PDA

View Full Version : Clickable cockpit



blackpulpit1970
11-02-2005, 12:01 PM
How cool would this game be if it had a clickable functioning cockpit similiar to the one used on the game falcon:allied force. Push a button to start the engine,set rad,arm guns etc. Just bored and thought i would put that out there.

neural_dream
11-02-2005, 12:27 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gifBurn him. Heretic. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

BaldieJr
11-02-2005, 12:27 PM
Whats so cool about it? I still dont under stand the attraction.

Estocade85
11-02-2005, 12:36 PM
A clickable pit WITH an actual 3D hand flipping switches and holding the stick.

HoneySeeker
11-02-2005, 12:39 PM
Not very?

LEXX_Luthor
11-02-2005, 12:50 PM
Keyboard is more realistic in modelling real pilot cockpit panel usage. Real pilots could feel their way around the cockpit panel without looking, and Click Cockpit forces you to always look and click while you stop flying the plane to Find and Click.

Dew-Claw
11-02-2005, 01:37 PM
What we need is a clickable joystick, so we can click and hold it...fly that way.[/sarcasm]

Chuck_Older
11-02-2005, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by Estocade85:
A clickable pit WITH an actual 3D hand flipping switches and holding the stick.

The very, very, mark my words, the very first time your virtual hand blocked a gauge you needed to see, it wouldn't be quite so cool

Until there is a way to simulate the pilot shifting in the seat, inclining his head, and moving his eyes, the virtual pilot body will restrict the view of the player.

Virtual pilot=gimmick
clickable cockpit=gimmick

It's a cool novelty that would take away from the function of the sim

That's my opinion of course but my opinion is more valid than anyone else's, so there http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

MEGILE
11-02-2005, 02:04 PM
Clickable Cockpit is good in F4:AF when I can't remember the key combination... just click in the cockpit.
BIt of a novelty though, and something I could live without.. especialy as clickable cockpits take so long to make.

msalama
11-02-2005, 02:24 PM
Could be a switchable option like many others. Gimmick or not.

Call_me_Kanno
11-02-2005, 04:04 PM
Try the clicking thing in a sim that supports TrackIR such as FS9. It ain't easy to do.

The-Pizza-Man
11-02-2005, 05:10 PM
A clickable cockpit is the only thing that makes FS9 possible. It would be bloody impossible trying to remember all the key presses for various aircraft systems. The fact that we don't need a clickable cockpit shows how simplified the the operation of the aircraft is. Starting the engine for example, you don't have to worry about magnetos, master switchs, priming or the other half a dozzen things in the checklist. Nor do we have to worry about which fuel tank is selected.

If they want to bump up the complexity of the sim they will have to include a clickable cockpit at some stage.

Something I'd like to see that is in FS9 and CFS3 is when you hover over an instrument it gives you its reading. This could be really helpful in FB.

BelaLvgosi
11-02-2005, 05:17 PM
Very well put. Some would really enjoy the fun of 20min procedures to start their machines (I know it's not for everyone!).

LEXX_Luthor
11-02-2005, 05:31 PM
Yes, FS9 is a detailed machine simulator, and offers no air warfare simulation.

blackpulpit1970
11-02-2005, 06:00 PM
Ok i thought all of 5 minutes about it and even that was to long, forget what i said it would be stupid...move along..nothing more to see hear. I doused myself in lamp oil and lit a match.

Chuck_Older
11-02-2005, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:

If they want to bump up the complexity of the sim they will have to include a clickable cockpit at some stage.



Why? I see over a hundred keys on my keryboard. I don't understand how a complex management system can't be done on a keyboard. I also don't agree that it would be "impossible" or even difficult, to remember the correct keystrokes

Going through a checklist may be an aspect of the sim we simply can't use because of simplified controls, but then again, with no system failures, why do I need to check mag drop, anyway? I don't have to run at full power for 5 minutes every hour in a P-51 to clean the plugs, and I sure don't get a rough engine from plug fouling

I also disagree that having the reading hoevering over a gauge is useful. let me tell you a story:

I have a friend who used to be a Nuke (nuclear powerplant operator and technician) on the Teddy Roosevelt, a US aircraft carrier

