Please bring back the pilot.

[rextar]

Just a wish to see a pilot in cockpit like ka50!:cry:

[jp203000]

i can't agree more .

[effte]

And I couldn't agree less. Seeing four legs in front of me - no thanks!

 

One of those things which should only be implemented as a user option.

[rextar]

And I couldn't agree less. Seeing four legs in front of me - no thanks!

 

One of those things which should only be implemented as a user option.

 

I agree effte, user option

[Frostiken]

Four legs? Wat?

 

Have you built a sim-pit where there's monitors surrounding your every bit of body? Pretty sure 99.9% of people have their legs under a desk and look at the monitor in front of them.

 

No offense but that was without a doubt the single stupidest reason I've heard to poo-poo an idea.

[BTTW-DratsaB]

Not really, I don't like the idea either and would not use it. To me its the same as having a Virtual steering wheel rendered on screen in a racing sim when I have a steering wheel in my hands. As with four legs, I would have 2 wheels :), seems silly and a waste of fps/resources to me.

[rextar]

Not really, I don't like the idea either and would not use it. To me its the same as having a Virtual steering wheel rendered on screen in a racing sim when I have a steering wheel in my hands. As with four legs, I would have 2 wheels :), seems silly and a waste of fps/resources to me.

 

FPS issue what you on about?

We are talking about 4 inputs here 2 for rudders 1 for control stick and 1 for throttle.

[rextar]

i can't agree more .

 

Cheers

[thaisocom]

And I couldn't agree less. Seeing four legs in front of me - no thanks!

 

One of those things which should only be implemented as a user option.

I'm agree with you. I rather prefer pit with no pilot. Not to mention that it strange to see only the legs but no arms. So yeah, if someone like maybe put it as optional.

[EtherealN]

There is an issue in how the A-10C cockpit is laid out - you'd end up blocking a lot of buttons that you want to use, so you'd find yourself having to switch the "pilot" on and off a lot.

[Impact]

For me it wouldn't add any immersion. Rather an obstacle to fly the plane.

[thaisocom]

There is an issue in how the A-10C cockpit is laid out - you'd end up blocking a lot of buttons that you want to use, so you'd find yourself having to switch the "pilot" on and off a lot.

But it wouldn't be that big of an issue for user with Track-IR right? So might as well put it as optional for user who like it. But I still prefer pit with no pilot tho! :D

[EtherealN]

The layout is such that it would still be an issue, IMO.

 

Remember, when the real pilot presses those buttons, he removes his hand from one of the controls. Having the pilot graphic would increase the amount of steps required - first we'd have to release our controls to get the hand on the mouse, but we would ALSO have to hit the keyboard to turn the pilot off, then after doing our settings turn the pilot on again.

[thaisocom]

The layout is such that it would still be an issue, IMO.

 

Remember, when the real pilot presses those buttons, he removes his hand from one of the controls. Having the pilot graphic would increase the amount of steps required - first we'd have to release our controls to get the hand on the mouse, but we would ALSO have to hit the keyboard to turn the pilot off, then after doing our settings turn the pilot on again.

I see.:thumbup:

[Speed]

The layout is such that it would still be an issue, IMO.

 

Remember, when the real pilot presses those buttons, he removes his hand from one of the controls. Having the pilot graphic would increase the amount of steps required - first we'd have to release our controls to get the hand on the mouse, but we would ALSO have to hit the keyboard to turn the pilot off, then after doing our settings turn the pilot on again.

 

No...

 

When this last came up, I suggested an improvement that solves all those problems. The solution is that you simply need to make any parts of the pilot become transparent if they are in the center of the FOV.

 

Obviously, the question is whether the cockpit engine would support this. Who knows. Who cares? That's why this is the wish list forum :thumbup:

[EtherealN]

As far as I know it doesn't, and I doubt it's "worth it" to implement. Would be nice though - I too enjoyed having the pilot in the Ka-50.

[Zorg_DK]

I'd like to have a pilot in the pit too. I'll live if we don't get it though...

[sobek]

When this last came up, I suggested an improvement that solves all those problems. The solution is that you simply need to make any parts of the pilot become transparent if they are in the center of the FOV.

 

Well, does that not defeat the purpose of having a pilot in the first place? If there's only a small portion of him that will end up being visible, why even bother making one?

[thaisocom]

Sobek does have a point.

[-Hammer-]

For me it would be fine to just see the legs of the pilot (maybe with a kneeboard aehmm..).

To look down and seeing an empty seat is a little bit irritating, like im missing something down there ;) or forgot the other half at my base.

[Speed]

Well, does that not defeat the purpose of having a pilot in the first place? If there's only a small portion of him that will end up being visible, why even bother making one?

 

Why would you conclude this? Because the center of the FOV is equivalent to the majority of the FOV? Uhh... NO. If the pilot textures only became transparent in the central 25% (by diameter), then the pilot textures would still be opaque in like 94% of the field of view (by area). I would say that 94% is a hell of a lot more than a "small portion" ;)

Edited August 10, 2011 by Speed

[rextar]

For me it would be fine to just see the legs of the pilot (maybe with a kneeboard aehmm..).

To look down and seeing an empty seat is a little bit irritating, like im missing something down there ;) or forgot the other half at my base.

 

My thought exactly.

[dotChuckles]

Why would you conclude this? Because the center of the FOV is equivalent to the majority of the FOV? Uhh... NO. If the pilot textures only became transparent in the central 25% (by diameter), then the pilot textures would still be opaque in like 94% of the field of view (by area). I would say that 94% is a hell of a lot more than a "small portion" ;)

 

But wouldn't a floating "hole" in the pilot look a bit silly and break immersion even more?

 

These kinds of features just get recursive... How far do you go? Walk out to the aircraft... drive to the airfield... key binds for getting the pilot dressed in the officers mess?

 

All would be nice, but lets get the important things done first.

 

By all means include these things - but let the developers do them at the end of the product maturity cycle.

 

No disrespect intended.

[rextar]

But wouldn't a floating "hole" in the pilot look a bit silly and break immersion even more?

 

These kinds of features just get recursive... How far do you go? Walk out to the aircraft... drive to the airfield... key binds for getting the pilot dressed in the officers mess?

 

All would be nice, but lets get the important things done first.

 

By all means include these things - but let the developers do them at the end of the product maturity cycle.

 

No disrespect intended.

 

This is a wish list not an act of parliment.

The point is that it worked in blackshark.

And thats it.

[sobek]

Why would you conclude this? Because the center of the FOV is equivalent to the majority of the FOV? Uhh... NO. If the pilot textures only became transparent in the central 25% (by diameter), then the pilot textures would still be opaque in like 94% of the field of view (by area). I would say that 94% is a hell of a lot more than a "small portion" ;)

 

If you make it that small, the pilot will still block your 'peripheral vision' and hinder you finding the right switch quickly. Also you would have to move your view around a lot more because you could not just click something if it's on the edge of your screen. Just my opinion.