Jump to content

clickable cockpits, what's the appeal?


Riderocket

Recommended Posts

Riderocket

I dont understand why so many people think clickable cockpits is a good idea or any more "realistic", it just means I have to remove my hand from the joystick to click on something.

 

I find in the new Microsoft flight simulator, cliffs of dover or DCS when I have to push a button in the cockpit I'm temporarily not in control and the plane ends up flying upwards or downwards, because I can only use the joystick or the mouse not both at the same time, so I end up binding most of it to my keyboard and quickly run out of bindings.

 

this is why I only really fly in Rise of Flight, IL2 1946 and IL2 GB.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
=VARP=Ribbon

Well, between two identical flight sims i'd rather pick one with clickpits.

BUT for me more important than clickpits are gameplay variety, enviroment/situational immersion and playability which is il2's biggest strenght....for now!

Saying "for now" since 1C team is hugely focusing only on fighters and ground attackers and it's details, not evolving in it's strongest point which is gameplay variety.

For example dcs ww2 still can't match il2 in that area but with mossie on the way and if they add some axis bomber as well flyable b17 or b25 that would change instantly cos having 10 variants of 109 or Spit is less important than having 3 categories of different aircraft (fighter, attacker, bomber) cos latter one will provide more gameplay variety and fun.

I do hope after BoN they'll focus more on bombers and said variety instead directly trying to compete with dcs with combined arms and such content while in the air there is so much content that is missing (medium/heavy bombers, torpedo bombers, Naval focused theatres, PTO....etc) cos that is il2's greatest advantage.

That said i think little is missing for il2 to be top notch perfect ww2 flight sim not needing to check it's six!

My two cents on subject!

 

S!

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
56RAF_Stickz

well to an extent taking your hand off the joystick to switch something was an activity most w2 pilots had to accept. ie Spitfire needed to use right hand for undercarriage, so in one respect using a hotas is the most unrealistic part of all.

Even more modern planes, pilot with gloves in a cockpit designed by a thin skinny handed designer had to take their eyes down to check they were selecting correct switch.

Pretty much with ribbon else (except DCS bit - the teeny weeny maps for ww2 are a deal breaker for me (note personal opinion) - especially for bombers, first day buy mossie for me but never needing more than 20% fuel makes it single player game on those maps)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Megalax

I hear this all the time over comms in DCS.

Wingman Hey Mav, why didn't you use this 'Random clickable cockpit funtion'?

Lead : Oh I don't have that function bound on my HOTAS.

Me : Hey do you guys play Il2?
Lead : NO I don't like Il2 because it doesn't have clicky cockpits.

Me : 🤨

 

So DCS players want clickable cockpits, but don't use them.

  • Haha 5
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Riderocket
Just now, Megalax said:

I hear this all the time over comms in DCS.

Wingman Hey Mav, why didn't you use this 'Random clickable cockpit funtion'?

Lead : Oh I don't have that function bound on my HOTAS.

Me : Hey do you guys play Il2?
Lead : NO I don't like Il2 because it doesn't have clicky cockpits.

Me : 🤨

 

So DCS players want clickable cockpits, but don't use them.

😂 Strange

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fritz_X
29 minutes ago, Megalax said:

I hear this all the time over comms in DCS.

Wingman Hey Mav, why didn't you use this 'Random clickable cockpit funtion'?

Lead : Oh I don't have that function bound on my HOTAS.

Me : Hey do you guys play Il2?
Lead : NO I don't like Il2 because it doesn't have clicky cockpits.

Me : 🤨

 

So DCS players want clickable cockpits, but don't use them.

 

Kinda offtopic, but this reminds me of a similar observation that I made way back when I was mainly playing first person shooters.

 

I never enjoyed the Counter Strike games too much. I played them (classic and later on Source), since many of my buddies did, but I always found other games more appealing, especially Day of Defeat (both classic an Source) and the Battlefield series. Fans of the latter always argued how much superior it is compared to Counter Strike, since the maps were bigger, featuring more players and even vehicles for combat.

