinion. Other persons - like me - see this as a problem and an issue. Otherwise I wouldn't have posted it here. If the above cited statistics are right, ca 40% of people like to play WWV. So - if the publisher does what he did for ROF, a lot of people might not pay for this game - or - add value with all the (not so micro) transactions and addons. I guess, this may be some significant missed money for the publisher ???

 

I for my part have purchased the original ROF and NEVER bought anything more within this franchise, because of no WWV view. So - in my own universe - they missed a lot of money from my side.

 

Again. No problem with your personal opinion. But please respect, that there are other opinions and realities out there too. So just to state "So a cockpit-off view is not needed. It's a non issue." is simply arrogant.

 

best regards

Edited March 29, 2013 by hkle

[SharpeXB]

40% of people like to play WWV. So - if the publisher does what he did for ROF, a lot of people might not pay for this game - or - add value with all the (not so micro) transactions and addons. I guess, this may be some significant missed money for the publisher ???

Exactly the problem, this game mode has transformed IL2 from a sim into an arcade air ahooter with invisible planes.

and once again, the argument that this would enhance sales is like saying that if you added laser guns to the aircraft more people would buy it. For the market this sim should be aiming for that is not the case. In a recent poll only 2% of RoF players wanted this feature

 

 

 

 

 

 

I for my part have purchased the original ROF and NEVER bought anything more within this franchise, because of no WWV view. So - in my own universe - they missed a lot of money from my side.

 

 

You are missing out on what is probably the best air combat sim in the market then, I would urge you to develop a different style of gameplay, you'll find it much more appealing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So just to state "So a cockpit-off view is not needed. It's a non issue." is simply arrogant.

 

 

It's not being arrogant, it's just a fact. Since you can effectively see though your own plane by using the icons, there is no need in RoF for an invisible cockpit mode.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You have to look at why this was done for sims of the past. They were played on a 12" 4:3 monitor without head tracking. The restriction of the cockpit view is made even more restrictive by that.

 

 

Today probably 95% of the players have a 1920x1080 monitor and about 80% (in RoF anyways) have some form of head tracking.

 

PCs of the past had limited graphics capability and couldn't really portray things realistically, therefore a departure from reality in the gameplay didn't matter.

Todays sim is expected to offer a high degree of realism, look at the quality of the aircraft and ccockpit models in RoF and CoD. it's inconcievable that the player of these games would want to turn these off and not see them or that the developer would create such realism and then add the ability to switch it off.

Edited March 29, 2013 by SharpeXB

[Bearcat]

There is so much nonsense in this thread ...

 

Simmers fly with pit on, gamers fly with pit off. Gamers will get War Thunder anyway...

 

That is just silly. First off WT is not the arcade fest you may think it is. If these devs sleep on it it will be to their own deficit. Secondly there are so many reasons to fly open pit offline that that statement holds absolutely no water whatsoever.

 

as do a lot of movie makers....not all remarks are that black and white, but I understand your point. Sadly Movie making tools in games are really lacking but I suppose it's hard to cater for all tastes? I just think that the more options you have available, the grater the user base could be?

 

I thought the main interest for a company was revenue return for a product they create. The more popular, the more money, the more features, the more tastes catered for, the more purchasers? Cutting out some users from the revenue stream doesn't make financial sense to me, but are we saying money isn't important to 777? If so, then the less features would make it a better sim and earn more money? That's what I'm reading in the comments against WWV.

 

Cheers, MP

 

BTW, I did mention, for the purists they could just join locked cockpit servers and let the WWV players have fun with the software they want to? Makes no difference to me as I like closed cockpit servers, but I think it's very elitist to say that those who want WWV should not be allowed to enjoy the software? I find that really mean spirited and really not the attitude I would expect of a Flight Sim community that wants to encourage new players of ALL abilities?

 

This is why... These are the main reasons why having the option for No Cockpit is not only necessary but good business sense.

 

No problem with your personal opinion. Other persons - like me - see this as a problem and an issue. Otherwise I wouldn't have posted it here. If the above cited statistics are right, ca 40% of people like to play WWV. So - if the publisher does what he did for ROF, a lot of people might not pay for this game - or - add value with all the (not so micro) transactions and addons. I guess, this may be some significant missed money for the publisher ???

