Visible Plane management?

[-TBC-AeroAce]

TBH the only thing I struggle with is the circular radiator wheels as its hard to know exactly how open they are. I think everything else gives reasonable feedback

[Sokol1]

So, if we have this in expert why we shouldn't have like in all games before from Il-2 series as I said in first place?

 

"HUD" on CFS is not introduced by il-2 series, European Air War show Speed, Alt, HDG (copied in il-2) over screen (include for padlocked enemy planes).

 

Anyway now the damage is already done by the il-2 series, the typical player is addicted to HUD.

So if evil is inevitable at least make this displayed in the best possible way.

 

They want to know how many percent the radiator (or whatever) is open? Display this properly, Radiador:XX%.

 

But leave obvious things - e.g. Cockpit Lights: ON - out, there's no failures modeled, if one hit the key/button for cockpit lights it is illuminated 100% of the time, no on screen message is need (Well, I think).

 

Sokol1

Edited July 19, 2014 by Sokol1

[Gambit21]

TBH the only thing I struggle with is the circular radiator wheels as its hard to know exactly how open they are. I think everything else gives reasonable feedback

You can count rotations in the Yak at least - not the IL2 though.

[FuriousMeow]

I guess I'm the only one who thinks that if it is going to be "Expert" (once upon a time it was "full real" which still wasn't a good descriptor) then truly - you should be expert enough to read the gauges to open or close simple things. Il-2 may have done the damage, but we can undo the garbage that precedent set. If it is going to be "expert" then you should be an expert, not an expert but with crutches. Plus percentages of openness doesn't do anything. 50% open tells you what? Should tell you nothing, the gauge that indicates the temperature should be the only thing to tell anything. That is the bottom line. It doesn't matter the percentage open or closed, it matters what the gauge indicates. Therefore, percentages mean nothing. That is "Expert" not "well you should have the Yak-16-09-C3-Ju88-190 flying with about 33% open radiator flaps" - you should be "maintain water temperature around 80C and oil temp around 75C for optimum performance." 50% open at 200km/h vs 500km/h is a huge difference because there is far more air traveling through the systems at the higher speed.

 

Il-2 did the damage because it was so simple that it's CEM was still a joke because it was so half-assed it was just a pointless tedium that people memorized percentages of cowl or oil or radiator flaps open and not maintaining the actual operational temperatures. That's why there should be no HUD in Expert, because you should be maintaining via the instrumentation not just setting and forgetting from some arbitrary percentage that is actually variable based on speed and atmospheric conditions.

Edited July 20, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[Tektolnes]

I'd agree - expert shouldn't have any visual indicators. All the ones you need are right there in front of you. It adds another layer to the game by making your workload a bit more realistic.

 

Flying and fighting in the DCS P51D is a good example of this. You can really see the result of flying in a way that's beneficial for your engine on the dials right in front of you. You can also see the hurt you're putting it through when you do full power vertical climbs to stall speeds with auto radiators a few times in a row and your engine temps start to red line. 

[Duckman]

"HUD" for things like "Cockpit lights:ON" (or OFF) is very dumb, because one have visual feedback if lights are on ON or OFF.

 

I don't think it's dumb at all. A screen doesn't have the same field or view or resolution as Real Life , so it's harder to take in information at a glance (same as the neverending aircraft labels debate). I think there should be an optional Il2-ish HUD.

[Sokol1]

I think If one are under narrow FOV and looking to front (or whatever) he dont need light on instruments or panel, they need light when move the POV for these, so hit the key/button and "see the light".

 

My point in this question is: simplified the (dumb and evil) HUD to things really important (and if Joey Player want see %, give he the choice - as in CloD), but dont make then crude like in CLoD whit his:

 

Wheel Brakes: 83%

Wheel Brakes: 84%

Wheel Brakes: 85%

Wheel Brakes: 86%

.

.

.

 

What use of this?