 

Yet, the majority of servers in Battlefield 2 featured 24/7 Strike at Karkand (a city map that focused on infantry combat), using only the smallest map layout (there were three different sizes available) with the fewest player count available (8 vs 8, while the biggest was 32 vs 32) and later on even with no vehicles (an option EA Games added later into the development cycle).

 

What I'm trying to communicate is that the most beloved Battlefield 2 experience was the one being closest to Counter Strike. And that people can be very, very weird (all of us, me being included).

 

And to finally contribute something to the threads purpose: I for myself don't use click pits when available, so they are no must for me in the GB series. Even though it's interesting to be able to flick any switch and lever yourself, it never gave me the feeling of being more realistic.

Edited by Fritz_X
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
ShamrockOneFive

In the right contexts it makes sense. In MSFS if you take your hands off the stick for a moment to use the mouse and the aircraft is going out of control, you're doing something wrong. It should be trimmed out or, when equipped on autopilot most of the time for the kinds of things that a clickable cockpit gets you.

 

It's the ideal method to give you full control over all of the switches and dials in the aircraft and for GA aircraft, airliners, and modern combat jets I think it makes a lot of sense to have it. There's no way to have that level of system depth and interactivity without using a clickable cockpit. In WWII aircraft, however, it's less of an issue. I like having it with the DCS warbirds that I own but my usage of the clickable systems is far far less than with other aircraft and that's because most of the aircraft's operations can be done entirely with stick and throttle binds. Even a simpler setup can mostly just use controls on those two devices as there aren't nearly as many controls required.

 

So... it is useful but the type of aircraft can make the difference. The folks who look down on IL-2 for not having a clickable cockpit experience need to get past that and recognize how good the experience can be even without.

Edited by ShamrockOneFive
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Pupo

A few of my personal reasons:

 

- It makes each plane feel more unique: Cockpit layouts become more interesting to explore and understand. There is an aspect of fun of getting into a new kite and having to figure out how things are and how they work. Right now, on IL2, a small cheat sheet with engine limitations is all i need to hop into a newly released plane.

- It lowers the setup curve. I can just hop onto DCS/ Xplane/ etc... and start flying with minimal configuration. When i find myself clicking a specific button too many times, i will hotkey it.

- It makes it a more welcoming experience for newcomers "Click on the red switch next to the altimeter" is a lot easier to convey than "go to menu, set a hotkey for X"

 

Its not a be all end all for me. But the older i get, the more I enjoy the click pit experience over the more raw action oriented experience provided by IL2.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
BlitzPig_EL

@ShamrockOneFive You would be surprised how many people don't trim their aircraft. Hell, a couple of the BlitzPigs, guys I have flown with for 20 years still don't.  It's hilarious actually.  We will be outbound in A20s, and I am running away from them because I am trimmed out.

 

I will win them over, eventually.

 

🤣 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40plus

My opinion......Click pits make a whole lot of sense in the modern jet age sims because the shear number of commands would be impossible to remember the key bindings for. For WW2, while it would be cool, doesn't really need it...... But it would be cool.

 

I like it from the learning point of view. What was the pieces for starting an 109 from cold? It would be cool to learn hands on.

Edited by 40plus
Link to post
Share on other sites
AndyJWest

Like ShamrockOneFive says, it is a matter of context. As far as possible, everything you need to use instinctively in a hurry wants to be accessible by feel. Which is why modern military aircraft have HOTAS systems set up the way they are. WW1 or WW2-era aircraft weren't exactly HOTAS, but they didn't need to be - there weren't so many major controls that learning where they were by touch wasn't practical - you were expected to learn how to do such things without looking, because you had to. Looking into the cockpit to find the radiator shutter control was liable to get you killed.

