PDA

View Full Version : No peripheral vision - what a bummer



XyZspineZyX
07-18-2003, 03:57 PM
I've given some thought to the lack of visibility that constantly plagues the user in most combat flight sims, especially those that are pre-radar.

Sometime back I even put up a posting on these boards about translucent frames for the cockpits, and got some pretty good responses. My intent with the thread was to just discuss better ways to maintain situational awareness and not have your head twisting on a fixed pivot (as it is now). I do consider the virtual cockpits to be great graphic eyecandy, but I also am aware that all you need is enough instrumentation to do the job...whatever it is your doing. Doing, could include shooting approaches, flying through mountains, air combat,etc.

Often I get this feeling I'm just looking into this "HOLE" of the combat flight sim world as I look at my monitor. I can see what's in front and to the sides to some extent. I'm just sitting at my desk looking into this world of ones and zeros...(binary coding). Serious visual impairment would be an understatement, that is if you were actually in a pre-radar aircraft.

To be very honest, I often feel real dumb sitting behind a bouncing 3d virtual cockpit seeing this miniscule part of the combat flight simulation world...and pandering to the notions of realism...

Peripheral vision is tricky. You just pick up something out of the corner of your eye...but it can still be something very relative to what you're doing,i.e., driving a car. Peripheral vision applied in a simulation...I've given some thought to it, but how to implement it with out making the user dizzy is probably the bigger issue. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I've thought it would be much better to have three monitors with one in the center and one on each side place in a angular fashion to provide a better field of visibility. Then I'm thinking I need three more above those...then I need some more for visibility to the side and then back over my shoulder at eye level and then above eye level. Duh...let me see how many is that? You get the idea.

Principally, I enjoy WW2 combat sims because I like the close in engagements at tolerable speeds to get good visuals on what you're doing.

I've begun to think that maybe I should rethink my interests in combat flight simulations. Why because to be more realistic, having radar may make more sense. My thoughts are that the radar is an all seeing eye, which puts me on par with the AI. Afterall, the AI can see in the dark, all weather conditions, through clouds, etc. I'm not neg'd by that it just goes with it.

So I began to look into the Jet Combat Flight sims over the past few months. The big problem with the fastmovers is shooting down targets that you never really see. Shooting targets at five + miles is just...shooting blips. I just don't enjoy the combat or flying that much with all the radar tools and accomodating flight models... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Maybe there is a middle ground for combat flight simulators, like a MigAlley or Strike Fighters Project 1. What I mean by that is...Radar was being widely used in the time frames these simulations are set. Radar was reliable then, and weapons were not so sophisticated. TOP GUN meant just that. A top gun pilot used guns proficiently. I do believe in the real world it must have been very difficult to cannonize a Mig or Vs vs with guns or short range heatseeker missiles, at greater than Mach speeds. The early sidewinders, and other heatseeker type missiles were capable, but the pilot still had to have good visual corroborations for targeting.

Aerial combat had a very high work rate and the intensity of combat engagements was off the charts at the speeds the post WW2 aircraft and pre-1970's aircraft were operating.

I'm not saying what is a best way to go for an excellent combat flight simulation, but I do say...there is definitely something missing here /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Not trying to make anyone mad, or twist your panties in a knot. The heart of the matter is...I'd like to be able to see better and more efficiently in a more realistic manner without having my head twisting on a fixed pivot.

I'd appreciate reading some interesting commments and other peoples views /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif on this topic. A viable solution...that might be nice to know as well.

------------------------ /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-18-2003, 03:57 PM
I've given some thought to the lack of visibility that constantly plagues the user in most combat flight sims, especially those that are pre-radar.

Sometime back I even put up a posting on these boards about translucent frames for the cockpits, and got some pretty good responses. My intent with the thread was to just discuss better ways to maintain situational awareness and not have your head twisting on a fixed pivot (as it is now). I do consider the virtual cockpits to be great graphic eyecandy, but I also am aware that all you need is enough instrumentation to do the job...whatever it is your doing. Doing, could include shooting approaches, flying through mountains, air combat,etc.

Often I get this feeling I'm just looking into this "HOLE" of the combat flight sim world as I look at my monitor. I can see what's in front and to the sides to some extent. I'm just sitting at my desk looking into this world of ones and zeros...(binary coding). Serious visual impairment would be an understatement, that is if you were actually in a pre-radar aircraft.

To be very honest, I often feel real dumb sitting behind a bouncing 3d virtual cockpit seeing this miniscule part of the combat flight simulation world...and pandering to the notions of realism...

Peripheral vision is tricky. You just pick up something out of the corner of your eye...but it can still be something very relative to what you're doing,i.e., driving a car. Peripheral vision applied in a simulation...I've given some thought to it, but how to implement it with out making the user dizzy is probably the bigger issue. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I've thought it would be much better to have three monitors with one in the center and one on each side place in a angular fashion to provide a better field of visibility. Then I'm thinking I need three more above those...then I need some more for visibility to the side and then back over my shoulder at eye level and then above eye level. Duh...let me see how many is that? You get the idea.

Principally, I enjoy WW2 combat sims because I like the close in engagements at tolerable speeds to get good visuals on what you're doing.

I've begun to think that maybe I should rethink my interests in combat flight simulations. Why because to be more realistic, having radar may make more sense. My thoughts are that the radar is an all seeing eye, which puts me on par with the AI. Afterall, the AI can see in the dark, all weather conditions, through clouds, etc. I'm not neg'd by that it just goes with it.