 

Sokol1

[Gambit21]

I guess I'm the only one who thinks that if it is going to be "Expert" (once upon a time it was "full real" which still wasn't a good descriptor) then truly - you should be expert enough to read the gauges to open or close simple things. Il-2 may have done the damage, but we can undo the garbage that precedent set. If it is going to be "expert" then you should be an expert, not an expert but with crutches. Plus percentages of openness doesn't do anything. 50% open tells you what? Should tell you nothing, the gauge that indicates the temperature should be the only thing to tell anything. That is the bottom line. It doesn't matter the percentage open or closed, it matters what the gauge indicates. Therefore, percentages mean nothing. That is "Expert" not "well you should have the Yak-16-09-C3-Ju88-190 flying with about 33% open radiator flaps" - you should be "maintain water temperature around 80C and oil temp around 75C for optimum performance." 50% open at 200km/h vs 500km/h is a huge difference because there is far more air traveling through the systems at the higher speed.

 

Il-2 did the damage because it was so simple that it's CEM was still a joke because it was so half-assed it was just a pointless tedium that people memorized percentages of cowl or oil or radiator flaps open and not maintaining the actual operational temperatures. That's why there should be no HUD in Expert, because you should be maintaining via the instrumentation not just setting and forgetting from some arbitrary percentage that is actually variable based on speed and atmospheric conditions.

I disagree to some extent, although I know where you're coming from.

In real life I can, in an instant, flick my eyes downward and check a gauge. One the computer I have to move my entire head while looking through this square

shaped tunnel (monitor) It's much more disorienting - and difficult since there is no peripheral vision to keep things anchored. 

 

Also, let's say we're moving the radiator wheels in the IL2 or the Lag. In real life I can FEEL that I'm moving it 180 degrees more or less, then another 90 degrees

more or less. When I push a button I have no tactile or visual reference for how much that wheel is moving. Unless, I can divert my square tunnel vision gaze

down to that wheel and watch it the entire time it's turning. Which again is much more disorienting than moving your eyes for an instant, and maybe your head just barely.

 

Even if you move your head in a real cockpit, your peripheral vision keeps your from losing tally on a target, or SA altogether. 

 

So while I agree with you in spirit, and those that think alike, it really doesn't follow if you analyze it a bit more.

Much like you said the zoom was a two edged sword, and ultimately necessary, I think the same thing applies with visual indicators, even in "expert" mode since

all it does is even things out a bit more and mitigate the limitations of a monitor.

 

I think If one are under narrow FOV and looking to front (or whatever) he dont need light on instruments or panel, they need light when move the POV for these, so hit the key/button and "see the light".

 

My point in this question is: simplified the (dumb and evil) HUD to things really important (and if Joey Player want see %, give he the choice - as in CloD), but dont make then crude like in CLoD whit his:

 

Wheel Brakes: 83%

Wheel Brakes: 84%

Wheel Brakes: 85%

Wheel Brakes: 86%

.

.

.

 

What use of this?

 

Sokol1

 

As if that has anything to do with what we're talking about here.

[Sokol1]

Visible plane management on some kind of HUD (or whatever you call).

 

So for the lack of "peripheral vision" why not this solution - add some "wheels %" for radiator :

 

http://cool-lab.com/Remote_HUD.php

 

Sokol1

Edited July 20, 2014 by Sokol1

[Gambit21]

Are you tired of trolling at SimHq?

[Sokol1]

No Sir, still posting there with regularity, pleased that you are reading.

 

Buy what the relevance for "Visible plane management" solution?

 

Anyway, since you dont like my silly HUD suggestion, what about a Task Bar (graphical elements of the game):

 

 

No peripheral vision restrictions.

 

 

Sokol1

Edited July 20, 2014 by Sokol1

[LastRightsXIII]

Then why an automated cockpit?

[SharpeXB]

dont make then crude like in CLoD whit his:

 

Wheel Brakes: 83%

Wheel Brakes: 84%

Wheel Brakes: 85%

Wheel Brakes: 86%

.

.What use of this?

 

Agreed. That's really awful in CoD. I don't imagine we will see it repeated in BoS

Then why an automated cockpit?

I don't quite understand why a "HUD" is needed especially since WWII planes didn't have them. It's useful for training and familiarization purposes but eventually gets turned off because it's distracting.