 

Modern aircraft, military and civil, now have complex avionics systems, with features like touch-screens and multi-function buttons etc that can only really be used while you look at them, but such features aren't going to be adjusted at critical moments - or at least, they shouldn't be, if you know what you are doing. For simulating such systems, unless you can go to the extreme of modelling the entire cockpit for a specific aircraft, the 'clickpit and mouse' provides a functional 'work around'. It lets you adjust such controls without explicit bindings.  And, as been noted, lets you explore a bit, for when you aren't really sure where all the controls are. It isn't however any more 'realistic' than binding a control to a HOTAS, and from the perspective of ergonomics, unless it is done with a great deal of attention to detail, can be extremely frustrating - often because of a mismatch between the visual location of a control and the mouse pointer 'hotspot'. Getting this right takes time and money. DCS does it, because for the more modern stuff they model, it is more or less essential - they are that complex. Less recent military aircraft don't need it, and the cost-benefit arguments are less clear.  I can fully understand why 1C-777 chose not to go down that route, and think that in the context concerned, they made the right decision. If at some point they decide to add clickpit features, I'm not going to complain - but I don't think it would necessarily be the best use of limited resources. If you want all the features of a DCS study-level aircraft, you can probably expect to have to pay DCS-level prices. And to have DCS-level wait times for new products. IL-2 GB has gone down a different route, where modelling the complexities of a multi-aircraft-type battlefield has taken priority over adding the last few percent of systems modelling, and I think is better for having done so. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Enceladus

One thing that I don’t understand is, if clickable cockpits are only worth it on planes with complex avionics such as the Garmin G1000 and commercial transport aircraft, then why did the developers of FSX, X-Plane, and MSFS 2020 decide to make all these 1-2 seat non-Garmin aircraft (which have fewer switches than a WW2 plane) have clickable cockpits? Also, Asobo studios added some WW2 planes such as the Corsair and Spitfire Mk.IXc, and they have clickable cockpits.

 

Perhaps clickable cockpits in WW2 combat flight simulator games aren’t as unnecessary after all.

Edited by Enceladus
Link to post
Share on other sites
farley

Good question Riderocket.

 

I'll just start by saying that I don't have a lot of hours flying here (used to fly a lot in CoD), but I am really enjoying my time flying, although it has only been sp so far.

 

My ideal would be clickable cockpits where everything worked. I enjoy trying to nurse a shot up P-38 home, but to do that as well as possible would require that all systems work, for eg being able to open and close radiator and oil flaps (and have them actually make a difference to the temps) etc. It is great to be able to feather a prop and use what is operational in the sim, but I prefer the full immersion that a fully operational plane with clickable cockpit gives. I would like to be able to monitor the carb temp and make adjustments to keep it where it should be.

 

Because of time restraints I have not spent much time at all on DCS, although I have quite a few WWII planes there.

What I do on DCS is go through the startup tutorials; I just truly enjoy learning where all of the controls are and how to start up the fighters; Just thinking that I could sit in one of the classic warbirds and actually start it up is a bit of a thrill for me.

 

I am not complaining about this sim at all, and as I said, I am totally enjoying it.

I understand that most flyers here just want to fly and don't want the complexity of having to do it all, but my preference would be fully functioning, clickable cockpits so I could be totally immersed in the plane.

 

Long live IL-2!

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SharpeXB

Don’t overlook the cost and development time factor for clickable cockpit & full systems. A DCS aircraft costs $50 and takes 1.5 years to develop. It’s taken them 9 years to create 6 WWII aircraft. 

IL-2 makes an entire theater and a dozen aircraft in that same time and cost. So if IL-2 had study sim level aircraft its 50 aircraft would take 75 years to make and the game would cost $2,500. 
 

I really like both games and can appreciate the different approaches to simulation, but you can’t have everything literally in the same game. 

Edited by SharpeXB
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
AndyJWest
7 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

...you can’t have everything literally in the same game. 

