"That" cockpit feature...

[SharpeXB]

2 minutes ago, Novice-Flyer said:

Yeah well CloD Blitz has click pits and costs and 48 flyable aircraft/variants that cost $25 US, the Tobruk expansion has 40+ aircraft/variants costing $60-70 US.

Yeah but TF is a modding team and probably doesn’t turn a profit on all the work they did. You can’t expect the same thing from a company that needs to stay in business. 

4 minutes ago, Novice-Flyer said:

Things like Mixture for each engine, prop pitch, elevator trim (and then there’s rudder and aileron trim), radiators have to be adjusted in flight. 

Those are all controllable in IL-2GB and typically assigned to a HOTAS in DCS. It’s actually awkward to try and control those in flight with a mouse. Click pits are best utilized for modern aircraft with many more controls and systems. 

[Lusekofte]

Ideally we would have at least free choices for when to use axis or buttons. Now there are 2 to 3 hard set ways it had to be done. 
I do not fight for the right to click in a virtual pit. 
But it would be ideal if all oil radiators , prop pitch , trims could be used for all planes. 
It would be nice like to have one setup for single engine allied planes and one for multi engined allied. And the same for German atleast. It make no sense anymore sticking to historical electrical button or axis with all the planes we get in hand. 
It is time to sort out the mess control settings has become

7 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Yeah but TF is a modding team and probably doesn’t turn a profit on all the work they did. You can’t expect the same thing from a company that needs to stay in business. 

I do not disagree with you, I just say it is not an advantage having to produce volume and get no time for development. 
not that it is the case. And not that I would wish click pits being priority. 
lets say we get to draw a route in the in game map or other improvments

Edited August 4, 2020 by 216th_LuseKofte

[Enceladus828]

Pretty much Bollocks here. We are NOT talking about a modern day jet here, we're talking about WW2 aircraft.

19 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

The real aircraft use a HOTAS for very good reasons: things you need in combat you need to be able to access quickly, instinctively, and without looking at them

...

And in order to maximize no-looking controls, many real-world HOTAS buttons serve multiple functions depending on context, despite the obvious opportunity for confusion that can lead to.  Switches, interactive displays, dials etc, are generally restricted to things you'll have more time to operate, in a context where taking your eyes off what is going on outside is less significant. 

When a pilot does something that requires him/her to look at them, this is done mainly on the ground when the engine is off, chocks are in/brakes are set. Once the airplane has taken off, pilots follow an acronym, which I will not say because people should figure it out themselves if they haven't already. Once the aircraft is in a cruising attitude, level checks are performed which involves a quick check of the gauges (mainly fuel, oil, Compass), some switches, and then adjusting the Prop. Pitch and Mixture. If when the airplane is in a cruising attitude and a certain task has taken the attention of the pilot, they may not commence level checks until that task is out of the way.

When I'm playing the IL-2 Dover series, even though it's a Combat flight sim, I find I'm still doing many of the same things that I do when I fly in RL.

I'm sure that when a pilot spots an enemy plane or is approaching target, the pilot would quickly push the Mixture, Prop. Pitch, and Radiators to full, and then does the most important job of a pilot: flying the airplane.

 

When I'm flying an airplane in RL, before takeoff I have to set the trim of the aircraft to the appropriate takeoff setting. Fortunately there's a marker that shows what that setting is. To be sure, I pull back on the yoke and look at the trim tab to visual confirm that it's at the takeoff setting.

I guess I could just move the trim wheel and not even bother to look at the trim setting, but then I'd be playing Russian Roulette, which could cause a crash, and I'd have to be incredibly lucky to not have my Pilot's License suspended/revoked.

 

A perfect example is this case: In 1988 there was a Delta airlines flight that was taking off from Dallas. While the crew was taxiing to the runway, the pilots got distracted by non-pertinent conversations. Almost immediately after these conversations ended the plane was bumped from the No.4 position to takeoff, to No.1. Immediately the crew skipped to Final Takeoff items with the FE calling out the items and the FO replying. At the Flaps call the FO called " Fifteen, Fifteen. Green light." He did not check to visually see if the Flap handle was at the 15* setting, if he had, he would have seen that the Flaps were Not at 15 and instead were retracted. Nevertheless, the crew taxied onto the runway and were cleared for Takeoff. Due to an intermittent failure with a safety system, the pilots were not alerted to their mistake. 30 seconds after lifting off the runway, the plane crashed. 14 people (12 pax and 2 FA) perished in the crash.