[LastRightsXIII]

Agreed. That's really awful in CoD. I don't imagine we will see it repeated in BoS

 

I don't quite understand why a "HUD" is needed especially since WWII planes didn't have them. It's useful for training and familiarization purposes but eventually gets turned off because it's distracting.

Ah, I see once one gets the "feel" it will selectively be shut off ?

Kind of like all the other garbage floating around on the screen on normal mode.

Don't take me wrong we all need aids from time to time and I'm all for that.

But, there is a time and a place for all that.

Edited July 20, 2014 by LastRights13

[Gambit21]

Agreed. That's really awful in CoD. I don't imagine we will see it repeated in BoS

Yikes - I thought that was a bad joke.

[216th_Peterla]

Why not use the same system that is currently used on ROF? I think could be the better one for the major part of the users.

[Duckman]

I don't quite understand why a "HUD" is needed especially since WWII planes didn't have them. It's useful for training and familiarization purposes but eventually gets turned off because it's distracting.

Please read Gambit21's reply above. The level of visual and other sensory feedback you get when sitting in a real cockpit is quite different from what you get from looking at a screen, as confirmed by real pilots who also fly sims. So player aids like HUDs, external views, and aircraft labels are not so much training wheels as making the game (in some aspects) more realistic.

 

I understand if people want to fly so called Full Real for immersion purposes, but it's going to be their own personal definition of realism and not an objective standard. If we are going to talk about realism in flight sims I think we should spend more time on things like formation tactics and AI behaviour.

[SharpeXB]

Please read Gambit21's reply above. The level of visual and other sensory feedback you get when sitting in a real cockpit is quite different from what you get from looking at a screen, as confirmed by real pilots who also fly sims. So player aids like HUDs, external views, and aircraft labels are not so much training wheels as making the game (in some aspects) more realistic.

I understand if people want to fly so called Full Real for immersion purposes, but it's going to be their own personal definition of realism and not an objective standard. If we are going to talk about realism in flight sims I think we should spend more time on things like formation tactics and AI behaviour.

HUDs, external views and labels? All necessary game aids but they're not so "realistic". They have their place for sure and I'm not advocating them bring removed. The screen gauges are fine. I don't really see what the big issue is even if they're available in all modes.

And the "sliders" like CoD has, yes I see how those duplicate controls you would know the position of without looking.

I don't see really why it matters if those are available in "expert" or not.

But a full on HUD like a modern aircraft? No, not really. Those don't belong in WWII. Sure they're fine for practice and such. But WWII pilots had to actually take their eye off the enemy or landing strip for just an instant to know their airspeed and such. It wasn't hovering in front of their face. It's only "realistic" in the "expert" mode that you have to do the same.

Yikes - I thought that was a bad joke.

Yes that's really what CoD does. In big red and blue letters you can't turn off...

[dburne]

Yes that's really what CoD does. In big red and blue letters you can't turn off...

 

Not quite accurate, there is lots of customization that can be done with the info windows in Cliffs of Dover, one can select about anything they want displayed or not displayed, along with adjusting how long it is displayed, font size, font color,etc...

 

Granted yes, they really gave us way more info we could have than we would ever need, but that does not necessarily mean it has to be there if one does not want it.

 

Not entirely sure what Cliffs of Dover has to do with a thread on visible plane management in BOS, but since it was brought up thought I would clarify...

Edited July 20, 2014 by dburnette

[SharpeXB]

Not quite accurate, there is lots of customization that can be done with the info windows in Cliffs of Dover, one can select about anything they want displayed or not displayed, along with adjusting how long it is displayed, font size, font color,etc...

 

Granted yes, they really gave us way more info we could have than we would ever need, but that does not necessarily mean it has to be there if one does not want it.

 

Not entirely sure what Cliffs of Dover has to do with a thread on visible plane management in BOS, but since it was brought up thought I would clarify...