 

This is a point that a lot of people don't really seem to appreciate. Regardless of how well a simulation is programmed, you are always going to have limits on available processing power, memory etc. Which means that sometimes compromises have to be made. If one compares IL-2 GB with DCS, the choices made become apparent: DCS has gone the model-every-aircraft-system route, but in order to do so, has had to sacrifice e.g. AI aircraft flight modelling (DCS AI can do all sorts of things that the player aircraft can't, and it gets frustrating). And due to the complexity of the systems modelled, severely limit the plane set. If one were to start creating a sim again entirely from scratch (with all the expense that entails), it would likely be possible to get some further benefit from the latest multicore processors etc, and maybe not have to make some of the same compromises, but there will always be limits.

 

And if every sim had all the features of every other one, what would be the point of having more than one? Choice is good.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SYN_Vander

I'm missing the best reason for having click pits: VR. Once you have that headset on your head it is really nice if you can just (virtually) grope around and flick switches at will. If motion capturing gloves (or sorts) become a thing it will be pretty mandatory.

However, my 3080 order, for which I have been waiting 5 months for just has been canceled (thanks MSI) so I won't be flying VR any time soon and for now I'm very happy with my HOTAS 😁.

Edited by SYN_Vander
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Enceladus

While I really enjoy flight sims with clickable or interactive cockpits such as MSFS, CloD, etc, and am for the notion that clickable cockpits should be implemented into IL-2 Great Battles at some point after BoN, I feel that there's too many things as of now that need to be added, such as Drop Tanks, improved radio comms, more Russian bombers, etc. The thing for the first two things mentioned previously is that this game was built off the game engine of a WW1 game, while CloD was built off the game engine of a WW2 game. Therefore, things such as radio comms, Drop Tanks, and parachutes just weren't in WW1 and they had to prioritize what was most important to be added. 

 

For me, this game feels less immersive due to the cockpits not being interactive. When flying, some of the gauges such as Oil Temperature, Oil Pressure, Water Radiator Temperature, and sometimes fuel gauges just seem not really necessary in hind-sight to be functional because you look at them and it's quite difficult to get any sense of what it's indicating. For Russian and Axis planes... unless you know that respected language well enough then you may or may not even know what that instrument is. However, when flying the same plane in CloD/DW-T, if I hover the mouse over an instrument it gives me the information on what it is and what it's indicating. To be honest, IL-2 GBs seems more of an arcade style game for me as most people reference the HUD and Technochat rather than the instruments in the cockpit.

 

In CFS3 you couldn't click anything in the cockpit, but if you hovered the mouse over an instrument it would give you information. That is what I feel should happen in this game. I even suggested it in this thread: Cockpit feature suggestion in IL-2 GBs - Suggestions - IL-2 Sturmovik Forum

 

Cheers.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SharpeXB
1 hour ago, Enceladus said:

While I really enjoy flight sims with clickable or interactive cockpits such as MSFS, CloD, etc, and am for the notion that clickable cockpits should be implemented into IL-2 Great Battles at some point after BoN, 

IL-2 GB will never have clickable cockpits. That’s been stated clearly by the Devs since the very beginning. And CloD is not a good example to use as something to emulate. It was a commercial failure that has just recently been given a second life by an volunteer modding team. But one of the chief reasons that it failed financially was certainly the inclusion of clickable cockpits. Realize that the game originally sold for $49 and yet contained about 18 flyable aircraft, you can see the cost shortfall right there. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Enceladus
15 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

And CloD is not a good example to use as something to emulate. It was a commercial failure that has just recently been given a second life by an volunteer modding team. But one of the chief reasons that it failed financially was certainly the inclusion of clickable cockpits. Realize that the game originally sold for $49 and yet contained about 18 flyable aircraft, you can see the cost shortfall right there. 

Okay, so why is Team Fusion bothering to implement clickable cockpits into new aircraft then?