Although there were many things that could have saved them, for augment's sake, if the FO had visually checked to see of the Flaps were extended, he would have seen that they weren't and the lives of 14 people would have been saved.

One of the recommendations was for flight crews to visually confirm the execution/position of all checklist items.

20 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

And people advocating for clickpits (along with more complex system management) should probably ask themselves whether they would be prepared to pay the prices that DCS asks for them

I haven't played DCS, but I've heard that everything in an aircraft cockpit is clickable: essential, non-essential.

In most games like X-Plane, MSFS, IL-2 Dover, etc. they like to limit it to essential things only. I'm sure that if Clickable cockpits are ever added to IL-2 GBs, it would be for a few things. I'm also certain that they would NOT devote an entire update to adding them to the game. With 4K skins, do they devote an entire update to adding 4K skins to aircraft, or do they add them once in a while and a few at a time?

20 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

and I don't have to read a 200-page manual in order to fly it. ?

I doubt you've even read an aircraft manual Andy. If you have, it's probably for an aircraft in a WW2 CFS, Not an aircraft that an average pilot flies in RL.

Why don't you go up with a Flying Instructor @AndyJWest and become a pilot yourself. As I mainly say to people I know, " It's (usually) never too late to do something

 

Cheers.

[SharpeXB]

43 minutes ago, Novice-Flyer said:

When a pilot does something that requires him/her to look at them,

snip...

The point here is sim players map the controls to their HOTAS that a normal pilot would be able to operate by feel without looking at them. Other than the takeoff check you mention, you don’t look at the trim wheel in real life every time you adjust it and certainly in a sim you don’t click on the wheel in your cockpit with the mouse every time when in flight. 
And again, IL-2 gives you control over just about everything you’d actually use in flight, even in DCS I doubt players use the click pit for all those commands. 
I like both sims and the different focus in each but just realize the obvious. DCS has six flyable WWII aircraft and that’s taken them 8 years to produce those. IL-2 has... 50? I’ve lost count... done in about the same period. Why? Because IL-2 doesn’t have clickable cockpits!

[AndyJWest]

I'd strongly advise anyone here against engaging with Novice-Flyer on this subject, unless they wish to be on the receiving end of obsessive-compulsive stalking behaviour. Feel free to PM me, if you want further explanation.

Edited August 4, 2020 by AndyJWest
typo

[simfan2015]

We have every choice concerning clickable pits ... either (almost) full, limited and or/none depending on sim title and settings ... what more could a simmer want !?

I read comments that (some) people (even) demand(ed) a click-pit in Star Wars : Squadron ... IMHO pretty ... amazing.

 

[busdriver]

23 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

I don't have to read a 200-page manual in order to fly it. ?

 

Tell me about it.

The Northwest Airlines A-319/320 systems manual was OVER 1000 pages. The Navigation chapter alone is over 200 pages.

The A-320 operational procedures manual only 300 or so pages.

The company SOP manual another 300 pages.

The cockpit QRM (quick reference manual) less than 100 pages.

The COM (Cockpit Operating Manual) for emergencies and abnormals about 300 pages.

 

Now I just need the...

 

 

 

[AndyJWest]

29 minutes ago, simfan2015 said:

We have every choice concerning clickable pits ... either (almost) full, limited and or/none depending on sim title and settings ... what more could a simmer want !?

I read comments that (some) people (even) demand(ed) a click-pit in Star Wars : Squadron ... IMHO pretty ... amazing.

 

 

Ah, yes, but Star Wars is set "a long time ago in a galaxy far way". Maybe they really did have in-cockpit mice moving giant arrows around back in those days. ?

 

I've got nothing against choice. Far from it. If there was a way to add clickpits to IL-2GB that didn't require the developers to allocate scarce funds and resources to add such features in an appropriate fashion, I'd have nothing to say on the subject. Since we don't live in that galaxy, however, any proposals regarding new features need to be assessed according to their merits - and assessed in relation to whether resources might be better employed elsewhere. In my opinion, clickpits are accordingly not a priority. And as far as I can tell, the developers seem to be of the same opinion.