He tells me that the gauges on the reactor monitoring stations were predominantly sweep hand gauges- not digital readouts. Why? because you have to actually read a digital readout. With a sweep hand gauge, you can glance at it and tell if the system is in the safe or problem areas

I loathe the idea of having to use the mouse to select a switch. Can you imagine fiddling with the Zero's hydraulic system using the mouse? "Wait, oh sh*t, is it in neutral or is it engaged? How much pressure is in the system? I can't read it, I'll move the cursor to the gauge...It's...oh cr*p the wheels fell out of the wells again! Oleg, why did you screw up the Zero's landing gear!? get it right next time. I can't lock my gear" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Bearcat99
11-02-2005, 06:49 PM
I'm with Chuck on this one.... Besides.. I have the next best thing. With my HOTAS setup of a MSFFB2/X-45/CH pedals/TIR2/VAC I more or less have a virtual cockpit..it is just spread out on my desk. I only toiuch my keyboard to type... or to toggle Icons or speedbar.. every other function is on one of my sticks.

Chuck_Older
11-02-2005, 07:02 PM
I hadn't really considered that, Bear, but I agree- with the proper setup on the HOTAS, I should be able to write a profile that covers most things, using the Aux switch and the M1 M2 and M3 positions.

I just took a glance at my F-51 handbook, and there are 91 controls, switches and dials in the cockpit- and that includes things like cockpit heat and the signal flaregun mount. Between my keyboard, my X-45 throttle, and my stick with two hat switches, I should be covered for all the actual controls- if I take the time to write a good profile for the HOTAS, which is, admittedly, not exactly an exercise in intuition. It can be a big pain in the *ss

But since a HOTAS and pedals are starting to become minimum requirements for flight simming anyway, I wonder if this problem of too many controls has already been addressed and we just aren't using the tools we have to the fullest. I know I'm not, I made one profile for my X-45, it worked for about a year and it became corrupted so I trashed it

Kuna15
11-02-2005, 07:42 PM
(C)FS like...? Well I don't really care since this one is enough for me.
Like Chuck pointed out, keyboard must be enough for all functions. Now if we are talking about simulation of modern air warfare, I'm not sure (I haven't flew any jet sim seriously enough to make any kind of bold statement) but in that case I suppose it would be good to have clickable cockpit.

WWSensei
11-02-2005, 07:42 PM
I'd prefer if they would expend the effort in making devicelink more efficient and robust so I could use my actual flight control panels rather than a clickable cockpit.

FritzGryphon
11-02-2005, 07:51 PM
Oleg once commented on this topic, saying that they will avoid clickable cockpit in BoB. For the reasons mentioned here.

In my case, I agree. I remember playing Falcon 4 some decade ago, and never had much use for it.

I used clickable OSBs, and the Master Jettison button. And only because I ran out of keyboard keys. Otherwise, keys are much faster and intuitive, and you won't run out of them in a prop sim.

The-Pizza-Man
11-03-2005, 12:36 AM
It's interesting that you think they are more intuitive. Faster, yes they are, once you learn them, but intuitive no.

Clickable cockpits are good because you can get the plane into the air without having to first remember all of the keys. You can just jump into it and identify the important controls and get off the ground.

I don't see why having a digital read out when you hover over the gauge is a bad thing. You still have the gauge and can get a rough reading by just glancing at it, but sometimes you might have a slow oil leak and you want to see if your oil pressure is dropping slowly, something you can't really tell all that well unless you watch the gauge for a long time.

FS9 is actually pretty light as a proceedure simulator. It has the main ones and works pretty well for light planes but it doesn't really simulate the heavies all that well, there are a few payware addons though that do a remarkably good job.

TooCooL34
11-03-2005, 12:42 AM
Click cockipit..with mouse? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif
I'd be happy if I can manipulate levers and nobs with my real hands but mouse..? no thank you.
Where's cool in it?

Capt.LoneRanger
11-03-2005, 01:26 AM
Clickable cockpits are a differnt step if immersion, but for a WW2 sim they're not really neccessary.

In F4 I use (!) it a lot. It's just WAY cooler to switch all levers manually before taking off, than just pressing a few keys. Of course you can controll 90% of F4s functions with keycombinations, but it just feels different.