I guess I never figured out how to turn it off. CoD is relevant since I assume that's where the "Visible Plane Management" idea is from, at least in a current sim. I think CoD displays way too much info on the screen in "Realistic" mode. The small control sliders seem fine though even in "Realistic"

[FuriousMeow]

 

I disagree to some extent, although I know where you're coming from.

In real life I can, in an instant, flick my eyes downward and check a gauge. One the computer I have to move my entire head while looking through this square

shaped tunnel (monitor) It's much more disorienting - and difficult since there is no peripheral vision to keep things anchored. 

 

Also, let's say we're moving the radiator wheels in the IL2 or the Lag. In real life I can FEEL that I'm moving it 180 degrees more or less, then another 90 degrees

more or less. When I push a button I have no tactile or visual reference for how much that wheel is moving. Unless, I can divert my square tunnel vision gaze

down to that wheel and watch it the entire time it's turning. Which again is much more disorienting than moving your eyes for an instant, and maybe your head just barely.

 

Even if you move your head in a real cockpit, your peripheral vision keeps your from losing tally on a target, or SA altogether. 

 

So while I agree with you in spirit, and those that think alike, it really doesn't follow if you analyze it a bit more.

Much like you said the zoom was a two edged sword, and ultimately necessary, I think the same thing applies with visual indicators, even in "expert" mode since

all it does is even things out a bit more and mitigate the limitations of a monitor.

 

Well, I have to disagree on the feel of the wheel. It doesn't matter how much you rotate it, because that is just an arbitrary value. It matters if the gauge is going one direction or the other. That is all that matters, not the wheel operating it. The gauges are your only feedback, NOT the rotation of the wheels. They simply do nothing because 56% open water rad is way different at 100% throttle vs 20% throttle. So you should be watching the gauges, not percentages of open.

 

Also, if you sit in anything and glance down you still have to re-analyze your surroundings. I know people swear by peripherals but when you change focus, your mind does too, so now its looking at the gauge and not truly aware of the surrounding. You know where something was, but it's not there when you look back so you have to re-acquire. You can quickly glance down at a puck on the end of your hockey stick, its still there and glance back up to the blurs around you and they are still there but not where they originally were - one might be about to take your head off because you went heads down - and then you widen it up to several hundred feet plus several hundred miles per hour plus gauges that you have to actually concentrate on to get the information from, then the peripheral perception means little.

 

Try this - don't but think about it for a second - pull your phone out and text a few letters while driving, your phone is right above your steering wheel so techinically your perhipheral should keep you in a straight line. But it won't. It'll fail everytime.

 

You can analyze it as far as you like, but it just doesn't work that way. The mind is single tracked, it can only multi-task in the sense that each item takes very little concentration otherwise if you're out there in Kenya trying to light a fire you won't notice that lion two feet away from you but within your peripheral until it is too late because your thought is focused on the fire making.

Edited July 21, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[LukeFF]

 

 

who fly sukhoi in great patriotic war??? now one lol!!!

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-2

[Gambit21]

I've read them. How do you feel what position a wheel is in? There is no guiding grove that says this is 50% or 30%, you only know the full stops.

 

There is a lot of talk of "feel" but for the most part the only things you can feel are the joystick, rudder pedals, and throttle. Most VVS planes have wheels to operate various flaps and positions with no "feel" except for full one direction or full the other direction.

 

And how is it Expert if you need a crutch? You don't have 3 rotaries you could assign to things so you can "feel" them out. I do, and I still have to look at the knobs to know their position the same as you would in the real aircraft.

Yes but when pushing the button you don't know if you've overshot by opening or closing it too much based on what you're seeing looking at the gauge, it's

not an instantaneous reaction.

This is where that tactile factor comes in that we're missing - it's not about arbitrary percentages.

Also as I said It's much easier to glance at gauges in real and not lose bearings because of peripheral vision.

I think having something to reference as a good way to maintain the realism balance.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Gambit21

[FuriousMeow]

Yes but when pushing the button you don't know if you've overshot by opening or closing it too much based on what you're seeing looking at the gauge, it's

not an instantaneous reaction.

This is where that tactile factor comes in that we're missing - it's not about arbitrary percentages.