 

 

18 minutes ago, busdriver said:

 

Tell me about it.

The Northwest Airlines A-319/320 systems manual was OVER 1000 pages. The Navigation chapter alone is over 200 pages.

The A-320 operational procedures manual only 300 or so pages.

The company SOP manual another 300 pages.

The cockpit QRM (quick reference manual) less than 100 pages.

The COM (Cockpit Operating Manual) for emergencies and abnormals about 300 pages.

 

Now I just need the...

 

 

 

 

Failing that, how about an animated paperclip to help out with useful advice. "Hi, I'm Clippy! I'm the Airbus assistant! I see you are about to plummet into an active volcano! Do you need assistance?"

 

The saddest thing is that I can't help thinking that there might have been a case or two where such an adviser might have helped...

Edited August 4, 2020 by AndyJWest

[LukeFF]

23 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

In my opinion, clickpits are accordingly not a priority. And as far as I can tell, the developers seem to be of the same opinion.

 

Plus, the demand for them from the player side is really quite low, if the topics of discussion here are anything to go by. 

[AndyJWest]

10 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

Plus, the demand for them from the player side is really quite low, if the topics of discussion here are anything to go by. 

 

And I suspect that the most active forum members may not be particularly typical of the customer base as a whole. I don't know how much, if any, market research 1C-777 engages in, but I'd assume that they try to take into account the wishes of potential customers in general when making such decisions. The broader customer base is undoubtedly more 'casual' than most of the participants in this thread, and since it is the broader base that actually pays for the stuff we all enjoy, it would seem logical to cater to their needs first.

 

I'm sure the same arguments apply to other sims too. Over at DCS, for all the forum members crying out for (imaginary) absolute authenticity, the developers themselves still make concessions to people who'd prefer to enjoy the actually-flying-the-thing side of flying, rather than the sitting-on-the-ground-for-fifteen-minutes-twiddling-knobs part. Hence the single-key startup procedures, simplified 'game' modes and the rest. This annoys the 'realism'-demanders, but ensures that this minority actually have a sim to play with. 

 

The 'casuals' pay for the game. The profit the developers make from the most-vocal forum members probably only just about covers the cost of running the forums. ?

[Enceladus828]

Sadly, some people here seem to think that whenever they buy a flight sim and it has the option of clicking things in the cockpit, that they are forced to click things and are unable to use the keyboard and HOTAS.

This is just an OPTION, repeat OPTION. No one is forcing you to click things, if you don’t like it then just don’t use it. Just like if you don’t like taking the bus, then just don’t take the bus; no need to put up signs boycotting the bus service.

Andy. You have said several times “ Buy or don’t Buy.”
In this case it’s “ Use or Don’t use.” Pretty simple.

 

As I have said, if this were ever to be added to IL-2 GBs (Obviously Not during BoN development, but AFTER, at the earliest) it would only be a Few things, Not, repeat Not like in DCS. I have mainly weapon commands assigned to my HOTAS. I guess if I was playing in VR I would assign buttons to Flaps Extend, retract, Gear, and Bail-out.

 

These are the essential things that I think would have the option to be clickable in GBs: Fuel cocks, Oil radiators, Magnetos, DG adjustment knob.
That’s pretty much it, for the rest I can assign keyboard buttons to. And as I stated, it’s just a few things, and it probably would be added to 1 or 2 planes in an update and then several updates later would add them to another 1 or 2 planes.

8 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

This annoys the 'realism'-demanders, but ensures that this minority actually have a sim to play with. 

You may think that this is a minority, but I say that it’s 50/50 when you compare all the flight simmers in the world.

[Eisenfaustus]

Personally I like the clickpits in CLOD and the DCS Warbirds. But I believe integrating them is a huge amount of work. I think Jason stated the same somewhere.

 

This work would have to be paid for - I guess there are some players who'd be willing to pay double for GB modules. But I'd be really surprised if it were enough to justify such a decision. So Jasons statement not to include clickpits is propably a very smart one.