In flight that might be different, as you seldomly have the time to grab the mouse, change view and click the neccessary buttons/levers in time.

In FS9 it's even better, especially in larger planes or helos. It simply feels more real to look up, push the neccessary buttons in the correct order and start the engines that way, than just hitting a key on the keyboard and "wrrooom", engines running. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Professor_06
11-03-2005, 02:22 AM
Well you can break this community into to three separate categories. Category 1 is the model builders. They like to count rivets. Make sure every bolt and seam is in its place. Every lever, button and gauge are properly designed. They examine paints schemes and color codes to ensure they are correct. Decals are in the right location and represent the right historical design. They are a minority.

Then, you have your players. By far this is the vast majority of persons who enjoy this game. They don€t count rivets. Not uninterested in cauges and levers and have very little knowledge or interest of mechanics and design. They are unaware of engineering and historical technology. They like flight models and damage models and they like shooting guns and watching things blowup. They€re not interested in actually learning how to fly or to learn how to operate machinery. They will tell you otherwise but they are lying. They love 3D only pits and think 2D clickable pits are Gimmicks. (Just dang falluting fancy college boy gimmicks)

Then you have your final group of persons who are a bit like tech head history buffs. They are interested in military aviation and general aviation history. They are interested in how planes operate precisely how to operate them, they love the historical technology of aviation. They like levers, switches and gauges. They are interested in learning how to actually fly. These are also a clear minority. I consider myself to be in this group. I like 2d clickable cockpits. 2d cockpits are easy to read. Three-dimensional cockpits are impossible to get any information from. I like to manipulate the switches and levers, read info from gauges. Operate the throttled, Trim, prop pitch etc etc. Like to click the light switches and operate the fuel selection knobs. I like flying flight simulator 2004 with wings of power add on. Also x-plane and Falcon AP or SP4. The best P51 or. P47 on the market are the WOP for FS 2004. http://www.simflight.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7157

Cant blow anything up but you can fly the slot in a perfectly modeled P47 with a near perfect cockpit. Not a gimmick, just fun. I like to blow things up too but thats not why I play. Anyway you will neve see 2d cockpit. too expensive. Olegs does the best 3Ds anywhere. & the new 3Ds will be amazing ; but for heavies he should consicer 2D. My opinion

Lucius_Esox
11-03-2005, 04:46 AM
Think clickable cockpit's would rob resources away from other more important things in IL2. This isn't that sort of sim.

Il2 is more abour fm's and dm's (ahem) and looking nice..

marc_hawkins
11-03-2005, 07:47 AM
I too have far too much to do with my hands as it is. Please insert suitable innuendo here.

Chuck_Older
11-03-2005, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:

I don't see why having a digital read out when you hover over the gauge is a bad thing. You still have the gauge and can get a rough reading by just glancing at it, but sometimes you might have a slow oil leak and you want to see if your oil pressure is dropping slowly, something you can't really tell all that well unless you watch the gauge for a long time.

.

If your oil pressure is dropping slowly, it's dropping slowly. You'd still have to watch the gauge. I can't agree with you. The gauge still has to be monitored, regardless of analog or digital. The digital readout offers no advantage in this situation

I think the problem with you not being able to visualise the difference or the advantage/disadvantage is because you've never really seen it. You have to actually read a digital read-out (hence the term, read-out), but a glance at a gauge tells you where the needle is. That's why gauges usually have red zones. This is why race cars typically have the redline at 12 o'clock on the gauge. You don't have to actually read the gauge, you can just glance at it, literally glance at it for a fraction of a second. A digital read-out with numbers must be read. Try it sometime. I can gaurantee you that you can get info from sweep gauges faster than from digital ones. It's the difference between reading a number, and looking at a relationship. For real, try it out sometime.

As far as the cockpit being easier to click, I think you're overlooking that with a clickable cockpit, true, you don't have to memorize keystrokes- BUT- you do have to learn where every gauge and control is by heart. It's six of one, half a dozen of another in this case. using my A6M example again, with it's non-simplistic real landing gear system, in which the handle must be returned to a position to allow pressure to build at one point, and to allow pressure to by-pass at another, I can't see how this is handled with a point and click

Chuck_Older
11-03-2005, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by Professor_06:
Well you can break this community into to three separate categories. Category 1 is the model builders. They like to count rivets. Make sure every bolt and seam is in its place. Every lever, button and gauge are properly designed. They examine paints schemes and color codes to ensure they are correct. Decals are in the right location and represent the right historical design. They are a minority.

