Connectivity and other issues aside, how the turret got implemented didn't seem as arcadey and cheap as it seemed to be at first glance. Now, that's not to say I think it's good design, because when it came out I recall some hastily constructed explanation of how it worked (a "camera drone"? righhht.) that indicated they didn't actually think it through like the whole telepresence thing. But a third person turret view actually makes a lot of sense for a gunner trying to aim from a platform that might be moving in three different directions at once.
Now, if you grew up in the past 40 years, this is what you wanted from being a spaceship gunner:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBagc1Ww0_Y
But during that fight the Millennium Falcon didn't maneuver at all and flew straight and level while the Tie Fighters made strafing runs around it. Like the other dogfights in Star Wars, it was WWII style fighters vs a bomber. How hard would it have been able to aim, let alone see anything if the Falcon were jinking and dodging every which way? The turrets themselves would have been useless.
In those Sturmovik clips, the gunner is on a relatively stable platform. The plane isn't doing a lot of crazy maneuvering so the gunner can line up and take a shot. That's the only way it can work - if the pilot started jinking around, the tail gunner would have no chance of hitting anything as his view flipped all over everywhere.
So in a 34th century space ship you'd expect some kind of auto tracking turret capability especially with all the different weapons stuck out on hardpoints across the ship - no tunnel leading to a seat where you'd boresight down the actual weapon to line up the target. It would have to be aimed by remote camera or sensors.
And back to the boresighting, if you've got two turrets for example on opposite sides of the ship, which viewpoint do you use when aiming? Which barrel can you boresight from to get that WWII/Star Wars style feel?
I don't think you can, and even if you could, your chance of actually hitting anything as your pilot goes FA/OFF and spins the nose around to line up his targeting reticle. It would be an exercise in frustration. The gunner would be screaming at the pilot to hold still while you aimed.
And for situational awareness, you'd be looking at a 3D scanner that would spin and rotate all over the place just like the one we already have to try and keep track of the targets but again it's not under the gunner's control. Seeing everything, hostile ships, cops, cargo modules and materials would make it feel like you're targeting something in a tumble dryer.
So from a pure usability standpoint, a 3rd person perspective for the weapons officer would be the only way to make it work. You'd want a view that's stable, gives a clear view of the surroundings and has gives maximum visibility all the way around the ship that is totally independent of the ship's movement and orientation.
You don't even need a flimsy camera drone excuse for that. Call the gunner position's a simulation created by the ship's targeting system to provide maximum offensive and defensive capability. It's technologically feasible and more importantly desirable in a combat situation when trying to defend your ship. If pilots today had that capability (and it seems to be where it's moving toward) they'd be all over it.
But... it's nowhere near as cool looking or engaging as the old WWII style ball turret gunner, and since we're talking about a game flying make-believe spaceships fun should be the biggest factor. I think something FD could have done to avoid the situation, though, would have been to include a boresight option for the weapons, to give players who wanted that experience the "feeling" of being in the turret. After all, if a 3rd person gunner view can be simulated (again lose the "camera drone" - it's not necessary) a stabilized gunner view could work as well.
Of course, turret views and everything else aside, MC has to be able to work reliably to get people to use it, but that's a whole different animal.