Also as I said It's much easier to glance at gauges in real and not lose bearings because of peripheral vision.

I think having something to reference as a good way to maintain the realism balance.

 

Sorry, that is not the way it works. You won't know with opening cooling flaps or valves until the gauge has feedback. You don't know the water is too hot in your shower until it is simply too hot. You can eventually guess about where it is, but I still can't impeccably set my shower to the absolute best temp I want. That's the same with a water cooled engine, it starts out at a certain temp, needs to be adjusted as the engine warms up - too hot, open it up, too cold close it down. There is no percentage of open that will determine how to set them in this planes. You set close enough and then you adjust. So a percentage of open or close won't help you, only the gauges feedback will.

 

There is no tactile feedback, there is only checking the gauges and adjusting. Peripheral vision won't help you with that one either, you have to look directly at the gauge for that.

 

If you want a percentage of open for the cooling flaps/cowls to be open so you know you're good the entire flight - then truly the simplistic settings of Il-2 1946 or War Thunder will do that.

 

38% open radiator at 400km/h is way different than at 180km/h in a constant turn.

Edited July 22, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[Gambit21]

Sorry, that is not the way it works. You won't know with opening cooling flaps or valves until the gauge has feedback. You don't know the water is too hot in your shower until it is simply too hot. You can eventually guess about where it is, but I still can't impeccably set my shower to the absolute best temp I want. That's the same with a water cooled engine, it starts out at a certain temp, needs to be adjusted as the engine warms up - too hot, open it up, too cold close it down. There is no percentage of open that will determine how to set them in this planes. You set close enough and then you adjust. So a percentage of open or close won't help you, only the gauges feedback will.

 

There is no tactile feedback, there is only checking the gauges and adjusting. Peripheral vision won't help you with that one either, you have to look directly at the gauge for that.

 

If you want a percentage of open for the cooling flaps/cowls to be open so you know you're good the entire flight - then truly the simplistic settings of Il-2 1946 or War Thunder will do that.

 

38% open radiator at 400km/h is way different than at 180km/h in a constant turn.

I know what you're saying, I get it 100% - but you can't tell me the pilots didn't have a rough idea of where to have them set as a base line starting point.

I know that if I start off with the oil radiator 1/2 turn open, and the water radiator at 80%, (I can't remember how many turns that is) I'm more or less good no matter what happens.

 

In any case, you keep ignoring what I keep pointing out about having to look down, and the problems that poses looking through the square tunnelvision of the monitor as opposed

to real life - that's the real issue, and why the hud works as a sort of evener. I may have to watch the guage in real life, but at least I know how much I just turned the damn thing.

I may be just a tad hot, so I dont' want to turn it another 50% toward open. When pushing a button it's difficult to modulate that.

So the tactile point I made holds.

In a real plane your peripheral vision can take care of that, and you can keep your eye on the bandit. 

[=LD=Penshoon]

I know what you're saying, I get it 100% - but you can't tell me the pilots didn't have a rough idea of where to have them set as a base line starting point.

I know that if I start off with the oil radiator 1/2 turn open, and the water radiator at 80%, (I can't remember how many turns that is) I'm more or less good no matter what happens.

 

In any case, you keep ignoring what I keep pointing out about having to look down, and the problems that poses looking through the square tunnelvision of the monitor as opposed

to real life - that's the real issue, and why the hud works as a sort of evener. I may have to watch the guage in real life, but at least I know how much I just turned the damn thing.

I may be just a tad hot, so I dont' want to turn it another 50% toward open. When pushing a button it's difficult to modulate that.

So the tactile point I made holds.

In a real plane your peripheral vision can take care of that, and you can keep your eye on the bandit. 

I don't look at the wheel while adjusting the rads but at the gauges. You get an instant reaction on the gauges when you adjust the radiators. Sure it will take away your concentration while flying but I think this is another place when you can improve and get an edge in combat. 

 

You don't need to look at the volume dial when adjusting your headphone/speaker volume, you listen to the sound until it's loud enough, right? 