Then, you have your players. By far this is the vast majority of persons who enjoy this game. They don€t count rivets. Not uninterested in cauges and levers and have very little knowledge or interest of mechanics and design. They are unaware of engineering and historical technology. They like flight models and damage models and they like shooting guns and watching things blowup. They€re not interested in actually learning how to fly or to learn how to operate machinery. They will tell you otherwise but they are lying. They love 3D only pits and think 2D clickable pits are Gimmicks. (Just dang falluting fancy college boy gimmicks)

Then you have your final group of persons who are a bit like tech head history buffs. They are interested in military aviation and general aviation history. They are interested in how planes operate precisely how to operate them, they love the historical technology of aviation. They like levers, switches and gauges. They are interested in learning how to actually fly. These are also a clear minority. I consider myself to be in this group. I like 2d clickable cockpits. 2d cockpits are easy to read. Three-dimensional cockpits are impossible to get any information from. I like to manipulate the switches and levers, read info from gauges. Operate the throttled, Trim, prop pitch etc etc. Like to click the light switches and operate the fuel selection knobs. I like flying flight simulator 2004 with wings of power add on. Also x-plane and Falcon AP or SP4. The best P51 or. P47 on the market are the WOP for FS 2004. http://www.simflight.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7157

Cant blow anything up but you can fly the slot in a perfectly modeled P47 with a near perfect cockpit. Not a gimmick, just fun. I like to blow things up too but thats not why I play. Anyway you will neve see 2d cockpit. too expensive. Olegs does the best 3Ds anywhere. & the new 3Ds will be amazing ; but for heavies he should consicer 2D. My opinion

Cannot agree with the categories assumption

willyvic
11-03-2005, 11:57 AM
I agree with the thinking that cockpit clicking has its place. Unfortunately, IL2 is probably not it. It is, after all, a shoot em up flight game. If not by design then most certainly by limitation. It serves its purpose well. There are other platforms more conducive to procedural immersion. IE; FS9, F4, et al.

x6BL_Brando
11-03-2005, 12:45 PM
From a rather biased point of view (I don't have a right arm) I would hate a move to clickable gauges & instruments http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif As an option perhaps, but a change to the system would end my chances if I had to operate mixture, supercharger, flaps, landing-gear and all the rest of it using the mouse. I have TrackIR, so I wouldn't have to deal with mouse-panning (anyone thought of THAT little problem?) but I couldn't be taking my hand off the stick to go clicking around the cockpit looking for digital read-outs and so on.

Disability aside I still agree with Chuck Older - there is nothing wrong with the analogue gauges, and they are much easier to read at a quick glance, both in this game and in real life. Not to mention the fact that digital read-outs weren't a feature of WW2 warbirds, so why include them in a simulation of the same?

Clicking a mouse in a cockpit is no different from hitting a keyboard combo or a stick-mapped command = a computer shortcut to reaching out and operating a control. Getting antsy about how that's done is rivet-counting at its best, imo.

Chuck_Older
11-03-2005, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by willyvic:
I agree with the thinking that cockpit clicking has its place. Unfortunately, IL2 is probably not it. It is, after all, a shoot em up flight game. If not by design then most certainly by limitation. It serves its purpose well. There are other platforms more conducive to procedural immersion. IE; FS9, F4, et al.

two things:


First: your avatar is a strange red and green now. Is it corrupted? I don't recall green before. Just a heads-up

Second: Shoot em up...tsk tsk. Crimson Skies, Zaxxon, or X-Wing this ain't. Exaggeration is fine and good, but you need to draw a line, you know? We both know there is a lot more going on in this game than with a shoot em up. Come on, now

The-Pizza-Man
11-03-2005, 11:49 PM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
If your oil pressure is dropping slowly, it's dropping slowly. You'd still have to watch the gauge. I can't agree with you. The gauge still has to be monitored, regardless of analog or digital. The digital readout offers no advantage in this situation