 

 

Same question I continue to ask:

5 hours ago, Enceladus said:

why did the developers of FSX, X-Plane, and MSFS 2020 decide to make all these 1-2 seat non-Garmin aircraft (which have fewer switches than a WW2 plane) have clickable cockpits? Also, Asobo studios added some WW2 planes such as the Corsair and Spitfire Mk.IXc, and they have clickable cockpits.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SharpeXB
8 minutes ago, Enceladus said:

Okay, so why is Team Fusion bothering to implement clickable cockpits into new aircraft then?

Because Team Fusion is a volunteer modding team and not a company which needs to be profitable and remain in business. 
 

And Asobo Studion has millions of customers in MSFS that a niche combat sim like this won’t ever have. The civ sim market is not at all the same as this. 

Edited by SharpeXB
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Enceladus
15 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Because Team Fusion is a volunteer modding team and not a company which needs to be profitable and remain in business. 

Not necessarily. Sure, it's not their main job, but if Desert Wings-Tobruk wasn't profitable then they wouldn't have released 19 patches in an 8 month time frame, nor would be working on content for their next installment and stating that in a few weeks Jason will make an announcement on the where and what of their next installment.

Edited by Enceladus
Link to post
Share on other sites
AndyJWest

The Corsair for MSFS (From Milviz, a third-party developer, not Asobo) is $ 39.99 USD. For an aircraft with no weapons systems or damage model.

The Spitfire (from FlyingIron Simulations) is $35.00 AUD. Again, for an aircraft with no weapons systems or damage model.

 

If people want clickpit functionality, it has to be paid for.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Mitthrawnuruodo
1 hour ago, Enceladus said:

When flying, some of the gauges such as Oil Temperature, Oil Pressure, Water Radiator Temperature, and sometimes fuel gauges just seem not really necessary in hind-sight to be functional because you look at them and it's quite difficult to get any sense of what it's indicating. For Russian and Axis planes... unless you know that respected language well enough then you may or may not even know what that instrument is. However, when flying the same plane in CloD/DW-T, if I hover the mouse over an instrument it gives me the information on what it is and what it's indicating.

 

That's quite similar to the experience in many real aircraft. Some gauges are so inaccurate that they're little more than a warning of unusually high or unusually low parameters. Even today, pilots of small planes typically train to never rely on gauges for fuel quantities.

 

Exact measurements aren't necessarily more realistic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SharpeXB
12 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

The Corsair for MSFS (From Milviz, a third-party developer, not Asobo) is $ 39.99 USD. For an aircraft with no weapons systems or damage model.

The Spitfire (from FlyingIron Simulations) is $35.00 AUD. Again, for an aircraft with no weapons systems or damage model.

 

If people want clickpit functionality, it has to be paid for.

Right. So if Battle of Stalingrad had clickable cockpit aircraft at $39 each, the game would sell for $320 which isn’t a price point most any person is willing to pay for a game. 

45 minutes ago, Enceladus said:

Not necessarily. Sure, it's not their main job, but if Desert Wings-Tobruk wasn't profitable then they wouldn't have released 19 patches in an 8 month time frame, nor would be working on content for their next installment and stating that in a few weeks Jason will make an announcement on the where and what of their next installment.

The work Team Fusion did to fix CloD as a volunteer mod team started in 2012 after 1CMG cancelled support for the title. So they had been working unpaid on this for almost 9 years. The North Africa “Desert Wings” expansion has been worked on almost as long as that. I don’t know what business arrangement they have now with 1CGS.

Whatever state it’s in now, CloD shouldn’t be held up as an example of anything except what not to do when making a flight sim. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Enceladus
1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

So they had been working unpaid on this for almost 9 years.

Not quite. They had been working unpaid until 2017 when they released Blitz, so 5 years. However, everyone who had the original game got Blitz for free, so the $$ came from 'newbies'. DW-T was their first real pay check (7 and a half years).

 

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

The North Africa “Desert Wings” expansion has been worked on almost as long as that.