 

By the way - how would 777 pay for the inclusion of clickpits in a/c that already have been sold?

 

And if I'm honest, while I like clickpits, I don't like them enough to pay double either.

[SharpeXB]

7 hours ago, Novice-Flyer said:

This is just an OPTION, repeat OPTION.

You’re ignoring the cost to the Devs of developing this feature. That cost was one of the factors that killed CloD

7 hours ago, Novice-Flyer said:

it would only be a Few things, Not, repeat Not like in DCS. 

The whole reason to have a clickable cockpit is to model full systems in the aircraft, not just as a keyboard substitute. That’s really necessary because for example during startup the systems themselves have to be replicated instead of just automatically animated. Like what happens if you miss a step and run the starter without the magnetos set or the fuel off? It’s more complex and costly than you are imagining it to be. 

[THERION]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

 

having a click pit in a modern airplane, civil or military, makes absolutely sense because you would need a lot of switch boards beside of your HOTAS

switches and key binding is some kind of a PITA, if you ask me.

 

But here, all major and vital functions can be mapped easily on a HOTAS combo. So there is no real need to have a click pit here.

 

If one day, 777 studios and Jason come to an end with this series and they've released all content they wished and fixed all known issues, maybe then

they might do this as final bonus. But until then, they have a lot on their list - things that are much more important for us and to keep their product sales

high. Implementing this clicky flippy feature now would simply be suicidal.

 

And finally, all VR blokes should be thankful to have the possibility to actually fly in this sim with good/very good results. Don't forget, that initially our
sim and its engine wasn't designed for VR, still they made it to work for you, which is a great thing. Just saying, alright boys?

 

Cheers and enjoy what we have now. Thank you.

Edited August 5, 2020 by THERION

[BraveSirRobin]

10 hours ago, Novice-Flyer said:

Sadly, some people here seem to think that whenever they buy a flight sim and it has the option of clicking things in the cockpit, that they are forced to click things and are unable to use the keyboard and HOTAS.

Actually there appears to be no one who thinks that.  The problem with click pits is the cost and time needed for development.  And in WW2 planes that is time and money that is completely wasted.

[Enceladus828]

Okay. This will (hopefully) be my final comment on this issue.
 

On 8/3/2020 at 2:00 PM, AndyJWest said:

things you need to be able to access quickly, instinctively, and without looking at them

Sadly, some guy here probably knows way more like 90%+ about WW1/WW2, what aircraft fought in each battle, and the technical aspects of the engine a WW2 combat flight sim, and probably knows only 10% of how these pilots that actually operating the systems of their planes.

This guy probably knows so much about aviation and game history that he fails to realize that there’s something in life. Get ready for it.. Called, peripheral vision.

Probably the thing he actually looks down at is his Keyboard.

 

Years from now, not a few years, but perhaps many years, like when the devs are developing the next module(s) after BoN. If the devs ever decide to make cockpits clickable they’d have an update in which One or Two planes get this feature and then many updates later they’d add this feature to another One or Two planes.

This is what happens when adding 4K skins to aircraft. Do you really think that an entire update would be dedicated to adding 4K skins to like, 10 planes??

 

One point to mention is that in MSFS 2020 Asobo Studios added the Cessna 172, Cessna 152, Icon A5, and all these other small planes. In real-world flight sims they make the cockpits clickable. Makes sense for the big passenger jets, Twin turboprops, but with the 1-4 seat planes, the cockpits are sooo simple, and yet they for some weird reason I guess make these planes have clickable cockpits. 
The fact is, is that the cockpit of a WW2 fighter and bomber is probably way more complex than a Cessna 152, and yet people complain that making WW2 fighters have clickable cockpits is unnecessary.

 

Maybe perhaps people need to rethink the notion about clickable cockpits being unnecessary for WW2 fighters and light-heavy bombers when they realize how it seems more unnecessary to make the cockpit of a Cessna 152 clickable than for a WW2 aircraft.

 

Thank you.

Edited August 31, 2020 by Enceladus

[HR_Zunzun]

I love the clickable pits but after using them realize that current technology in user interface (mouse and vr controllers) are not that useful in the busy situations.

