Please bring back the pilot.

[dotChuckles]

This is a wish list not an act of parliment.

The point is that it worked in blackshark.

And thats it.

 

Apples and oranges comparison... it worked in DCS:BS due to different seating position and control layout.

 

DCS:BS != DCS:WH

[Speed]

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.

 

True. But if you don't know where the right switch is, you need to hit the manual anyway. Besides, there aren't many switches at all that would be blocked by the pilot, so I don't see the pilot hindering your ability to find the switches quickly as an issue even if you aren't very familiar with the cockpit.

 

But there's possibly an even better way to do this. You know how the mouse cursor auto-hides, or is supposed to auto-hide, when you don't use it after a while? Well, when the mouse cursor is NOT hidden, just make the pilot textures directly around the mouse cursor become transparent. While you're at it, also make the throttle textures become transparent too around the mouse cursor (even with a TIR, it can be difficult to reach the EAC switch during a ramp start). So now, most of the time, you won't even be able to see a transparent "hole" at all anywhere on any textures. You only see it when you move the mouse again, and move it over areas of the cockpit where switches are.

 

Alternatively, if sensing the mouse location proves too difficult, just make so the pilot has semi-transparent zones at the locations where the pilot blocks switches, and those zones become active when the mouse cursor is not hidden, period. This would look a little weird when moving the mouse, but someone who is utilizing the HOTAS properly can often go a very long time between touches of the mouse.

 

I would think that the engine most likely would support at least one of these ideas, but having never messed with cockpit building, I couldn't guess with any certainty. But certainly, the current cockpit engine must be supporting some kind of transparent textures, but whether those transparent textures are allowed to change...

Edited August 10, 2011 by Speed

[sobek]

This is a wish list not an act of parliment.

The point is that it worked in blackshark.

And thats it.

 

As was said, the BS has completely different cockpit layout. In the A-10, the left hand of the pilot would cover a majority of the left panel.

[Frostiken]

Apples and oranges comparison... it worked in DCS:BS due to different seating position and control layout.

 

KA-50 had pilot arms?

 

I can't even really picture the pilot blocking that much stuff - maybe make the circuit breakers and, of note, the completely non-functional TISL controls harder to see, but... yeah? You might have a hard time accessing the power knobs for the radios. And setting the TCN / ILS frequency or playing with HARS - but none of that is essential. Nothing important would be blocked by the pilot.

 

I mostly would just want the pilot legs if it featured some sort of interactive kneepad. So instead of this wonky app on my iPod I could access the same information without even pausing or leaving the cockpit view. A couple of clicks and my threat table is up... then switch to the briefing page...

[159th_Viper]

KA-50 had pilot arms?

 

I can't even really picture the pilot blocking that much stuff....

 

In the A-10C pit? Will never work:

 

[ATTACH]55020[/ATTACH]

[Frostiken]

In the A-10C pit? Will never work:

 

[ATTACH]55020[/ATTACH]

 

Well I was referring to before I realized the KA-50 pilot had arms.

[BTTW-DratsaB]

FPS issue what you on about?

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

An extra model in the cockpit would cost more FPS...that's all.

[Cali]

KA-50 had pilot arms?

 

I can't even really picture the pilot blocking that much stuff - maybe make the circuit breakers and, of note, the completely non-functional TISL controls harder to see, but... yeah? You might have a hard time accessing the power knobs for the radios. And setting the TCN / ILS frequency or playing with HARS - but none of that is essential. Nothing important would be blocked by the pilot.

 

I mostly would just want the pilot legs if it featured some sort of interactive kneepad. So instead of this wonky app on my iPod I could access the same information without even pausing or leaving the cockpit view. A couple of clicks and my threat table is up... then switch to the briefing page...

 

When I worked F-16's and A-10's if I had my hand on the throttle, I would have to move it to see a lot of the panels on the left side and. Same with my hand on the stick in the F-16. The arms would get in the way and cover to much stuff, just leave it out. It would be a waste of time, resources and whatever else. Spend that stuff on makinf FC2 and the compatibility patch for FC2/3, DCS-BS and DCS A-10.

[thaisocom]

When I worked F-16's and A-10's if I had my hand on the throttle, I would have to move it to see a lot of the panels on the left side and. Same with my hand on the stick in the F-16. The arms would get in the way and cover to much stuff, just leave it out. It would be a waste of time, resources and whatever else. Spend that stuff on makinf FC2 and the compatibility patch for FC2/3, DCS-BS and DCS A-10.

:thumbup: Also next DCS!

[Irregular programming]

Bring back the pilot, also make you move the hands to the knobs that you are manipulating so that they never get in the way.

 

Sort of like a better implementation of that Trespasser game

[Cali]

Bring back the pilot, also make you move the hands to the knobs that you are manipulating so that they never get in the way.

 

Sort of like a better implementation of that Trespasser game

 

Not gonna happen I bet, that will take up too much time and resources. As said before it's better to use that to do other things.

[asparagin]

Bring back the pilot, also make you move the hands to the knobs that you are manipulating so that they never get in the way.

 

Sort of like a better implementation of that Trespasser game

 

Moving of the hands is indeed a lot of work, but yes the static pilot wold be nice, in BS is always On for me!

 

In the A-10C pit? Will never work:

 

Hands off throttle maybe?

[rextar]

Moving of the hands is indeed a lot of work, but yes the static pilot wold be nice, in BS is always On for me!

 

 

 

Hands off throttle maybe?

 

+1 hence this thread, has been done and worked.

[effte]

Hands off throttle maybe?

 

A jedi pilot, moving the throttles through the Force! Can we have him wave his hand around in the air while doing it? ;)

 

Kidding aside, I'd find that more disturbing than anything - to have an inanimate virtual pilot who does not move the controls which move.

 

The problem with having an animated virtual pilot is that you will have to code precognition into the sim, in order to have the virtual pilot flip the switch as you press the corresponding button on your keyboard. Otherwise, you'll have instantaneous movements of arms and feet which will truly be horrible to behold. Now, ED would probably be the first to pull precognitive programming off, but I think they have more pressing matters at hand.

 

 

The completely opposite views on the to be or not to be of the virtual pilot probably depends on how you view the simulator (now I'm speculating). Do you view the simulator as a simulator that puts you inside the head of a pilot flying an A-10? If so, that pilot being a disembodied pair of eyes will probably appear spooky. If you on the other hand view the simulator as a simulator that puts you inside the cockpit of an A-10, having a virtual pilot already there, in addition to your own limbs, makes it terribly crowded all at once.

 

Thus, I maintain my previously stated opinion that if an animated pilot can be implemented in a reasonably functional manner, then it is of value - but it should at all times be optional. Different strokes for different folks, and in this case I think it traces back to fundamental differences in the perception of what the software does.

 

Cheers,

Fred

Edited August 12, 2011 by effte
Not worth my time.

[asparagin]

- to have an inanimate virtual pilot who does not move the controls which move.

 

For me it's better then to see the seat through my body :music_whistling:

But yes, there is no right way to solve the problem. Compromises must be made.

 

 

Thus, I maintain my previously stated opinion that if an animated pilot can be implemented in a reasonably functional manner, then it is of value - but it should at all times be optional. Different strokes for different folks, and in this case I think it traces back to fundamental differences in the perception of what the software does.

 

I don't think that this should be a problem