So I began to look into the Jet Combat Flight sims over the past few months. The big problem with the fastmovers is shooting down targets that you never really see. Shooting targets at five + miles is just...shooting blips. I just don't enjoy the combat or flying that much with all the radar tools and accomodating flight models... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Maybe there is a middle ground for combat flight simulators, like a MigAlley or Strike Fighters Project 1. What I mean by that is...Radar was being widely used in the time frames these simulations are set. Radar was reliable then, and weapons were not so sophisticated. TOP GUN meant just that. A top gun pilot used guns proficiently. I do believe in the real world it must have been very difficult to cannonize a Mig or Vs vs with guns or short range heatseeker missiles, at greater than Mach speeds. The early sidewinders, and other heatseeker type missiles were capable, but the pilot still had to have good visual corroborations for targeting.

Aerial combat had a very high work rate and the intensity of combat engagements was off the charts at the speeds the post WW2 aircraft and pre-1970's aircraft were operating.

I'm not saying what is a best way to go for an excellent combat flight simulation, but I do say...there is definitely something missing here /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Not trying to make anyone mad, or twist your panties in a knot. The heart of the matter is...I'd like to be able to see better and more efficiently in a more realistic manner without having my head twisting on a fixed pivot.

I'd appreciate reading some interesting commments and other peoples views /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif on this topic. A viable solution...that might be nice to know as well.

------------------------ /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-18-2003, 04:06 PM
More than one monitor IMO is the ultimate solution to the issue. I know it's been visited before, but I swear by it now that I run 3 monitors.

If I'm flying around, I look straight and see what everyone else sees on the center monitor, but I can glance left or right and see what's off each wing too.

Add trackIR and a force feedback chair it's about as good as I could ask for. The only thing left is a full motion cockpit chair but I think I'd opt for flight training instead...

<p align="center"> http://www.1stclassproperties.ca/mr/Spit.jpg
Tongue-tied & twisted,
just an earthbound misfit,
I.
</CENTER>
</p>

XyZspineZyX
07-18-2003, 04:16 PM
- Add trackIR and a force feedback chair it's about as
- good as I could ask for.

Do you mean stick?

I've got a couple of 15" monitors I could hook up...but the bigger issue is video cards to drive them. I'd have to use PCI cards. I'm using a GeForce 3 ti200 128MB now for the AGP...that thing cost me $200+

The only thing left is a
- full motion cockpit chair but I think I'd opt for
- flight training instead...

Couldn't agree more, and when you started working toward get your instruments ratings you could use the FS2002-4 to hone..your nav skills.

And you'd know how to fly by the seat of your pants in a real aircraft, eh?

--------------- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-18-2003, 04:23 PM
nearmiss wrote:
-- Add trackIR and a force feedback chair it's about as
-- good as I could ask for.


nearmiss, I highly recommend this mod if you're into electronics.

I took apart my subwoofer unit (be careful doing this) and spliced an extra line out of it. I bought a lumbar support chair pad and inside mounted on a thin board, a 4" mid-bass speaker.

Now when I fly I feel engine sounds, bullet hits, bomb explosions, and in the FS or CFS series, can even feel take-off and touch-down very clearly.

It's a cool enhancement and costs very little.



<p align="center"> http://www.1stclassproperties.ca/mr/Spit.jpg
Tongue-tied & twisted,
just an earthbound misfit,
I.
</CENTER>
</p>

XyZspineZyX
07-18-2003, 04:26 PM
Three monitors is a very nice solution, if you've got the dosh. I also think that being able to look instantly in any direction helps a lot with immersiveness, leaving behind the 'peering through a little square hole' feeling. Track IR is the ideal way, but flying mouselook also helps with this a lot.

Consider the fact that the our visual perception of a big, sharp view of the world is really an illusion. The retina can only focus a VERY small area at the centre of your field of view. Your brain perceives a much larger focussed area because your direction of gaze is constantly flicking around. If you want to attend to something, your focus of gaze flicks to it automatically, so you are not conscious that you could not see it properly before.

With mouselook or TrackIR you have an analogous situation. Because you can switch your view instantly in any direction, you are less conscious of not being able to see the bits you can't see.

When I fly sims where I can't fly with mouselook, with my direction of view constantly roaming, that feeling of looking through a little box immediately comes back. Panning using a POV hat isn't the same - it's not not instant or subconscious enough

BTW - I'm worried this thread is a bit off topic - no mention of Cartrix yet?
;-)

XyZspineZyX
07-18-2003, 04:36 PM
mikeyg007 wrote:
- BTW - I'm worried this thread is a bit off topic -
- no mention of Cartrix yet?


I'm waiting for him to arrive so I can show him some tripleview screenies....

Catrix, come on in /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



<p align="center"> http://www.1stclassproperties.ca/mr/Spit.jpg
Tongue-tied & twisted,
just an earthbound misfit,
I.
</CENTER>
</p>

XyZspineZyX
07-18-2003, 05:43 PM
Dex

I took apart my subwoofer unit (be careful doing
- this) and spliced an extra line out of it. I bought
- a lumbar support chair pad and inside mounted on a
- thin board, a 4" mid-bass speaker.
-
- Now when I fly I feel engine sounds, bullet hits,
- bomb explosions, and in the FS or CFS series, can
- even feel take-off and touch-down very clearly.
-
- It's a cool enhancement and costs very little.

"That is tooooo cool"

Carrying the seat of the pants things a bit far. It's immersive...your A$$ is telling you so, eh?

I can't believe it, some of you guys are so creative you just baffle me... I'm confused enough!

----------------- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-18-2003, 06:00 PM
This was ForceFeedback Chair attempt #2. The first time I "took a chance" and took apart my Logitech FFB stick hoping to splice out the feedback circuits and have THEM power the speaker. Let's just say I really like my new joystick much better than that one /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



<p align="center"> http://www.1stclassproperties.ca/mr/Spit.jpg
Tongue-tied & twisted,
just an earthbound misfit,
I.
</CENTER>
</p>