What the current technology lack is a hand tracking system with some sort of sensorial feedback (doesn´t need to be 100% accurate representavie) that would let you "click" around the cockpit naturally and by feeling (or at least, with minimal required intervention of vision. The same way you can click things in your hotas and keyboard when using VR). Once that is achieved, whoever the company managed to implement this in a sim will convert the question in a no brainer one. At least for me.

The key is inmersion.

[SharpeXB]

On 8/28/2020 at 10:43 PM, Enceladus said:

One point to mention is that in MSFS 2020 Asobo Studios added the Cessna 172, Cessna 152, Icon A5, and all these other small planes.

Since many of those GA aircraft have a Garmin GPS, they need to have click pits in order to make those useable. These birds don’t have anything like that. And this is an air combat sim, not an aircraft startup simulator. 

On 8/28/2020 at 10:43 PM, Enceladus said:

If the devs ever decide to make cockpits clickable

They won’t. They already said this many many times

[AndyJWest]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Since many of those GA aircraft have a Garmin GPS, they need to have click pits in order to make those useable. 

 

The Garmin displays are actually a pain to use with a mouse. The real devices often have multiple triple-function rotary controls: an outer knob for adjusting one thing, an inner for another, and a push function to do something else again. Simple enough as a physical object, but using a mouse requires zooming in (and turning off headtracking if you aren't really steady with your head), and then moving the mouse until the pointer indicator changes to show you are in the right place to actually adjust the control - the 'hot spot' for the mouse pointer is small, and otherwise unmarked, making it very easy to adjust the wrong thing if you accidentally move the pointer by a few pixels. And while I'm sure it gets easier with practice, it is darned frustrating to have to put so much effort into doing something as simple as changing the scale of a map display. A device with nothing but clearly-marked buttons and/or a touch screen would be simpler to use, but Garmin are designing interfaces for real world physical interaction, not for flight simmers waving a virtual mouse pointer around. They rely on haptic feedback (you can feel where your fingers are on a dial without looking), which simply isn't there with a mouse. Visual fidelity, and the illusion that you are interacting with the real thing, comes at the expense of ergonomics.

 

Case in point: the right display of the Diamond DA62. The knob marked 'RANGE' adjusts the map scale, and pans the map around. Which it does though in MSFS depends entirely on whether you have moved the mouse pointer a few pixels one way or another. And that isn't the worst example. The 'CRS - BARO' dial above is just plain hazardous in MSFS if you aren't paying attention, since you can accidentally alter your altimeter setting while adjusting the course, and vice versa. Garmin, since they aren't idiots, know that the way to make accidental movement of proximate controls less likely is to give knobs different shapes. You can feel whether you've got hold of the inner triangular 'CRS' knob, or the outer 'BARO' one. And as of now, haptic-feedback mice don't seem to be a thing. 

Edited August 30, 2020 by AndyJWest

[SharpeXB]

8 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

The Garmin displays are actually a pain to use with a mouse. 

Sure but the point is about mouse-interactive cockpits in general. The MSFS versions aren’t fully functional either. 
In X-Plane these pop out in separate windows which are easier to see and click on. 

[AndyJWest]

29 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Sure but the point is about mouse-interactive cockpits in general. The MSFS versions aren’t fully functional either. 
In X-Plane these pop out in separate windows which are easier to see and click on. 

 

Yup,  more ergonomic, at least if done properly. X-Plane click-pittery is hit and miss though, at the best of times, and it still suffers from clicks a few not-obviously-defined pixels one way or another doing different things, even on the 2-d popout panels. And having a separate two-dimensional representation of the device rather runs contrary to the 'look around the cockpit and interact with stuff like you are moving it with your hands' justification for click-pits. As of now, you have the choice between prettiness and functionality, unless you have the means and motivation to build yourself a simpit.

 

 

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, AndyJWest said:

 

Yup,  more ergonomic, at least if done properly. X-Plane click-pittery is hit and miss though, at the best of times, and it still suffers from clicks a few not-obviously-defined pixels one way or another doing different things, even on the 2-d popout panels. And having a separate two-dimensional representation of the device rather runs contrary to the 'look around the cockpit and interact with stuff like you are moving it with your hands' justification for click-pits. As of now, you have the choice between prettiness and functionality, unless you have the means and motivation to build yourself a simpit.