I think the problem with you not being able to visualise the difference or the advantage/disadvantage is because you've never really seen it. You have to actually read a digital read-out (hence the term, read-out), but a glance at a gauge tells you where the needle is. That's why gauges usually have red zones. This is why race cars typically have the redline at 12 o'clock on the gauge. You don't have to actually read the gauge, you can just glance at it, literally glance at it for a fraction of a second. A digital read-out with numbers must be read. Try it sometime. I can gaurantee you that you can get info from sweep gauges faster than from digital ones. It's the difference between reading a number, and looking at a relationship. For real, try it out sometime.

As far as the cockpit being easier to click, I think you're overlooking that with a clickable cockpit, true, you don't have to memorize keystrokes- BUT- you do have to learn where every gauge and control is by heart. It's six of one, half a dozen of another in this case. using my A6M example again, with it's non-simplistic real landing gear system, in which the handle must be returned to a position to allow pressure to build at one point, and to allow pressure to by-pass at another, I can't see how this is handled with a point and click

You can watch the gauge for a far shorter period of time. It might be difficult to notice a drop in pressure of 1 lb/sq" on a gauge in a sim, but with a digital readout you will notice a drop like that easily. Trust me it offers an advantage, when I used to play CFS3, it was much quicker to check for a dropping oil pressure this way.

You also still have the gauge, it's not like all the steam gauges are replaced with an EICAS panel full of digital readouts. All it does is make up for loss of resolution you get because it's displayed on a monitor. It is a lot like the wide FOV setting we have now.

While you have to find out where a button or lever is in a clickable cockpit, it is far easier to do this than it is do randomly press keys in the hope of finding the right one. You also forget that every switch and lever in the cockpit has a label. You should try the freeware hurricane that came out for FS9 earlier this year. It has quite a complex hydaulics set up that is completely operable in a clickable and dragable virtual cockpit.

msalama
11-04-2005, 12:06 AM
We both know there is a lot more going on in this game than with a shoot em up.

Yeah, and taking this line of reasoning further there definitely could be even more, like optional clickable cockpits f.e. System failures etc. should also be modelled, all of which would add to the immersion (well for some at least).

Won't happen, I know, because most players aren't into it. And 1C probably wouldn't want to put more development resources into a sim they're phasing out anyway, even if a need for such an addendum existed. Case closed, in other words...

x6BL_Brando
11-04-2005, 02:10 AM
You can watch the gauge for a far shorter period of time

This is surely the point? When I'm travelling at high speed on my m/cycle (akin to dogfighting when close to towns) I don't spend my time staring at the dash. The analog dials - mph, rpm, oil pressure, water temp, ammeter, fuel - and the warning lights - ABS, back-light out, charging light, ignition - can be read out in the blink of an eye, without losing sight of the red pimp-wagon who fancies a dice, or the guy who's arguing with his wife while attempting a dodgy overtake. I.e. The important things about driving and arriving home safely.

Also there's a big point here about realism and digital readouts. Not only were they not available in the time these planes flew - but they were very erratic in the presence of turbulence and engine vibration. It's very unlikely that you could spot a 1 lb/sq" drop in oil pressure using the instruments of the day....the needles flutter too much for that.


with a digital readout you will notice a drop like that easily. Trust me it offers an advantage, when I used to play CFS3, it was much quicker to check for a dropping oil pressure this way.

Oh, so it's not actually about realism then? Whats wrong with scanning the gauges using a FOV increment close to gunsight view and changing the increments back as you raise your virtual eyes? This is far more akin to the reality of the time than opening little boxes with a mouse cursor.

csThor
11-04-2005, 02:40 AM
I'm finding clickable cockpits anything but intuitive. When playing Falcon4 (for a very short time) I found the click-orgies in the cockpit to be a large source of frustration.