 

I guess the floating texts was needed in older sims where cockpits wasn't as detailed. But now the developers have animated these cockpits superbly and they aren't needed anymore. 

I guess you could save a snap view where you can see both the wheels and the gauges at the same time and bind this to a button if you need better visual feedback. 

 

If buttons lack the feedback you want then there are several peripherals that has rotaries you can use for this purpose. It might feel more intuitive to you, give it a bit more "feel".

Edited July 23, 2014 by =LD=Penshoon

[Gambit21]

I hear ya, but my main point is the looking down vs looking down in real life thing.

[Brano]

One example comes to my mind when flying SPAD in RoF.As lever for adjustment of radiator flaps is positioned in most stupid location on the left side under fuselage section it is almost impossible to check it visualy (you have to turn your head in very funny position) Thats why I rely only on what gauge is showing me.Too much,open more,too cold,shut it immediately.

LaGG and La5 has nice levers.Problem is with Yak and both oil and water radiators and Il2 water radiator (oil is OK).When in doubt if it is opened or closed,I just simply push to close it.If the wheel rotates,it means that it was in fact open.That simple.

[=38=Tatarenko]

Absolute easiest way is a CH Throttle Quadrant. Six levers so you can check by feel/glance how everything is set. Radiators, Oil rads, Cowling flaps, wheelbrakes, pitch, throttle.

[Brano]

easiest...maybe...cheapest....for sure not

[FuriousMeow]

In a real plane your peripheral vision can take care of that, and you can keep your eye on the bandit. 

 

Can you read your speedometer with your peripheral vision while driving down the highway? Mine is covered by a hood and in a shadow most of the time, I have to look down and see it. Even in this sim, staring forward with the gauges visible - I can't read the gauges with my perhiperal vision. Way too much is trusted to perhiperal vision for accurate feedback. Your peripheral is just a blur, your brain can only focus on the focal points - the rest it processes but it is not the immediate concern. Right now I have both my joystick and throttle in front of me, and I'll be damned if I can see at what "percentage" my throttle is at. It's dual throttle and I can only barely tell that the left throttle is advanced further than the right throttle and it is in my very direct peripheral vision. I have a 30" monitor in front of me and staring at the middle, I can't really tell too well what position the throttle is in - and those are clear indications of position, not the "steam valve wheels" of the Yak's cockpit (just for example) where there is no indication of what percentage it is at.

 

So I don't buy the peripheral vision bit, or the feel bit because it truly doesn't work. You can't be looking at your six, adjust your water radiator to 30% and have any tactile or peripheral feedback. You also can't do it looking up, or sideways or any other way but looking at the wheel that operates it but then it doesn't matter because the wheel has no indication if it is open 30% or 50% or whatever, but read on because the percentages of open/close don't matter.

 

It doesn't matter what percentage ANY of these wheels or sliders are at because they are variable as I said before. 30% water radiator doesn't mean the same thing at 100km/h as it does at 500km/h. You aren't going to know how fast you are going without looking at the gauges. Not to mention it also depends on altitude since the air tends to get colder as you get higher, so now you have both speed and altitude working against the percentage of open or close a system is. That's why you don't 100% get what I'm saying, the wheels or sliders or gypsy elf percentages don't matter - only the gauges do, and you can only read those by looking at them. So Expert setting, you should be an Expert and be able to read the gauges, adjust accordingly and move on. Percentages of open/close don't help, only the actual feedback on the gauges (or sound of the engine) do.

 

Looking down is looking down, you have to divert your attention and lose visual contact, and regain visual contact. That is why the automated systems of the German aircraft were such an advantage.

Edited July 24, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[Praetor]

Absolute easiest way is a CH Throttle Quadrant. Six levers so you can check by feel/glance how everything is set. Radiators, Oil rads, Cowling flaps, wheelbrakes, pitch, throttle.

 

And here I am stuck with a Warthog and only 3 axis on my throttle. Maybe I should trade it in.

[Gambit21]

Can you read your speedometer with your peripheral vision while driving down the highway?