 

 

Well the Garmins are a tough thing to simulate. It’s gotten better. XP-10 was pretty awful by comparison. 

[Ace_Pilto]

Leave the clicking to the DCS guys, they love it. I'd rather just fly the plane. IRL. If you could design a reliable and safe aircraft that didn't require an hour of prep to fly, everyone would buy it.

[AndyJWest]

2 hours ago, Ace_Pilto said:

Leave the clicking to the DCS guys, they love it. I'd rather just fly the plane. IRL. If you could design a reliable and safe aircraft that didn't require an hour of prep to fly, everyone would buy it.

 

Yup. While aviation simulator software developers have been working hard on more and more accurately representing real-world flight, the real-world aircraft developers have apparently been working even harder on making sitting in a cockpit feel like driving a spreadsheet. Case in point, the Diamond DA62 I mentioned above. For all its twin-diesel-engined avtur-fuelled weirdness, it is fundamentally a simple enough aircraft to fly. The engine controls for example basically just consist of a go-faster lever. As far as the pilot is concerned, the most complicated thing is understanding all the functionality of the the multi-panel display. That and (IRL at least) doing all the paperwork. Got to do a complete CG calculation first:

 

Quote

6.4 FLIGHT MASS AND CENTER OF GRAVITY

The following information enables you to operate your DA 62 within the permissible mass
and balance limits. For the calculation of the flight mass and the corresponding CG
position, the following tables and diagrams are required:

6.4.1 - MOMENT ARMS
6.4.2 - LOADING DIAGRAM
6.4.3 - CALCULATION OF LOADING CONDITION
6.4.4 - PERMISSIBLE CENTER OF GRAVITY RANGE
6.4.5 - PERMISSIBLE MOMENT RANGE

The diagrams should be used as follows:

1. Take the empty mass and the empty mass moment of your airplane from the Mass
and Balance Report, and enter the figures in the appropriate boxes under the column
marked ‘Your DA 62' in Table 6.4.3 - CALCULATION OF LOADING CONDITION.

2. Read the fuel quantity indicators to determine the fuel quantity in the main fuel tanks.

3. Determine the fuel quantity in the auxiliary fuel tanks:

If MÄM 62-254 is NOT installed:

To verify an empty auxiliary fuel tank, set the ELECT. MASTER switch and the AUX
PUMP switch to ON and check the PFD for the L/R AUX FUEL E caution message.
To verify a full auxiliary fuel tank open the auxiliary fuel tank filler and check fuel level.
If the auxiliary fuel tank quantity is in between empty and full, the exact quantity cannot
be determined. If possible, transfer all fuel to the main fuel tank by setting the ELECT.
MASTER switch and the AUX PUMP switch to ON until the L/R AUX FUEL E caution
message appears on the PFD. During this procedure, ground power must be used
or at least one engine must be running. The fuel transfer will take a maximum of 10
minutes...

... and so on. From the DA62 manual. Faster to go by bus.

[SharpeXB]

14 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

 

... and so on. From the DA62 manual. Faster to go by bus.

So it’s a real aircraft. Such things are important. What? Did you expect it worked like an Xbox game?
 

This is all veering off topic. IL-2 is never going to have clickable cockpits so forget about it. 

[BraveSirRobin]

On 8/28/2020 at 11:43 PM, Enceladus said:

 

The fact is, is that the cockpit of a WW2 fighter and bomber is probably way more complex than a Cessna 152, and yet people complain that making WW2 fighters have clickable cockpits is unnecessary.

 

Just because someone did something, that doesn’t mean that it’s necessary.  And click pits definitely are not necessary for WW2 aircraft.  Not to mention that the developer has repeatedly said that it’s not happening.  So it’s not happening.

[Enceladus828]

4 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Just because someone did something, that doesn’t mean that it’s necessary. And click pits definitely are not necessary for WW2 aircraft.

Okay then. Would you mind explaining why Team Fusion made the aircraft that they added in Blitz and Desert Wings-Tobruk have click pits if it’s unnecessary?

