PDA

View Full Version : Cockpits and lack therof



Daiichidoku
11-04-2005, 07:15 PM

LEXX_Luthor
11-04-2005, 10:34 PM
No. A better idea is to modify existing cockpits for related AI types -- if possible, and it may not be possible for all.

The best idea for FB/PF:: If time and resources are lacking, then we need new cockpits using the newer grafix methods but simple Detail like we see in original FB 1.0 cockpits. Also, dump some bomber crew stations.

So, I had to Vote NO http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif but only on technicality, otherwise I have Compassion and Tolerance for your Pain and Anguish. Keep thinking though!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

JG54_Lukas
11-05-2005, 12:23 AM
That's never going to happen. Oleg has and will continue to maintain the high standards he has for modeling cockpits and aircraft. That's the way he wants it, and I fully support him 100%. "There are already inaccurate things in FB/PF" is a poor argument for your idea.

Daiichidoku
11-05-2005, 06:22 PM
lexx, you should know, my pain and anguish is derived as a result of my thinking http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
overmodelled imagination
undermodelled brain


id liek to to battle of france P 36s, moranes vs emils n 110cs

or kill bunkers, tanks, small ships n buildings in one go with 75mm mitchell

how much of the inaccuracies will one see with narrow FOV whist blasting tgts?

how much would be see or noticed in WW view?


i want to run the gauntlet in my me 323 elefant! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

Daiichidoku
11-05-2005, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by JG54_Lukas:
That's never going to happen. Oleg has and will continue to maintain the high standards he has for modeling cockpits and aircraft. That's the way he wants it, and I fully support him 100%. "There are already inaccurate things in FB/PF" is a poor argument for your idea.


yes, its poor, but a slight one, at that

the main thing is being able to fly more and different types, and to open up more scenarios, for the enjoyment of those not-quite-so-anal about a few tits n knobs 3.4 cm to the right or left


as for the high standards maintained in FB cockpits...yes, they are generally good....but take a VERY close look in the (ugh 185) excellent 185 pit...
notice the marking on one of the levers....seee where it says "maddox"?...historical?

JG54_Lukas
11-05-2005, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:

the main thing is being able to fly more and different types, and to open up more scenarios, for the enjoyment of those not-quite-so-anal about a few tits n knobs 3.4 cm to the right or left


as for the high standards maintained in FB cockpits...yes, they are generally good....but take a VERY close look in the (ugh 185) excellent 185 pit...
notice the marking on one of the levers....seee where it says "maddox"?...historical?

If you knew anything about cockpit modeling, you would know it's not about "a few tits n knobs." It's a HELL of a lot more than that.

As for the I-185, the story behind that cockpit texture (and the whole reason for the plane being modeled in the first place) is in one of the readme files.

Daiichidoku
11-05-2005, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by JG54_Lukas:
If you knew anything about cockpit modeling, you would know it's not about "a few tits n knobs." It's a HELL of a lot more than that.

As for the I-185, the story behind that cockpit texture (and the whole reason for the plane being modeled in the first place) is in one of the readme files.

sir, i know NOTHING about cockpit modelling, aside that it seems 1C will no longer accept any cockpits
this is behind my reasoning, that if no more cockpits are to be accpeted, why not just use the ones that have few differences between models, or even take it further to totally unrelated pits, to maximize playability of the game, at least for those who either fly WW views, or couldnt give a rats posterior about things from basic pit config being only somewhat different, to all out mismatched pits

what makes the pits in the ki43 SO much more different than the ki 43 IIIs?...of course, correct my mistake if it is one, but i suspect there would not be any major differences



i have certainly read the 185 readme...still cant figure what the bigger joke is, the readme or the DM/FM (including a like wing loading as a 190, yet unlike turn perf http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif)...uncomfortable throttle lever my a s s ....and i sure wish to heck Oleg had a friend who's grandfather flew a P 38 or P 47 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif


anyhow, lets not get into that

i merely contend that many would enjoy having some or most AI types flyable for use off or online in many situations, and that it would not have to be forced or necessary to be used by anyone perferring not, to, and that it maybe, as i do not know anything of programming, cockpit building, etc, a very simple, quick and easy task for Oleg/1C to accomplish http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

JG54_Lukas
11-06-2005, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
and that it maybe, as i do not know anything of programming, cockpit building, etc, a very simple, quick and easy task for Oleg/1C to accomplish http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Well, you just answered your own inquiry right there. It is NOT a quick and easy task. And besides that, it's simply NOT the way Oleg goes about his business - he's not going to release half-assed work. You can ask him a hundred times to grant your request, and 100 times the answer will be no.