 

I for my part have purchased the original ROF and NEVER bought anything more within this franchise, because of no WWV view. So - in my own universe - they missed a lot of money from my side.

 

Again. No problem with your personal opinion. But please respect, that there are other opinions and realities out there too. So just to state "So a cockpit-off view is not needed. It's a non issue." is simply arrogant.

 

best regards

 

Exactly.. These arguments for NOT having an open pit view are hollow at best. I said it before and I will say it again.. The more options available to simmers of all tastes the better this product will sell. and it needs to sell well right out of the gate. It will also need more than the core of elitist snobs who want "a real simulator" to buy it to do well.. unless each of them will be so enamored with it that they will buy multiple copies .. of everything..   This sim needs to have at it's core at least the same if not more basic features as IL2. I could see thee arguments making sense if the debate was over whether or not the pit would not have a closed pit view available.. but this is about the option of having an open pit.. and settable server side at that.. IL2 has been and arguably still is the premier WWII flight sim by which anything af6er it has been and will be measured for some time now. Open pit view did nothing at al to hurt it.. Itr is probably the only sim that is over a decade in development and is still getting new users to it weekly.

 

Exactly the problem, this game mode has transformed IL2 from a sim into an arcade air ahooter with invisible planes.

and once again, the argument that this would enhance sales is like saying that if you added laser guns to the aircraft more people would buy it. For the market this sim should be aiming for that is not the case. In a recent poll only 2% of RoF players wanted this feature

You are missing out on what is probably the best air combat sim in the market then, I would urge you to develop a different style of gameplay, you'll find it much more appealing.

It's not being arrogant, it's just a fact. Since you can effectively see though your own plane by using the icons, there is no need in RoF for an invisible cockpit mode.

You have to look at why this was done for sims of the past. They were played on a 12" 4:3 monitor without head tracking. The restriction of the cockpit view is made even more restrictive by that.

Today probably 95% of the players have a 1920x1080 monitor and about 80% (in RoF anyways) have some form of head tracking.

PCs of the past had limited graphics capability and couldn't really portray things realistically, therefore a departure from reality in the gameplay didn't matter.

Todays sim is expected to offer a high degree of realism, look at the quality of the aircraft and ccockpit models in RoF and CoD. it's inconcievable that the player of these games would want to turn these off and not see them or that the developer would create such realism and then add the ability to switch it off.

 

POPPYCOCK!! IL2 is still what it is and the folks who fly open pit have taken nothing away from it whatsoever. As long as these settings are server side settable it is a non issue. Lasers on planes... apples and oranges.. There are many other reasons to implement a No Pit option other than just flying around in combat.. IL2 is what it is because of it's feature set.. I can tell you of dozens of flyers.. who were first introduced to this sim by a IL2 movie that some movie maker made. When I worked part time in Best Buy between 2003 and 2005 I personally sold dozens of copies of FB by bringing in my disk.. installing it on a PC and loading tracks onto it in addition to the stock tracks, and loading videos on other PCs.. among them this classic.

 

 

This product needs to be able to not only appeal to a wide base but also to allow as much user interaction as possible. If nothing else IL2 has proven that the flight sim community is very creative and will take the tools at our disposal and make more of it.. For me the only reason that I would not want the option for an open pit view in BoS would be if it would add substantially to the development time.. which we do not know if it will or will not.. Some assume that it will... others like myself assume it will not.. and if the latter is the case then there is absolutely no reason whatsoever not to have that option. Just because RoF does not have it does not mean it is not a viable option..

[SharpeXB]

I don't even understand why a WWV player would even want to buy BoS.

Seriously. Why would you want to buy this game? What are you looking forward to?

Most people are looking forward to the aircraft themselves, it's the central feature of a flight sim game especially a current sophiticated one.

If your first impulse on buying BoS is to turn off the central feature of the game, then you have no purpose buying it.

 

Let me get this straight. You want a new flight simulator game, but with no aircraft in it?

Can you understand why I think that makes no sense whatsoever?

Edited March 29, 2013 by SharpeXB

[SharpeXB]

 So - if the publisher does what he did for ROF, a lot of people might not pay for this game - or - add value with all the (not so micro) transactions and addons. I guess, this may be some significant missed money for the publisher ???