I believe they started working on the North Africa mod in 2014 which was to contain several new flyables and a less detailed map, then once they got the source code they decided to make it a comprehensively done product and included a bit more than what was to be in this mod. However,  the SM.79 and Macchi 200 couldn't make it in due to time constraints.

 

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

CloD shouldn’t be held up as an example of anything except what not to do when making a flight sim. 

Agree, but perhaps more of how not to release a flight sim.

 

Anyway Sharpe, let's move on from this

 

:salute:

Edited by Enceladus
Link to post
Share on other sites
SharpeXB
17 minutes ago, Enceladus said:

Not quite. They had been working unpaid until 2017 when they released Blitz, so 5 years. However, everyone who had the original game got Blitz for free, so the $$ came from 'newbies'. DW-T was their first real pay check (7 and a half years).

 

Ok 5 years as modders then. But the effort is more a labor of devotion to the game than a real sustainable business. What success DW-T can have, who knows. But I’m sure there are significant unpaid hours in it’s development.

21 minutes ago, Enceladus said:

 

I believe they started working on the North Africa mod in 2014 which was to contain several new flyables and a less detailed map, then once they got the source code they decided to make it a comprehensively done product and included a bit more than what was to be in this mod. However,  the SM.79 and Macchi 200 couldn't make it in due to time constraints.

DW-T was released in 2020 so that six years spent making the game. Not a good start to profitability...

 

24 minutes ago, Enceladus said:

Agree, but perhaps more of how not to release a flight sim.

 

Anyway Sharpe, let's move on from this

 

:salute:

Agreed. CloD is not an example of how to develop, release, design... anything. The lessons learned from that are certainly appreciated by 1CGS since many of them are from the same 1CMG team. I would not expect those to be repeated.  
Chief among those? —-> clickable cockpits. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Enceladus
21 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Chief among those? —-> clickable cockpits. 

Nah, if I could determine 10 reasons why the original game was released so buggy (and that's just an understatement), I'd put clickable cockpits at #10.

 

@SharpeXB Also, the original plan was to release TF 5.0, then who knows what would come after that. But in 2016 when they got the source code their plans changed and their new priority was to re-release the game as Blitz.  Also, I guess they could have put a date ahead of a good quality product but they would just be making the same mistake as 1C did.

From what I've read, there was no map making tool provided for them: they had to do all that from scratch, probably increased the amount of time and frustration to make the Tobruk map; in the end they did it. IMO, a bright future is ahead of them. Now that all the 'ugly'  is out of the way, things should be much less difficult for them, and hopefully the next installment won't take nearly as long as TF 5.0 did.

Edited by Enceladus
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
LukeFF
2 minutes ago, Enceladus said:

Nah, if I could determine 10 reasons why the original game was released so buggy (and that's just an understatement), I'd put clickable cockpits at #10.

 

Then you aren't remembering all the problems CLoD had on release, one of the chief ones being...bugs with the clickable cockpits. 

Edited by LukeFF
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SharpeXB
19 minutes ago, Enceladus said:

Nah, if I could determine 10 reasons why the original game was released so buggy (and that's just an understatement), I'd put clickable cockpits at #10.

Rest assured, 1CGS certainly learned from CloD. They’ve repeatedly said there will not be clickable cockpits in IL-2 GB

The fact that this features is in DW-T is due to that being a completely different game despite the “IL-2” branding. 
 

And why all the bugs? How about because of scope overeach, too many features, one of those being clickable cockpits. Also maybe the menu where you could pick your pilots clothes... 

Edited by SharpeXB
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
BraveSirRobin
4 hours ago, Enceladus said:

While I really enjoy flight sims with clickable or interactive cockpits such as MSFS, CloD, etc, and am for the notion that clickable cockpits should be implemented into IL-2 Great Battles at some point after BoN


Fortunately, the developer has made it quite clear that there is no chance of this happening.

  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
JG7_X-Man

The fact is there is no substitute for the real thing.