Grue_
11-07-2005, 04:08 AM
I play FS2004 a bit and have bought the RealAir Spitfire XIV and SF260.

The quality of these models (especially the 3D cockpits) makes all other similar models seem very poor and I stopped using them.

Starting with BoB I'd like to see much more quality control with the aircraft models and would be willing to pay a modest amount for patches that contain new aircraft to reflect the amount of work that goes into them.

This will hopefully filter out some of the fantasy planes that have made it into the sim and cause pointless arguments.

VonShlagnoff
11-07-2005, 09:42 AM
I voted yes, the pro's definatly out weigh the cons. Even if you had a generic cockpit for each engine layout it woul; mean that planes that should have been included from the start or even in the expasion packs can be flown on and off line.

If anyone feels that the quality of the game would be reduced then they should revisit some of the pits that have made it into the game, the pzl and the 153 strike me as particularly blocky and poorly drawn, especially when compared to the J8a.

Also if anyone wants to complain about the F/M being incomplete for many AI planes, then I ask you this, why then is it ok in campaigns for aircraft with complete F/Ms to fly against aircraft that have incomplete F/Ms surely that in itself is not fair.

And ofcourse there is always the arguement that if you dont like it dont fly it, no one is suggesting that if this is even cfonsidered that it will install defaults that will detract from current gameplay.

And who's idea was it that you could have an eastern european sim without any Russiam multi engine types or the Ju88 and the Fw 189, or the aces expansion without a B17 or B24. Or the pitiful P/F plane set, I mean whoever let that get out needs shooting, I'm so glad that I ran it as an expansion pack and it was not my first 1C purchase.

Stigler_9_JG52
11-07-2005, 10:55 AM
As long as we know the flight models themselves are badly compromised, the "historical accuracy" thing doesn't have a leg to stand on. Shouldn't be anything wrong with using existing pits for the same family of aircraft, surely.

The bigger question is whether you'd want to allow a "similar" pit to fill in for a plane when you know it would not be at all accurate. I'd draw the line there, I suppose.

Daiichidoku
11-07-2005, 07:42 PM
Stig, would you care if, say, i could fly the Me 323 with X cockpit, to deliver supplies to Rommel, while you fly your spitfire, with accurate spit pit, to kill me?

wherein lies the problem, if no-one forces anyone to fly with a "false" pit?

just makes more human-controlled tgts for everyone else to shoot at, and that cant be a bad thing

not to mention how many ppl fly WW view, where there can be no arguement about "accuracy"



i can certainly see that some want accuracy up to the hilt....
but lets face it, currently, the AI types in FB will never be flyable, and having them ever after be more or less eye candy flitting about between waypoints, kill stealing and making silly, totally unrealistic tactical judgements is not getting out of the game, and what work has been already done creating the AI type what COULD be

LEXX_Luthor
11-07-2005, 08:26 PM
Okay I admit; alternative cockpits works fairly well for StrikeFighters, but can also be frustrating in that many times the "closest" pit you can find does not match the plane well. But at least that plane becomes Flyable--otherwise I would never have bothered with StrikeFighters. You know how hard it is to find 3rd Party modders or even Developers willing to make even a simple Yak-25 cockpit? I have to use the very nice but simple 3rd Party F-94 cockpit although with changes to radar performance, etc...

Butt...making AI planes Flyable even with an existing alternative cockpit still requires Oleg to do some programming, and I think its a bit late now for FB/PF and we must move toward BoB And Beyond, unless the official 3rd Party that may take FB/PF later is willing to do this. Flying that Me-323 does sound very interesting indeed.