So you're expecting a player to actually buy a plane from the store, pay for it. And then switch it off so they can't see it in the game.

Why would anyone want to do that? An RoF player is going to buy the new Roland CIIa for $11.99 and then after installing think to themsleves "wow this sucks, how do I turn off this plane so I can't see it"

That makes completely no sense whatsoever.

[dburne]

 

Let me get this straight. You want a new flight simulator game, but with no aircraft in it?

Can you understand why I think that makes no sense whatsoever?

 

Perhaps I am reading this wrong, I don't know, but it would seem to me that the proponents for this, are not asking for a flight simulator with no aircraft, but asking for a flight simulator that has the option to turn it off, if so desired. Apparently some believe there is a segment of the community, that would like to have this available as an option, and in fact may even mean a larger customer base, although no one really knows if so and how many... and some believe that a new flyer , might find this option helpful during the learning phase.

 

I personally see nothing wrong with it, IF the developers wanted to include that option. But it would not bother me either, if they did not. I certainly would not use it myself.

[FlatSpinMan]

Sharpe - Give it a rest, man.

Your opinion is JUST. YOUR. OPINION. Don't try to force it on others. Ditto with your playing style.

 

One thing that bugs me about the self-appointed purists in this genre is their assumption that there is no other way than theirs. This is something we do for recreation in our freetime. Let people play it however they like.

Loft himself mentioned something to the effect that not only is it a simulator, it is also (don't look now - I'm going to use the "G" word) a GAME.

 

Your point about why would people pay to have a plane then turn off the cockpit view can be answered fairly simply:

1. Because they can still see the plane in external views (or are those not "allowed", either?).

2. Because they will still get the actual damned virtual plane itself! That is, the FM, the DM, load outs.

[falstaff]

Freycinet said:

 

Simmers fly with pit on, gamers fly with pit off. Gamers will get War Thunder anyway...

 

As generalisations go, this packs quite a lot into a short space, with a pinch of snobbery for good measure. Unfortunately, none of it strikes me as true, or anywhere near as black-and-white.

 

What it's really saying is that the distinction is clear-cut, and separates the men from the boys. Invariably the posters of such statement always belongs to the men, not the boys, somehow.....

 

Except it doesn't, it isn't, there are infinitely more shades of grey and over-laps. I like sims and I like games, preferably with aspects of both in one. Never been interested in flying white ivory towers with wings (quite heavy, those bricks)

 

There are people who will play this, War Thunder and tidlywinks.

 

Vive la difference, as George Bush was not often heard to say....

[SharpeXB]

Freycinets statement isn't snobbery. It's precisely correct. People who like fantasy gameplay styles aren't going to buy sims. They will buy products like World of Warplanes or War Thunder that aren't encumbered by realism and have hundreds of planes that explode in pretty colors.

 

The mistaken assumption posted over and over on this thread is that adding this feature will somehow increase the sales of the game. That's false. Players that value gameplay fun over realism aren't going to choose a product like BoS. BoS when it launches will feature perhaps a dozen aircraft and a single map. War Thunder has over a hundred planes and many different maps. Realism in a sim comes at a cost, in development $ and PC capability. That cost is really not appreciated by the player who just wants fun and a game that isn't burdened by striving for realism can just model hundreds of planes. It's a losing battle for a game like BoS to try and compete with. BoS will almost certainly stay focused on being a mature realistic flight sim just like RoF if it is going to succeed.

Edited March 29, 2013 by SharpeXB

[falstaff]

SharpeXB said:
 

Freycinets statement isn't snobbery. It's precisely correct.

 

There is no precision about it. It's a simple binary judgement about things which can never be proved. Statements like those assume a simplified authority that says more aout intent than content. Because, simply, the content be proven.

 

Broad trends, some, yes...big sweepy statements about who plays what and why, no.
 

People who like fantasy gameplay styles aren't going to buy sims.

 

Who knows what people will play, and why. The debates hinges around *being a broad church*, not a cathedral with a sepulchre at one end for the holy-of-holies who would never lower themselves to no-cockpit.

 

They will buy products like World of Warplanes or War Thunder that aren't encumbered by realism and have hundreds of planes that explode in pretty colors.

 

They will, will they? On whose authority and say-so? Yours?