 

Even with VR, without a fake in cockpit hand with tactile or haptic feedback to simulate where your, there will be no way to make the idea truly realistic.

 

This is the sole reason I don't use VR and every will until a force feedback glove that is integrated into the VR environment. 

 

When we get to that point, I can see the developers investing time and resources on something no more than 20 - 30% of the community will use. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
SharpeXB
1 hour ago, JG7_X-Man said:

 

This is the sole reason I don't use VR and every will until a force feedback glove that is integrated into the VR environment. 

Keep dreaming! 💰💰💰🤣🤣🤣

Link to post
Share on other sites
ShamrockOneFive
12 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

@ShamrockOneFive You would be surprised how many people don't trim their aircraft. Hell, a couple of the BlitzPigs, guys I have flown with for 20 years still don't.  It's hilarious actually.  We will be outbound in A20s, and I am running away from them because I am trimmed out.

 

I will win them over, eventually.

 

🤣

Say what?!

😅

 

It's one of the easiest things to do in an aircraft and will make life instantly easier.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
BlitzPig_EL

I know, I don't get it myself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
[CPT]Crunch

To me it's not simply an issue of clickable cockpits, its a lack of systems fidelity and controls over what we already have.  Why should I be forced to select and deselect specific engines first to control cooling, feathering, fire suppression, and so on.  Why is there no direct control options for everything?  What's the point in binding to a HOTAS or controller when you can't even have direct controls?  This day and age it's BS, is it really that hard to fix this?  We don't even have direct binding of all controls, yet we're talking about clickable pits?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Riderocket
5 hours ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

To me it's not simply an issue of clickable cockpits, its a lack of systems fidelity and controls over what we already have.  Why should I be forced to select and deselect specific engines first to control cooling, feathering, fire suppression, and so on.  Why is there no direct control options for everything?  What's the point in binding to a HOTAS or controller when you can't even have direct controls?  This day and age it's BS, is it really that hard to fix this?  We don't even have direct binding of all controls, yet we're talking about clickable pits?

There are direct controls for both engines or you can select them and do it that way

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hellequin13

As a VR pilot, I can state that click pits are not a benefit. You have to physically look at the control you are trying to click and depending on the size/location of the switch, button, etc., it is time consuming to get/keep the cursor in the correct position. Time spent with your eyes down in your cockpit. An activity that will erode your SA and likely end your flight in a less than ideal manner.

 

I personally use a gaming keypad in conjunction with my HOTAS buttons, relying on muscle memory to actuate all the necessary controls. Not unlike the manner in which you would manage the real life controls (albeit with a significantly reduced degree of reaching around the cockpit). There are only a handful of things you'll need to adjust while in flight, the most pertinent of which should be on your HOTAS. We don't have complex radios, auto pilots, navigation systems, or MFD panels to be clicking around on, so I don't don't see a need for click pits here.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
JG7_X-Man
On 4/18/2021 at 8:52 PM, SharpeXB said:

Keep dreaming! 💰💰💰🤣🤣🤣

I am very happy with my setup so I don't dream. ;)

@SharpeXB However, they are much closer than you think.

 

 

Edited by JG7_X-Man
Link to post
Share on other sites
SharpeXB
46 minutes ago, JG7_X-Man said:

I am very happy with my setup so I don't dream. ;)

@SharpeXB However, they are much closer than you think.

Sure... these are probably five figures $$$. Also note the backpack they come with. Not very sleek...

https://haptx.com

Link to post
Share on other sites
JG7_X-Man
37 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Sure... these are probably five figures $$$. Also note the backpack they come with. Not very sleek...

https://haptx.com

Word of advice, just do a quick Goggle search before you go throwing out assumptions. You loose creditability that way.

FYI, $250 USD is chump change for some of the people here (not me :scratch_one-s_head:). Also, sleek is in the eye of the owner.

image.png.b5ddf790ff718e837239a1f9c3e644c8.png

Edited by JG7_X-Man
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
×
×
  • Create New...