 

P.S. What about all the 1-2 seater Non-Garmin planes like the X-Cub, Savage Cub, Pitts Special, etc. in MSFS 2020, and the Ultralight, Extra 300, why did Microsoft those developers bother making those aircraft have clickable cockpits if there’s so few switches/systems in them?

 

4 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Not to mention that the developer has repeatedly said that it’s not happening.  So it’s not happening.

There’s probably several things that the developers have said “ Not happening”, but then it turned out Years later that they are planning to do the thing that they said “ Not happening”.

 

I 100% agree that it’s totally unnecessary for them to add this feature right now (there’s sooo many things that I feel need to get added/fixed/improved upon in BoN or after), but I wouldn’t say it’s totally unnecessary forever.
 

Salute.

[SharpeXB]

7 minutes ago, Enceladus said:

Okay then. Would you mind explaining why Team Fusion made the aircraft that they added in Blitz and Desert Wings-Tobruk have click pits if it’s unnecessary?

It’s great that Cliffs of Dover has finally been made relatively successful, but recognize the reality here. It was just about the worst failure in this genre at launch and for many many years. Primarily because it stretched itself too far with features such as clickable cockpits. So it should never be used as any sort of comparison. Don’t compare it with products like IL-2GB which have to be financially viable. TF is a volunteer modding team. Not a company that needs to make a payroll and stay in business. Tobruk took something like 6-7 years to make too iirc

Edited August 31, 2020 by SharpeXB

[BraveSirRobin]

27 minutes ago, Enceladus said:

 

There’s probably several things that the developers have said “ Not happening”, but then it turned out Years later that they are planning to do the thing that they said “ Not happening”.

 

 

It's actually so rare that they say "not happening" that this probably hasn't happened.  Can you think of any examples?

30 minutes ago, Enceladus said:

Okay then. Would you mind explaining why Team Fusion made the aircraft that they added in Blitz and Desert Wings-Tobruk have click pits if it’s unnecessary?

 

 

Maybe because they already had the functionality in place in the game engine and figured that they had 5+ years with nothing better to do.  It still doesn't mean that the feature is necessary.  

[SharpeXB]

7 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Maybe because they already had the functionality in place in the game engine and figured that they had 5+ years with nothing better to do.

Cliffs itself took about 7 years to make as well. Then flopped. Not anything to hold up as an example except as an example of what not to do. 

[Chief_Mouser]

On 8/31/2020 at 3:57 AM, SharpeXB said:

It’s great that Cliffs of Dover has finally been made relatively successful, but recognize the reality here. It was just about the worst failure in this genre at launch and for many many years. Primarily because it stretched itself too far with features such as clickable cockpits. 

 

Funny thing is, during an early Q&A with Oleg when Cliffs (which was called something else back then, can't remember what) was still a twinkle in his eye, I submitted the question 'Will there be clickable cockpits?' and the answer was a firm no. Possibly, the addition of click-pits against his wishes might have been one of the many reasons for him jumping ship.

[Enceladus828]

On 8/30/2020 at 9:20 PM, BraveSirRobin said:

It's actually so rare that they say "not happening" that this probably hasn't happened.  Can you think of any examples?

That’s 2 that I could find, but you’ve been on this forum longer than I have and so you can probably search or remember more things things that were declared “not happening”, but then happened.

[BraveSirRobin]

27 minutes ago, Enceladus said:

That’s 2 that I could find, but you’ve been on this forum longer than I have and so you can probably search or remember more things things that were declared “not happening”, but then happened.

That’s definitely 2 links, but you didn’t link to where they said “not happening” to a feature we currently have.  Keep in mind that “not happening now” is not the same thing as “not happening”.

[Enceladus828]

3 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

That’s definitely 2 links, but you didn’t link to where they said “not happening”

Read them! Not that hard. One’s only like half a page long while the other is 2 pages long; just go to the 2nd page and scroll down to the very bottom.

[BraveSirRobin]

Just now, Enceladus said:

Read them! Not that hard. One’s only like half a page long while the other is 2 pages long; just go to the 2nd page and scroll down to the very bottom.

 

I read both threads.  There is nothing from the developer in either thread about these features "not happening".