 

This strikes me as overt snobbery and condescension. And what about those who build cockpits in the their basements out of wood and plastic? Are they inviting of the same scorn?

 

'Pretty colours' take on many forms. To one man it's no-cockpit, to another it's uber-detailed trivia that no-one will ever see (re: the great rivet rift of times past).

 

All stuff and nonsense. What next...'cockpit apartheid'? (that's a joke btw)

Edited March 29, 2013 by falstaff

[AndyJWest]

Personally, from what I recall, I hardly ever used WWV even as a noob in IL-2 - I found it easier to fly cockpit on, as it gave a better indication of aircraft attitude etc. I suspect (though I don't know for sure) that this is the reason it was omitted from RoF - it made learning to fly harder. This may be less of a problem with WW2 aircraft, judging by the number of people that play that way, and if the BoS developers include WWV, I'll certainly not make an issue of it. The choice is theirs, and they certainly shouldn't be influenced by nonsensical statements about 'gamers' versus 'simmers'. We are all doing this for fun - or at least I hope so - and making an almighty fuss about something which is only ever an option strikes me as rather ridiculous. 

[SharpeXB]

Personally, from what I recall, I hardly ever used WWV even as a noob in IL-2 - I found it easier to fly cockpit on, as it gave a better indication of aircraft attitude etc. I suspect (though I don't know for sure) that this is the reason it was omitted from RoF - it made learning to fly harder. This may be less of a problem with WW2 aircraft, judging by the number of people that play that way,  

RoF aircraft would be way to difficult for a beginner to fly with the invisible cockpit and not being able to see their own plane.

[FlatSpinMan]

Sharpe - stop speaking as if you are the sole possessor of reason and virtue. Are you trying to irritate people who see room for both options, because it comes across that way.

If this thread generates any flames I'm going to lock it. I think it'd pretty much run its course anyway.

Some people think cockpit off view would help some and appeal to other more casual players. Others think that there is only one true path that all should all follow, lest they be cast out and accused of that most heinous of sins - 'not being a serious simmer'.

 

That's how it comes across to me.

[startrekmike]

I don't really care if there is a option, I mean, if it brings new players in, that is fine and I suppose that is the goal in the end.

 

  That said, I do think that ROF has the right idea when it comes to difficulty settings, in the patch notes it indicates that the auto-mixture and auto-radiator features are set up in a way that makes them less efficient than if the player was doing it manually, this means that anyone who uses this feature is trading aircraft performance for convenience, knowing this encourages them to learn quickly so they can keep up with those that are not using the handicap settings.

 

  If something like this could be done with WWV, I would actually have no problem at all with it's inclusion, I don't want to see a player-base split between those who use WWV and those who don't, as I said earlier, there seems to be no middle ground on that so there will always be a split, perhaps if we could find some way to encourage new players to eventually make the switch to a cockpit view, well, that just seems to make sense to me.

 

  I am a bit of a realism purist, I will openly admit that but I do feel that there should be some honesty in this debate, a WWV does help some learn but it can also become a bit too comfortable and that is why there are those who started with it and still play with it in IL-2, this is not wrong or bad but to say that it is a essential learning tool is somewhat presumptuous, not having a cockpit while learning is going to make things harder overall, both in the fact that you don't have a quick means to know where your plane is in relation to the horizon and also because it can quickly become a crutch when ti comes to gunnery, no cockpit view is not going to teach you to use a cockpit if you never bother to switch.

 

  There are always going to be those who like that mode above all else and there should be a means for them to enjoy it but perhaps we should find a way to encourage players to learn with the cockpit, at least provide a incentive to make the switch after a time.

 

  My whole issue with WWV is that it splits the community in a way that can't be bridged easily, I know some have their personal tastes and that is fine but there has to be a line somewhere, there has to be a point where the company that is making a sim has to say "Sorry, this is just something you are going to have to get used to".

 

  There is no easy answer, we can see the divisive nature of this topic and how little the two sides tend to mix, do we really want a server list like this?

[FlatSpinMan]

Anyway, as has been mentioned earlier, it seems highly unlikely the no cockpit view will even be included, so this is all just p1&$in' in the wind.

 

Both sides have had a pretty good airing I think, and the developers must have a good idea of the community's sentiments. This thread has done its job.