However, any 3rd Party group doing this will be sorely tempted to add a plane and use an alternative cockpit and "get away" with it as in 3rd Party StrikeFighters planes. There are ups and downs with this and the best method is using simplified "correct" cockpits. The 3rd Party Lancaster cockpit is ~very~ simple, but it is correct as far as the detail goes and best, its a Lancaster pit!

JG54_Lukas
11-08-2005, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by VonShlagnoff:
If anyone feels that the quality of the game would be reduced then they should revisit some of the pits that have made it into the game, the pzl and the 153 strike me as particularly blocky and poorly drawn, especially when compared to the J8a.

The PZL P.11 was one of the first 3rd-party planes to make into the game, way back in the pre-FB days. The standards (e.g., poly/texture count) are not what they are for the game today. As for the I-153, that's the first complaint I've ever heard about it.

Also if anyone wants to complain about the F/M being incomplete for many AI planes, then I ask you this, why then is it ok in campaigns for aircraft with complete F/Ms to fly against aircraft that have incomplete F/Ms surely that in itself is not fair.


And who's idea was it that you could have an eastern european sim without any Russiam multi engine types or the Ju88 and the Fw 189, or the aces expansion without a B17 or B24. Or the pitiful P/F plane set, I mean whoever let that get out needs shooting, I'm so glad that I ran it as an expansion pack and it was not my first 1C purchase.

Hello? TB-3? Not to mention the amount of work it takes to model multi-crew planes. That, in itself, is a major reason for the lack of more multi-crew/engine aircraft. Take the Pe-2 & 3, for instance: it's a multi-crew plane and finding complete, accurate cockpit info for it is very hard to find (read: it's mostly been found in the former USSR).

The B-17s and B-24 are long-range strategic bombers. For them to work in FB/PF, you would need either (a) larger maps for them or (b) accept that airstarts for them would be a reality.

LEXX_Luthor
11-08-2005, 01:09 AM
I ~love~ my TB-3 (THANKS LUTHIER!!) but SB is more important for Eastern Front.

<span class="ev_code_yellow">Lukas</span>::
Hello? TB-3? Not to mention the amount of work it takes to model multi-crew planes. That, in itself, is a major reason for the lack of more multi-crew/engine aircraft. Take the Pe-2 & 3, for instance: it's a multi-crew plane and finding complete, accurate cockpit info for it is very hard to find
Major Reason (1) for lack of bombers is the use of artificial Detail added to make FB/PF cockpits *look* competitive with other flight sims (...and create Artistic Reputation in the professional aviation community). If the Detail resources and modding time is available, this is not a bad idea, but we are not always so blessed with resources.

Major Reason (2) for lack of bombers is modding all bomber crew stations when they don't have to if they can't find resources providing the exact artificial Detail. IL-2 Field Mod for example has NO playable gunner position. The simming community would prefer an approximate Detail as good as resources allow for Field Mod gunner that is more realistic than No Detail at all.

Daiichidoku
11-08-2005, 01:26 AM
scary, Lexx...your not only agreeing with me, but actually coming over from the dark side to do it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

even worse...you have sfp1 too?
cool! i gotta get it patched up so we can have a date in HL....

wish i could find a copy of WOV though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif



@Lukas...we have "strategic", long range P 51s that flew as far as 17s and 24s in ETO...not even counting the shuttle flights into USSR....

they work just fine in FB, and with airstarts, in spite of not having super large maps...YOU wanna fly 4+hours just to get near JP mainland tgts escorting B 29s?

if FB doesnt have big enuffs maps, why bother having drop tank options for 51s, 38s etc

i think most ppl that fly, say, 51 missions that airstart PREFER that to taking off, climbing, cruising, et al

and the viermots were not STRICTLY LR strategic bombers anyhow....ever hear about D-Day and the weeks leading up to it? East Anglia to Normandy is hardly long range

Daiichidoku
11-08-2005, 01:29 AM
btw, who said necessarily that the bombers should have gunner stations too?

personally, i would be happy with just being able to pilot a 17, 24, 323, Ju 52, whatever, and let AI gunners to that stuff

be nicer to have a generic or "borrowed" gunner station for th eAI stuff....but need only be a pilot, anyhow

Daiichidoku
11-08-2005, 01:31 AM
Lexx, you go and change your vote now!http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

LEXX_Luthor
11-08-2005, 02:10 AM
Sorry Daiich, no Vote change here. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif We need simple but correct cockpits as good as can be made with available resources and available time -- like TB-3 cockpit and gunner stations are "good enough" that Oleg did not Delete it from the game in Patch 4.02.

