Yup, I remember playing that.
Same UI as well.
1 Like
I loved that game! I should look if I still have the disks XD
2 Likes
Those are renders Runa. Renders are usually far easier to create than in-game-modeled cockpits. If you tried to port over those rendered cockpits into the game. They would look extremely low quality.
2 Likes
Still, compare the F4U and P-51 with the PBM I linked earlier.
The PBM’s models are almost painful to look at. It looks like molded plastic toys you buy at your corner chinese 1 euro store.
versus:
1 Like
Dials exist. Yes.
It also looks painfully ugly and reminiscent of molded plastic toys you buy for 1 euro.
So, would you be looking at the instrument panel? Yes. Does it look ugly? Yes.
Does this contradict your claim that all you need is “viewing glass and a gunsight” Also…
Yes!
Do I want to stare at molded corner store plastic dashboards? No.
That isn’t a trailer.
Since you’re incapable of following a simple direction and sending me a link… I’ll do it myself.
Seek and Destroy
(funnily enough, more functionality in-game than in the trailer)
I forgot what point you were trying to make, sorry. Mind reiterating?
Which they’ve delivered on areas that are gameplay dependent. I’ve said it twice now that the only gameplay dependent part of the sag / ariete is the gunsight… In which I can’t be bothered enough to fix it.
The graphics is part of the gameplay given that you’re staring at those graphics as part of an entire game mode
By your standards, the “virtual cockpit” bombers previously used is fine, we just need to black out the area below and behind you to reduce visibility.
1 Like
Behold: Peak cockpits.
It has gunsight (well crosshairs), it has viewing glass!
In no way are graphics a part of gameplay. Unless you mean in a very literal sense, the fidelity of the half dozen fasteners inside of your cockpit will not grant you a higher KPM than 1.25 in any given aircraft.
Falcon 4.0 offers similar aircraft textures to war thunder, terrain equitable to MSFS, and a cockpit that, despite looking like a claymation setup, is functional… It’s better than WT.
That has nothing to do with graphics. Falcon 2.0 is still better than WT and it would pass as an Atari game.
I’d be happier with the virtual cockpit, everything shown on the (already functioning) dials can be shown through :8111 far better than it would on a WW2 era cockpit indicator.
Sure, kill the entire bottom half of my screen’s pixels. It doesn’t detract from gameplay when I can still see the objective I’m flying towards and my bomb sight.
From your tyrade earlier about your cockpit instruments giving you seemingly vital analytics… Classic Elite is far more informative and usable.
The biggest downside here is you’re playing a 2D game vs a 3D game, where even then the 3D game gives you less information about your ship.
Amazing talent at missing the point.
Also Elite:Dangerous has side MFDs that contain details you wish for.
You had a point?
For the last 90 minutes you’ve been hopping from topic to topic.
And the PBM-5 has indicators that contain details you wish for…?
I’m starting to wonder what went through your head when you thought of this equivalency.
The PBM looks like fucking molded plastic, and is (hyperbole) painful to look at for extended periods of time.
Who wants to look at molded plastic without any texture or shape and so little polygons, you’d think it was a PS1 game?
Unclear, blurry textures are also not ideal to stare at, like the OP’s ariete/saggi 2 example.
I definitely wouldn’t want to stare at this blurry thing especially when everything else looks much better. It’s incredibly jarring.
This isn’t even something you can ignore as it’s where you look to shoot at things.
Compare that to what you see while shooting a plane in the F4U:
And this is after being recorded, processed thru video editing thingy, uploaded to youtube and screenshotted and uploaded here.
It still looks better.
Hell, even the headrest looks better:
So…
???
It’s a cockpit from an afterthought 2.0 bomber that was added in an update encapsulating a physics overhaul in a graphics engine.
Again, why would you be looking at it in the first place?
The only issue I’m seeing here is the anachronistic HUD?
Apart from that, welcome to korean war halo syndrome. The cockpits aren’t beautiful to begin with, no matter how much grey or blue paint and useless fasteners you splatter onto it.
So… A clearer cockpit?
There’s only 2 things you can possibly be focused on here…
1 - The gun solution.
The Ariete is badly designed and features an ahistorical gunsight.
2 - The “coolness” of the cockpit.
If you’re spending more time in an aircraft combat game looking at the bezel of your canopy or your gunsight switch / lighting dial… I’m pretty sure you’re in the wrong place.
Oh boy, refer to:
As for looking.
I don’t know about you, but the cockpit fills at least 50% of my screen, if not more in some planes. Only time it doesn’t is when looking around, and even then the various frames are still visible. Sometimes it fills more of it when the angles or intent line up.
If you’re in a cockpit for up to 3 hours, you want it to look passable. The F4U is much more than passable.
1 Like
I do agree that the cockpit looks unusually sloppy for a - from what I understand you guys as saying - relatively recent addition to the game. It looks like what I’d expect from one of the planes they released back when the game came out, and haven’t gotten around to updating yet.
I’m left wondering if this escaped the quality control in some way, if they had a bad experience with an external contractor, and felt they had to just go with what they had for now or something.
Have anyone made a nicely worded bug report, to see if we can get the Devs’ word as to whether or not this is how it’s supposed to be? The dials and everything related to those are “easy”, as it’s just high quality assets that they already have in the database. The bespoke assets look like they shouldn’t look that way, though.
Lack of available data or not, they chose to put the aircraft in the game, and if artistic license is needed… well they kinda already took that, by having the plane in the game as it is.
Love the game and what they do with it. This plane’s condition is just a bit puzzling.
2 Likes
At this point it doesn’t seem like they’d miss the artistic license, it’s like they lack a license to have more than 5 polygons.
It doesn’t even have to be historical or accurate in that sense, same deal with bomber cockpits, you can make a cockpit that isn’t equal to real life but still use high quality textures of this era.
1 Like
I can’t find a single post from you on either the Issues page nor the Suggestions page for graphical improvements of cockpits. Mind sharing what topics are penidng?
Oh boy, don’t say that around here! You don’t want to look like you’re dEfEnDiNg anything!
One is a suggestion to let us test flight/view plane cockpits even if we cannot research them to make picking TT for sim easier.
The rest pertain to economy, missions/AI in sim.
As for issues.
My experience with issues: go out of my way to make a video of a subsonic cl-13 a.i “bomber” achieving 1000 km/h speeds while cosplaying/LARPing as a dolphin and not losing any speed.
Get issue closed and told to make a suggestion, despite it being pretty game-breaking as they’re impossible to catch with BR 7.0-8.0 jets that redline at 850/950 km/h.
2 Likes
So… Irrelevant and does nothing to further your view.
Exactly as I thought, still does nothing to further your view.
You get no merit by showing your posts for test drive suggestions or in-game economy… The topic is cockpit textures and fidelity.
As I’ve been saying, both you and miragen are here to do nothing more than complain. This makes it pretty clear.
Womp womp?