The point is I can glance at it and my peripheral vision is still keeping me oriented - that's why some other indicator is more of an evener than a cheat or 'unrealistic'

 

When I glance at the speedometer in my car it's very quick (much quicker than I can manage in the sim with a monitor) and I'm still aware of everything around me.

Basically I can paste in everything I said above.

[dburne]

And here I am stuck with a Warthog and only 3 axis on my throttle. Maybe I should trade it in.

 

Or do what I did, add a CH Quadrant to compliment the Warthog!

[FuriousMeow]

The point is I can glance at it and my peripheral vision is still keeping me oriented - that's why some other indicator is more of an evener than a cheat or 'unrealistic'

 

When I glance at the speedometer in my car it's very quick (much quicker than I can manage in the sim with a monitor) and I'm still aware of everything around me.

Basically I can paste in everything I said above.

 

You got hung up on one thing and ignored the rest. No, HUD feedback does not belong in Expert mode. No, peripheral vision does not extend to reading gauges or percentages of operating wheels - perhiperal vision is just objects with no discernable finite details that gauges would have on the exterior of your focal point.

 

HUD feedback is fine, just belongs on custom or normal settings.

Edited July 25, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[Gambit21]

I can see both sides honestly.

[Praetor]

I agree Gambit.  Not sure how many of you fly in real life, but a major, major part of it is tactile response.  I'm constantly reaching down and adjusting trim while feeling the response in the control stick (trimming the pressure out, etc).  You can't get that in a computer sim.  There has to be compromises, much like the increased dot size at a distance to assist with visual identification.  If I'm flying in real life I can feel yaw trim out of balance in my legs and ass, that can't be reproduced in a game either.  

 

Without having those tactile markers, it's more difficult than real life.  Flying 500 hours in a plane, you would develop muscle memory for rad positioning.  It's not unrealistic to provide feedback for things like that. 

 

Speed and altitude, however, should not be available. 

[FuriousMeow]

I can see both sides honestly.

 

No, you must pick a side there is no other way! At least that's what the TV news has led me to believe.

[LLv32_mrkus]

I agree Gambit.  Not sure how many of you fly in real life, but a major, major part of it is tactile response.  I'm constantly reaching down and adjusting trim while feeling the response in the control stick (trimming the pressure out, etc).  You can't get that in a computer sim.  There has to be compromises, much like the increased dot size at a distance to assist with visual identification.  If I'm flying in real life I can feel yaw trim out of balance in my legs and ass, that can't be reproduced in a game either.  

 

Without having those tactile markers, it's more difficult than real life.  Flying 500 hours in a plane, you would develop muscle memory for rad positioning.  It's not unrealistic to provide feedback for things like that. 

 

Speed and altitude, however, should not be available.

This is the post i'v been waiting for and fully agree with. 

[Duckman]

I agree Gambit.  Not sure how many of you fly in real life, but a major, major part of it is tactile response.  I'm constantly reaching down and adjusting trim while feeling the response in the control stick (trimming the pressure out, etc).  You can't get that in a computer sim.  There has to be compromises, much like the increased dot size at a distance to assist with visual identification.  If I'm flying in real life I can feel yaw trim out of balance in my legs and ass, that can't be reproduced in a game either.  

 

Without having those tactile markers, it's more difficult than real life.  Flying 500 hours in a plane, you would develop muscle memory for rad positioning.  It's not unrealistic to provide feedback for things like that. 

 

Speed and altitude, however, should not be available. 

 

Good input, and fits with what I've read from other pilots who also play flight sims. I actually remember one real life A-10 pilot on SimHQ who said he preferred Ace Combat on the Playstation because the flying felt more realistic that the "hardcore" sims with all their restrictions, and although that may a bit extreme I get the feeling he has a point.

 

As for muscle memory, we (or at least I) are switching types several times in a session whereas a real pilot would fly the same type and learn where all the knobs and dials are. 

 

I'm not sure I get you about speed and altitude. Surely you can get a feel of the speed from sitting in the aircraft and a good idea of the altitude from glancing out? I am amazed at the level of detail you can see, and the level of depth perception you get, just from looking out the small pasenger window in an airliner.