MiG-3 has the highest Quality cockpit in all of FB/PF, as its my fave WW2 plane in basic design concept. I-16 has the second highest Quality cockpit in all FB/PF. Any 1930s cockpit wipes the floor with the highest polycount 1944 West Euro "microsoft" dogfight cockpit. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ie...I want to play with my fave WW2 planes, and I have no interest in Pure Art especially when it gets in the way.

Recall game dev Old_Man's posts in the locked StarForce thread: Game Devs depend on initial sales ("weeks" or months) and not sales years later. Pe-2 cockpit next year will be 4 years after Eastern Front came to the PC.

Both the Developer and flight sim consumer get shafted with diminishing or logarithmic returns from exponentially rising Perfect Detail, and the customer has no care for Perfect Detail that only aircraft restoration professionals would know about. And, the Perfect Cockpits are *still* wrong as somebody posted above since all aircraft had variations in cockpit manufacturing when we get to this level of Detail. There is an unstated reason for the Perfect Cockpit Detail, and impressing aviation professionals may give a clue what that reason is. Paying customers are not impressed with a lack of Do-217 and Su-2 cockpits.

Daiichidoku
11-08-2005, 09:38 AM
has there ever been word of allowing 3 rd party pits in future, perhaps after BoBs release?


if someone was to create, say, an excellent Blenheim pit, would it ever be added to FB?

Daiichidoku
11-08-2005, 09:41 AM
perhaps a $$$ add-on cd, with generic cockpits and gunner staions for all remaining AIs in FB, plus maybe a few small campaigns or something thrown in

make life nicer for offliners, at least

VonShlagnoff
11-08-2005, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
perhaps a $$$ add-on cd, with generic cockpits and gunner staions for all remaining AIs in FB, plus maybe a few small campaigns or something thrown in

make life nicer for offliners, at least

Now thats a good idea

KG26_Alpha
11-08-2005, 10:10 AM
Ok

I voted No

But would agree that the aircraft with small differences ie: B25's should have the pits put in, as with the He111 Z, B17 with Betty pit & pilot on left and B25 gunstations, B29 with He111 pit and........ ermmmm ohhhh I can seeeee Oleg cringing right now at the though of it.

Well with some chopping and changing it would be great to have them "opened up" but I dont see it happening. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Stigler_9_JG52
11-11-2005, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
Stig, would you care if, say, i could fly the Me 323 with X cockpit, to deliver supplies to Rommel, while you fly your spitfire, with accurate spit pit, to kill me?

wherein lies the problem, if no-one forces anyone to fly with a "false" pit?

just makes more human-controlled tgts for everyone else to shoot at, and that cant be a bad thing

not to mention how many ppl fly WW view, where there can be no arguement about "accuracy"



i can certainly see that some want accuracy up to the hilt....
but lets face it, currently, the AI types in FB will never be flyable, and having them ever after be more or less eye candy flitting about between waypoints, kill stealing and making silly, totally unrealistic tactical judgements is not getting out of the game, and what work has been already done creating the AI type what COULD be

This post of yours is full of so many "gamer" apologist rationalizations, I don't know where to start. So, to keep it short and sum it up, let's just go back to a more basic Maddox tenet:

Accurate cockpits, no (or at least, fewer) exceptions. Wonder Woman view is no excuse, because if I had my way, there wouldn't be any Wonder Woman view.

It is true that we're always going to have some plane that's not in the set, or that didn't get done, or that won't be flyable. I don't believe the answer to this is to start rationalizing things that are patently unrealistic just so some of us can fly one-off wonders, drawing board pipedreams and rare field mods we read about once.

The plane set is pretty good, with only a few omissions. Deal with it.