To me the better solution is to have plane-specific keyboard and joystick layouts to accurately represent the aircraft systems. My 0,02 " ...

willyvic
11-04-2005, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by willyvic:
I agree with the thinking that cockpit clicking has its place. Unfortunately, IL2 is probably not it. It is, after all, a shoot em up flight game. If not by design then most certainly by limitation. It serves its purpose well. There are other platforms more conducive to procedural immersion. IE; FS9, F4, et al.

two things:


First: your avatar is a strange red and green now. Is it corrupted? I don't recall green before. Just a heads-up

Second: Shoot em up...tsk tsk. Crimson Skies, Zaxxon, or X-Wing this ain't. Exaggeration is fine and good, but you need to draw a line, you know? We both know there is a lot more going on in this game than with a shoot em up. Come on, now </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


First: Looks okie dokey here.

Second:
I Stand by my assertion with an explanation. I was/am speaking of one arena only. My apologies for not making it clear in my initial post.

It was not by design that an online death match atmosphere evolved. It was by limitation of the consequences for the death match mentality that drove it in that direction. Spawn, shoot, kill or be killed is the name of the game in most DF rooms. Limitation on map sizes only adds to the issue. COOP and online wars also suffer from the map issue imo.

I do not hold this game to be of the caliber of CC, Xwing and the like. However, many online DFs share some likeness to an FPS with the absence of a sense of goals, the devil may care flying, and the lack of teamwork (to name a few).

I do recognize that offline the game is a different animal entirely.

Being, by far imho, the best FS offered to our small niche is an achievement worthy of praise and my opinion is not presented with tongue in cheek. But this game is not without discrepancies and I fear it will never reach its full potential.

Always good to chat with ya,
WV.

Chuck_Older
11-04-2005, 02:53 PM
Your avatar looks fine now. The white parts were bleeding green yesterday. Must have been on my end


I can see now that you mean how the game is used as AirQuake rather than designed. I didn't understand you before http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Chuck_Older
11-04-2005, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
If your oil pressure is dropping slowly, it's dropping slowly. You'd still have to watch the gauge. I can't agree with you. The gauge still has to be monitored, regardless of analog or digital. The digital readout offers no advantage in this situation

I think the problem with you not being able to visualise the difference or the advantage/disadvantage is because you've never really seen it. You have to actually read a digital read-out (hence the term, read-out), but a glance at a gauge tells you where the needle is. That's why gauges usually have red zones. This is why race cars typically have the redline at 12 o'clock on the gauge. You don't have to actually read the gauge, you can just glance at it, literally glance at it for a fraction of a second. A digital read-out with numbers must be read. Try it sometime. I can gaurantee you that you can get info from sweep gauges faster than from digital ones. It's the difference between reading a number, and looking at a relationship. For real, try it out sometime.

As far as the cockpit being easier to click, I think you're overlooking that with a clickable cockpit, true, you don't have to memorize keystrokes- BUT- you do have to learn where every gauge and control is by heart. It's six of one, half a dozen of another in this case. using my A6M example again, with it's non-simplistic real landing gear system, in which the handle must be returned to a position to allow pressure to build at one point, and to allow pressure to by-pass at another, I can't see how this is handled with a point and click

You can watch the gauge for a far shorter period of time. It might be difficult to notice a drop in pressure of 1 lb/sq" on a gauge in a sim, but with a digital readout you will notice a drop like that easily. Trust me it offers an advantage, when I used to play CFS3, it was much quicker to check for a dropping oil pressure this way.

You also still have the gauge, it's not like all the steam gauges are replaced with an EICAS panel full of digital readouts. All it does is make up for loss of resolution you get because it's displayed on a monitor. It is a lot like the wide FOV setting we have now.

While you have to find out where a button or lever is in a clickable cockpit, it is far easier to do this than it is do randomly press keys in the hope of finding the right one. You also forget that every switch and lever in the cockpit has a label. You should try the freeware hurricane that came out for FS9 earlier this year. It has quite a complex hydaulics set up that is completely operable in a clickable and dragable virtual cockpit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, this just goes to show that one man's nectar is another man's poison.

I really like the complexity and feel of the latest FS, where attention to detail is everything in regards to piloting- yanking a stick is just a small part of the sim- but oh God does the POV make me feel dizzy. Actually physically disoriented. It's as if a 3D environment was mapped in 2D and then converted back to 3D to me. One of the biggest pluses to me in this sim is that the POV really seems right, everything is in proper spacial relation

maybe with the freeware Hurri it will be better, I'll check it out http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif