PDA

View Full Version : AcesHigh has moveable head, why not FB?



Pages : [1] 2

flyingskid2
01-26-2004, 10:20 AM
I just tried AcesHigh. It's overall an enjoyable game, but far from FB in terms of modelling and graphics. One thing it has is moveable head position. You can move the pilot's head left and right, and you can also save the preferred head position for each of the snap views. I think this would be great to implement in FB. Imagine your check-six snap view with your head moved closer to the side canopy. You'd see more over your shoulder.

I say if AcesHigh can do it, Oleg's team should be able to do it easy.

flyingskid2
01-26-2004, 10:20 AM
I just tried AcesHigh. It's overall an enjoyable game, but far from FB in terms of modelling and graphics. One thing it has is moveable head position. You can move the pilot's head left and right, and you can also save the preferred head position for each of the snap views. I think this would be great to implement in FB. Imagine your check-six snap view with your head moved closer to the side canopy. You'd see more over your shoulder.

I say if AcesHigh can do it, Oleg's team should be able to do it easy.

XyZspineZyX
01-26-2004, 10:26 AM
I don't "get" this obsession with being able to move your head one or two more inches in a given direction. By the time you fumble around with the extra keypresses to do that, the entire situation has changed.

Also, I don't know if they've upgraded or changed the "save head position" feature in Aces Hobbled, but I remember you could (ab)use that feature to create view points that could only orginate from a pilot who stuck his head *clean through* the perspex. It was a decent "idea", but a wholly unrealistic application of it.

For all this gnashing of teeth, you could just roll the plane a tiny bit and just find the bogie. Or if you have good SA, you have a decent idea of where he's going anyway, so you can lose sight for a second or so while you maneuver on him.

Finally, the six views we have standard are generous, and what you'd expect from being tightly strapped into a plane with a bulky parachute on your back or under yer butt. A few pilots had loose straps, but not the majority. Most knew all too well the dangers of hard maneuvering (or ditching) without being strapped in tight.

wastel
01-26-2004, 11:17 AM
because it is simply not real.

have you ever sit in an airplane and doing acrobatics?
you have to sit fixed ! not to bounce with your head against the canopy and knock yourself ko

wastel

LuftKuhMist
01-26-2004, 11:35 AM
Adding just 2 key strokes to move head wouldn't be very heard... Like, move right, move left. Hold either key to move to either side, upon key release, head comes back normal position, voila!

Personnally, though, I don't have viewing problems with cockpit. I mostly play with padlock though.

http://www.ckoi.com/ckoi2/images/comiques/normales/0000022.JPG

LEXX_Luthor
01-26-2004, 11:35 AM
According to Goludnikov, the I-16 pilots (in his unit at least) were taught to lean outside the cockpit to see their rudders.

Not that I am asking for that, at least not until all planes are flyable then increasing the "realism" and "detail" for all planes and cockpit views will be a natural thing.



__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.
:
:
you will still have FB , you will lose nothing ~ WUAF_Badsight

tagert
01-26-2004, 12:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftKuhMist:
Adding just 2 key strokes to move head wouldn't be very heard... Like, move right, move left. Hold either key to move to either side, upon key release, head comes back normal position, voila!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Guys Guys Guys... no extra key needed!! Simply make the current LOOK LEFT key move the head to the LEFT as far as it would go... ie LEAN LEFT when you LOOK LEFT! In that 99.9% of the time that is what you would do... Or put another way, you would NOT LEAN RIGHT to LOOK LEFT. By donig this it would help with the cockpit bars too.. For example.. you looking FORWARD and a aircraft to your LEFT slips behind the canopy bar where you can not see it... Currently when you look-left-forward you dont lean.. so alot of times that aircraft remains hidden behind the cockpit bar.. But if the view MOVED LEFT (automaticaly when you press any left looking key) that would/should be enough to make that cockpit bar move out of the way and allow you to see the aircraft that was behind it.

TAGERT

VW-IceFire
01-26-2004, 12:49 PM
Excellent suggestion!

I somehow don't think it will make it for FB. But I think these sorts of features will be commonplace with the new BoB sim.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
The New IL2 Database is Coming Soon!

JG5_JaRa
01-26-2004, 12:55 PM
The request is valid. The "tiny little bit" of a roll you mentioned, Stiglr, can easily become 90 degrees in planes with a visibility like the 190. Then you already lost geometry. Often it is unfavourable enough to pull the nose up or push it down enough to look around a frame.
The head movement necessary to look around a frame is in the order of a few centimeters, often the offset of the eyes due to head rotation alone is enough. A pilot can always move the head enough for that, no matter how tight the belts are strapped and no matter how many parachutes he has on his back. Before repeating that combat and aerobatics pilots can't move the head very much, think about how much movement is necessary. There are enough videos of aerobatics aircraft of modern fighter aircraft where you can clearly see that the head of the pilot has enough freedom of movement to do what I described.
The fact that Aces High allowed to lean through the window has no meaning here.
We don't need hundred more keys for a complex head movement, but as has already been mentioned, a combined rotation/translation would solve a big part of the problem. Two different head positions like you have with Shift-F1 can do the rest. Look at the 262: hughe framing but you can easily look around it with this option.
Padlock also doesn't solve it, if you can't see what maneuver the enemy is performing while he's behind a frame (starting a roll etc.), you already lose precious time. And to take the 190 as an example again, the thick frame around the armored glass can easily hide the enemy for ages in terms of air combat time.

As long as we don't have peripheral vision on a 2D monitor or the possibility to move the head automatically, this problem can't be ignored only because in some aircraft it's less of an issue than in others.

PriK
01-26-2004, 04:46 PM
Because Aces High didn't have a 3d cockpit to deal with. In FB the 3d/2d cockpit is designed such that it only looks right from one perspective. So I'll bet my left nut that this wouldn't be implemented in FB, so save your breath. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As for BoB I hope Oleg puts something like this in.

http://charvel.acwos.com/chbanner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
01-26-2004, 04:48 PM
Well, no matter how you put it, it's overkill.

You already have a full view system to look in X direction. Now we're gonna have "lean", "juke your head a smidgen", "crane your neck" commands? Where does it end? And as I say, by the time you find the "nudge" key on your keypad, the bogie's moved someplace else relative to your view.

There will ALWAYS be situations where an obstruction gets in the way for a short time. That's where your Situational Awareness skill comes in. *predict* where the bogies going and maneuver accordingly. If your skills are good, I bet he pops up in a place you can view him.

Now, in the case of the FW190, we all know that the thing is just plain done wrong, so that's the particular problem with THAT plane. The FW did not have 2 x 4s as canopy braces (nor did it block 1/3 of its Revi gunsight to annoy its pilots). It's the only one I never use the "fully zoomed out" view with. I have to fly in Normal, because the zoomed out view is about 40% canopy brace.

In most other planes, banking the plane really is the best way to get around momentary obstructions. That or waiting a second or two. Yes, it's sometimes inconvenient. But chalk it up to that game enemy whose evasives are making it harder for you.

tagert
01-26-2004, 06:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Well, no matter how you put it, it's overkill.

You already have a full view system to look in X direction. Now we're gonna have "lean", "juke your head a smidgen", "crane your neck" commands? Where does it end? And as I say, by the time you find the "nudge" key on your keypad, the bogie's moved someplace else relative to your view.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Stiglr... Stiglr... Stiglr... no extra key needed!! Simply make the current LOOK LEFT key move the head to the LEFT as far as it would go... ie LEAN LEFT when you LOOK LEFT! In that 99.9% of the time that is what you would do... Or put another way, you would NOT LEAN RIGHT to LOOK LEFT. By donig this it would help with the cockpit bars too.. For example.. you looking FORWARD and a aircraft to your LEFT slips behind the canopy bar where you can not see it... Currently when you look-left-forward you dont lean.. so alot of times that aircraft remains hidden behind the cockpit bar.. But if the view MOVED LEFT (automaticaly when you press any left looking key) that would/should be enough to make that cockpit bar move out of the way and allow you to see the aircraft that was behind it.

TAGERT

LEXX_Luthor
01-26-2004, 06:57 PM
Great idea Tagert.

Turning my head to the left as far as I can in a P~51-D, then I automatically lean to see behind the head armour. If that is what you mean. Excellent.

__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.
:
:
you will still have FB , you will lose nothing ~ WUAF_Badsight

BfHeFwMe
01-26-2004, 09:04 PM
Yeah, highly generous looking back from a position exactly centered on the seat head rest, so much for realism. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

tagert
01-26-2004, 09:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Great idea Tagert.

Turning my head to the left as far as I can in a P~51-D, then I automatically lean to see behind the head armour. If that is what you mean. Excellent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally! Thus no NEW KEY needed, simply tie the LEAN into the current LOOK keys.

TAGERT

LEXX_Luthor
01-26-2004, 09:23 PM
Okay, not only lean, but when you turn your head right, at least your right eye is maybe 1/3 meter displaced compared to left eye when you turn head left. So that adds to the effect, although the one eye is not as effective as two, especially for distant point objects, or objects well camoflaged against the ground.

Goludnikov could see his I-16 rudder while sitting in front of the head rest, but had to lean. Of course, with no canopy, you can lean and twist out as far as the straps let you. I think I recall him stating that the straps were loose. Not sure. *bah* probably not. Have to check. So, how big was this P-51 canopy in relation to seating? Could the pilot lean (and twist) far enough to see rudder?

For simmers of aircraft with rear canopy faired over, expect much Whining and pulling of teeth over this issue. But as long as the extra drag of bubble canopies is modded in the FM (and possibly (?) rear pilot kill DM), it may be a fair trade for historicalism.

__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.
:
:
you will still have FB , you will lose nothing ~ WUAF_Badsight

LEXX_Luthor
01-26-2004, 09:27 PM
Because of the Explosive nature of this issue, I better stay out. All I know is that Goludnikov could lean outside his plane far enough to see his rudder.

The rest, I dunno. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.
:
:
you will still have FB , you will lose nothing ~ WUAF_Badsight

straffo
01-27-2004, 07:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PriK:
Because Aces High didn't have a 3d cockpit to deal with. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Obviously you don't know what you're speaking about.

Wastel if you account G forces you are perhaps right ,but under normal condition you are certainly wrong.


Stiglr I agree there is to much permissivity in the way AH manage the boundary of the cockpit.


But pretending that a real pilot has his head impaled in a stick la FB is wrong too.

The truth is likely to be in between

SpinSpinSugar
01-27-2004, 07:42 AM
Heh, tagert, this is one of the things I was trying to get across in that "other" argument, glad to see we share some common ground http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I too hope the cockpits are more "three dimensional" with regard to flexible viewpoint centres in BoB. Even if it's a sort of pre-programmed lean when you turn your head, rather than user controlled, it'll still be welcome.

However, there's enough of us with enough axis of input on various devices (TIR/Hatswich/Mouse/etc) that lean should be mappable independant of head turn. That would be great. Obviously with limitations based upon the actual restrictions of your aircraft canopy (or lack thereof). Would certainly be a nice addition to BoB immersion.

Cheers, SSS

flyingskid2
01-27-2004, 08:13 AM
>>By the time you fumble around with the extra keypresses to do that, the entire situation has changed.<<


not if you have programmable HOTAS. give me the controls and i'd worry about programming them into my stick so i don't have to fumble around.

tagert
01-27-2004, 08:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
Heh, tagert, this is one of the things I was trying to get across in that "other" argument, glad to see we share some common ground http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I too hope the cockpits are more "three dimensional" with regard to flexible viewpoint centres in BoB. Even if it's a sort of pre-programmed lean when you turn your head, rather than user controlled, it'll still be welcome.

However, there's enough of us with enough axis of input on various devices (TIR/Hatswich/Mouse/etc) that lean should be mappable independant of head turn. That would be great. Obviously with limitations based upon the actual restrictions of your aircraft canopy (or lack thereof). Would certainly be a nice addition to BoB immersion.

Cheers, SSS<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%! Im all for options! Thus I would not have a problem with an extra key to control the LEAN, I just wanted to ponit out that it would not really be necessary and the LEAN could be part of the current LOOK keys... Or even the current padlock, or TrackIr controls... Basically when you start to look left/right it would lean left/right.

TAGERT

HomeboyWu
01-27-2004, 09:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tagert:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpinSpinSugar:
Heh, tagert, this is one of the things I was trying to get across in that "other" argument, glad to see we share some common ground http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I too hope the cockpits are more "three dimensional" with regard to flexible viewpoint centres in BoB. Even if it's a sort of pre-programmed lean when you turn your head, rather than user controlled, it'll still be welcome.

However, there's enough of us with enough axis of input on various devices (TIR/Hatswich/Mouse/etc) that lean should be mappable independant of head turn. That would be great. Obviously with limitations based upon the actual restrictions of your aircraft canopy (or lack thereof). Would certainly be a nice addition to BoB immersion.

Cheers, SSS<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%! Im all for options! Thus I would not have a problem with an extra key to control the LEAN, I just wanted to ponit out that it would not really be necessary and the LEAN could be part of the current LOOK keys... Or even the current padlock, or TrackIr controls... Basically when you start to look left/right it would lean left/right.

TAGERT<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hasn't anyone noticed that, what Tagert proposed, is already done in Warbirds3? Complete with smooth panning (while auto leaning, of course).

p1ngu666
01-27-2004, 09:16 AM
lean when looking round, and a automatic lean when plane is obscured by something.
ta dah

oo and about the head movement, watch some dodgy redneck chatshow, theres gonna be some woman on there who moves her head a bunch while talking. its like law :P

XyZspineZyX
01-27-2004, 10:43 AM
Luthor said:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>All I know is that Goludnikov could lean outside his plane far enough to see his rudder.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what? The I-16 has an open cockpit. Totally irrelevant to the discussion of planes with enclosed perspex pits.

tagert
01-27-2004, 02:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
lean when looking round,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
and a automatic lean when plane is obscured by something.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is a good example of EASY to SAY hard to do! IMHO it would be imposable with the current hardware at our disposal. In that there is no way.. ie no sensor to tell the PC what part of the screen, of the current view, we are looking at... Thus no way to tell if something is obscured. And we have not even begun to talk about multi bogies.. IMHO the auto like you described is too hard and/or too expensive to do.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
ta dah<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Easy to say! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
oo and about the head movement, watch some dodgy redneck chatshow, theres gonna be some woman on there who moves her head a bunch while talking. its like law :P<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ahhhh... what?

TAGERT

Nazi_Boy_USA
02-01-2004, 07:32 PM
v<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tagert:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Well, no matter how you put it, it's overkill.

You already have a full view system to look in X direction. Now we're gonna have "lean", "juke your head a smidgen", "crane your neck" commands? Where does it end? And as I say, by the time you find the "nudge" key on your keypad, the bogie's moved someplace else relative to your view.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Stiglr... Stiglr... Stiglr... no extra key needed!! Simply make the current LOOK LEFT key move the head to the LEFT as far as it would go... ie LEAN LEFT when you LOOK LEFT! In that 99.9% of the time that is what you would do... Or put another way, you would NOT LEAN RIGHT to LOOK LEFT. By donig this it would help with the cockpit bars too.. For example.. you looking FORWARD and a aircraft to your LEFT slips behind the canopy bar where you can not see it... Currently when you look-left-forward you dont lean.. so alot of times...

TAGERT<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tagert...Tagert...Tagert... How many times do I have to tell you- "alot" is two words "a lot"

God Bless Germany by the way

tagert
02-01-2004, 07:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nazi_Boy_USA:
Tagert...Tagert...Tagert... How many times do I have to tell you- "alot" is two words "a lot"

God Bless Germany by the way<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>YAWN

TAGERT

Bearcat99
02-01-2004, 08:09 PM
Iused to laugh at that suggestion too. Till I took another look at Fighter Ave which also has the same feature. It is not a bad idea at all and would make the FR servers much more enjoyable for more people. Everybody doesnt havwe a mouse pan or a TIR... we tend to forget that at times and label servers and people as "arcade" or "fr" flyers.. when in actuality we all are sim flyers with various rigs and skill sets. I am glad that FB is so scalable... but moverable haeds would be even better.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://www.mudmovers.com/)

JG14_Josf
02-02-2004, 09:45 AM
A moveable head possition coupled with the already very valuable Shift F1 toggle would help make the Sim much more realistic and valuable.

If someone is incapable of understanding this fact then for what possible reason are they crusaiding against it?

If someone does actually want to know why a player would find value in the capability of simulated head movement then please consider taking the steps to load a training video titled Energy Game from the following IL2/FB track file site:
Thanks to Michapma (http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/il2guide/tracks.htm)

Michapma's site includes instructions for loading training files.

The Training file titled Energy Game includes an example of why moving the head possition is important to some players. We like to see, and we are able to manipulate one more button to toggle the Shift F1 head movement feature.

The problem occurs when the game severely limits head movement in the planes that need the most head movement such as the late 109s and all the FW190s.

In the track file the Mustang is hidden by the upper right canopy structure and unlike early 109s or the ME262 the Shift F1 key press does little or nothing to shift the head possition to allow viewing of the hidden Mustang.

This Track file points out that maneuvering the plane to see around the hidden target is ludicrous in situations when the idea is to maneuver for possition, to line up for a shot or to avoid a possible collision. Maneuvering the plane in such cases could cause loss of possition, a missed shot or a collision.

Look at the track file and realize that the real pilot would duck his head, move his head, left or right, stretch his neck, bang his face on one side and then the other side of the canopy glass in a supreme effort to see.

On the late 109s and the FW190s the head movement is so restricted that it is impossible to see past those forward up and forward right canopy structures and almost impossible to see around the left side forward up struts.

Compared to all other planes and particularly compared to the ME262, the Late 109s and the FW190s are like flying a different sim.

In the Late 109s and the FW190s the pilots have been simulated with no necks, or that they have been simulated as if their necks telescope out and in like a turttle's.

The FW190 pilots head actually lowers and moves back when shifting from the Gunsight view to the non-gunsight view.

If the player had the capability of placing the non-gunsight view anywhere in the virtual confines of the cockpit, many would obviously choose a possition closer to that one we see, in the sim now, when pushing the stick forward. Many players would opt for a head possition that was elevated rather than lowered and this would allow the player to see around the canopy struts at those crucial moments illustrated in the training file. When maneuvering is just not an option, when the real pilot would be inclined to simply move his head, this feature is already available in the sim for most of the planes in the sim.

Why are some players crusading to keep the late 109s and the 190s restricted in this regard?

This is no different that the unrealisic dissadvantages also placed upon the Late 109s with the pee stained canopies, The Yak9 dark glass, and the FW190s infamous blinding bar.

JG14_Josf
02-02-2004, 10:04 AM
P.S.

Having played this sim for some time and dealing with the restrictive head movement simulated in the Late 109s and 190s it occured to me to think aloud during mu first simulated flight in the ME262. I pressed my Shift F1 toggle and then with sincere gratitude I exclaimed: "Thanks Oleg this is how I would move my head around in a fighter plane." Like a boxer dodging jabs.

P.P.S.
I drive a Ford Pick up truck. At stop signs the oncoming traffic both vehicular and pedestrian can be hidden behind the very large vertical windshield supports. In an effort to see around those supports all that is required is a few inches of movement one way or the other; like a boxer dodging jabs.

Before anyone comes up with the declaration that a late model 109 or FW190 cockpit did not allow a few inches of movement up, down, or side to side them please post the actual dimentions.

Next time I go to the Chino meuseum I'll try to measure the 109 and the ME262.

buz13
02-02-2004, 11:40 AM
The FirePower addon for CFS3 has a head movement where you can stick you head out the open cockpit to get a better view forward when taking off. Only works on some FirePower aircraft. It's sort of cool...especially when it's snowing.

LEXX_Luthor
02-02-2004, 01:53 PM
Stiglr:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Luthor said: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>All I know is that Goludnikov could lean outside his plane far enough to see his rudder.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what? The I-16 has an open cockpit. Totally irrelevant to the discussion of planes with enclosed perspex pits.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think this is relevant to planes with cockpits. Indeed, if the wide enclosed cockpits of some USA planes allowed pilot as much pilot lean as the smaller open cockpit of I~16, then we see pilot lean is not purely dependent on cockpit enclosure. That is my reasoning. I think you explain your reasoning better over at the simhq. If you can't Deal with me, you better stay at the simhq. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Goludnikov must have stepped on a toe. He knows where the toes are.

Hey, he was an Ace Podiatrist (foot doktor) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif



__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.
:
you will still have FB , you will lose nothing ~WUAF_Badsight

XyZspineZyX
02-02-2004, 04:58 PM
If you can't see the difference between a plane that had perspex to bump one's head against (blown hood, wide and generous though that enclosed cockpit might be) and a plane with no obstruction whatsoever, no amount of arguing is going to suffice.

Physics kills your argument dead.

LEXX_Luthor
02-02-2004, 05:51 PM
Stiglr:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>wide and generous though that enclosed cockpit might be<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> A point of agreement. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Thanks.



__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.
:
you will still have FB , you will lose nothing ~WUAF_Badsight

02-02-2004, 08:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>This is a good example of EASY to SAY hard to do! IMHO it would be imposable with the current hardware at our disposal.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's easier than you think. AH does exactly that with its padlock function(which, nobody uses anyway, since the snap views are so much more effective in AH).

It just depends on how you are going to initiate the desired effect.

For instance, let's say you moved the pilot's head position to lean out a bit to your left or right when checking 6, and save it there.

All it has to do then, is when using TrackIR or padlock, when the line of sight crosses a certain X/Y/Z position, simply shift the center of head rotation to a certain position.

The camera shifts to a certain point to give out a 'lean' effect, and from there on to a certain range of angle, the center of rotation stays there, until it crosses another 'border', which would then again, change the center of rotation to another point, determined by where the pilot has saved the head position in the designated direction.

It's nothing as delicate as checking where the pilot's torso is and etc. but the desired effect is virtually the same: since logically, if one has saved a certain head position when he is checking that direction, it almost certainly means that he moved his line of sight clear of obstructions, to get a view he desires.

As I said, when using padlock in AH, the head position changes automatically, according to where the pilot has set his head positions, as it tracks the enemy plane. If it's possible in a game that uses less than 50mb initial download, then sure as he*l a game using two CDs can do it.

It just depends on how willing the developers are, to try a new scheme.

ps) ..and also, how much the general population of gamers have been infested with their over-realistic fantasies.

WWMaxGunz
02-02-2004, 09:44 PM
I see the view in some cockpits. I mouse down and around to see the instrument panel. There is a very slight distortion as the 3D render doesn't handle mapping flat 2D from a 3D polar model. Someone at least at 1C coesn't want to see any worse distortion showing and spent much time carefully trying to pick viewpoints as we can tell. So they don't want viewpoints to move as the looks are more important than being able to see. Golly-whoop I'd rather have the choice to function, thankyou whoever at 1C for not letting me choose for myself!


Neal

02-03-2004, 03:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I see the view in some cockpits. I mouse down and around to see the instrument panel. There is a very slight distortion as the 3D render doesn't handle mapping flat 2D from a 3D polar model. Someone at least at 1C coesn't want to see any worse distortion showing and spent much time carefully trying to pick viewpoints as we can tell. So they don't want viewpoints to move as the looks are more important than being able to see. Golly-whoop I'd rather have the choice to function, thankyou whoever at 1C for not letting me choose for myself!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I couldn't have said it better myself.. which brings us to another quote said previously in the discussion:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Because Aces High didn't have a 3d cockpit to deal with. In FB the 3d/2d cockpit is designed such that it only looks right from one perspective. So I'll bet my left nut that this wouldn't be implemented in FB, so save your breath.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What's the definition of "3D"? If it means the ability to maintain a reasonable perspective while at the same time retaining a totally free control of the view in a X/Y/Z axis, then truly "3D" is a definition worthy of AH rather than FB.

Anyone ever seen the sides of your own Revi sights? In AH, you can.

Yes, being able to see the sides of the Revi sight doesn't mean anything, but what it truly means is; in the scheme of cockpit orientation AH uses you can navigate the position of your head to any place within the cockpit you can think of, and you would get exactly the results you have predicted.

The cockpit in AH, in contradiction to what one may think, is what you may call "true 3D". It's placed directly inside the 3D model of the plane itself, using the exact dimensions of the cockpit area as depicted. Zoom in from outside during flight, and you see the guages that you use inside the cockpit, working and moving.

Obviously FB took a different approach. It models a photorealstic cockpit that is created separately from the initial model of the plane, which as mentioned, works in only one perspective, or a limited perspective(within the range of 'head shakes').

Frankly, I don't see the merit of a "3D" cockpit in that case. It's virtually no different from the 2D cockpits of old times. What's the use of a full 3D environment when you get no merit from it?

..

Granted, AH, which the developers themselves do not hesitate to say "it's a game, not a simulator", has the views going too lenient. Sometimes you can move the head position to extremes where you'd virtually be pushing your forhead to the windshield to get the desired effect in reality. The 'LindaBlaire' effect is also received ages of criticism since Day-1 of AH.

But from the gamer's point of view, being chaffed and strangled in a beautiful cockpit-cage simply sucks. Try looking out 1 O'C or 11 O'C high positions from inside a 109. The cockpit bars cover about 60% of the screen.

In real life, you can tilt your head about 10 degrees and you'd be clear of all the bars. Ah allows you to do that. For me it's quite obvious which system makes more sense as a flight sim accomodation.

Some might say moving and squirming around in high-Gs or maneuvering would be impossible in RL, which is right. But then again neither does FB model that effect.

LEXX_Luthor
02-03-2004, 04:55 PM
These flight sim Devs should sort all this out, and from there increase the Poly count, which will then be a Good Thing. Same with AI aircraft--make them all flyable, then increase the Poly count, which will then be a Good Thing.

btw, if anybody here flies the IL-2 Field Mod, they must STOP NOW, because its NOT flyable, since the rear gunner station is not modded. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.
:
you will still have FB , you will lose nothing ~WUAF_Badsight

LeadSpitter_
02-05-2004, 07:54 AM
hopefully in bob, pilot leans. I dont get why the dont make the pilot head move with pov trackir or mouse yet. This way we can view tracks and see whos using the trackir betas still.

http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LSIG.txt
VIEW MY PAINTSCHEMES HERE (http://www.il2skins.com/?planeidfilter=all&planefamilyfilter=all&screenshotfilter=allskins&countryidfilter=all&authoridfilter=%3ALeadspitter%3A&historicalidfilter=all&Submit=+++Apply+filters++&action=list&ts=1072257400)

MrOblongo
02-05-2004, 08:03 AM
I think a mobile head should be usefull for taxi, when u play with "always cockpit" u cant look foward, and in real life pilots could just move a little to look foward http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

HansKnappstick
02-05-2004, 08:22 AM
Oblongo? Any relation to Les Luthiers?

PriK
02-05-2004, 09:15 AM
Like I said, and you can ask ANY of the developers:

FB cockpits are a mixture of 3D modeling and 2D textures that LOOK 3D from one perspective only. This was done out of necessity to save polygons and processing cycles, or the game would have only been barely playable when it came out. It's an unfortunate reality but one that I'm sure will be rectified in BoB.

All I'm saying is that it's not going to happen in FB no matter how much we would like it because as soon as you lean your head one way, the illusion of a realistic looking cockpit would be exposed, and it raises a host of technical and artistic issues the way FB was designed from the beginning.

Let's hope something is implemented in BoB.

http://charvel.acwos.com/chbanner.jpg

Aaron_GT
02-05-2004, 10:42 AM
Kwessea:

With regard to seeing the dials moving
in AH from an external view (I've never
verified it myself) you can do this
in SDOE too. SDOE doesn't allow you
to move your head from side to side.

Also I notice that WB3 does lean-and-pan,
which is what is most needed for 6 views,
and would probably satisfy most people
to be honest. It does this in a virtual
cockpit. The graphics in WB3 aren't as
pretty as FB, but the frame rates are
decent and the graphics aren't irredeemably
bad.

Aces High allows you to do some slightly
unreaslistic things with head position,
but usefully it allows you to set up
fixed camera positions for looking towards
your six that replicate, to a certain extent,
the WB3 lean-and-pan system.

The nice thing about the WB3 lean-and-pan
is the fact that it is G limited, which is
nice.

tagert
02-05-2004, 10:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PriK:
Like I said, and you can ask ANY of the developers:

FB cockpits are a mixture of 3D modeling and 2D textures that LOOK 3D from one perspective only. This was done out of necessity to save polygons and processing cycles, or the game would have only been barely playable when it came out. It's an unfortunate reality but one that I'm sure will be rectified in BoB.

All I'm saying is that it's not going to happen in FB no matter how much we would like it because as soon as you lean your head one way, the illusion of a realistic looking cockpit would be exposed, and it raises a host of technical and artistic issues the way FB was designed from the beginning.

Let's hope something is implemented in BoB.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Huh? Hey PriK.. I assume you have some 3D experience? Could you describe this in more layman terms? In that I heard what you said awhile back with regards to IL2's cockpits.. And some here said it ain't so.. So, could you explain the why and how moving the current POV a little LEFT or RIGHT would make the current cockpits look.. funny?

I tried to explain it like this... Imagine you looking down at someone house from above.. And your view is centered on the chimney (i.e. gun sight). So, the top of the chimney is closer to you, thus looks a little bigger and the roof (panel) is father away, thus looks a little smaller...

The neat thing about a FIXED POV is you don't have to draw the sides of the chimney.. i.e. the part between the top of the roof and the top of the chimney...

Whereas with a MOVABLE POV you would have to draw the sides of the chimney, in that once you move away from being centered on the chimney, you would be able to see the sides of it..

Anyway, that is how I see it (no pun intended) but could you expand on that, and or correct my errors?

Thanks!

TAGERT

PriK
02-05-2004, 12:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tagert:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PriK:
Like I said, and you can ask ANY of the developers:

FB cockpits are a mixture of 3D modeling and 2D textures that LOOK 3D from one perspective only. This was done out of necessity to save polygons and processing cycles, or the game would have only been barely playable when it came out. It's an unfortunate reality but one that I'm sure will be rectified in BoB.

All I'm saying is that it's not going to happen in FB no matter how much we would like it because as soon as you lean your head one way, the illusion of a realistic looking cockpit would be exposed, and it raises a host of technical and artistic issues the way FB was designed from the beginning.

Let's hope something is implemented in BoB.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Huh? Hey PriK.. I assume you have some 3D experience? Could you describe this in more layman terms? In that I heard what you said awhile back with regards to IL2's cockpits.. And some here said it ain't so.. So, could you explain the why and how moving the current POV a little LEFT or RIGHT would make the current cockpits look.. funny?

I tried to explain it like this... Imagine you looking down at someone house from above.. And your view is centered on the chimney (i.e. gun sight). So, the top of the chimney is closer to you, thus looks a little bigger and the roof (panel) is father away, thus looks a little smaller...

The neat thing about a FIXED POV is you don't have to draw the sides of the chimney.. i.e. the part between the top of the roof and the top of the chimney...

Whereas with a MOVABLE POV you would have to draw the sides of the chimney, in that once you move away from being centered on the chimney, you would be able to see the sides of it..

Anyway, that is how I see it (no pun intended) but could you expand on that, and or correct my errors?

Thanks!

TAGERT<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You pretty much have it actually!

In FB some of the "pieces" of the cockpit are 3d models (collections of polygons obviously) and can be viewed from other angles, however some other things like some knobs, struts, and other pieces that look like they stick out in 3d are actually "painted" to look that way from one perspective only.

The other problem is that some of the pieces that are 3d hide sections that haven't been textured or finished so things could look pretty ugly if one was to lean their head. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

To change this would take a monumental effort in remodelling which just isn't going to happen for FB unfortunately. I guess we can't have everything.

http://charvel.acwos.com/chbanner.jpg

TheGozr
02-05-2004, 12:26 PM
Stiglr you suppose to be so much into the real thing.
Moveable head is a MUST.
When pilote a yak 9 I would always put the head outside the cockpit like every fighters, the nose is too hight and putting the head out is something you do always&lt;

-GOZR
"TheMotorheads" All for One and One for All (http://www.french.themotorhead.com/themotorhead_fighters/)

WWMaxGunz
02-05-2004, 01:36 PM
Tagert... the chimney is 3D as is the roof, but the shingles and gutters are painted on complete with shadows. It's very acceptable if only because it works.

As for me, I don't care as much as some people. There is head movement in IL2/FB just not full travel and not voluntary except rotation. Head moves to the side for some gunsights and that's as far as needed to look around canopy frames if we can do left as well as right. The POV changes that much during high G maneuvers just not side to side much at all.

Oleg, if you read this... some people value function more than looks. When I am looking out the window to find a target I am not looking at the instruments much if at all. Not enough to focus or be picky. Unrealism of interior graphics is less to me than unrealism of not able to shift head 10 cm to either side. I would not think less of the product, I would like it more.


Neal

PriK
02-05-2004, 03:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Tagert... the chimney is 3D as is the roof, but the shingles and gutters are painted on complete with shadows. It's very acceptable if only because it works.

As for me, I don't care as much as some people. There is head movement in IL2/FB just not full travel and not voluntary except rotation. Head moves to the side for some gunsights and that's as far as needed to look around canopy frames if we can do left as well as right. The POV changes that much during high G maneuvers just not side to side much at all.

Oleg, if you read this... some people value function more than looks. When I am looking out the window to find a target I am not looking at the instruments much if at all. Not enough to focus or be picky. Unrealism of interior graphics is less to me than unrealism of not able to shift head 10 cm to either side. I would not think less of the product, I would like it more.


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hear what you're saying and would personally not mind giving up some looks for functionality but I'm pretty sure the "gunsight shift" only works in the 109. I think the problem is more than just painted shadows but geometry as well.

http://charvel.acwos.com/chbanner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
02-05-2004, 03:51 PM
Gozr, a Yak-9 is an enclosed canopy fighter. What are you talking about, "putting your head out the window"? I suppose you let your tongue wag in the breeze, too?

The operative point is, even if we DO program "head bobs", how do we make them usable in flight? We already have hatswitches and buttons and keyboards programmed across the board with commands. Where do we PUT "crane your neck forward a smidge and over to the left a tad" and all of its variants?

Also, by the time you jury-rig that little command, the situation has changed and the bogie's no longer behind the offending strut.

Just bank the damned plane a little and get over it. Or use your SA to predict where the bogie will likely be when you CAN see better. You don't *HAVE* to have it centered in your gunsight or your view 100% of the time. Only when you're ready to fire.

tagert
02-05-2004, 04:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PriK:
You pretty much have it actually!

In FB some of the "pieces" of the cockpit are 3d models (collections of polygons obviously) and can be viewed from other angles, however some other things like some knobs, struts, and other pieces that look like they stick out in 3d are actually "painted" to look that way from one perspective only.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ok, so far I understand..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PriK:
The other problem is that some of the pieces that are 3d hide sections that haven't been textured or finished so things could look pretty ugly if one was to lean their head. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

To change this would take a monumental effort in remodelling which just isn't going to happen for FB unfortunately.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ah.. ok, I could understand it being big if someone had to go back and draw the sides of the chimney.. in that before the top of the chimney was just floating above the roof.. but off hand I can not think of too many aircraft where something is hidden by a 3d object.. cept maybe the gunsight on one or two.. And how big of an effort would it take to fill in that little spot behind the gun sight(s)? What aspect am I missing here? Becuase that does not seem to big to me?

As for shift.. The 109 and 262's do seem to have the sides of the chimney drawn in.. And dont know if you saw them, but back when Oleg was showing the Fw190 veiw from different POV's (ie seat up, an down) it looked like the top and bottoms of the chimney was drawn in too.. ie the gun sight (top of chimney) is not *floating* above the panel (roof) and has the gun sight brace (chimney sides) drawn in..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PriK:
I guess we can't have everything.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%! ;(

TAGERT

WWMaxGunz
02-06-2004, 05:13 AM
Stiglr, as I stated well over a year ago now there is NO need for extra switches. Tagert says the same. Move the view slightly as the head turns.

It matters not if the canopy is close or if your head is against the rest as long as your head actually turns and not just your eyeballs move. It matters not because your eyes are on the front of your face and not in the middle of your head. You turn your head and your eyes move with your face, it is far enough to see around some things.

If your head is in a helmet against a rest and you turn it then where is the axis of the turn? Is it in the center of your neck so the helmet brushes the rest? At such high G's that you can't hold your head and helmet off the rest? No, not at all. You rock your head against the back of the rest and roll the helmet, the axis of the turn is effectively behind the helmet and your eyes move total side to side a bit wider than your face, maybe half as much again wider depending on the helmet.

When you are not maneuvering hard which in reality was the great majority of the time, you get even more freedom to move your head and check around. How far behind them could real 109 pilots see while cruising? That was a very tight cockpit and yet I bet they weren't as limited as IL2 view is. They could get their eyes closer to the glass than the CENTER of the seat and slightly forward, don't you think?

Are you using track ir with the old software for a perfect rear view? Why fight so hard against allowing for a realistic increase in visibility unless there is some advantage with keeping things blocked as they are? I am mystified because I see the German planes so far as being the most disadvantaged as things are.


Neal

Willey
02-06-2004, 07:41 AM
There's one point that should be quite easy to implement.

Shut one eye, then look over your monitor. Now tilt your head up. You'll see more behind the monitor, because your eyes rise as you tilt your head up. The same goes for left/right. And that's what can be modelled. Right now, the eye (camera) is above the spinal coloumn in FB. It should be offset.

tagert
02-06-2004, 09:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
The operative point is, even if we DO program "head bobs", how do we make them usable in flight? We already have hatswitches and buttons and keyboards programmed across the board with commands. Where do we PUT "crane your neck forward a smidge and over to the left a tad" and all of its variants?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Stiglr.. I read some of your posts here in this forum and I think to myself.. "This guy really knows and understands the difference between REAL life and SIMULATED life and the LIMITATIONS of simulations" But on this one you seem to be a noob! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif You DON'T NEED ANOTHER hatswitch, button, keyboard programmed.. All you need to do is make the head LEAN (what you call bob) with the current methods.

For example.. your flying in formation.. looking forward.. you notice on the left side of your monitor that the lead aircraft you trying to fly formation on has slipped behind the front-left-cockpit-frame..

With the current fixed POV views.. when you press the HAT key to look front-left(i.e. 45? front left) your head did NOT lean.. Thus the cockpit frame STILL blocks the view of the aircraft..

Now.. if the POV moved as far left as it could (i.e. head hits the glass) to *simulate* the pilot leaning anytime you look left (front-left(45?), left(90?), rear-left(135?). Then the cockpit bar would appear to move to the right and you would see the aircraft that you could not see before.

No extra key necessary! In that 99% of the time that you LOOK left you LEAN left.

This could even be done to MOUSE and TrackIR inputs.. As the MOUSE or TrackIR starts to move LEFT, LEAN LEFT.. It would have that boxer bob and weave feel to it.

Now as I started out.. I really respect you opinion on things here! And I like to keep an open mind.. So, please, if you see an error in what I'm saying here, please enlighten me before I make a bigger A$$ out of myself! I think it is clear that we both want what is best and within reason!

TAGERT

WWMaxGunz
02-06-2004, 12:14 PM
Don't have ta lean or bump into the glass to see around the supports. Don't go giving out little snags for people with word-fixations to hang up on and lock the conversation down with. It could quick turn into something on the semantics-battle level over "but you said, and that ain't real".

Keep your shoulders steady and turn your head side to side. Either of your eyes moves perhaps a foot, end to end, side to side, whatever. Maybe 10" as in 25 cm. It's enough.

Sit with you head against a headrest and keep it against the headrest and do the same, you get even more travel and yet I bet you'd not bump the glass on a canopy. Nothing to say impossible in real about. No grounds for instant objections unless your undies get in a knot over distortions on the instrument panel. If it's an option then those people can choose not to.


Neal

tagert
02-06-2004, 12:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Don't have ta lean or bump into the glass to see around the supports. Don't go giving out little snags for people with word-fixations to hang up on and lock the conversation down with. It could quick turn into something on the semantics-battle level over "but you said, and that ain't real".

Keep your shoulders steady and turn your head side to side. Either of your eyes moves perhaps a foot, end to end, side to side, whatever. Maybe 10" as in 25 cm. It's enough.

Sit with you head against a headrest and keep it against the headrest and do the same, you get even more travel and yet I bet you'd not bump the glass on a canopy. Nothing to say impossible in real about. No grounds for instant objections unless your undies get in a knot over distortions on the instrument panel. If it's an option then those people can choose not to.


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I *think* I Agree 100%! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

We have to be clear if we are talking about how the real human head works and how the simulation works. I agree with you on what you said.. with regards to a real human head.. but in the simulation it is more of a cyclops with one eye and a real small head! That is the radius from the pivot point (neck) to the location of the eye(s) is ZERO, where as in real life it is about 5 or 6 inches...

So, yes, in real life you don't have to LEAN because the radius of your head is not ZERO and you also have TWO eyes..

But, no, in simulated life, you have to put in some LEAN to make up for the cyclops eye and ZERO radius head to move the POV to a point that would be equal (nearly) to a real human head

P.S. that ZERO radius is why we see SO MUCH of the head rest... Where as in real life we dont.. Try it in your car next time, keep your shoulders back, just turn you head and look back over your left shoulder like you do when you change lanes (i hope) and not how LITTLE of the head reast you actually see
TAGERT

flyingskid2
02-06-2004, 12:34 PM
NOOOO! I don't want auto-lean. Ideally i would like the head movements to be mappable to the mouse. You can use the hat for view and the mouse for head-lean. Or you can have two mice, one for look, one for lean. You can even use trackIR to control head movements. Now that would be more realistic than how trackir is currently used.

Give me full control. And let me worry about programming auto-lean with the view into my HOTAS if i want to.

XyZspineZyX
02-06-2004, 12:43 PM
Tagert wrote (and others concurred):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>All you need to do is make the head LEAN (what you call bob) with the current methods.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And you're telling me there won't be times when that "auto lean" by itself won't obscure a bogie who's sitting on one side or the other of a canopy brace, or just near the edge of the fuselage?

That's my point: obstructions WILL get in the way SOMETIME. They just *will*. Bank the plane or use SA for a second or two and move on. There is no handy-dandy solution to this problem.

JG14_Josf
02-06-2004, 01:15 PM
"There is no handy-dandy solution to this problem."

I hope that the makers of Flight Sims do not share Stiglr's opinion.

A handy dandy solution does exist now and it is very effective in most of the planes modeled in IL2/FB. The Shift F1 key press toggle can move the head to look around canopy bars without having to maneuver the plane which is a big advantage during combat, and is thankfully implemented in the game to allow a much more realistic simulation.

If the next Combat Flight Sim does implementing this type of inovative thinking then the future is bright.

I can imagine improvements in perspective that do include realistic eye arching as the virtual head moves. That would be great.

A virtual perspective that does allow the pilot to manipulate the limits of the cockpit as one would have done in reality, where the pilot can move up against the straps and lean his head into the canopy to get that extra view out over the tail fin or he may stretch his head up against the force of gravity in a turn to see over the nose, would be fantastic.

We already have such ability, albiet limited, in IL2/FB with the virtual pilots momentum effect. Our virtual perspective bobs around up and down as the plane rolls and pitches. Perspective movement is possible. It lends, at least in my opinion, much to the suspension of belief or immersion.
As it is now a pilot can move his perspective up down left and right foward and back with simulated g force. How much more difficult would it be to map that g force to a controler to simulate the pilots desire to move his head? I would use such a hat or combination of buttons, or even a track IR type device. It wouldn't need to be a requirment to use the perspective movement hat. Stiglr could ignore it too.

BaldieJr
02-06-2004, 01:24 PM
Stiglr and PriK are right.

The cockpit would look really ugly if you could lean your head one way or the other because of the details.

And, it would create havok in the code that handles head-movement due to g-forces.

I would like to say: I agree with tagert, it would be a nice option, and a nice step in the direction of TiR5 Ultra 3D (TRADEMARK). Unfortunately, it just isn't going to work in FB.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
______ _____
(, / ) /) /) , (, /
/---( _ // _(/ _ / __ ,""""]
+----/ ____)(_(_(/_(_(__(__(/____/__/ (__--------,' /---+
| / ( / ,' NR / |
|(_/ ..-""``"'-._ (_/ __,' 42 _/ |
+-.-"" "-..,____________/7,.--"" __]-----+

</pre>

tagert
02-06-2004, 01:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
And you're telling me there won't be times when that "auto lean" by itself won't obscure a bogie who's sitting on one side or the other of a canopy brace, or just near the edge of the fuselage?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No that is NOT what Im telling you! What Im saying is that without LEAN if it is blocked in the forward view, it will also be blocked in the front-left (45?) view... BUT if the head were to LEAN and TURN instead of just TURN then what was blocked in the forard view (0?) would NOT be blocked in the forward-left (45?) view. AND VISAH VERSA!!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
That's my point: obstructions WILL get in the way SOMETIME.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Then your missing my point, in that CURRENTLY without the LEAN the obstruction is in the way ALL OF THE TIME while that thing is behind the obstruction. Where as with the TRUN and LEAN it would move the obstruction, thus reveling what is behind it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
They just *will*. Bank the plane or use SA for a second or two and move on.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Why should we have to BANK the plane when in real life all they had to do was BANK (ie lean) thier head a little to the left or right? Moving your head is much Much MUCH quicker then moving the aircraft.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
There is no handy-dandy solution to this problem.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree 100%

TAGERT

Aaron_GT
02-06-2004, 02:24 PM
Stiglr, it is certainly possible that
a bogey would be obscured with cockpit
framing in a turn-and-lean system, but
sensibly you would code a progressive
amount of lean. So 45 degree rear - basically
no lean, full rear - maximum lean. This
would give you a shift of perspective
as you turn so giving you a good chance
of seeing where the bogey goes. It won't
be perfect - the system can't be, but
I think it would be an improvement, especially
for seeing onto your 6, over the current
set up.

In addition there would need to be some
code such that a move from 45 rear to
full rear on the hat moves to one side,
and 45 rear on the other side to full
rear, to the other side, with some sort
of preference for which direction a
sudden movement to full rear would go to.

I doubt we'll see this until the BoB
sim, but it's worth making suggestions.

Monty_Thrud
02-06-2004, 03:30 PM
I would certainly like to be able too pull back the canopy and lean left or right for taxying to runway, you wouldnt need a cockpit view for that. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
Also i would like to pull the canopy back in flight for some fresh air as i spend to much time playing IL2fb http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
02-06-2004, 03:42 PM
What some of you don't seem to understand is that there will always be some time when something is obscured.

How is the sim supposed to tell when to apply the lean and when not to? Should it read your mind? Should it compute whether a bogie is obscured or not and react to that? If yes, *which bogie*? The one blocked by the left forward rail or the one just off the edge of the right wing leading edge?

It would be just as possible to have the lean happen and obscure a plane that would have been visible had you just changed the view angle and left it alone; or just banked the damned plane, as I suggested earlier. Then what? Oh, then we need a "no, I meant lean this way command. That's what....? Shft+Cmd+L+Backspace .... (gotta remember backspace, that's the "no, changed my mind" modifier) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Meanwhile, you've been bounced by two planes and had both wings removed. Hmmm...that's a solution to your visibility problem in and of itself. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Also: are any of you familiar with out of plane maneuvers, like lag pursuit rolls, and barrel roll attacks, that *require* you to have to lose sight of the enemy? Yeah, these exist. Once again, your use of situational awareness will allow you to predict where the enemy is likely to be once you've completed that maneuver. There IS no "lean" command to fix that.

I think some of you are so used to padlock use, and having your view "given" to you with no effort that you're expecting this new pipedream feature to solve even more Situational Awareness problems that are simply the pilot's responsibility.

You guys are asking for a HUD and radar lock. They didn't have those on WWII aircraft.

Rant mode off. I'm not against a feature like this appearing, useless though it may be in actual flight; I sure wouldn't ever need to use it. I just think the time spent coding it might be better spent on other things.

tagert
02-06-2004, 04:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
What some of you don't seem to understand is that there will always be some time when something is obscured.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
NOT TRUE! Keep in mind the following statements by me are on the original topic.. i.e. cockpit frame!! So stay focused here, don't wander and talk about wings.. or gauge panel or etc.. COCKPIT FRAMES!!!

With that said.. what YOU don't seem to understand is that if something is obscured by a cockpit bar, all you would have to do in REAL LIFE is lean a little and your eyes would be able to see around it.

It is clear to me that you didn't read or didn't understand my previous example and explanation of the difference between a real human head with two eyes and the way the simulation works. The simulation presets a view of the world that is like that of a person with one eye (i.e. cyclops) and a very small head (i.e. gus who fly 109s).

With that in mind, imagine you are looking FORWARD.. in the sim you see the full FRONT of the cockpit i.e.

-45? FRONT-LEFT side of canopy frame
0? CENTER Gun sight (center of PC monitor)
45? FRONT-RIGHT side of canopy frame

Now imagine an aircraft went behind the LEFT side canopy frame.. and you can no longer see it. Your fist inclination is to press the HAT key and look FORWARD-LEFT (45?) i.e.

-90? LEFT side of canopy frame
-45? FRONT-LEFT side of canopy frame (center of PC monitor)
0? CENTER Gun sight

But due to the fact that the simulation view is that of a one eyed person with a small head.. When you simulated TURNING your head by pressing the HAT key to look FORWARD-LEFT (45?) the aircraft is STILL NOT VISIBLE!! Why? Because of the one eyed small head effect!

In real life, you head has two eyes AND is not small, therefore when you turn your head the position of your eyes move along an arc of a radius equal to your head size (about 6") which would make the cockpit bars appear to move to the RIGHT!

NOTE!! We have not even begin to talk about the LEAN YET!!

In real life, you would not only turn your head, but LEAN to the LEFT. Thus making the cockpit frame appear to move EVEN FARTHER to the RIGHT

Which in turn WOULD EXPOSE THE AIRCRAFT THAT WAS BEHIND THE COCKPIT FRAME!!!!!!!!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
How is the sim supposed to tell when to apply the lean and when not to? Should it read your mind? Should it compute whether a bogie is obscured or not and react to that? If yes, *which bogie*? The one blocked by the left forward rail or the one just off the edge of the right wing leading edge? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>SIGH! Ok, one more time, 99.999999% of the time when you LOOK left you LEAN LEFT. Therefore the sim would not have to know, it would simply and automatically LEAN the POV to the LEFT whenever you LOOK

-45? FRONT-LEFT
-90? LEFT
-135? BACK-LEFT

and LEAN the POV to the RIGHT whenever you LOOK

45? FRONT-RIGHT
90? RIGHT
135? BACK-RIGHT

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
It would be just as possible to have the lean happen and obscure a plane that would have been visible had you just changed the view angle and left it alone<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> NO! NO! NO! What you fail to understand is currently if it is obscured in the FORWARD view it will be obscured in the FORWARD-LEFT view due to the one eyed small head effect... *IF* the aircraft is viewable from the FORWARD view there is no need to LOOK LEFT!!

It is TRUE that if you can see it from the FORWARD VIEW, and the LEAN WAS ENABLED that you might cause the aircraft to be obscured when you look FORWARD-LEFT! BUT! YOU WOULD NOT DO THAT!! If you can see it in the current view why would you change the view in the first place? And even if you did you could toggle between the two views like A LOT OF PEOPLE DO NOW WITH THE ZOOM (SHIFT F1) KEY TO CAUSE THE COCKPIT FRAMES TO MOVE FRONT AND BACK.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
or just banked the damned plane, as I suggested earlier.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Why should we have to bank the plan... when in real life the guy would just move his head a 1/2 inch? Moving the head is much Much MUCH quicker!!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Then what? Oh, then we need a "no, I meant lean _this_ way command. That's what....? Shft+Cmd+L+Backspace .... (gotta remember backspace, that's the "no, changed my mind" modifier)

Meanwhile, you've been bounced by two planes and had both wings removed. Hmmm...that's a solution to your visibility problem in and of itself.

Also: are any of you familiar with out of plane maneuvers, like lag pursuit rolls, and barrel roll attacks, that *require* you to have to lose sight of the enemy? Yeah, these exist. Once again, your use of situational awareness will allow you to predict where the enemy is likely to be once you've completed that maneuver. There IS no "lean" command to fix that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I give up.. it is clear that you are not reading any of this.. or are just suborn, or just don't want to admit you were in error.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I think some of you are so used to padlock use, and having your view "given" to you with no effort that you're expecting this new pipedream feature to solve even more Situational Awareness problems that are simply _the pilot's responsibility_.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You couldn't be more wrong if you tired! TrackIR here! And before that the HAT keys... whinned myself off of padlock YEARS ago.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
You guys are asking for a HUD and radar lock. They didn't have those on WWII aircraft.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>WOW! You really didn't read a dam thing did you? Why do I bother trying to have a conversation with you if all you do in every post is cut-n-paste your pervious post?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Rant mode off.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thank god! Now can you

SET OPEN_MIND=TRUE
SET READ_POSTS_B4_I_REPLY=TRUE

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I'm not against a feature like this appearing, useless though it may be in actual flight; I sure wouldn't ever need to use it. I just think the time spent coding it might be better spent on other things.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Only because you still don't seem to understand what it is we are asking for.. you proved that when you said we are asking for a HUD RADAR LOCK! You couldn't be more wrong if you tried to be!! As a mater of fact.. I think you reading one thread and responding to another! Please take a moment and read what we said b4 you respond! Or do us a favor and don't respond at all! Your cut-n-paste from previous posts are killing me!!

TAGERT

[This message was edited by tagert on Fri February 06 2004 at 03:56 PM.]

WWMaxGunz
02-06-2004, 04:51 PM
So now it is that if some change doesn't completely fix or solve everything or reality blocks the view some of the time then any change is wrong?

If my view of the wing lead is blocked then fly different? Wonderful... just wonderful. If you can't see the problem then open your eyes. Hint: you turn the plane and it goes in a different path and speed.

The auto move suggestion was made back when the objection by the maker was about having extra keys to use being too much. And the code doesn't have to know which way to move, left is left a small amount and right is right a small amount... perhaps a dozen cm. YES, sometimes an object will get blocked as you turn but you should have 3 positions that cover it in the view and only ONE will be blocked instead of ALL. Great concept really having something instead of nothing, not having to slow your plane down with wobbles just to see around you.

Head movement, automatic or otherwise will put the view closer to the canopy when looking towards six and let you see what pilot accounts say you can. Dead six still won't be viewable but five and seven should be clear for most planes. But I guess what was real is no longer an arguement when pilot responsibility can be thrown up. When realism as a "debating" is lost, come up with something else quick, huh?

No I don't care that at times view is lost in maneuvers, that is real where inability to look around the struts even a little is not and it is the whole POINT of the thread, not arguing stupid things like there being times no matter what when view is lost. Go join Huck and help show that Me-262's were possibly capable of breaking mach 1! If sheer stubborn makes a difference then I'm sure that 262's could hit warp 3 and have visited Alpha Centauri and there's still Third Reich colonies over there. If you want to raise BS arguements then get really creative at least.

Tagert: put a mark on a cylinder and turn it around its axis then note how far the side to side is. Then place it on the table with the mark up and roll it 45 deg to one side and note how far the lateral move is. Head against a rest rolls against the rest, doesn't brush it at least with a couple G's or if it's reclined well. I don't know where the effective axis is and I suspet without checking that the motion of the mark (pov) would more resemble an ellipse than a circle.

This won't make FB, be very sure, but hopefully gets into some other sim down the line. Moving the view in such a way would be very natural.

Just perhaps maybe instead of side to side a bit of actual forward and back like gunsight view for all planes with sights at center could be allowed in the planes with offset sights? When the view is moved forward and rotated back, there's a better view to the rear and it gives a way to get around the struts a little. It's not high-G real BUT it is in the sim and it doesn't seem to violate the 3D cockpits.


Neal



Neal

tagert
02-06-2004, 05:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Tagert: put a mark on a cylinder and turn it around its axis then note how far the side to side is. Then place it on the table with the mark up and roll it 45 deg to one side and note how far the lateral move is. Head against a rest rolls against the rest, doesn't brush it at least with a couple G's or if it's reclined well. I don't know where the effective axis is and I suspet without checking that the motion of the mark (pov) would more resemble an ellipse than a circle.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%! That FACT is what I ws trying to describe when I was describing the difference between real life and simulations.. In simulations the view is that of a ONE EYED PERSON WITH A REAL SMALL HEAD!! That is why we see so much of the HEAD REST when we look back. PS I agree with everything else you said too.. Just wanted to drive this point home in the hopes that others will see the light of the difference between real life (big head two eyes) and the simulation (small head one eye)

TAGERT

XyZspineZyX
02-06-2004, 05:02 PM
MaxGunz wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Hint: you turn the plane and it goes in a different path and speed.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If some of you "aces" would take my advice to heart, you'd discover that, many times, if you're trying to lag pursue a bogie, often, the bank direction that will clear your obstructed view is "where you're likely going anyway". Example: you're on the tail of a bogie who's rolling and skidding and doing everything possible to shake you. If he disappears on the lower edge of your forward windshield, (added for tagert) OR BEHIND A CANOPY BRACE, a slight bank will likely uncover him, and you're likely banking in that direction anyway, to keep your wings in plane with him.

Conversely, against a wild "barrel roller", it is very effective to roll in the *opposite* direction he is; you'll end up in plane with him in about the same amount of time, and if he's watching from his cockpit, it can sometimes confuse the hell out of him, giving you a good shot opportunity.

Also, Gunz, anyone should know that banking doesn't turn the plane. Pulling on the stick *after* banking does. You absolutely can and do use bank for visibility reasons. Check turns (clearing your own 6) being one example. Another being, standing on a wingtip and looking below while you're weaving over a slow bomber formation. And you can also use a bank to "sell" a turn in one direction to a pursuing enemy, then quickly continue the bank underneath to another direction and escape. A good FW190 pilot or P-39 pilot will know this move.

You guys can dream up all the automatic features you want, and configure keyboard commands 'til the cows come home...and you can (rightfully) discuss how the sim's view system doesn't simulate binocular vision or human physiology perfectly... or you can learn to use a hat, learn to use your SA and your plane to solve these *very momentary* problems and get on with the task at hand. Your choice.

[This message was edited by Stiglr on Fri February 06 2004 at 04:15 PM.]

[This message was edited by Stiglr on Fri February 06 2004 at 04:16 PM.]

tagert
02-06-2004, 05:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
If some of you "aces" would take my advice to heart, you'd discover that, many times, if you're trying to lag pursue a bogie, often, the bank direction that will clear your obstructed view is "where you're likely going anyway". Example: you're on the tail of a bogie who's rolling and skidding and doing everything possible to shake you. If he disappears on the lower edge of your forward windshield, a slight bank will likely uncover him, and you're likely banking in that direction anyway, to keep your wings in plane with him.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>WOW! Just so you know, what you described is not what we are talking about.. In that example you gave the ONLY WAY to regain view if to bank the aircraft... BUT WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT!! That is to say we ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT when an aircraft goes behind the lower edge of your forward windshield... TRANSLATED BEHIND THE COCKPI PANEL Nor are we talking about when they go behind you WINGS, SIDE OF COCKPIT, SEAT, FLOOR, ETC!! What we are talking about is when the go behind the COCKIPT FRAME!! The things tha HOLD THE GLASS!!

TAGERT

XyZspineZyX
02-06-2004, 05:13 PM
Tagert, "just below the edge" of your windscreen is really just the same as "behind a canopy strut", depending on your angle and the bogie's position. It's a half-second condition, most of the time, a fleeting interruption in your tracking solution. In fact, I'll go back and amend the post above. Changing canopy strut for windshield changes the explanation not ONE iota.

And, if he's diving, it CAN quickly turn into a situation where your nose or wings block the view. Either way, you lose view, and it's more or less inconvenient for you, depending on your SA skills.

It's even a factor when the bogie is NOT blocked. Have you ever felt the need to check six and be sure you're not being attacked two seconds before you plan to open up on another plane in front of you??? It's a good idea to do this if you value survival. But it's a tactical problem, because you can't look behind you and in front of you at the same time. However, if the bogie in front doesn't see you, or isn't maneuvering hard, you may judge that, yes, you DO have time to take your eyes off that juicy target, and check around you to be sure you're clear...then return to find that bogie in your gunsights just like a few seconds before...only closer.

Again, situational awareness...pilot decision and responsibility...

tagert
02-06-2004, 05:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Tagert, "just below the edge" of your windscreen is really just the same as "behind a canopy strut", depending on your angle and the bogie's position.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree 100%! Example...

ONE Cockpit frame with Glass on both sides of the frame
TWO Cockpit frame with Glass on one side and solid panel on the other

In case ONE you could lean either way to expose what is behind it
In case TWO you can only lean one way

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
It's a half-second condition, most of the time, a fleeting interruption in your tracking solution.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Depends

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
In fact, I'll go back and amend the post above. Changing canopy strut for windshield changes the explanation not ONE iota.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Wrong, see above.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
And, if he's diving, it CAN quickly turn into a situation where your nose or wings block the view. Either way, you lose view, and it's more or less inconvenient for you, depending on your SA skills.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Apples and oranges.. We WERE and ARE talking about Cockpit Frames.. If you want to talk about WINGS, SIDE PANELS, FRONT PANELS, HEAD REST, SEAT, FLOOR, or any other SOLID thing that you can not see though and thus must bank/move the aircraft to maitain a trak... FEEL FREE TO DO SO! Just understand that is NOT the topic at hand here!!!!!!

TAGERT

XyZspineZyX
02-06-2004, 05:25 PM
Also, returning to your post above, tagert, I understand what you mean by the "instant lean"...
but what about if the "desired effect" (or the view you want) is simply what you'd get just by viewing left? How is the sim to know when the lean is desirable and when it is not?? How is the sim to know when the bogie is obstructed (and it should lean) and when it isn't obstructed (and it doesn't need to lean), and when there's no bogie at all (and then the whole lean or no lean discussion is moot)? Or multiple bogies? What about if an obstruction in one plane isn't there for another plane? Does the sim have to compute that, too? Will a FW190 have more lean code than a P-51, since you can see better out of a Stang? You could double the source code size with all this "lean code" crap.

It isn't perfect, no, but "just bank the plane" really is a simpler, and effective solution. Even "wait a second until he reappears" is more elegant than this overwrought "lean code" idea.

And by the way, a canopy frame is just as solid as any other obstruction. The position or thickness of the obstruction is moot (I agree that with binocular vision, it isn't, but we don't HAVE binocular vision in the sim, nor partially translucent frames, so it's pointless to whine about it); the more apropos problem is the relative position and size of the unseen bogie.

[This message was edited by Stiglr on Fri February 06 2004 at 04:36 PM.]

tagert
02-06-2004, 05:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Also, returning to your post above, tagert, I understand what you mean by the "instant lean"...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not Instant! It would move as fast as the current views move when they turn.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
but what about if the "desired effect" (or the view you want) is simply what you'd get just by viewing left?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Simple! The desired effect does not exist! In that if you can see the bogie from the FRONT view there is NO NEED to press the HAT and use the FRONT-LEFT view. But, as I pointed out before, you are correct in that if you FOR SOME REASON wanted to look FRONT-LEFT you run the chance that the LEAN might cause what you can CURRENTLY SEE from the FORWARD view to be obstructed in the FRONT-LEFT view!!! But you wouldnt do that!!! BUT IF YOU DID! For some reaons, you could simply TOGGLE back and forth LIKE SO MANY DO NOW with the ZOOM VIEW (Shift F1) to move the cockpit frame out of the way

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
How is the sim to know when the lean is desirable and when it is not?? How is the sim to know when the bogie is obstructed (and it should lean) and when it isn't obstructed (and it doesn't need to lean), and when there's no bogie at all (and then the whole lean or no lean discussion is moot)? What about if an obstruction in one plane isn't there for another plane? Does the sim have to compute that, too?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It does NOT have to know because you wouldnt do it in the first place! That is really BAD SA!!! I can see the bogie... Geeee I wonder if I can still see it when I look over here?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
It isn't perfect, no but "just bank the plane" really is a simpler, and effective solution.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Banking is SLOWER! And is not the POINT of this topic! We know we can do that.. we do it!! The POINT and GOAL of this thread is to talk about how the current crop of sims could do a better job! A more realistic job! I dont expect to see it in FB, but I hope they consider it for BoB

TAGERT

tagert
02-06-2004, 05:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Will a FW190 have more lean code than a P-51, since you can see better out of a Stang? You could double the source code size with all this "lean code" crap.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, I invission the LEAN to be equal to the space in the given cockpit.. By equal, I mean if the pilot had the freedom to lean farther in one aircraft (P51D with bubble canopy) than another (Any Bf109) then the lean would be equal to that extra room, thus simulating the fact that some aircraft had better views than others

TAGERT

tagert
02-06-2004, 05:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
And by the way, a canopy frame is just as solid as any other obstruction. The position or thickness of the obstruction is moot<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not True! Read my example again, Im not talking about the cockpit fram thickness, Im talking about what is on the LEFT and RIGHT of it.. if GLASS is on both sides, you can lean either way.. if GLASS is on one side and a solid chuck of metal is on the other (say gaue panel) than you can only lean one way

TAGERT

XyZspineZyX
02-06-2004, 05:48 PM
tagert wrote, exasperated:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>if GLASS is on both sides, you can lean either way.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stigler says, equally exasperated:

I agree you could lean either way. But, *which* way? Left? Right? Up slightly? Down Slightly? Oblique a smidgen? Following which obstructed bogie? How about the next time? Which way then, since it's a totally different situation?

Do you see my point? There's a reason why views have traditionally been limited to 4 or 8 basic directions: you can't account for every single angle. For every conceivable head position, some bogie, some time will *still* be obstructed.

tagert continued:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>then the lean would be equal to that extra room<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How MUCH of that extra room? The view has to be coded to move to or revolve around an EXACT coordinate in space. There *is* no "range" for it to move to according to your desires or where the bogie is in relation to your head, somewhere out in space. And conversely, it can't tell how much of that room you may want to use at any one point in time. THAT is my point.

One question, and if you can't "get it" then, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree:

Can you or can you not envision a scenario when, because the "extra lean" is used, a bogie could then *become* obstructed, where it might not have if you just plain "looked in direction X"?

[This message was edited by Stiglr on Fri February 06 2004 at 04:57 PM.]

tagert
02-06-2004, 06:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I agree you could lean either way. But, *which* way? Left? Right? Up slightly? Down Slightly? Oblique a smidgen? Following which obstructed bogie? How about the next time? Which way then, since it's a totally different situation?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>OH MY GOD! Im starting to belive your just messing with me? The commnent of either way was with regards to your comment about the bogie dipping "just behind the edge" of the front pannel of the cockpit.. the thing with the gauges on it.. In that case you would have to BANK/MOVE the aircraft to maitain sight, in that you can not SEE THROUGH THE FRONT PANNEL! As for the *which way*... ie back to the orginal topic of cockpit frames (ie NOT WINGS, PANELS, HEAD REST, FLOOR BOARD, ETC) the sim does NOT NEED TO KNOW which way to LEAN!!! In that 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the time WHEN YOU LOOK TO THE LEFT YOU LEAN TO THE LEFT

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Do you see my point?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which one should be the question!! You keep jumping off onto other topics.. STAY FOCUSED!! The topic at hand is the COCKPIT FRAMES!!! THE SOLID THINGS YOU CAN NOT SEE THROUGH THAT RESIDE BETWEEN THE GLASS THAT YOU CAN SEE THOUGH!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
There's a reason why views have traditionally been limited to 4 or 8 basic directions: you can't account for every single angle. For every conceivable head position, some bogie, some time will *still* be obstructed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is not why they are limited, it is a hardware limitation of the HAT's and the resolution of your finger to manipulate said HAT.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
How MUCH of that extra room?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>OH MY GOD!!! You are messing with me arnt you? HOW MUCH? AS MUCH AS THERE WAS AND NO MORE!! LEAN TILL YOUR HEAD HITS THEN STOP!!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
The view has to be coded to move to or revolve around an EXACT coordinate in space.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
There *is* no "range" for it to move to according to your desires or where the bogie is in relation to your head, somewhere out in space. And conversely, it can't tell how much of that room you may want to use at any one point in time. THAT is my point.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>MOVE TILL YOUR HEAD WOULD HIT THE GLASS!! Do what so many sims do, take an avg sized joe's head, and make consessions for the one eye aspect, then move the head as far as it could go for the respective aircraft you are flying at the moment

TAGERT

tagert
02-06-2004, 06:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
One question, and if you can't "get it" then, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree:

Can you or can you not envision a scenario when, because the "extra lean" is used, a bogie could then *become* obstructed, where it might not have if you just plain "looked in direction X"?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I give up.. we are going to have to agree to disagree.. I have answered that very question three times here before you even asked it!! Your not reading anything so why should I write anything?

TAGERT

Recon_609IAP
02-06-2004, 06:25 PM
man, alot of energy getting burned in here - time for a good walk? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

S!
609IAP_Recon

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg
Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

tagert
02-06-2004, 07:27 PM
Ok.. they say a picture is worht a 1000 words.. God I hope so! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Here is how the simulation views the world. One big eye at a POINT. When we change the view via the HAT, MOUSE, ETC the POINT simply rotates.. That is the POV at X1,Y1,Z1 does not move to another POINT

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/one_eye_pin_head.jpg


Now the following image is how it would work if you included LEAN. It is still the One eye thing, but the one eye is no longer located at the piviot point. It is a certain radis from the pivit point at X1,Y1,Z1. When you LOOK LEFT the rotation will cause the eye to move along an arc. Thus exposing what was once blocked.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/one_eye_big_head.jpg

NOTE dont confuse either of these with a real human head with two eyes!

TAGERT

TheGozr
02-06-2004, 07:55 PM
Tagert posted 05-02-04 14:51
Gozr, a Yak-9 is an enclosed canopy fighter

Nope WRONG ! the canopy or winshield slide back.

I know since in the middle of the flight we even lost the Ball handle into the tringleries.

-GOZR
"TheMotorheads" All for One and One for All (http://www.french.themotorhead.com/themotorhead_fighters/)

tagert
02-06-2004, 10:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TheGozr:
Tagert posted 05-02-04 14:51
Gozr, a Yak-9 is an enclosed canopy fighter

Nope WRONG ! the canopy or winshield slide back.

I know since in the middle of the flight we even lost the Ball handle into the tringleries.

-GOZR<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What in the HE double L are you talking about?

TAGERT

TheGozr
02-06-2004, 10:30 PM
It mean that the Canopy on a Yak 9-U slide back. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

-GOZR
"TheMotorheads" All for One and One for All (http://www.french.themotorhead.com/themotorhead_fighters/)

tagert
02-06-2004, 10:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TheGozr:
It mean that the Canopy on a Yak 9-U slide back. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

-GOZR<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah.. in the same way you mean the Me262 go faster than sound? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT

WWMaxGunz
02-06-2004, 10:53 PM
Russian pilots had flown different fighters cockpit open to clear it of fumes or at low speed to see the runway for landing. Rowan's BoB allows for the same. Perhaps somebody dropped a ball handle for the canopy during a flight.

Stig: I do know what bank is for even though I got late into online flying 6 years ago but I've flown and flown sims much, much longer. I also know that deflecting control surfaces makes drag. I also know that to hold a bank in IL2/FB you have to hold the sick to the side. And in lag pursuit I stay back a bit, if the target goes down I'll probably roll inverted to keep my alt and the target as much in view center as I can without changing my path unneccesarily. I also like to fly loose formation without extra twisting around. This kind of view would allow better rear view.

I don't know why you find this idea so difficult. it's actually a good step towards realism. Try turning your head and body in such a way that your nose is the axis of your head movement. That is any rotate on a point view system. It is very uncomfortable to do at best an I'd guess impossible strapped into a cockpit even without G load.

I don't see how it would be easier to crank the whole plane around than to have head turning reveal different areas behind struts even if some areas are also hidden. You can still twist and roll the plane to see then, can't you? And you'll only get a better rear view and still not be cheating with some head move.

Snap view? I use it. One stick button toggles between modes. Snap view is the most unrealistic in-cockpit mode yet in some ways it facilitates peripheral vision and quick head turns over the slowness of panning. I don't advocate getting rid of snap view, I do advocate expanding on pan view towards better realism.


Neal

Gibbage1
02-06-2004, 11:43 PM
Its all very simple. The cockpits in IL2 were not made to be seen from any other angle then what you aready see. If we implamented pilot "lean" then we would need to remodel every cockpit. At this stage, thats not possible. Just hope to have it in BoB or any other future flight sim.

Gib

tagert
02-06-2004, 11:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Its all very simple. The cockpits in IL2 were not made to be seen from any other angle then what you aready see. If we implamented pilot "lean" then we would need to remodel every cockpit. At this stage, thats not possible. Just hope to have it in BoB or any other future flight sim.

Gib<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hey Gib! Cant wait for the lan party! As for the LEAN.. we all realise it is too much to ask for IL2.. Along with semi-transparent cockpit frames.. But sense we got your ear.. Just what is is bout the cockpit that is not drawn? Take the Me262 for example, when you do the ZOOM (shift F1) you see alot of the top of the gun sight.. and what is just behind it.. And remember back when Oleg was showing the Fw190 forward view from different POV's.. Granted in both of those cases it was a shift UP and DOWN.. Is the part that is not drawn the LEFT and RIGHT sides? Is that what would have to be drawn if the LEAN was implimented?

TAGERT

JG14_Josf
02-07-2004, 12:06 AM
Stiglr wrote:

Also: are any of you familiar with out of plane maneuvers, like lag pursuit rolls, and barrel roll attacks, that *require* you to have to lose sight of the enemy?

Fighter Combat by Robert Shaw
page 67,68,69

Lag Displacement Rolls

"A slow, continuous roll toward the bogey (here to the right) during this phase of the maneuver enables the attacker to maintain sight throughout, and he passes above and behind the defender essentially inverted..."

Lag Displacment Rolls = maintain sight throughout


BOYD
by Robert Coram

page 120

"A page from the "Aerial Attack Study"..."

"Procedures for the Barrel-Roll Attack"

"3. Pull up and zoom inside your opponent's turn radius..."

"4. Barrel-roll, nose-high, in a direction away from your opponent's turn. If he turns right, barrel-roll left, and vice versa. The roll will reduce vector velocity and the height of the yo-yo apex, yet maintain a higher aircraft velocity."



Note that if the attacker pulls inside the opponents turn radius for a barrel roll attack and then turns away from the opponents turn then the attacker will be able to maintain sight of the opponent.

If anyone is reading this topic and does not know the value and employment of a view system that allows the sim pilot to look around canopy bars instead of having to maneuver the plane to see around canopy bars then please consider looking at the training video titled Energy Game avaialable at the following site:

Michapma's track file web page (http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/il2guide/tracks.htm)

If you follow the instruction for loading the training file or if you simply view the file as a track file with manual view control off, then you should be able to see how head movement allows the player to see around canopy bars. However this track file also shows how on the Late model 109s do not have enough head movement in some situations. The situation where not enough head movement stands out is when comparing the late 109 head movement with the Me262 head movement or compare the FW190 head movement with the Yak head movement.

Pressing one toggle button is a simple and easy way to simulate a persons ability to move his head. I have no trouble using this feature, certainly no more trouble than I have moving my own head. This is a much better solution to seeing around the canopy bars then having to give up angles, energy, or possition to the opponent during a combat maneuver, particularly during maneuvers such as the Lag displacement roll, and the Barrel roll attack which are maneuvers that allow the pilot to maintain sight throughout the maneuver.

Gibbage1
02-07-2004, 01:30 AM
Its simple. When we make a cockpit, we remove all "backfacing" polygons. That means that all the polygons that is NOT facing the pilot. Take for instance a throttle knob. It may look like a sphear, but its not. Its only the front half thats facing you. Sometimes its not even that but a flat photo of a knob. Also things like switches, guages, and other things WILL start to "brake" when yo lean. I know for one, the K-14 gunsight does not have any sides. Since its so side, you would never see the sides unless you could lean. So the modeler deletes the sides so the 3D card will not need to render any unseen polygons. Now. If you put lean in the P-51 and leaned over, you could see THROUGH the sides of the K-14 since its NOT a solid object. Also, if you LEANED and looked back in the P-80, you would see there is NOTHING behind the armor headrest. Or the P-38. In the P-63 the throttle colum would disappear because its a lot of flat surfaces pointed at the pilot. Looking at the side of a 1 sided object does not work in 3D.

I am using my aircraft as examples because I know what would break. I have seen Oleg's cockpit models (P-51, 109, 190, 262 to name a few) and they are built in the same way. They will brake if you leaned. Even more so for Lomac!!! Its little tricks-of-the-trade. But now video cards are able to handle extra polygons, and so that allows us artist's to model everything. So a round knob will be a round knob, not a flat surface with a pic applied to it. This will open up things like Lean (in the cockpit, and out for taxiing) and also self-shaded cockpits were you see your canopy frame cast a shadow accross your cockpit as you roll the aircraft. Expect that in the next generation of sims. But dont expect it in the current crop.

Todays video cards also support a lot of other features that would look simply stunning if applied to the world of flight sim. The main problem likes in a few things.

#1, simmers typically dont have the "latest and greatest" in hardware (spacifically DX9 compatible video card).

#2, these new visual effects are typically resurved for FPS (first person shooters) because they rake in the money and have a huge market. So they have more money to develop these things. Like Half-Life 2, Doom III, and Far Cry.

Just think what a flight sim could be when some of the cool eye-candy features in Half-Life and Doom III trickle its way into flight sims. Then you will see details you never thought possible. Like real rivits and panel lines on the skin or real-time shadows in the cockpit and on the aircraft. I drool just thinking of it.

Who knows. We may see that stuff sooner then later. Lets see what the next crop of flight sims has in store for us.

tagert
02-07-2004, 01:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Its simple. When we make a cockpit, we remove all "backfacing" polygons. That means that all the polygons that is NOT facing the pilot. Take for instance a throttle knob. It may look like a sphear, but its not. Its only the front half thats facing you. Sometimes its not even that but a flat photo of a knob. Also things like switches, guages, and other things WILL start to "brake" when yo lean. I know for one, the K-14 gunsight does not have any sides. Since its so side, you would never see the sides unless you could lean. So the modeler deletes the sides so the 3D card will not need to render any unseen polygons. Now. If you put lean in the P-51 and leaned over, you could see THROUGH the sides of the K-14 since its NOT a solid object. Also, if you LEANED and looked back in the P-80, you would see there is NOTHING behind the armor headrest. Or the P-38. In the P-63 the throttle colum would disappear because its a lot of flat surfaces pointed at the pilot. Looking at the side of a 1 sided object does not work in 3D.

I am using my aircraft as examples because I know what would break. I have seen Oleg's cockpit models (P-51, 109, 190, 262 to name a few) and they are built in the same way. They will brake if you leaned. Even more so for Lomac!!! Its little tricks-of-the-trade. But now video cards are able to handle extra polygons, and so that allows us artist's to model everything. So a round knob will be a round knob, not a flat surface with a pic applied to it. This will open up things like Lean (in the cockpit, and out for taxiing) and also self-shaded cockpits were you see your canopy frame cast a shadow accross your cockpit as you roll the aircraft. Expect that in the next generation of sims. But dont expect it in the current crop.

Todays video cards also support a lot of other features that would look simply stunning if applied to the world of flight sim. The main problem likes in a few things.

#1, simmers typically dont have the "latest and greatest" in hardware (spacifically DX9 compatible video card).

#2, these new visual effects are typically resurved for FPS (first person shooters) because they rake in the money and have a huge market. So they have more money to develop these things. Like Half-Life 2, Doom III, and Far Cry.

Just think what a flight sim could be when some of the cool eye-candy features in Half-Life and Doom III trickle its way into flight sims. Then you will see details you never thought possible. Like real rivits and panel lines on the skin or real-time shadows in the cockpit and on the aircraft. I drool just thinking of it.

Who knows. We may see that stuff sooner then later. Lets see what the next crop of flight sims has in store for us.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>WOW! Cool! Thanks for breaking it down for me in layman terms!! I think I actually understood all that! Thanks bud!!

TAGERT

WWMaxGunz
02-07-2004, 09:38 AM
Hi Gibbage! Can you maybe sound out being able to move the viewpoint forward toggled as little as 15 to 20 cm and toggle that? I think, the same as gunsight view for planes with center aligned gunsights but allow for LW planes and the P-47's with offset sights? Perhaps the player could not see around the textures and yet have a position to look past struts and get a little more rear view?

Just one try although someday when the face can be closer to the side of the canopy the P-39's for one will be much more playable, those long thick ovals to the sides hinder a good area to keep in sight.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
02-07-2004, 11:23 AM
If anyone's still interested, I have seen the description of the lag displacement roll that has you rolling *away* from the bogie as toward it (which is what I understand to be a simple yo-yo). It is the movement away from the bogie which creates the displacement.

In Shaw's book, he does maintain a roll towards the bogie maintains sight; but this is merely the preferable option; if you look at pg. 69 of the same text, the illustration via a quote by Robin Olds has him banking sharply and turning towards a bogie at 10:00 and turning left...and rolling to the *right* (e.g., AWAY from the bogie and the direction of turn) to create the displacement; he would *have to* lose sight for a short time, of course, arriving upside down over the bogie (actually, inverted left bank) after the roll, and regaining visual before pulling down into it.

I respect Mouse Shaw, but I think there are a number of descriptions of lag displacement roll. It seems Boyd describes this as the "Barrel Roll Attack".

The underlying point, however, remains the same, whether the maneuver nomenclature is off or not: There *are* maneuvers that assume you will lose sight of the bogie; for a short time, is the operative phrase. point being it is not necessary, nor is it a realistic expectation to keep visual on a bogie 100% of the time.

[This message was edited by Stiglr on Sat February 07 2004 at 11:12 AM.]

[This message was edited by Stiglr on Sat February 07 2004 at 11:14 AM.]

XyZspineZyX
02-07-2004, 11:33 AM
tagert, i see your "binocular vision" explanation above; I agree that if our monitors could show binocular vision, it'd solve the problem.

But, it *doesn't*. It shows a 2-dimensional view of a 3-dimensional world. You could get that effect if the braces or other "thin aspect" objects were slightly translucent, or if icons would display 'through' those graphics.

But, our hatswitch (and our Shft+F1 view, too) all simply move the direction of that monocular POV. I still don't understand how this magic lean is going to be the panacea you envision, when "where the obstructed bogie will be" will be different every time. So, you're just as likely to obscure the bogie as unobscure it.

Also, you mention "using the hat". Using the hat already gets you SOME view, and you could assume it represents the best view possible given the cockpit's constraints. I still don't "get" how this "mindreading, situationally dependent lean" is going to help.

02-07-2004, 11:43 AM
So with the confirmation from Gib, I think we can safely say IL-2/FB cockpits are semi-3D with a 'facade' type of agenda. Or, like they say in Japan, a "2.5D".

I think all that can be said that needs to be said has been said already. The price of photorealistic cockpits on an 'economic' basis of reducing polygon numbers.

The most ideal solution would be having the cockpit literally in "full 3D".

Would that be possible in the upcoming BoB? I'm curious as to what were the reasons in the decision to limit cockpit interfaces to 2.5D - limitations in the computer system? What would it take to run a full 3D cockpit in the detail level as of now?

Better yet to think about, is if the need for restraints still exist in BoB, what would the players prefer?

a) A full 3D cockpit with moveable heads by sacrificing the detail level

or

b) A beautiful photorealistic cockpit as of now, with the head movements restricted

..

In any case, any game, my personal preference would to lead choose a). What does the community think?

TheGozr
02-07-2004, 12:23 PM
tagert
I know what i'm talking about.

Did you fly the Yak 9-U?

http://www.shadetreeusa.com/yak9pho.jpg
The Canopy slide back... period

-GOZR
"TheMotorheads" All for One and One for All (http://www.french.themotorhead.com/themotorhead_fighters/)

tagert
02-07-2004, 12:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
If anyone's still interested, I have seen the description of the lag displacement roll that has you rolling *away* from the bogie as toward it (which is what I understand to be a simple yo-yo). It is the movement away from the bogie which creates the displacement.

In Shaw's book, he does maintain a roll towards the bogie maintains sight; but this is merely the preferable option; if you look at pg. 69 of the same text, the illustration via a quote by Robin Olds has him banking sharply and turning towards a bogie at 10:00 and turning left...and rolling to the *right* (e.g., AWAY from the bogie and the direction of turn) to create the displacement; he would *have to* lose sight for a short time, of course, arriving upside down over the bogie (actually, inverted left bank) after the roll, and regaining visual before pulling down into it.

I respect Mouse Shaw, but I think there are a number of descriptions of lag displacement roll. It seems Boyd describes this as the "Barrel Roll Attack".

The underlying point, however, remains the same, whether the maneuver nomenclature is off or not: There *are* maneuvers that assume you will lose sight of the bogie; for a short time, is the operative phrase. point being it is not necessary, nor is it a realistic expectation to keep visual on a bogie 100% of the time.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Alot of P47 pilots used that roll-away method

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

JG14_Josf
02-07-2004, 12:28 PM
What does the comunity think?

This individual part of the communicty thinks the best solution is the one that promotes a more accurate recreation of WWII Air Combat.

On the one hand if the next game was able to display a video realistic movie quality picture as if the game had used a high quality digital movie camera to render game artwork but if this movie picture was of a single limited POV possition and angle then WWII Air Combat accuracy would suffer.

On the other hand if the next game had only wire outlines to depict the cockpits but the new game has a virtual headset that allowed the player to command his perspective exactly as he could in the real cockpit complete with g limitations, and all other physical limitations then I'd say accuracy would also suffer. WWII air combat was fought with WWII airplanes and the fact that IL2/FB allows the player to see with much precision what the inside of a WWII airplane looks like makes the game more valuable and more accurate.

My opinion for the ideal balance leans toward the combat maneuvering end of things.

tagert
02-07-2004, 12:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
tagert, i see your "binocular vision" explanation above; I agree that if our monitors could show binocular vision, it'd solve the problem.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>SIGH It is NOT binocular vision.. that is the same POV (blue dot) rotated (moved, ie LEAN) to the left... Look at the orginal OBSCURED view at X1, Y1, Z1 (&lt;= note the 1's) and then MOVED to a new position X2, Y2, Z2 (&lt;= note the 2's)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
But, it *doesn't*. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%.. And I think if you take 1 min to read it you will realise it is not an example of binocular vision (ie two POV's combined) it is just one POV moved from spot #1 (X1,Y1,Z1) to spot #2 (X2,Y2,Z2) to SHOW HOW what was obscured at spot #1 (X1,Y1,Z1) will NOT BE obscured at spot #2 (X2,Y2,Z2)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
It shows a 2-dimensional view of a 3-dimensional world.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No it doesnt, see above

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
You could get that effect if the braces or other "thin aspect" objects were slightly translucent, or if icons would display 'through' those graphics.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True, and I went over that in lenght in RBJ's thread.. you saw it there too.. I think the semi-transparent (translucent) aproch is a better way to go, in light of what Gib confirmed!! Making the cockpit frames.. the things that hold the glass (ie NOT the Wings, Panels, Head rest, etc) semi-trans would allow the cockpits to remain the way there are.. ie one POV eleviate the need for the lean.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
But, our hatswitch (and our Shft+F1 view, too) all simply move the direction of that monocular POV. I still don't understand how this magic lean is going to be the panacea you envision, when "where the obstructed bogie will be" will be different every time. So, you're just as likely to obscure the bogie as unobscure it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Go back and read it again.. I mean read it for the first time and note that picture is NOT of binocular view, it is a monocular view that show it at spot #1 then at spot #2.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Also, you mention "using the hat". Using the hat already gets you SOME view, and you could assume it represents the best view possible given the cockpit's constraints. I still don't "get" how this "mindreading, situationally dependent lean" is going to help.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Go back and read it again.. I mean read it for the first time and note that picture is NOT of binocular view, it is a monocular view that show it at spot #1 then at spot #2.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

[This message was edited by tagert on Sat February 07 2004 at 11:45 AM.]

tagert
02-07-2004, 12:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TheGozr:
tagert
I know what i'm talking about.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I dont think you do.. in that you started of replying to me with a QUOTE that I never even said.. But if you feel you know.. tell me what it is you think Im talking about

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TheGozr:
Did you fly the Yak 9-U?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Have

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TheGozr:
The Canopy slide back... period<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There you go again.. it is clear that you are confused in that I never said it didnt slide back.. But Ill play your game.. what does that have to do with.. what you think Im talking about?

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

JG14_Josf
02-07-2004, 12:56 PM
Tagert,

Please, can you elaborate some on the lot of P-47 pilots that used the roll-away method?

I am currently trying to capture a lag displacement roll/Barrel roll attack track file for training purposes. It would help me to find more examples of this maneuver.

The need to displace or increase horizontal separation makes sense, to me, when the maneuver is initiated inside the opponents turn much as one does in a rolling scissors, however a typical attack on the ouside of the opponents turn already has horizontal separation and an ouside roll would, and seems to work out in practice, cause excessive separation. It seems to me that the high Yo-Yo works better when the attack is initiated on the ouside of the opponents turn and therefore the roll is done towards the opponent to maintain horizontal separation. Separation is controled with the pitch up in the vertical.

Any help on this is appreciated.

One way to look at this situation is during an element attack where two attacking planes bracket an enemy with nearly zero AOT. In other words you and your wingman are flying a close line abreast formation and you both bounce an opponent. You and your wingman expect the opponent to maneuver so you separate some and increase AOT during the initial attack.
Let's say your wingman takes the right side and you are on the left.
Both you and your wingman close upon the enemy rapidly.
The opponent turns left.
Now you are faced with increase AOT and minimum range.
Your wingman is going to increase separation with the opponent soon to exceed maximum range.
While you can employ a lag displacement roll to increase separation and maintain range requirements your wingman would only increase range with a roll to the outside, your wingman would be in a much better situation if he were to roll inside such as can be done with a high Yo-Yo.
This hypothetical situation could end in a collision with you and your wingman because you both are trying to find the best possition for the attack. One rolls outside and the other rolls inside, depending upon how the attack is initiated relative to the opponent.

TheGozr
02-07-2004, 01:02 PM
maybe it's a miss coms here .. lol

I was saying that on the yak if you want to go around the runways you have to put your head out, Slide the canopy back and put the head out on the sides. because the nose is very high that it's near impossible to see in front of the yak.

-GOZR
"TheMotorheads" All for One and One for All (http://www.french.themotorhead.com/themotorhead_fighters/)

tagert
02-07-2004, 01:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Tagert,

Please, can you elaborate some on the lot of P-47 pilots that used the roll-away method?

I am currently trying to capture a lag displacement roll/Barrel roll attack track file for training purposes. It would help me to find more examples of this maneuver.

The need to displace or increase horizontal separation makes sense, to me, when the maneuver is initiated inside the opponents turn much as one does in a rolling scissors, however a typical attack on the ouside of the opponents turn already has horizontal separation and an ouside roll would, and seems to work out in practice, cause excessive separation. It seems to me that the high Yo-Yo works better when the attack is initiated on the ouside of the opponents turn and therefore the roll is done towards the opponent to maintain horizontal separation. Separation is controled with the pitch up in the vertical.

Any help on this is appreciated.

One way to look at this situation is during an element attack where two attacking planes bracket an enemy with nearly zero AOT. In other words you and your wingman are flying a close line abreast formation and you both bounce an opponent. You and your wingman expect the opponent to maneuver so you separate some and increase AOT during the initial attack.
Let's say your wingman takes the right side and you are on the left.
Both you and your wingman close upon the enemy rapidly.
The opponent turns left.
Now you are faced with increase AOT and minimum range.
Your wingman is going to increase separation with the opponent soon to exceed maximum range.
While you can employ a lag displacement roll to increase separation and maintain range requirements your wingman would only increase range with a roll to the outside, your wingman would be in a much better situation if he were to roll inside such as can be done with a high Yo-Yo.
This hypothetical situation could end in a collision with you and your wingman because you both are trying to find the best possition for the attack. One rolls outside and the other rolls inside, depending upon how the attack is initiated relative to the opponent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ahhhh I can look.. I think Shaws book has a good example of it.. I am not hip to all the pilot jargon .. but I think they called it a rollaway? In a nut shell, the P47 didnt turn so good.. and keeping the E up is critical.. so comming in fast.. if the bogie starts to turn left.. you roll right, extend just a bit, then keep rolling right all the way back around to the left.. all this with a little climb along the way, this will reduce you turing radius and keep your speed up.. BUT you do have to take your eyes off the bogie for a short time.. At first if feels very un-natural.. but with time it starts to grow on you.. it works well in teh Me262 by the way! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As for you wingie and you both going for the target.. I think that is the problem itself.. in that in real life I *think* that one would attack and the other would just work on covering the guy who is attacking.. They may trade off from time to time.. but I dont think they would typicall both go in at the same time.. Keep in mind that is RL.. Sims are much different! Eveyone is John Wayne Brave! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

tagert
02-07-2004, 01:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TheGozr:
maybe it's a miss coms here .. lol<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TheGozr:
I was saying that on the yak if you want to go around the runways you have to put your head out, _Slide the canopy back_ and put the head out on the sides. because the nose is very high that it's near impossible to see in front of the yak.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>We talking real life here or simulation? If real life... that is basically true for all tail draggers.. and most keep the canopy slid back while taxing.. The P47 was so bad they use to have a guy sit on the wing and tell the pilot when and where to turn..

Now if your talking about simulation.. are you saying we can slide the canopy back on the Yack and poke out heads out? If so.. what is the key(s) to do that?

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

TheGozr
02-07-2004, 01:40 PM
LOL.. i wish too in FB..
It was on real life.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

-GOZR
"TheMotorheads" All for One and One for All (http://www.french.themotorhead.com/themotorhead_fighters/)

WWMaxGunz
02-07-2004, 04:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TheGozr:
maybe it's a miss coms here .. lol

I was saying that on the yak if you want to go around the runways you have to put your head out, _Slide the canopy back_ and put the head out on the sides. because the nose is very high that it's near impossible to see in front of the yak.

-GOZR
http://www.french.themotorhead.com/themotorhead_fighters/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find it helps a little to make the widest view and then one hat click down on many of the tail draggers in the sim. Unless the wings or cockpit edges badly block the view you get to see a bit more of the runway to either side for takeoff. On landing I have to judge by things off to the side again in widest view. I notice where they are on the way in and usually get it right but still some zig and zag down the runway.

You ever play Rowans' battle of Britain? You can slide the canopy back and lean out or at least over.


Neal

straffo
02-08-2004, 06:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kweassa1:
In any case, any game, my personal preference would to lead choose a). What does the community think?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would say ah) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
But it's already the case , I've an hardtime trying to make gauges more pretty for AH2 but readable ...
A sort of compromise between IL2 and AH ... stay tuned Kweassa I'll post some within 2 next (on the other BBS obviously http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

XyZspineZyX
02-08-2004, 11:01 AM
More about rolling away from a bogie.

the P-47 presents a good example of why you might want to do this.

In the case of a maneuverable, tight turning aircraft, you might prefer to do a high yo-yo, since you'll be able to turn inside your enemy with just a little separation caused by the yo-yo.

In the case of a P-47, which turns like a truck, you might still be in a position to overshoot by doing "only" a high yo-yo. You need to create MORE separation in the same short period of time.

So, rolling away from a bogie instead of over and inside his turn creates more separation and relaxes the rate of turn you'll need to stay in a good LAG position.

Do a high yo yo with your hands, then do a lag displacement roll. You'll better visualize it that way.

Better yet, get a buddy to fly with you, where you can get him to do certain maneuvers as you move in for a shot. It's much harder to get the AI to cooperate, and even when they do, they "cheat" and can do all sorts of interesting things to obscure the true capabilities of the planes.

mr_Decent
02-08-2004, 03:05 PM
I´d like to see the head lean to look as much backwards as possible automaticly, if your pulling high G´s your head be thrown back.

The head moves up and down with G´s right?

And then offcourse, add it as an option.

tagert
02-09-2004, 11:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
More about rolling away from a bogie.

the P-47 presents a good example of why you might want to do this.

In the case of a maneuverable, tight turning aircraft, you might prefer to do a high yo-yo, since you'll be able to turn inside your enemy with just a little separation caused by the yo-yo.

In the case of a P-47, which turns like a truck, you might still be in a position to overshoot by doing "only" a high yo-yo. You need to create MORE separation in the same short period of time.

So, rolling away from a bogie instead of over and inside his turn creates more separation and relaxes the rate of turn you'll need to stay in a good LAG position.

Do a high yo yo with your hands, then do a lag displacement roll. You'll better visualize it that way.

Better yet, get a buddy to fly with you, where you can get him to do certain maneuvers as you move in for a shot. It's much harder to get the AI to cooperate, and even when they do, they "cheat" and can do all sorts of interesting things to obscure the true capabilities of the planes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But did you take another look at that picture I made for you? Do you now realise it was not a case of binocular vision (ie 2 POV) but of monocular (ie 1 POV) from two different points looking at the same thing.. Where at POINT #1 (x1,y1,z1) you could not see it, and them moved to (ie LEAN) to POINT #2 (x2,y2,z2) where you could see it.

I spent a half hour drawing up that thing for you.. You could at least comment on it! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Here it is again, so you dont have to scroll back

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/one_eye_big_head.jpg

Note that is just ONE POV moved from POINT #1 to POINT #2 to show how a MOVE/LEAN would make something visable at one point and blocked at another

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

[This message was edited by tagert on Mon February 09 2004 at 10:59 AM.]

XyZspineZyX
02-09-2004, 04:18 PM
I fully understand the concept you drew. But how does this lean "happen"? Button push? Key command? Extra hat? Software reads your mind? Don't give me "automatically", because that can't happen. The software doesn't know the bogie's obstructed in the first place. It doesn't know "which" bogie you "want to see".

That's my whole point. YOU have to tell the software where it's looking (unless the bogie's padlocked, in which case the software makes that one point of view revolve around that one straight line between your virtual eye and the bogie.

I'm not saying what you want isn't desirable, or even realistic. It is. I'm saying it's not *practical*. Your description is too "fuzzy" for the 1 and 0 software world.

Even in Ace's High, you could alter your POV presets, sector by sector, to afford what you thought was the "best" view (often unrealistically so), but all you did was move the points of blindness along with the points of view. Depending on the situation, you'd still have obscured bogies; only in different situations, different relative angles.

And, it also had a nudge view, too, IIRC, but if you were already using a hat to look in a particular general clock direction, and maybe the other hand on a throttle, how were you going to manipulate "nudge a little more" keys? With your toe? No, that's on the rudder pedals..... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

tagert
02-09-2004, 06:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I fully understand the concept you drew.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>NOW.. but before you called it binocular.. and went as far as to point out that IL2 is moncular.. Which told me you thought that was a picture of TWO EYE's and not ONE POV moved.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
But how does this lean "happen"? Button push? Key command? Extra hat? Software reads your mind?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Simple.. In that 99.9% of the time when you LOOK LEFT you will LEAN LEFT. Therefore when you LOOK LEFT with the Keyboard Key (ie #4 on the num pad), HAT, MOUSE, TrackIR, etc the POV will MOVE/LEAN LEFT Automaticlly.. Thus removing the need for the software to read your mind! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Don't give me "automatically",<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Too Late! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
because that can't happen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes it can

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
The software doesn't know the bogie's obstructed in the first place. It doesn't know "which" bogie you "want to see". That's my whole point.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And it does not have to!!

IM PUTTING THE FOLLING IN BOLD IN THE HOPES THAT YOU WILL READ IT

LOOK AT MY DRAWING.

CASE #1 at POINT #1 is what you see IN YOUR FIELD OF VIEW (ie about 30degrees) while looking FORWARD!
CASE #2 at POINT #2 is what you see IN YOUR FIELD OF VIEW (ie about 30degrees) while looking FORWARD-LEFT.

I did not draw the arc of the fieled of view, and the black dotted line between the red and blue dot is not the CENTER of the field of view. Try to use some imagination here

CASE #1 looking FORWARD, and the red dot is blocked in that view.
CASE #2 looking FORWARD-LEFT, and the red dot is no longer blocked.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
YOU have to tell the software where it's looking (unless the bogie's padlocked, in which case the software makes that one point of view revolve around that one straight line between your virtual eye and the bogie.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No you dont have to tell it, in that it will automaticlly LEAN/MOVE LEFT when you look..

FORWARD-LEFT
LEFT
BACK-LEFT

And it will automatically LEAN/MOVE RIGHT when you look..

FORWARD-RIGHT
RIGHT
BACK-RIGHT

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I'm not saying what you want isn't desirable, or even realistic. It is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I'm saying it's not *practical*.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Your description is too "fuzzy" for the 1 and 0 software world.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not ture, not true at all!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Even in Ace's High, you could alter your POV presets, sector by sector, to afford what you thought was the "best" view (often unrealistically so), but all you did was move the points of blindness along with the points of view. Depending on the situation, you'd still have obscured bogies; only in different situations, different relative angles.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Havnt played AH in years, so Ill have to take your word for it

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
And, it also had a nudge view, too, IIRC, but if you were already using a hat to look in a particular general clock direction, and maybe the other hand on a throttle, how were you going to manipulate "nudge a little more" keys? With your toe? No, that's on the rudder pedals..... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I dont know how AH does it, but, when you consider the FACT that 99.9% of the time that you LOOK LEFT you will LEAN LEFT it makes sense to simply tie the lean in with the current things that move the view.. ie HAT key LEFT will also make it lean left

But.. I can see you are strugling with all this.. So, take a look at the following THREE CASES I made for you..

CASE #1 ONE POV with FOV LOOKING FORWARD (green) ONLY
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/ONE_POV_FORWARD.jpg

CASE #2 ONE POV with FOV LOOKING FORWARD (green) and FOV LOOKING FORWARD-LEFT (gray)
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/ONE_POV_FORWARD_AND_FORWARD_LEFT.jpg

CASE #3 TWO POVs with 1st POV/FOV LOOKING FORWARD (green) and 2nd POV/FOV LOOKING FORWARD-LEFT (gray)
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/TWO_POV_FORWARD_AND_FORWARD_LEFT.jpg

The thing to notice here is the difference between CASE 2 and CASE 3.

In CASE #2 there is only ONE POV.. That is there is no moving of the POV (ie no lean) therefore, what is obscured in the FORWARD view WILL ALSO BE OBSCURED IN THE FORWARD-LEFT VIEW

In CASE #3 there are TWO POV's... That is there is moving of the POV from point 1 (x1,y1,z1) to a new POV at point 2 (x2,y2,z2). Note that what was obscured at point 1, while looking FORWARD is NOT OBSCURED at point 2 while looking FORWARD-LEFT

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

[This message was edited by tagert on Mon February 09 2004 at 06:17 PM.]

02-09-2004, 07:11 PM
In the effort to raise my pom-poms for tagert:


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Stg: But how does this lean "happen"? Button push? Key command? Extra hat? Software reads your mind?

tag:Simple.. In that 99.9% of the time when you LOOK LEFT you will LEAN LEFT. Therefore when you LOOK LEFT with the Keyboard Key (ie #4 on the num pad), HAT, MOUSE, TrackIR, etc the POV will MOVE/LEAN LEFT Automaticlly.. Thus removing the need for the software to read your mind! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doesn't even need to be automatic. Remember where this discussion originated? Give customizable head positions that can be saved.

tag points out very correctly, that when you look at a certain direction the overall majority of the times your line of sight will be trying to look around the obstruction.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Stig: Originally posted by Stiglr:
Don't give me "automatically" because that can't happen.

tag: Yes it can<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd say 50:50.

Calculating whether the line of sight is obstructed or not is possible - especially if you designate the target with a padlock. Otherwise, getting the machine to recognize a situation by using normal snap views or TrackIR/mouse pan views would be a difficult task - however, one does not need automated functioning anyway. What tag suggests here...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>tag: No you dont have to tell it, in that it will automaticlly LEAN/MOVE LEFT when you look..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

....is actually not an 'automatic tracking' you think of Stig. It's more close to the system AH already uses - with great deal of success.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Stig: Originally posted by Stiglr:
I'm not saying what you want isn't desirable, or even realistic. I'm saying it's not *practical*.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's desirable, more realistic and even practical. Just limit the range of customizable(or 'automatic', in the case of tag's suggestion) head movements to more conservative levels than compared to AH and it's already way better than what we have currently.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Stig: Originally posted by Stiglr:
Your description is too "fuzzy" for the 1 and 0 software world.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're not getting what tag's saying, Stig.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Stig: Even in Ace's High, you could alter your POV presets, sector by sector, to afford what you thought was the "best" view (often unrealistically so), but all you did was move the points of blindness along with the points of view. Depending on the situation, you'd still have obscured bogies; only in different situations, different relative angles.

tag: Havnt played AH in years, so Ill have to take your word for it<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't take his word for it, because I beg to differ. I understand what you're saying tagert, and in that aspect, the system AH uses is very simular to what you are suggesting. The only difference, is that how much you can 'automatically lean' can be defined by the user. You set up a view point free of the obstructions, and save it there. And afterwards, when you look in that direction again, the view point will automatically move to the position you have saved. It's virtually the same concept as what you have in mind, tagert.

"...all you did was move the points of blindness along with the points of view" this line may fool you. Obviously, there's no such thing as a view system that's totally unobscured(unless its a no-cockpit).

The whole point here, is how much one can reduce, or move the obscured parts so that it effects the pilot less.

For example, according to your suggestion tagert, when you look at 1O'c position in the Bf109, your pilot will want to automatically "lean" more right to move the diagonal canopy bar to the far left corner of the screen, so that the center of the monitor retains a clear, unobscured view, and also can look at things from a slightly different perspective and angle, which would allow the pilot to see things that could not have seen, than when his head was stuck on a corn dog.

That's exactly how the AH view system works. The only 'unrealistic' thing about it is allowing the pilots to move and save their head upto a bit extreme angle and position.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Stig: And, it also had a nudge view, too, IIRC, but if you were already using a hat to look in a particular general clock direction, and maybe the other hand on a throttle, how were you going to manipulate "nudge a little more" keys? With your toe? No, that's on the rudder pedals.....

tag: I dont know how AH does it, but, when you consider the FACT that 99.9% of the time that you LOOK LEFT you will LEAN LEFT it makes sense to simply tie the lean in with the current things that move the view.. ie HAT key LEFT will also make it lean left<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's really simple. When looking at 11O'c, and you want to lean left, then you save your head position to maximum left lean. Because there's no reason to use something like only 50% lean, and then make it go to 70, 80, 90, 100% as the bogey moves into the obstructed parts. Just save it at 100% lean in the first place and use it there.

In a word, AH view system makes sense. Especially when the more recently introduced planes, have a lot more restricted room of head movement. Obviously you're not gonna be able to see your tail fin in the razorback P-51B in AH: you are able to look straight 6O'c, but the only thing you will see, even with 'leaned' head postions, is the tip of the horizontal stabs.

As I said the system AH uses is about the closest thing that exists to what you suggest tagert.

tagert
02-09-2004, 07:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kweassa1:
In the effort to raise my pom-poms for tagert:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kweassa1:
Doesn't even need to be automatic. Remember where this discussion originated? Give customizable head positions that can be saved.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>TRUE!! VERY TRUE!! It does not have to be.. But it COULD BE! In that in the orginal discussion all these guys who were aginst it were aginst it becase they felt it meant we NEED ANOTHER KEY! We really dont.. but I would not be aginst having one too.. As long as you had the option to tie it into the current keys (ie automatic) or some new key!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kweassa1:
I'd say 50:50.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well I ment it can in the sense just make it tied into the current keys, not that some software would deterimine it for you

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kweassa1:
You're not getting what tag's saying, Stig.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That much is for sure! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I hope my resent pics will help with the FOV overlay instead of just a line between the bogie and pov

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kweassa1:
Don't take his word for it, because I beg to differ. I understand what you're saying tagert, and in that aspect, the system AH uses is very simular to what you are suggesting. The only difference, is that how much you can 'automatically lean' can be defined by the user. You set up a view point free of the obstructions, and save it there. And afterwards, when you look in that direction again, the view point will automatically move to the position you have saved. It's virtually the same concept as what you have in mind, tagert.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ooooooooo.. I like that! In a sense it allows the user to define the amount of movment.. ie lean. That would be cool! I remember Jane's WWII Fighters had something like that too.. but I think it was just for ZOOM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kweassa1:
"...all you did was move the points of blindness along with the points of view" this line may fool you. Obviously, there's no such thing as a view system that's totally unobscured(unless its a no-cockpit).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kweassa1:
The whole point here, is how much one can reduce, or move the obscured parts so that it effects the pilot less.

For example, according to your suggestion tagert, when you look at 1O'c position in the Bf109, your pilot will want to automatically "lean" more right to move the diagonal canopy bar to the far left corner of the screen, so that the center of the monitor retains a clear, unobscured view, and also can look at things from a slightly different perspective and angle, which would allow the pilot to see things that could not have seen, than when his head was stuck on a corn dog.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agree 95%! In that what you say is totally true! Only I would have said "lean" more LEFT.. but it works either way.. I was just trying to simplyfy the software of it all so the automatic thing would work... All views LEFT, move ### Left.. All views RIGHT, move ### Right.. But either way works.. Granted there will be some cases where it might have been better to lean RIGHT instead of LEFT in that some cockpit obstrutions differ.. But ANY AMOUNT OF LEAN EITHER WAY is better than NONE!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kweassa1:
It's really simple. When looking at 11O'c, and you want to lean left, then you save your head position to maximum left lean. Because there's no reason to use something like only 50% lean, and then make it go to 70, 80, 90, 100% as the bogey moves into the obstructed parts. Just save it at 100% lean in the first place and use it there.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>DING DING DING DING!! YOU WIN!! Exactally! Couldnt have said ie better!!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kweassa1:
In a word, AH view system makes sense. Especially when the more recently introduced planes, have a lot more restricted room of head movement. Obviously you're not gonna be able to see your tail fin in the razorback P-51B in AH: you are able to look straight 6O'c, but the only thing you will see, even with 'leaned' head postions, is the tip of the horizontal stabs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Cool.. looks like I might have to re-new my AH account? Thanks for reading my post.. AND GETTING IT! I was starting to think I was going crazy here.. In that no one was seeing what I was saying I see... Like that big pink elephant sitting next to me! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

[This message was edited by tagert on Mon February 09 2004 at 06:38 PM.]

XyZspineZyX
02-09-2004, 07:47 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Well, I hope you get what you envision, even if I can't see it.

I have nothing against anyone seeing better, as long as it's what they would be able to see sitting in the real cockpit.

But, I always adhere to the K.I.S.S. principle: keep it simple, stupid.

And for all this relying on leaning and squinting and whatever, you really, truly could just bank the plane in the course of your maneuver, or use your mind's eye and SA skills for two seconds and let the problem solve itself.

tagert
02-09-2004, 09:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Well, I hope you get what you envision,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Too Late for IL2, but maybe BoB

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
even if I can't see it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So what part of the bogie not in the RED in CASE #3 did you not see?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I have nothing against anyone seeing better, as long as it's what they would be able to see sitting in the real cockpit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Duh

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
But, I always adhere to the K.I.S.S. principle: keep it simple, stupid.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Then why did you deviate from the KISS methond and insist that an aditional key is needed? It is clear from my pictures that the LEAN could be tied into the standard HAT, Keyboard, Mouse, TrackIR view systems.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
And for all this relying on leaning and squinting and whatever, you really, truly could just bank the plane in the course of your maneuver<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What part of head moving is faster then aircraft banking do you not understand?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
, or use your mind's eye and SA skills for two seconds and let the problem solve itself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What part of the bogie turning left instead of your mind's eye right do you not understand?

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

[This message was edited by tagert on Mon February 09 2004 at 10:04 PM.]

02-09-2004, 09:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But, I always adhere to the K.I.S.S. principle: keep it simple, stupid.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately, at some point the another principle working for sim games of "keep it real", often contradicts the "simple" and "stupid" part. The point always comes down to how much one can keep the simple gameplay aspect alive while giving the player some of the freedom of real life principles.

If the lean feature was so complicated and smart, I probably couldn't figure out how to use it anyway.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And for all this relying on leaning and squinting and whatever, you really, truly could just bank the plane in the course of your maneuver, or use your mind's eye and SA skills for two seconds and let the problem solve itself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Under that analogy all we would need is a front view. Sorry for the tone of expression, but that logic is a cop-out. This discussion is about how one may be able to get rid of the limitation that is not seen in real life conditions. No solution would be truly satisfying unless we build a large amusement park size simulator with real cockpits and 3D projectors, but there are always more economical ways of compromise. The "lean" or "moveable head" is one of them.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>tagert: In that in the orginal discussion all these guys who were aginst it were aginst it becase they felt it meant we NEED ANOTHER KEY!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never understood that line of argument.

Sure, Aces High, in order to use the custom head positions, needs a head up, down, left, right, front, back key. But it's not like I use them during flight.

As a matter of fact the only time I've ever touched them was when I first began Aces High - I set up my favorable head positions for all 17 snap views and never touched them again since.

For the bit of effort of setting the views in a new plane I try, I get to fly all I want without banging my hands against the monitor to see if there was anyway I could bend or smash those pesky cockpit bars clogging up 60% of the screen. As a Bf109 fan, the 1, 11, high 1, high 11 O'c views in IL2/FB are crime against humanity. If that clogged up screen is a price to pay for the pretty photorealistic cockpit which I rarely look at except for about 4 instruments, then it's a very very bad bargain for me.

tagert
02-09-2004, 09:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kweassa1:
Under that analogy all we would need is a front view. Sorry for the tone of expression, but that logic is a cop-out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Good point! Why look left.. just BANK and TURN until the forward view it is facing left!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kweassa1:
I never understood that line of argument.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nor have I!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

[This message was edited by tagert on Mon February 09 2004 at 10:03 PM.]

straffo
02-10-2004, 12:58 AM
Way to go tagert you pretty well described how the AH system work.

It's one reason I was unable to switch to FB that and the no-icon Taliban who get on my nerves...

If in some case AH is to permissif you have to keep in mind that it's for ALL player,not only those having the "good" version of track IR or those who can hear you comming in their 6...

SpinSpinSugar
02-10-2004, 04:24 AM
Nice diagrams Tagert! Can't agree with the fuzzy cockpit bar edges logic argument, there are too many variables there for a simplistic solution for my liking, but THIS one I'm totally behind. It's a simple, sound concept thats proven to work, and I hope it gets into BoB.

Aside from anything else, a lean large enough to look round all fixed canopy obstructions should not be a big enough viewpoint deviation to make current 2D/3D mix cockpits unworkable. I think it would work just fine in the current engine (or a similar derivative in BoB).

Obviously it would look better in a true 3D pit, but I don't think it would be a necessity given the required processing overhead that would involve.

I also hope there's an option between auto-lean as you've been advocating, and mapping to another device. e.g. the redundant mouse or hat for TrackIR users and others who don't mind the extra inputs.

Although I agree, I think some sort of auto-lean with head turn is going to cater for what you want 90% of the time or better. It is the most natural motion, and I'd be happy if that was all that's on offer (especially with an on/off toggle).

Cheers, SSS

flyingskid2
02-10-2004, 09:38 AM
&gt;&gt;I also hope there's an option between auto-lean as you've been advocating, and mapping to another device. e.g. the redundant mouse or hat for TrackIR users and others who don't mind the extra inputs. &lt;&lt;


Yes yes yes!!! What I've been saying all along. I want the extra input. I'd get a second mouse if I have to. Or trackIR.

It's perfectly doable.

Right hand on stick for pitch and roll.
Feet on rudder for yaw.
Left hand on throttle.
Left thumb on mouseview.
Head on trackIR for lean.

Simple.

JG14_Josf
02-10-2004, 12:30 PM
"Left thumb on mouseview"

I have that too.

Works great.

But instead of or in addition to TrackIR I use the Shift F1 toggle mapped to the left thumb mouseview push button.

Is it possible to have the lean occur as the mouse view pans, just as if the eyes did arch around the outside of the virtual head instead of pivoting on that corn dog stick?

Pan left-lean left, pan right-lean right, pan up tilt up, pan down tilt down, pan up and right-tilt up and lean right, etc.

Those late model 109s and the FWs have that horizontal canopy bar right in the virtual way and if the head lean included a head tilt when looking up and down then targets would no longer hide so well behind those inhumane obstructions.

WWMaxGunz
02-10-2004, 01:01 PM
Don't need to lean. I challenge anyone to keep their shoulders steady, turn their head and not have their eyes move to the side in the process. You with me here Stiglr? The bridge of my nose moves at least 15 cm (6" at *Least*) just in one direction in the process. I *can't* hold my shoulders steady, turn my head and not have my eyes shift even if I pull my head back uncomfortably while turning. I have *no choice* and it is entirely *natural* and *automatic* for this to happen. Golly ain't nature wonderful, it comes in handy in a cluttered forest I can tellya!

From what Gibbage gave I'd say it's not gonna happen till a future sim with more powerful PC's and videocards. To me the answer is simple and that's an option to not have the struts show at all (translucent struts hurt framerates!) in a step between total Wonder Woman and Full Cockpit. Wanna bet there'd be some servers running that that currently run no cockpits? Glass is half full from here and could be topped off since I'll only have the one for a while -- unless planned obsolescence coupled with me being required to upgrade $$$=totally=$$$ is part of the market strategy then I may be living with the result for quite some time yet. But I guess removing whole sections from the internal view part of the model is too much work and out of the question entirely?


Neal

flyingskid2
02-10-2004, 01:39 PM
I'd vote yes for these enhancements/alternatives in order:

1) moveable head by explicit control with fully 3-D cockpit
2) no moveable head but translucent cockpit bars
3) undocumented test feature/bug: moveable head by explicit control with current pseudo 3-D cockpits.

i'd vote no for these:

1) cockpit on but no canopy bars. you don't know if your plane took damage that blew away the canopy or if it's just because of 50% wonder woman view.
2) auto-head lean. it's going to have the same problem with 3-D cockpits. and not really a good solution as you will still have fixed blind spots for each view position. If they go through the trouble of doing auto-lean, then they'll have dealt with the 3-D cockpit problem already (either solved it or ignored it). And then they'll have code to support moving the head already. So it should be no big deal to add support for user input to control head position. And when we have full control. Then it's up to the user to program auto-head lean -- doable by mapping head lean with view control for example.

WWMaxGunz
02-10-2004, 02:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by flyingskid2:
I'd vote yes for these enhancements/alternatives in order:

1) moveable head by explicit control with fully 3-D cockpit
2) no moveable head but translucent cockpit bars
3) undocumented test feature/bug: moveable head by explicit control with current pseudo 3-D cockpits.

i'd vote no for these:

1) cockpit on but no canopy bars. you don't know if your plane took damage that blew away the canopy or if it's just because of 50% wonder woman view.
2) auto-head lean. it's going to have the same problem with 3-D cockpits. and not really a good solution as you will still have fixed blind spots for each view position. If they go through the trouble of doing auto-lean, then they'll have dealt with the 3-D cockpit problem already (either solved it or ignored it). And then they'll have code to support moving the head already. So it should be no big deal to add support for user input to control head position. And when we have full control. Then it's up to the user to program auto-head lean -- doable by mapping head lean with view control for example.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1) That's the beauty of Options... you don't have to use em. I don't fly no cockpit and it doesn't bother me a bit that some people do.

2) As opposed to one set of big blindspots that you can't get around by turning your head in any manner? I'd prefer to be able to look around corners without having to move the corners themselves.

2) Agreed they'll have the whole thing fixed in the future. Well, some people already have but their products aren't as overall good as IL2 or FB. We still want an overall smooth product if not right now then some day, these parts of the view system have a rough/sharp feel.

I view this thread and many like it as user input to the developers on future products. Okay, some people are unutterably rude but the data should read as either passion or a cry to be ignored. It helps not to be overly sensitive. I think that some of the crew or someone on the crew keeps an eye out here even if we don't get much replies.


Neal

WWMaxGunz
02-10-2004, 02:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by flyingskid2:
I'd vote yes for these enhancements/alternatives in order:

1) moveable head by explicit control with fully 3-D cockpit
2) no moveable head but translucent cockpit bars
3) undocumented test feature/bug: moveable head by explicit control with current pseudo 3-D cockpits.

i'd vote no for these:

1) cockpit on but no canopy bars. you don't know if your plane took damage that blew away the canopy or if it's just because of 50% wonder woman view.
2) auto-head lean. it's going to have the same problem with 3-D cockpits. and not really a good solution as you will still have fixed blind spots for each view position. If they go through the trouble of doing auto-lean, then they'll have dealt with the 3-D cockpit problem already (either solved it or ignored it). And then they'll have code to support moving the head already. So it should be no big deal to add support for user input to control head position. And when we have full control. Then it's up to the user to program auto-head lean -- doable by mapping head lean with view control for example.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

roachclip
02-10-2004, 03:04 PM
It would be nice if the pilot could see around his head armour by having his head move when checking 6 in a bubble canopy a/c. As it is now, there is a blind spot that was not there in real life. Yes you can wag your tail.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

This could be an automatic movement.

Aaron_GT
02-11-2004, 10:02 AM
I just fired up TargetWare (0.60) and that too
has pan and lean.

Given the lack of full 3D vision, visors,
data gloves and the like for a super real
experience I think optional pan-and-lean and
translucent bars would be good, with client
control and server-side override, perhaps.

I doubt we'd see this until the Next Sim (tm)
but it would be good to have.

Being able to turn off translucent bars would
be good for those who experience a large
frame rate hit by doing so.

In addition a head "jiggle" (akin to the
change of position from F1 to Shift-F1) would
be handy for those who can't cope with
translucent bars.

We could have more complex options, but that
would do 90% of the needed enhancements, I
think.

The only other addition that might be useful
would be a button to map to an instrument view.
In real life you could flick your eyes to the
instruments. For those planes in which some
instruments are obscured by cockpit furniture,
the head jiggle should be supported in
instrument view.

ASH_HOUSE_WARES
02-11-2004, 10:30 AM
GROOVY!

I like the LEAN idea.. it would really be useful and REALISTIC! The LEAN would FIX all the problems except ONE!!

The P47 razor back..

There you would need the *translucent* cockpit frames.. In that the cockpit frame that runs right down the middle of the gun sight totally messes up your aim.. and in REAL LIFE it wouldn't!!

And if you think I full of it.. do this test before you tell me so.. Take some duck tape and run a slice of it right down the middle of the the drivers side view on your car's windshield. Then take your car for a drive.. Get up on someone six... normal driving distance and try to read their license plate.. At which point you will notice TWO things

1) You can read the license plate
2) The duck tape appears to be transparent and much thinner.

That is why we need translucent cockpit bars and LEAN.

ASH HOUSEWARES
http://www.garnersclassics.com/pics/army/store.jpg

Smokin256
02-11-2004, 06:13 PM
Very interesting discussion! My .02, we already have a certain amount of lean built into the sim. I think the amount we have is sufficiant. (After all as Stigler has pointed out, a bandit is as likely to be obscured by lean with pan as revealed.) Unfortunately it's tied to the roll axis. When it should be tied to yaw. If it was tied to yaw then we would have a very natural & intuitive way to tell wheather we are flying in a coordinated fashion or not because the gunsight is right in front of our face. Need to see an object obscured by a strut? just kick the rudder a little. The yaw reveals 25% of the object & the resulting head lean reveals the other 75%. Now if they could also give us manual control over this lean so much the better.

When you are looking behind, such as during check turns you obviously don't want your point of view shifting to the right when you sideslip to the right. As this would be counterproductive.
it would be really nice if they could swap the lean direction when your point of view is to the rear quadrant. IOW when looking aft of the 3-9 line a sideslip to the right causes a lean to the left. But this may fall under the catagory of "easy to say but very difficult to do". in the absence of this feature just switching to Shift-F1 "gunsight" view during check turns would be all that is neccessary. As the lean in that view is almost nonexistent.

Cheers......Smokin256

02-11-2004, 10:16 PM
Umm..

I have to kick the whole rudder and waggle my plane side to side, to bring out a minor feature included in the game, to make my pilot shake sideways due to inertia, to lean out and see obscured areas?

When in real life a person would have to move about three muscles in their back to tilt his torso about 10 degrees to lean in a direction?

And even better, the programmer also has to make the "lean the pilot's head by rocking the plane to shake your pilot" feature work backwards when looking back?

I think that's a little bit like,

Q: "How many people are needed to change a lightbulb?"

A: "Five. One holds the lightbulb at the socket, while the rest four starts turning the table he's standing on."

Aaron_GT
02-12-2004, 06:21 AM
Smokin256:
Try downloading either WB3 or Target Rabaul.
These implement pan-and-lean, and you will
get an idea of what is missing in FB if you
see how these work. In both of these the
lean can sometimes allow you to see the tail
(might be a bit overmodelled in some cases,
of course).

XyZspineZyX
02-12-2004, 10:40 AM
Targetware does not have a "pan and lean".

It has standard views and mouseviews, just like IL-2. It has user assignable (and canopy-restricted) hat position vantage points, a la Aces High. It also has a form of padlock which will appear to slew the head to keep a dot in sight.

But the software doesn't read your mind, nor attempt to.

The less restrictive rear views probably have more to do with how the vantage point is computed and the cockpit artwork than anything else.

I will also note that some planes have semi-translucent cockpit frames (which should be universal, and perhaps will be).

And after all this, yes, bogies DO get obscured...and yes, this is easily overcome by banking the plane or a short delay of a few seconds until the situation changes...same as it ever was...same as it ever was...
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ASH_HOUSE_WARES
02-12-2004, 11:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
And after all this, yes, bogies DO get obscured... and yes, this is easily overcome by banking the plane or a short delay of a few seconds until the situation changes...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
GROOVY!

But.. what you said does not make any sense.. I went back and read all these post in this thread and nobody ever said a bogie DOES NOT get obscured! All they seem to be saying is that when it does.. it is much easier to move your head (lean) than move the aircraft (bank). An I tend to agree with them! I have also noticed that you never comment on that fact, except to re-georgette your original statement.

Do you truly belive that it is easier to bank the aircraft then to lean your head?
Do you truly belive that is what a real pilot did in WWII?
Do you not realize that banking, wagging, pulling, or pushing all bleed speed.

I think the primitive screw heads I have dealt with in the past could even see the error in your ways! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH HOUSEWARES
http://www.garnersclassics.com/pics/army/store.jpg

Oleg_Maddox
02-12-2004, 12:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by flyingskid2:
I just tried AcesHigh. It's overall an enjoyable game, but far from FB in terms of modelling and graphics. One thing it has is moveable head position. You can move the pilot's head left and right, and you can also save the preferred head position for each of the snap views. I think this would be great to implement in FB. Imagine your check-six snap view with your head moved closer to the side canopy. You'd see more over your shoulder.

I say if AcesHigh can do it, Oleg's team should be able to do it easy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We plan to have it in new sim. For that it should be done with openable canopy at first. And correctly open-able http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ASH_HOUSE_WARES
02-12-2004, 12:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by flyingskid2:
I just tried AcesHigh. It's overall an enjoyable game, but far from FB in terms of modelling and graphics. One thing it has is moveable head position. You can move the pilot's head left and right, and you can also save the preferred head position for each of the snap views. I think this would be great to implement in FB. Imagine your check-six snap view with your head moved closer to the side canopy. You'd see more over your shoulder.

I say if AcesHigh can do it, Oleg's team should be able to do it easy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We plan to have it in new sim. For that it should be done with openable canopy at first. And correctly open-able http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
G R O O V Y

That is GREAT NEWS! Thank you Sir!

ASH HOUSEWARES
http://www.garnersclassics.com/pics/army/store.jpg

XyZspineZyX
02-12-2004, 12:49 PM
Housewares asked:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Do you truly belive that it is easier to bank the aircraft then to lean your head?
Do you truly belive that is what a real pilot did in WWII?
Do you not realize that banking, wagging, pulling, or pushing all bleed speed.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1) In real life, no, but given the constraints of the sim, YES.
2) In many cases, yes, but see above. I'm arguing a plausible solution, not one that adds commands, adds needless complexity or requires the software to read your mind and determine what you want to look at or where you want to look from, on the fly.
3) Banking doesn't bleed energy. Turning or changing angle of attack is what bleeds energy. And as I've said repeatedly before, often where you need to bank to see better, you're going anyway to maneuver against the bogie.

02-12-2004, 01:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Moses asks god: "When we gonna get them customizable head positions?"

God answers: "We plan to have it in new sim. For that it should be done with openable canopy at first. And correctly open-able. By the way, you interested in my fine line of stone tablets?"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well done guys. Case closed. That's one small step for the developers, but a giant leap for the Forgotten kind.

ucanfly
02-12-2004, 02:00 PM
Very good to hear response from "the man" himself. Thanks!

However for this sim or the next a suggestion for your approval or dismissal. The views we have on the cockpit in forgotten battles are truly amazing due to the authentic cockpits and attention to detail. However I have two suggestions that would add greatly to its playability:

1) When checking your six (especially while using mouse or track IR or snap view), it would be handy that the pilot lean slightly in the direction that the head is turning at the last part of the head movement toward 6 oclock. This way there is a clear advantage to those planes that have bubble canopies. This is not terribly complicated and was done very effectively in Janes F18 and F15 flight sims.

2) The current cockpit view obviously models what a wide angle camera would see (monocular view), and as such compared to what a two eyed human sees, the canopy bars seem to thick and distant objects appear too small. simply thinning the canopy frames slightly would be a drastic help and would simulate the additional visibility that two eyes would give (vs. the one eyed camera) without resorting to transparent canopy frames or 3d viewmaster algorithms.

I would hope that suggestion #1 be doable in FB, but at least consider these for the future sim.

Thanks for your consideration.

flyingskid2
02-12-2004, 02:42 PM
Ooooohhh thank you, sir!!

(see fellas, if you make a request get to 7 pages, it gets noticed http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

AaronGT
02-12-2004, 04:35 PM
Stiglr-
In the version of Targetware
I have the maximum left rear
and right rear views appear to
be offset left and right of centre.
On tear drop canopy planes this
allows you to see the tail plane
around the armoured seat back.
If the view was purely pivoted
on a central point for all views and
simply limited in pan then seeing
the tailplane would not be
possible past the seat back (the
situation we have in FB)

Part of the strength of the
effect in Targetware might be
due to the viewpoint being fairly
well forward in the cockpit. I think
WB3 does it a bit better, not least
due to the G limits. Targetware is
only on 0.60, though.

It's good to hear the next Maddox
sim will feature this.

XyZspineZyX
02-12-2004, 05:50 PM
They are offset...but my point is still that from ANY POV there will be a time when the view is inconveniently obscuring a bogie. Especially in the case of the forward canopy struts that you're more likely to be looking out of the most.

So, even if some "lean" is programmed in, it just moves the blindspot. In a slightly different situation than what passes for normal POV, the bogie will be obscured.

ASH_HOUSE_WARES
02-12-2004, 06:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
1) In real life, no, but given the constraints of the sim, YES.
2) In many cases, yes, but see above. I'm arguing a plausible solution, not one that adds commands, adds needless complexity or requires the software to read your mind and determine what you want to look at or where you want to look from, on the fly.
3) Banking doesn't bleed energy. Turning or changing angle of attack is what bleeds energy. And as I've said repeatedly before, often where you need to bank to see better, you're going anyway to maneuver against the bogie.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As for 1, your answer is cop out! In that we all know the sim does not do it.. The topic is what can be done to improve simulation vision.. i.e. no constraints. But AT LEAST you realise that what one would do in real life is not what one has to do in this simulatiion!! Changing that is what we are talking about!!

As for 2a, your just plane wrong!

As for 2b, Your plausible solution is no solution at all! Banking is what we have to do now, we all know that, thank you! What we are talking about is what could be done to improve the current view systems to make them more realistic! And as so many have told you, it does not require the addition of commands, or add needless complexity or require software to read your mind and determine what you want to look at, on the fly. It simply would lean left when looking left and lean right when looking right

As for 3a, You said banking does not bleed energy? That is wrong!

As for 3b, You can repeat it as much as you want, but, often does not equal all ways.. i.e. WHAT IF YOU BANKED THE WRONG WAY.. i.e. the bogie you could not see that was going to the right, decided to reverse in your blind spot and started going left.. But you banked right to try and see it.. Now you are really screwed! Where as in RL and with the LEAN you would have not banked and lost energy and position..

The great thing about all this is that the maker of the sim himself has said they plan to implement it!! Which gives a lot of credit to everyone here who has been asking for it, and none to the ones arguing against it! So, I feel much better now, and really don't care what you think! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH HOUSEWARES
http://www.garnersclassics.com/pics/army/store.jpg

[This message was edited by ASH_HOUSE_WARES on Thu February 12 2004 at 06:20 PM.]

BfHeFwMe
02-12-2004, 06:19 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Sweet, done deal.

ASH_HOUSE_WARES
02-12-2004, 06:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
They _are_ offset...but my point is still that from ANY POV there will be a time when the view is inconveniently obscuring a bogie. Especially in the case of the forward canopy struts that you're more likely to be looking out of the most.

So, even if some "lean" is programmed in, it just moves the blind spot. In a slightly different situation than what passes for normal POV, the bogie will be obscured.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not sure what you mean by offset? But you forgot one critical thing here..

The transition from one view to the next is overlapped. That is when you change from the forward view to the right view some of what you saw in the forward view shows up in the right view... That is the right side of the cockpit canopy will show up in your right view.. i.e. overlapped. Thus there are two possibilities here when lean is implemented

obscured in forward, visible in right
visible in forward, obscured in right

instead of what we have without lean

obscured in forward, obscured in right
visible in forward, visible in right

If you toggle between the two, i.e. back and forth it would give you the same sensation of moving your head left and right.. Just like they would do in real life. Much easier then pushing, or pulling, or banking, or wagging the aircraft

ASH HOUSEWARES
http://www.garnersclassics.com/pics/army/store.jpg

Bearcat99
02-12-2004, 09:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:

We plan to have it in new sim. For that it should be done with openable canopy at first. And correctly open-able http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice!!!!! Good to know. I am curious though...would it take a lot of work to implement that into FB or is it just something you dont want to tackle given the complexity and your current load?

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://www.mudmovers.com/)

Recon_609IAP
02-12-2004, 09:50 PM
Bearcat,

I don't think they are adding anything new to FB as that would slow down the development of BoB.

S!
609IAP_Recon

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg
Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

WWMaxGunz
02-12-2004, 10:08 PM
Hi Bearcat & Salute!

Back on page something or other, Gibbage pretty well told why no lean in FB. It has to do with framerates and not every 3D part having surfaces.

Oleg saying YES to future head positioning tells us that he does consider the matter worthy. That's all I need besides a total upgrade. I may as well start putting the money away since by the time I have enough hardware will be 1 or 2 more levels beyond what's out today.


Neal

Aaron_GT
02-13-2004, 03:56 PM
Stiglr wrote:
"So, even if some "lean" is programmed in, it just moves the blindspot"

Hmmm - so you are saying that leaning and being
able to see past the backrest introduces another
blindspot? This is true, but surely only being
able to look at the backrest is a far larger
blindspot. Maybe I am misunderstanding you.

Aaron_GT
02-13-2004, 03:58 PM
Bearcat - I suspect that pan-and-lean for
6 views would require the least remaking of
existing FB cockpits, but still would need
a fair bit of work on the rear quarters, so
I can't see Oleg, with the add on, patches
for the add on, etc., and the new sim well
under development changing the view system
in FB.

I think we'll have to wait for the Next Sim (tm).

ASH_HOUSE_WARES
02-13-2004, 05:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Stiglr wrote:
"So, even if some "lean" is programmed in, it just moves the blindspot"

Hmmm - so you are saying that leaning and being
able to see past the backrest introduces another
blindspot? This is true<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>He get's it.. but not completly!

How do I say this?

Ok.. first a questions..

Q1: We all realise that the views overlape each other?

That is to say that when you look 45 degrees right you still see some of the forward view.

Q2: We all realise that without LEAN what is obscured in the forward view will be obscured in the 45 degree right view.

That is to say it is obscured in both views.

Now...

The thing *some* dont realise is *IF* there was lean, what is obscured in the forward view would NOT be obscured in the 45 degree view. And the oposite is true too.. So Stiglr is CORRECT in the sense that the BLIND SPOT MOVES when LEAN is implimented.. But that is what is good about it!! Because without LEAN the BLIND SPOT does NOT MOVE... So with lean.. you would be able to see it in AT LEAST ONE of the views!! Instead of NOT being able to see it in either.

ASH HOUSEWARES
http://www.garnersclassics.com/pics/army/store.jpg

XyZspineZyX
02-13-2004, 05:12 PM
Aaron, it depends a lot on the plane.

In a 109E or F, you're not going to see a lot back there, because of that armored headrest.

In a Yak 9, you'll see a lot better. Just part of the design of the planes.

I think we get much of the benefit of the doubt, and I also feel people want to imagine you didn't have a big, bulky parachute pack on your back or under your butt, and that you weren't strapped in tight, with leads attached to your headset and maybe to your flying suit, all of which restricts the amount you can twist around and see.

There is a reason why so much was made of rearward visibility: in most planes, it wasn't that good. That's why it was so important to have wingmen, and to do checkturns. This thinking so clouded British thought that they trained their pre-BoF aircrew to stay in tight formations that afforded coverage for the rear of the flight leaders...at the expense of the best tactical combat use of the planes in the attack. They paid for that in many lives.

The same is true, but not nearly as bad, with frontward visibility. The problem in the sim in this regard is primarily the lack of binocular viewing allowances. As you can see, there are lots of things we can imagine doing to make up for this. I just say, given the fleeting nature of these visual blockages, often, banking and continuing to maneuver on the bogie is the quickest solution. Barring that, it is not catastrophic to lose sight for a second or two, provided you have good Situational Awareness and a good idea of where that bogie's going.

ASH_HOUSE_WARES
02-13-2004, 05:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Aaron, it depends a lot on the plane.

In a 109E or F, you're not going to see a lot back there, because of that armored headrest.

In a Yak 9, you'll see a lot better. Just part of the design of the planes.

I think we get much of the benefit of the doubt, and I also feel people want to imagine you didn't have a big, bulky parachute pack on your back or under your butt, and that you weren't strapped in tight, with leads attached to your headset and maybe to your flying suit, all of which restricts the amount you can twist around and see.

There is a reason why so much was made of rearward visibility: in most planes, it wasn't that good.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So which is it?

You just contradicted yourself here!!

If the bulky parachute, straps, headset leads, flying suit, etc restricted the amount you can twist around to see.. Then why did they go to the trouble of converting planes like the P51 and P47 from a razor back to a bubble canopy if the pilot could not twist around to see?

By the way, the strap in thing is a myth.. They had lap belts to keep them from flying out of the seat, but the shoulder belts were pretty loose fitting... Dont belive me? Then why did the put those big rubber bumpers on the gun sights of some aircraft (like P51).. If the shoulder belts had him pinned to the back of the seat.. He would have never been able to hit is face on the gun sight.. But he wasnt, so they did! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

It is really moot at this point.. In that the maker of the game himself agrees with us enough to take the time and energy to add LEAN into his next! Now we just have to convince him to make the cockpit bars transparent like!

But keep trying.. I'm saving a big gold star for you and your efforts! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH HOUSEWARES
http://www.garnersclassics.com/pics/army/store.jpg

[This message was edited by ASH_HOUSE_WARES on Fri February 13 2004 at 05:47 PM.]

ASH_HOUSE_WARES
02-13-2004, 06:46 PM
well

AaronGT
02-14-2004, 05:44 AM
I'm in total agreement with you,
AshHouseWares. Even on planes
without bubble canopies there
were windows behind the seat
in many instances
which would be pointless if you
couldn't lean to see through them.

Dnmy
02-14-2004, 05:54 AM
Transparant cockpit bars mean nothing when the field of view is still going to be as limited as it is now. Your SA is not going to be improved because you're still basically looking through that small lense camera while you're dogfighting. It'll be similar to no cockpit.

Leaning left or right without an improvement in field of view also amounts to no real improvement in SA.

What's missing in this sim is peripheral vision.
It's not depth perception because to a certain extent that can be simulated with icons.

Peripheral vision is one of the most important things for your SA in real life. In FB this is totally neglected. For starters, a cone of vision of at least 120 degs, instead of the measly 85 degs would be nice. And if the field of vision can be increased, the struts will become smaller automatically.

LEXX_Luthor
02-14-2004, 06:17 AM
Peripheral vision will NOT detect targets unless they are next to you. If you want to depend on peripheral vision, you can keep your head fixed and never look around. It doesn't work like that.

Stiglr was just beginning to hint at something we DO NOT want to talk about....Some planes will be able to take good advantage of Lean, some won't. This is historically correct, and the pilots Whined about Cockpit View as bad as the Whining here because some planes may not take much advantage of Leaning while others can. The most historically correct thing about FB, and soon BoB, is the Whining about Cockpit View.

Goludnikov was trained to search for targets by Leaning outside of his open cockpit I~16 in flight and see his rudder--compare with what we see to the rear in I~16 in the FB. So Goludnikov was not Glued or Nailed to his seat. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif


__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.
:
you will still have FB , you will lose nothing ~WUAF_Badsight
I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait... ~Bearcat99
Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age ~ElAurens

Dnmy
02-14-2004, 06:37 AM
Who's denying that peripheral vision won't detect targets unless they are next to you?

The point is that you can keep looking forward WHILE spotting the bandit in your peripheral vision.

That's how it works.

Keeping track of multiple objects in your periphery while concentrating on one in front until the objects in the periphery prove to be threatening after which you divert your attention to the one in your periphery.

AaronGT
02-14-2004, 09:21 AM
It would be nice to have peripheral
vision (more so for first person
shooters) but I don't think that
affordable display technology is
up to the task without definite
compromises

The options are basically:

Current screens, fish-eye view, details are tiny.

Multiple displays

Curved screens

Goggles (and virtual controls to deal with not being able to see the keyboard)

Dnmy
02-14-2004, 09:33 AM
You are thinking in too complicated solutions.

I am more than willing to put up with all the objections you mentioned if it's made useradjustable. Meaning, the user should always be able to adjust his field of view to his/her own wishes. You don't like wide field of views? by all means fly in zoom view all the time. I'll have my better SA in widest view.

It would not be much different from what he have now.

With the remark that the widest field of view in FB is still incredibly limited. Too limited.

I see more advantages with wider field of views than negatives. The wider field of view not only decreases the size of the struts, it will give the player a better sense of flight, better sense of situational as well as spatial awareness.

Face it, if you're playing FB you're basically (dog)fighting while looking through a small lense camera all the time.

If you'd propose that concept to a real fighter pilot he'd laugh in your face. Yet in sims we don't seem to know or want any better.

And it's not like wide field of views haven't been done before either in sims. The only thing nescessary is make the developer aware. Just like with trackIR implementation.

JG14_Josf
02-14-2004, 10:01 AM
Dnmy,

I think I understand your desire for a greater view angle. An increase in veiw angle would be great, but not at the expense of the zoom feature that simulates depth perception without the need of icons.

This is my opinion. I hope that Oleg does further develop the zoom feature and it's ability to simulated how the human eyes cannot see all distances in focus at the same time.

For those of us who prefer not to have every possible threat illuminated with hugh brightly lighted signs; the zoom feature allows a player to focus attention from a wide angle to scan a large area to a small view angle or zoom that allow the player to simulate depth focus on a particular object.

This simulation of the realistic requirement to focus perception for depth lends a lot toward simulating the real capability pilots had in combat to go undetected.

I can understand that players who want to spend as little time as possible looking for other players for combat enjoy and use the Icon feature, however some of us find that the game of hunting is historically accurate and desirable. Hunting is not a word that applies when the principle elements of the activity are strapped with huge neon signs.

What the zoom feature allows, in the game, is for players to foucs attention at potential threats for purposes of identification. Much in the same way a real life pilot was able to see better through training and natural ability; the simulated player can learn how to work the controls better to gain an adantage in vision.

I read how players have trouble seeing and find that they desire the game to be changed so that seeing is easier for them.

Example:
Peripheral vision is one of the most important things for your SA in real life. In FB this is totally neglected.

One players 'totally neglected' is another players ingenious game feature.

Where you see the peripheral vision as being totally neglected, I see the zoom feature as a brilliant simualtion of the human eyes limited ability to focus for distance.

So my opinion is that an increase in the field of view angle is an improvement, however to abandon the further development of the zoom feature to simulate depth perception is a big step backwards.

I wonder about the players who have problems with canopy bars obstructing their view; how many of them utilize the Shift F1 feature?

It is my opinion that canopy bar obstruction is not much of a problem at all when the player utilizes the Shfit F1 feature, except when flying the late model 109s and the 190s.

This is not to say that my opinion is that a moveable head or head lean would not be a good feature addition to the game.

This feature would be great in my opinion and I trust that Oleg will do a better job implementing it than most.

ASH_HOUSE_WARES
02-14-2004, 10:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dnmy:
Transparant cockpit bars mean nothing when the field of view is still going to be as limited as it is now. Your SA is not going to be improved because you're still basically looking through that small lense camera while you're dogfighting. It'll be similar to no cockpit.

Leaning left or right without an improvement in field of view also amounts to no real improvement in SA.

What's missing in this sim is peripheral vision.
It's not depth perception because to a certain extent that can be simulated with icons.

Peripheral vision is one of the most important things for your SA in real life. In FB this is totally neglected. For starters, a cone of vision of at least 120 degs, instead of the measly 85 degs would be nice. And if the field of vision can be increased, the struts will become smaller automatically.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The fact that the simulated FOV is less than real life is all the more reason to have transparant cockpit bars!! I think your wrong about it not improving you SA too! Loose Sight Loose Fight! Making the cockpit bars transparant simulates how the human eye would actually see them! On that note, keep in mind we are not asking for a wire frame cockpit bar here!!!!!!! Not a crystal clear glass cockpit bar!!!! Basically the same cockpit bars we have now with all the detail and color they have now.. EXCEPT you can SORT OF SEE through them!!!! It would be kind of obscured.. like the effect of an aircraft going into a cloud!!!!

As for FOV.. That is another topic in and of itself!! One could argue that periferal vision is only good to detect movment.. you not gonig to see any details.. it's sole purpose is to detect movment to cause you brain to turn your head and look at it dead on!! With that said I think the current FOV is a good compermise.. In that to try and make it equal to real life would require big bucks!!!

ASH HOUSEWARES
http://www.garnersclassics.com/pics/army/store.jpg

Aaron_GT
02-14-2004, 10:57 AM
Maybe what is needed, then, is something
like Rowan's BoB - a series of markers
around the periphery indicating that a
threat is there, but the FOV as it is now?
Perhaps a bit better done than Rowan's
BoB, though, and with the additional threat
view limited by cockpit obstructions and Gs.

Dnmy
02-14-2004, 11:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Dnmy,

I think I understand your desire for a greater view angle. An increase in veiw angle would be great, but not at the expense of the zoom feature that simulates depth perception without the need of icons.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe you misunderstand what i write then.

My suggestion is all about useradjustability.
You like zoom feature, i like a very wide field of view.

One doesn't exclude the other. I could fly in widest field of view and you could fly in zoom view all the time.

I'm only suggesting a much wider field of view than what we have now. A customizable field of view.

The zoom feature is actually a ridiculous feature but in some situations unfortunately nescessary. Unfortunate, because it doesn't simulate anything. I always compare it with the pilot pulling out binoculars to take a closer look. Quite laughable unfortunately that is sometimes nescessary in FB.

Besides, if zoom view represents the most realistic picture then why isn't everybody flying in zoom view ALL the time?

I'll tell you why, because it's completely ridiculous to do that. It's possible but it's like the ultimate in target fixation. And target fixation is just about the opposite of having good SA.

We need something more close to realworld SA. No present cockpit or "no cockpit" view or in FB can provide that.

Realworld SA requires at least a much wider field of view, and peripheral vision. The 2 are inseperable.

See, seeing in real IS easier than in the sim. Much easier in fact. That's why it should be much easier in the sim as well.

Dnmy
02-14-2004, 11:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_HOUSE_WARES:
The fact that the simulated FOV is less than real life is all the more reason to have transparant cockpit bars!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not quite.

A limited field of view and transparant cockpit bars have not much to do with eachother.

We already have INVISIBLE cockpit bars now.(no cockpit view).

But we can't have a wider field of view than what we have now.

Looking for the solution in transparant cockpit bars is looking in the wrong direction is all i'm saying. Might be good but it doesn't improve true SA. I'm looking at the big picture here both literally and figuratively speaking.

Dnmy
02-14-2004, 11:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Maybe what is needed, then, is something
like Rowan's BoB - a series of markers
around the periphery indicating that a
threat is there, but the FOV as it is now?
Perhaps a bit better done than Rowan's
BoB, though, and with the additional threat
view limited by cockpit obstructions and Gs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now there's a good suggestion.

In many ways BoB, what is it? a 5 year old sim? is much more advanced than FB.

That sim has wide field of views AND peripheral vision modelled.

ASH_HOUSE_WARES
02-14-2004, 12:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dnmy:
Not quite.

A limited field of view and transparant cockpit bars have not much to do with eachother.

We already have INVISIBLE cockpit bars now.(no cockpit view).

But we can't have a wider field of view than what we have now.

Looking for the solution in transparant cockpit bars is looking in the wrong direction is all i'm saying. Might be good but it doesn't improve true SA. I'm looking at the big picture here both literally and figuratively speaking.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes Quite! I agree they are two different topics all togther, but related!

What I saying is simple!

I think we can all agree that a PC monitor is limited in what it can do to simulate a cockpit environment!

We can not do much about the FOV due to the limitations of the PC monitor.. it is not wide enough and it does not wrap around our heads!

THEREFORE.. WHY IN GODS NAME WOULD YOU WANT TO MAKE IT EVEN HARDER ON US? We are all ready dealing with the constraints of the FOV.. WHY Make us deal with solid cockpit bars when in real life they would not appear to be solid!

I noticed you said

"We already have INVISIBLE cockpit bars now.(no cockpit view)."

THAT IS NOT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT!! Jeshhhhhhhhh! What has been described here, MANY times by MANY people is that the cockpit will still be AS IT IS NOW!! Where you can see the panel with the gauges in it.. the floor board.. the side panels.. The only difference is the cockpit bars.. THE THINGS THAT HOLD THE WINDOW GLASS IN PLACE would not be totally solid!! They would be semi-transparent! They would still have the same SIZE, SHAPE, COLOR, DETAIL they have now, only you could see through them.. The effect I mentioned would be sort of like looking at an aircraft that just entered a cloud! Foggie! Misty! Smokie! Pick a word and give it one min of thought!

Doing so would only IMPROVE you SA in that you would be able to maintain SIGHT more like you would in real life!

PS.. This is in depended of the LEAN topic!

If you need more info and don't understand what it is I am talking about, go back and read my example about DUCK TAPE! Then we can talk!

ASH HOUSEWARES
http://www.garnersclassics.com/pics/army/store.jpg

Aaron_GT
02-14-2004, 01:32 PM
Dmny - really wide FOV in Rowan's BoB is
only really available in the post-market
patches. It also has lots of torque, and
I like the ability to play the strategy
game and then leap into action. In a lot
of other ways it lags well behind FB.

Aaron_GT
02-14-2004, 01:34 PM
Also I think Rowan's BoB came out in 2000,
as I picked up the demo in Sept 2000 on a
magazine cover, on the way back from a
conference (Bizzarely Alyssa Milano was
in the store when I bought the magazine,
but that's a whole other story).

JG14_Josf
02-14-2004, 01:34 PM
Dnmy,

Your opinion is thankfully not shared by Oleg, or at least the fact that Oleg has modeled the zoom feature has provided the realistic requirement to focus attention and depth perception.

Before sending my last response I noticed that your opinion was clarified with respect to 'useradjustability'.

In which case we both agree that one feature does not require the exclusion of other features.

Where your opinion (stated as a fact) is that the zoom is rediculous my opinion is that it does simulate real world limitations of vision.

Where you find it difficult to scan your area I find it easy. I see little difference in moving my eyes to specific areas on the computer screen and moving my computer screen perspective with a small thumb movement.

Where you find it better to illuminate objects with Icons I find it better to require the application of a control function in the form of zoom view to better focus attention on a specific area.

I do not know how your eyes work, mine are unable to focus clearly unless my eyes are pointed directly at what I am trying to see clearly. My eyes also find it difficult to find objects unless my eyes are focused for the proper distance. I would not have any problem in this ability to see clearly with high definition if the object I look at wore bright colored labels. I would certainly not have any ability to hide from someone if I wore bright colored labels.

Is it true that you prefer settings that eliminate the need to focus attention and adjust for depth perception? Do you prefer settings that allow a wide angle of view so as to minimizes the need to manipulte the direction of perspective?

I find the work required to make those manual control inputs that change the viewing perspective to be well worth the effort. Once those control inputs are done without having to think about them, once it is a simple matter of wanting to look in a particular direction and the view is changed on command then the simulation becomes so much like the real thing that it is obvious just how well the simulation has been programed.

Once the command to change focus of attention with the zoom view becomes routine and automatic then this too becomes an obviously well done game feature to enable a player to get immersed in the idea that air combat is well simulated, that the player can command his attention and illuminate areas of concern with precision and refinement and do so without the need to have neon signs shadowing objects.

Some game features require the player to learn by rote in order for these features to be realized as an asset in the often sensory overloadeed combat environment. Only once these capabilies are automatic and done without having to think about which button to push or which direction to move the stick can the player really appreciate the advantages of having such features.

Once the command to change perspective is made to be automatic then the player can begin to use this capability to advantage against players who are as yet dependent upon game aids. This, in my opinion, simulates how a trained combat veteran has and advantage over a new recruit.

Such as in these examples:

1)every pilot learns to "see correctly" and
2)learns to look into the airspace at different distances, and doesn't look "through" targets, but can place them on ceratain levels or distances. The pilot will acquire the necessary skills for this by learning first to fly correctly in a formation."

From here:
Captain H. Wind's Lectures on Fighter Tactics; lecture 2 (http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-CaptainWindsAirCombatTacticsLecture.html)



and this:


"In addition, it was not enough simply to look, but one had to observe with a proper technique. First far way and then closer in."

From here:
Golodnikov (http://www.airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/golodnikov/part4.htm)



And this from The War Diary of Hauptmann Helmut Lipfert:

"At 4,000 meters thre was still nothing to be seen of an aircraft. However the shadow was so large that it definitely couldn't be from a fighter. At 3,500 meters I was finally able to make out the aircraft. The machine which approached from out of the east was quite large. It had to be the gneral's aircraft we were so eagerly awaiting. Mohr, too, had spotted the enemy. Was it possible that such a large aircraft was flying alone, without fighter escort? I strained to spot possible escorting aircraft. Finally I discovered them. Eight fighters were perched close above the twin-engined machine."

Dnmy
02-14-2004, 02:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_HOUSE_WARES:
THEREFORE.. WHY IN GODS NAME WOULD YOU WANT TO MAKE IT EVEN HARDER ON US? We are all ready dealing with the constraints of the FOV.. WHY Make us deal with solid cockpit bars when in real life they would not appear to be solid!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because you're looking for solutions in the wrong direction. Cockpit bars in real life ARE solid and present. But the cockpit bars are NOT the problem.

The solid cockpit bars are obtrusive BECAUSE the FOV is so small. Zoom in on a cockpit bar then zoom out. You'll see it will have gotten much smaller. If you could zoom out even further you could see more of the sky, your surroundings and even less of the cockpit bar.

Besides, if the cockpitgraphics are still obtrusive, there's already a no cockpit option.
We don't have a wider than widest field of view option. Other sims do. e.g. BoB that has a max. field of view of 110 degs. LOMAC that has a max. field of view of 120 degs.

Aces High has also very wide customizable wide field of views. You can make the cockpit struts just about as small or as big as you want to. Visibility issues like those existing in FB are absent in Aces High. Hitech creations reckognized that for good SA you need a broad field of view.

Guess what? they don't have transparant cockpit bars in AH. And nobody is complaining about visibility issues like in FB.

Dnmy
02-14-2004, 02:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Dmny - really wide FOV in Rowan's BoB is
only really available in the post-market
patches. It also has lots of torque, and
I like the ability to play the strategy
game and then leap into action. In a lot
of other ways it lags well behind FB.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that is another discussion http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But let me say to you that BoB as modded by the BDG was the first combat sim to incorporate trackIR enhanced mode. They got much better AI than in FB. They got cockpits that look much better designed than in FB. Many advanced features WRT scalability that FB simply lacks. Too many to mention.

FB looks prettier and is interesting because the planeset is so large and relatively new.
But other than that i've never seen such huge formations and furballs than in Rowan's BoB. Literally thousands of planes in the air at once with still great framerate. So i think Oleg has got his work cut out for him to best that. Let's hope he will.

Dnmy
02-14-2004, 02:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Dnmy,

Your opinion is thankfully not shared by Oleg, or at least the fact that Oleg has modeled the zoom feature has provided the realistic requirement to focus attention and depth perception.

etc. etc..
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You misunderstand me again.

I'm thankful that he has provided the zoom feature because in some situations with certain settings it's absolutely nescessary to zoom in to ID.

But it shouldn't be nescessary. In real life the fighter pilot doesn't have to/can't zoom in and lose all peripheral vision right there.

I don't find it at all difficult to scan areas. In fact, with trackIR it's extremely easy for me.

Nonetheless i shouldn't HAVE to be panning like a madman just because my field of view is so narrow. I should be able to see a LOT more in once glance by looking in 1 direction. In real life i can see a LOT more sky than the measly 85 degs provided in FB.

You find the manual control inputs to change the viewing direction to be well worth the effort.
I find them absolutely nescessary in FB. But they're unrealistic. That's the difference.

All these things that you mention changing the direction of the field of view, zooming in, is all artificial. Serves no real simulation purpose. It's ridiculous how "difficult" looking around in sims is, compared to looking around in real life.

I used quotes because after all these years of simming, we've gotten used to that difficulty.
To the point that we as simmer may get the impression that it's as normal as in real life. But it isn't. It's a highly artificial way of looking around in sims. And imo unnescesarily difficult compared to what we have to do in real life to look around.

Aaron_GT
02-14-2004, 02:54 PM
"The solid cockpit bars are obtrusive BECAUSE the FOV is so small. Zoom in on a cockpit bar then zoom out. You'll see it will have gotten much smaller. If you could zoom out even further you could see more of the sky, your surroundings and even less of the cockpit bar."

If you zoom out the angle subtended by the bar,
and the angle subtended by the target remain
in proportion. In other words the bar is just
as likely to obscure the target.

"They got much better AI than in FB."

I find the AI in BoB to be different, but
not necessarily better. I certainly find that
the AI of Stukas makes it ridiculously easy
to shoot them down. Yes Stukas were withdrawn,
but if it had been that easy in WW2 they would
have been withdrawn due to them all having
been shot down in the first week of the Battle
of Britain! I think the later EAW mods' AI is
better than either BoB or FB.


I'm not sure I've seen thousands of aircraft
in the air with Rowan/BDG's BoB (not currently
on my hard drive). If there were that would
be more than were in the air at anyone one
time in BoB!

If Oleg is talking of modelling a typical
engagement in the Battle of Britain, then
50 bombers, plus a similar number of escorts,
and perhaps 30 to 40 RAF fighters (representing
a Big Wing attack) is all that is really needed.
So 150 maximum, and even 100 would be pretty
close to reality.

Going back to Aces High, with up to 250 in
the arenas there, you could do a complete BoB
simulation with online players only in theory.

ASH_HOUSE_WARES
02-14-2004, 02:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dnmy:
Because you're looking for solutions in the wrong direction. Cockpit bars in real life ARE solid and present. But the cockpit bars are NOT the problem.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I see you didnt read about the DUCK TAPE.. Oh well, cant say I didnt try.. Belive what you want!

ASH HOUSEWARES
http://www.garnersclassics.com/pics/army/store.jpg

WWMaxGunz
02-14-2004, 03:46 PM
DNMY;

The bars block the same angle of sky no matter how wide you make the sky. It's not a problem in AH because you can move your head in AH. IRL you have 2 eyes and one sees a different view than the other and around the struts if you don't focus both eyes on the strut itself. IRL you can move your head slightly and keep track of objects that are all or primarily blocked by the struts such as watching the wings to see if he is rolling left, right or not at all, pitching, etc.

Wider view would be very good. LOMAC has it? It should be good enough for FB although I and I don't think you can say if there might be some technical problem associated. I didn't know what Gibbage revealed about the 3D models until I read that so just maybe there's a reason for the limited width.

Josf;

Try driving with a cone on your Face that limits your view to 85 degrees. The cone will be narrower, it doesn't even have to be a cone really just as long as the edges cut you view so far down. Maybe deep goggles would do, at least on the sides. But please get a short term life insurance policy with ME as the beneficiary first. I could use the money and the chances are good you'd buy it before long.


Neal

JG14_Josf
02-14-2004, 04:21 PM
Dmny,

It seems clear to me that you would prefer to have a wider field of zoom so you can look around in the sim more like you can look around in real life.

I hope the next sim offers that option for you.

As far as my lack of understanding it seems to me that we are both having trouble with communicating.

It does seem clear that you consider the zoom feature to be worth having in the sim.

I think it is important to at least consider the benefits of increasing the angle of view.

I use four angle view ranges now; the widest angle, the narrowest angle and two view angle ranges in between the extreme ranges. I use a four way hat to select these view ranges. I use that 4 way hat constantly during gameplay. I use that four way hat as if it were my ability to focus my conentration from peripheral view looking at everything at once, scanning to narrow view, conentrating in a specific object or area.

If the widest angle were made wider in teh program I would probably use the wider angle for scanning.

This would be helpful for covering more viewing area in less time at the expense of the higher detail available with smaller angles of vision.

Wide angle for searching and spotting objects.

Narrow angle for indentification.

Wide angle for a peripheral look to keep track of the overall combat picture.

Narrow angle for focus and specific object information.

My eyes work much like how IL2/FB simulates the range of view angle feature.

In the real world if I want to pay attention to a wide area of view I have to adjust my vision away from any specific area. I have to train myself to look everywhere and nowhere in particular simultaneously.

If I want to study a particular object then I have to concentrate and place my attention on a specific spot at the expense of my awareness of what is seen on the edges of view.

This effect of intense concentration on a specific area of view is called tunnel vision. It is a reality.

The well trained human can avoid excessive tunnel vision with practice. He can learn to regulate his attention often and learn to avoid prolonged focus upon any specific area.

Combat pilots certainly know how to maintain situational awareness by both seeing the wide angle big picture and the narrow angle intense concentration of specific objects. Perhaps the combat pilots can even do these thing simultaneously. I cannot. If I concentrate on reading small letters or a distant roadway sign then my peripheral attention suffers. On the other hand if I pay close attention to every area within my vision it is very difficult for me to read or indentify small or distant objects.
The same is true when trying to focus attention on two object within my field of view but the two objects are not close together. I must look and pay attention to one or the other, as one is looked at and in focus the other one is out of focus.
Even when two objects are in my field of view and both objects are in almost the same direction yet one object is closer than the other I cannot pay attention to both at the same time. As I focus on one object the other one becomes obscured in the distance and out of focus.

If the program allowed the player to see as much viewing area as is possible in real life and still be restricted by the size limits of the monitor then every object in view would be very small and hard to indentify.

I would tend to find myself moving closer to the monitor to see specific objects in the wide angle view. Instead it is much easier to simply increase the viewing angle with a joystick button when trying to indentify specific objects.

It seems to me that the zoom feature simulates very well the human ability to narrow the focus of attention.

In my opinion that it is rediculous to expect that the wider field of view is going to fix the problem of fitting a whole world onto a computer screen.

A wider field of view will make everything smaller on an already small screen. This is good for scanning and peripheral vision and bad for indentifiying specific objects.

So what is to be done to fix the problem of fitting a whole world onto a computer screen?

How about a player controled angle of view feature that simulates a persons ability to concentrate attention on specific areas within his field of view?

Excellent solution to a very big problem, thanks again to the creators of a fabulous WWII Fighter combat simulation.

I hope more of the same ingenious thinking is going into the next project.

Aaron_GT
02-14-2004, 04:28 PM
Just to echo what WWMaxGunz said, in a different
way, the eye has two main regions, the fovea
(centre of vision) and the rest. The foveal
view is a somewhat less than the angle
subtended by a typical computer monitor at
a typical distance. Alternatively pretty much
the whole of a normal sized TV screen at normal
viewing distances will be within the fovea.

The peripheral vison extends to around 180
degrees (roughly) and is very sensitive to
movement.

The computer screens we have subtend around
60 degrees at the eye, so a 1:1 mapping gives
us only a 60 degree view outside the cockpit,
which is a third of what we can actually see.
However, those 60 degrees are largely within
the fovea, which can see in detail, but is not
so responsive to movement.

The question is how best to afford us the
equivalent of peripheral vision for situational
awareness, without making images on the screen
so tiny we can't see them, images so distorted
they give us headaches, or our screens so close
to our noses that we go blind.

To see the periphery in a wide FOV as
seen bu the human eye we have
to basically take a hemisphere and lay it out
on the flat monitor. It is impossible
without distortion. So is that worth doing?

Another option is to have a view from further
back than the real view position. This might
introduce some lesser distortions, but is
an unrealistic view point. This seems to be
part of the approach that TargetWare takes,
however, and FB, SDOE, etc.

Other options are to concentrate on modelling
a bit more than the 60 degrees visible on
screen, but not too much more, minimising
disortions to an acceptable level, and
providing additional queues. Also it avoids
some of the problems of size of images on
screen of a plane you are chasing as the FOV
is increased. (i.e. you might have a wide
FOV, but the enemy planes are only one pixel
and you can't tell it from dust on your monitor).

Another possibility might be to have a
graduation of scales - so the centre of
the screen is mapped 1:1, but the ratio
changes towards the edges. No threat icons,
but planes would move at different rates
through the different FOV ratios from the
edge to the centre. This might actually be
how the eye perceives movement, to a certain
extent, but since it would be presented in
the fovea it might be disorienting. I'd
have to draw diagrams to make it clear.
In feel it might be a little like the threat
icons anyway, but a bit less artificial or
like 'cheating'.

The most complete answer is a new visual
technology. I've seen curved screens used
for train driver training, and they are
effective. Multiple screens are also a
possibility.

I think the best compromise is going to
be a bit wider FOV than now, but well short
of 180 degrees, and accept needing to zoom
in and out, and accept the distortions.

Aaron_GT
02-14-2004, 04:31 PM
"Combat pilots certainly know how to maintain situational awareness by both seeing the wide angle big picture and the narrow angle intense concentration of specific objects. Perhaps the combat pilots can even do these thing simultaneously. I cannot. If I concentrate on reading small letters or a distant roadway sign then my peripheral attention suffers."

Very true. Maybe my multiple FOV ratio system
could be expanded to deal with this - e.g.
rather than changing the FOV, the way the
ratios change could be changed plus the total
FOV. It might be a bit too complex and confusing
and disorienting to use, though!

XyZspineZyX
02-14-2004, 05:48 PM
Dnmy wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>if zoom view represents the most realistic picture then why isn't everybody flying in zoom view ALL the time?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because you'd need a 89" monitor to get it all in view.

The thing I hate about zoom view is how, when you zoom in, a distant dot is LESS likely to be seen. In fact, going from a wide view to normal view, dots frequently disappear. then you zoom back out and they're there again.

"Bass-ackwards" is the phrase I'd use to describe this.

JG14_Josf
02-14-2004, 06:28 PM
IL2/FB hides objects within the field of view range. This does simulate the requirement to focus for distance.

Here is an example:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/Dark%20background.jpg

At full wide view the four IL2s are practically invisible, and even in Normal View it would be very difficult to see them even as they move against the background.

Here the game simulates the effects of camouflage.

Once the player selects a closer field of view (in this case FOV50 and then Gunsight view) the effects of camouflage are worked around by the ability of the pilot to focus his attention at a specific location and distance. A player who is adept at tracking will intuitively know where to focus his attention.

Here is another example:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/Light%20background.jpg

In the above situation the player will see the objects if his focus of attention is in wide view. The IL2s are highlighted as dark objects against the light background. However if the player was not utilizing his range of viewing angle, if the player was stuck at one view angle and did not change his viewing angle and if he chose to use only the Normal view angle then the IL2s would again be practically invisible.

Once a player becomes accustomed to changing his viewing angle regularly, in much the same manner as the real fighter pilot learns to focus in and out for distance, the player can spot and track objects with much greater efficiency.
The player utilizing the field of view range feature in the game is like the trained pilot in real life.
The player not utilizing the field of view range feature in the game is like the green horn new recruit that just can't see ****e.
Then again the players unable or unwilling to use the field of view range feature can simply turn on icons, padlock, wonder woman view (I believe this term was coined by Stiglr), etc. and thereby level the playing field and render any advantage in visual capabilities that may be aquired through manipulation of the availalbe game features mute.

Once the routine is made automatic, and only then, the player can start developing the skills of enhanced visual ability. The training and use of the control is only a required step toward the goal of learning how to see better.
What the player must still learn is extensive and includes figuring out things like predictability and trajectory history and anything that helps the player build that ever so valuable intuition that can drive his desire to look in the right place at the right time.

Dnmy
02-14-2004, 07:55 PM
The real fighter pilot doesn't focus in and out like zooming in and out in FB.

He can't. Only if he pulls out his binoculars.

The problem with objects becoming less visible at wider field of view angles can already be circumvented pretty easily within FB.

Customizable icons.


Customizable wider field of views have much added benefits which you can obviously only start to appreciate when you've actually tried them.

A player using zoom to ID targets more closely is putting himself at high risk of being bounced by a bandit that was unfortunately coming from a direction he wasn't looking in. Just outside his cone of view.

He might have spotted that bandit in his peripheral vision. But sadly, peripheral vision is absent in FB. Totally absent. That alone is already highly unrealistic.

And Josf,

For a better understanding, some of the features in FB i consider to be nescessary evils. Like zoom view. Like learning to use a viewing system in itself. Just to name 2.

You consider those things to be realistic, whereas i find these things highly unrealistic.
That's the difference.

JG14_Josf
02-14-2004, 08:25 PM
Dmny,

I have not flown a fighter plane in combat that is why I used the references made by the real fighter pilots.

You can and I a certain will form your own opinions. I tried to point out the difference between your opinion and the facts.

Apparently that is not possible. In your mind they are one and the same.

So be it.

And to Neal it seems odd that you would use the driving analogy. I've played many of the racing simulators that offer a fraction of the viewing angle available to humans. I seem to do well enough in those simulations.

Perhaps you have a stiff neck. Mine works OK I can turn my head when needed while driving my Pick up truck. It is a good idea to pay attention when driving.


If you guys want to play the game your way with your visual aids and if you want to call that realistic or the best possible compromise then that is just fine with me. Your opinions are yours and it is not my place to try and change them. But if you think my opinion is wrong; that the game cannot offer a more realistic compromise with the veiw angle feature then I have done what I can do to show you my perspective.

My opinion remains.

I am going to continue to enjoy my version of the best possible compromise a computer game has to offer in simulating WWII Air combat.

I also hope the future continues to offer the players more choices so we can all enjoy our own versions of which method is the best.

It would be nice if the next best sim has a moveable head too.

BfHeFwMe
02-14-2004, 09:33 PM
Utterly amazing how these guys blabber about the struts must remain obstructing as they are, the whole realism package you see. Than come along with this icon nonsense, Puuleeeeeze, where did the realism all of a sudden vanish too? Guess they utilized the icon system during the war with all those struts in the way.

If your going to make an argument for stacking the game to your style of difficulty settings, feel free. But spare us the realism sanctimoniousness. Why not give it 180 hemisphere view, than with your magical icons you only need two view buttons, front and back. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Dnmy
02-14-2004, 10:02 PM
Lookie here,

The Nodak01 troll Lackey or whatever it is you call yourself http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

Dnmy
02-14-2004, 10:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
And to Neal it seems odd that you would use the driving analogy. I've played many of the racing simulators that offer a fraction of the viewing angle available to humans. I seem to do well enough in those simulations.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think most of us do well in combat flight simulations also. In FB, we're all fighterpilots with a maximum of 85 deg field of vision.

But i'm guessing that the person aspiring to be a real fighter pilot with a hypothetical limited field of view of 85 degs would have trouble making it through the fighter pilot selection process.

Yet in the sim we tend to regard that field of view as normal and adequate.

JG14_Josf
02-15-2004, 12:28 AM
Dnmy,

What we tend to regard as normal and adequate may not be as you determine, instead we may have individual opinions, some agree and others do not agree.

I am certainly open to the possibility that a wider field of view would make for a better compromise when scanning is desired. Icons do not represent a good compromise when intense focus upon specific objects is desired for me.

The zoom feature offers a much better compromise, in my opinion.

The maximum 85 degree field of vision that we are limited too in the simulation is only momentary. If we desire to see things out of the field of view it is an easy decision and act of will to look further left, right, up, down, or any direction. For me all I have to do is move my left thumb. This is no longer a thought process for me. I simply think of looking in one direction and looking in that direction is simulated. Instead of commanding my eyes to look or my head to swivel the game allows me to simulate those automatic actions with a different set of muscles moved automatically.
I do not have to think about focusing for range either. My eye muscles that are used to focus for distance are replaced in simulation by the muscles in my right thumb. I do not have to think about bringing a distant dot into focus so that I can identify it's heading or markings all that is required for me is the desire to see it and the change is made automatically.
The simulation is not perfect but for my sense of reality it is far better than icons.

Learning by rote is a simple process common in music. For example a musician doesn't have to be a genius to play Mozart. Anyone can practice each voice in the music separately and then combine them into one. Once that work is done the musician finds his muscles creating each voice seperately.

Here is another example of learning by rote:

Try drawing an imaginary 6 in the air with your right finger and at the same time draw a clockwise circle with your right foot.

You can do it with practice. Train your right foot to make circles for about an hour. Then train your right finger to make 6s for another hour. Your muscles will have learned how to do these things by rote.

OK so you may be thinking; there is no way I am going to spend an hour drawing circles with my foot.

Why would anyone work so hard for nothing when they can simply turn on the icons?

Aaron_GT
02-15-2004, 02:51 AM
"Utterly amazing how these guys blabber about the struts must remain obstructing as they are, the whole realism package you see. "

For me the issue is more that apparently it
will result in a big frame rate hit.

Aaron_GT
02-15-2004, 02:56 AM
Dmny wrote:
"He can't. Only if he pulls out his binoculars."

A typical monitor at a typical distance subtends
about 60 degrees horizontally and vertically
at the eye. The gunsight view offers a very
similar FOV. So the gunsight view is not a
'binocular' view but actually represents a 1:1
FOV scaling (There will be some variation as
people may have different monitor sizes, but
it is pretty close).

Dnmy
02-15-2004, 03:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
The maximum 85 degree field of vision that we are limited too in the simulation is only momentary. If we desire to see things out of the field of view it is an easy decision and act of will to look further left, right, up, down, or any direction. For me all I have to do is move my left thumb. This is no longer a thought process for me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If panning is no trouble at all, and zooming neither, then i'd suggest you fly in zoom view all the time. See what that does to your SA. Practice at it and maybe, but it's a big MAYBE you'd be able to reach the same level of SA as the guy flying in widest view all the time.
I highly doubt it though.

Dnmy
02-15-2004, 03:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
So the gunsight view is not a
'binocular' view but actually represents a 1:1
FOV scaling (There will be some variation as
people may have different monitor sizes, but
it is pretty close).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I mentioned "pulling out binoculars" because that's the sensation i get from using zoom view. It feels exactly like looking at an object through binoculars when you're zooming in to get a closer look.

It's a nescessary evil in some situations but it simulates nothing.

[This message was edited by Dnmy on Sun February 15 2004 at 03:42 AM.]

ASH at S-MART
02-15-2004, 08:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dnmy:
It's a nescessary evil in some situations but it simulates nothing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well it is good to see that you realise that! That simple fact is bases for most things! A PC sitting on a $30.00 table from SEARS will never be a airplane.. THEREFORE concessions have to be made! Sometimes unrealstic things are done to try and make up for the limitatiions of a PC.

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

Dnmy
02-15-2004, 10:12 AM
Agreed. Or should i say? Agreed!

XyZspineZyX
02-15-2004, 11:15 AM
BfHeFwMe misses a huge point:

when arguing whether icons are desirable or not, or if canopy braces are desirable or not, one has to take into account what EFFECT they have on the simulation.

Icons make up for some HUGE shortcomings in the FB visual system (and in the compromise of using a monitor to simulate human vision) that create equally ridiculous and unrealistic anamolies as "planes disappering in plain view". If you compare how action unfolds with a well-written icon setting with what happens in "full cataract" no icon settings, you'll quickly find that the icon settings create the visual environment that closely mimics what the real pilots have written about.

We have a bunch of "simulation devices" that, while not de facto accurate or realistic, create an effective illusion of accuracy in the simulation.

So, if you're truly seeking realism, your arguments about things like the Wonder Woman view should revolve around questions such as: do I try to simulate restricted visibility from a WWII plane (knowing it'll be somewhat more restrictive than if I could "lean my head") or do I just pretend visibility was no factor at all and click the canopy and fuselage away and use WWView? Or, in the case of icons, do I not use them because in real life, objects don't have floating labels around them, or do I settle for vision (through my monitor) that is much worse than a trained pilot with excellent vision would have had in the real event?

ASH at S-MART
02-15-2004, 11:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Icons make up for some HUGE shortcomings in the FB visual system<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well at least you now realise there are SOME huge shortcommings in the FB visual system... When did you come to this realisatiion? Was it before or after Oleg said they are going to impliment the LEAN in BoB? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

XyZspineZyX
02-15-2004, 11:53 AM
Well before it.

as I said, I don't have a problem with them adding this mythical "lean" to the view system, I just don't think it's going to be the panacea to SA that some envision (bad pun, I know).

WWMaxGunz
02-15-2004, 11:56 AM
I just wish that for offline use the icons could be customized as they are on servers with settable ranges for colors, labels, etc.

There has to be ways to make up for deficiencies in hardware in any sim worthy of being a sim. How well those are done is a measure of the art in the programming itself. Interfaces that are only direct mappings have no life and are harder to use and adapt to than those that accomodate, that bridge the gaps inherent in the hardware.

I can't understand people who would cut off their nose to spite their face, who would say that the equivalent of fighting with one eye covered, an arm tied behind their back and legs in chains is somehow sacrosant reality. Maybe adapting to handicaps better than others makes them bigger people but I think the right word isn't people but something less nice.


Neal

ASH at S-MART
02-15-2004, 12:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Well before it.

as I said, I don't have a problem with them adding this mythical "lean" to the view system, I just don't think it's going to be the panacea to SA that some envision (bad pun, I know).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Mythical? Hardly! What is mythical is justfying icons or thinking a pilot would op to bank his aircraft instead of leaning or turing he head. I think what has you thinking mythical is your miss conception of the harness.. They were not pinned to the seat like JC on the cross!! They had lap belts tight and shoulder belts loose.. Dont think so? Then ask yourself one simple question.. Why did airplane makers go to the troulbe of installing makcome hoods, or converting razor backs to bubble canopys.. Once you consider those simple truths you will realise the pilot did have the ability to lean and look back!

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

JG14_Josf
02-15-2004, 02:22 PM
Neal wrote:

"I can't understand people who would cut off their nose to spite their face"

The answer to this puzzle appears to be easy from my perspective.

You may simply not understand any perspective other than your own despite continued efforts by others to convey a perspective that you do not share.

A perspective that you do not share, a perspective that is realized by another doesn't necessarily require them to consider their viewpoint as being sacrosanct no more than the perspective or opinion that you have is bound to be inviolable.

Since simulation by definition is not the real deal any judement therefore as to the value or grade or accomplishment of the task tends to be subjective.

Anyone claiming authority as to what does not constitute true simulation is sactimonious, absurd, and delusional; certainly if simulation is actually accomplished.


My version of the best possible settings that the game offers to simulate reality is my subjective judgment backed up by my own experiences and research.

Someone who does not share my perspective is one thing however if they pretend to determine the validity of my perspective then such a preposterous claim should at least be refuted specifically.

My claim is that Huge Neon Signs did not exist in reality. I make this claim so as to communicate my own perspective and my own reasons for not wanting them included in simulation.

If someone has an issue with my judgment of how the zoom feature simulates reality then refute the pictures I post and refute my quotes from WWII Fighter pilots.

Icons simulate reality. This is understood. They do so at a cost. My judgment is that the cost is too high.

Is it impossible that the Zoom feature simulates a reality as described in my earlier posts, and who is so pious as to make this finite judgement?

Simulation is a compromise and thankfully the producers of IL2/FB offer a variety of methods to accomplish the task.

Those who judge Icons to be the best compromise in simulation can turn them on.

Those who judge Icons to be too costly in simulation can turn them off.

Once the game is played with Icons off it becomes clear to me, at least, that the game offers features that simulate visual acuity through the manipulation of controls. Players that utilize these features can see better than players who do not utilize these features much in the same way as real pilots learn how to see better through training and experience.


The game offers an environment where a player must develop visual skills without Icons.

Some players see this and judge it to be a better simulation.

Who is so divine as to be able to declare those players as wrong.

Some players judge the use of icons as a better means to simulate visual capabilities.

More power to them. Have fun!

[This message was edited by JG14_Josf on Sun February 15 2004 at 01:34 PM.]

straffo
02-15-2004, 03:07 PM
now ...if you edit your post

I can do the same ...

[This message was edited by straffo on Sun February 15 2004 at 02:18 PM.]

ASH at S-MART
02-15-2004, 03:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Neal wrote:

"I can't understand people who would cut off their nose to spite their face"

The answer to this puzzle appears to be easy from my perspective.

You may simply not understand any perspective other than your own despite continued efforts by others to convey a perspective that you do not share.

A perspective that you do not share, a perspective that is realized by another doesn't necessarily require them to consider their viewpoint as being sacrosanct no more than the perspective or opinion that you have is bound to be inviolable.

Since simulation by definition is not the real deal any judement therefore as to the value or grade or accomplishment of the task tends to be subjective.

Anyone claiming authority as to what does not constitute true simulation is sactimonious, absurd, and delusional; certainly if simulation is actually accomplished.


My version of the best possible settings that the game offers to simulate reality is my subjective judgment backed up by my own experiences and research.

Someone who does not share my perspective is one thing however if they pretend to determine the validity of my perspective then such a preposterous claim should at least be refuted specifically.

My claim is that Huge Neon Signs did not exist in reality. I make this claim so as to communicate my own perspective and my own reasons for not wanting them included in simulation.

If someone has an issue with my judgment of how the zoom feature simulates reality then refute the pictures I post and refute my quotes from WWII Fighter pilots.

Icons simulate reality. This is understood. They do so at a cost. My judgment is that the cost is too high.

Is it impossible that the Zoom feature simulates a reality as described in my earlier posts, and who is so pious as to make this finite judgement?

Simulation is a compromise and thankfully the producers of IL2/FB offer a variety of methods to accomplish the task.

Those who judge Icons to be the best compromise in simulation can turn them on.

Those who judge Icons to be too costly in simulation can turn them off.

Once the game is played with Icons off it becomes clear to me, at least, that the game offers features that simulate visual acuity through the manipulation of controls. Players that utilize these features can see better than players who do not utilize these features much in the same way as real pilots learn how to see better through training and experience.


The game offers an environment where a player must develop visual skills without Icons.

Some players see this and judge it to be a better simulation.

Who is so divine as to be able to declare those players as wrong.

Some players judge the use of icons as a better means to simulate visual capabilities.

More power to them. Have fun!

[This message was edited by JG14_Josf on Sun February 15 2004 at 01:34 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>AMEN!

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

XyZspineZyX
02-15-2004, 04:00 PM
I agree 100% that we all have our own perspective as to what is possible, what is good simulation, what is "accurate" etc.

I can only state my own opinion.

But, I often feel that some's "opinion" is driven by their sense of personal convenience, rather than any attempt to arrive at what is "right" or "accurate". Wonder Woman view being possibly the best example of that. I feel WW View is indefensible from any standpoint. But again, that's my opinion.

Dnmy
02-15-2004, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:

"Once the game is played with Icons off it becomes clear to me, at least, that the game offers features that simulate visual acuity through the manipulation of controls. Players that utilize these features can see better than players who do not utilize these features much in the same way as real pilots learn how to see better through training and experience.
The game offers an environment where a player must develop visual skills without Icons."

Visual acuity through manipulation of controls? LOL what's that supposed to mean? Visual acuity through manipulation of controls by pilots does not take place in real life. And even if it did, it wouldn't take skill.

"Some players see this and judge it to be a better simulation. Who is so divine as to be able to declare those players as wrong."

Some players fail to see that visual acuity through manipulation of controls is absent in real life and think that these simskills learned are similar to the skills that a real world fighter pilot would have to learn. Which is nonsense ofcourse.

And nobody is proclaiming to be divine. It's just so obvious that simskills are just that. Nescessary evils in order to play a sim. And real world "visual acuity skills" come without practice, they come natural.

Trademark of the aces was that they all had extremely good eyesight. This is not a skill, it's something that you're either born with or not. And differences in eyesight aren't modelled in FB. Every pilot in FB is created with the same eyesight and same tunnelvision.

ASH at S-MART
02-15-2004, 06:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I agree 100% that we all have our own perspective as to what is possible, what is good simulation, what is "accurate" etc.

I can only state my own opinion.

But, I often feel that some's "opinion" is driven by their sense of personal convenience, rather than any attempt to arrive at what is "right" or "accurate". Wonder Woman view being possibly the best example of that. I feel WW View is indefensible from any standpoint. But again, that's my opinion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Funny.. in that no one here is asking for wonder woman view.. Why bring that up?

As for opinions.. Im just glad that Oleg opinion of the LEAN is that it is "right" and "accurate"..

By the way.. did you have another "opinion" as to why they added malcom hoods and converted razor backs to bubble canopys?

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

XyZspineZyX
02-15-2004, 06:54 PM
Once again, you're operating from the assumption that I am not in favor of this "lean" feature, and feel it is unrealistic.

That's not true.

I feel it's more 'unworkable' and 'implausible' than anything else. If you check thru this thread, you'll see that.

I simply feel all you're doing is moving the blindspots around; things will always be blocked in certain situations; and the simpler way to deal with it is to either bank the plane or use your "mind's eye" and Situational Awareness to keep track of the bogie for a second or two; you need not see it 100% of the time, as some here believe.

As for the Malcoln hoods and blown canopies, the answer is "to allow the pilot to see better". I think that effect is already evident in the cockpit artwork. Lean or no, you can see better in the respective planes with the hoods than without, can't you? And the blind area is less, is it not? My point exactly. Doesn't change the "lean" argument, pro or con, one iota.

JG14_Josf
02-15-2004, 07:41 PM
Dnmy,

Just in case you did not read my quotations from WWII combat fighter pilots I am going to repeat these quotes.

My reason for doing so is to point out what I consider to be proof that real pilots were required to learn how to see better in order to gain the required edge for success in combat.

I do not expect that you will understand such reasoning. On the contrary it is obvious that my ability to communicate with you is severely lacking.

My incentive to post this comes from a basic desire to improve my communication skills.

First on the list is a quote from Captain H. Wind, a Finnish pilot's Lecture:

1)every pilot learns to "see correctly" and
2)learns to look into the airspace at different distances, and doesn't look "through" targets, but can place them on certain levels or distances. The pilot will acquire the necessary skills for this by learning to fly correctly in a formation."

The above quote is reported to be from a real WWII fighter pilot. He states that a pilot must not look "through" targets. He says that a pilot must place targets on certain levels or distances. I think that this real pilot was trying to tell the less experiences pilots that they have to develop their ability to "see correctly".

Does Captain H Wind know that in order to survive in WWII air combat a pilot must learn how to focus his attention by willing his eyes to see at different ranges?

Why is this not similar to moving a hat switch to change the view angle?

Notice how a player in IL2 is required to will his attention to different ranges of focus by changing the view angle:
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/Dark%20background.jpg
If a player is so disposed as to insist upon using Wide view then the targets will be difficult at best to see, while the player who does will his attention at different ranges can clearly make out the targets.

Why is it not reasonable to conclude that a player suggesting the need to change view angle does simulate the advice of Captain H. Wind who suggests learning to look into the airspace at different distances?

The next quote is from an interview with N.G.Golodnikov:

"In addition, it was not enough simply to look, but one had to observe with a proper technique. First far away and then closer in."

Why is it not reasonable to conclude that with icons there is no need for anyone to observe with the proper technique since everyone can see the icon regardless of whether it is far away or if it is closer in?

Why is it impossible to conclude that there is a similarity between reality and having to develop a technique in the game to see first from far away with wide angle view and then closer in with zoom view?

The work required to gain the advantage may not be exaclty the same in the game as it is in reality. The thumb muscle may need training instead of the eye muscle. But once the skill has been practiced to proficiency; the end result can be reasonably considered as similar.

Reason is required to make this observation.

I suggest that my post here is reasonable and worthy of a reasonable response.

I expect not such response.

Please do point out my ignorance, my error, and my arrogance.

ASH at S-MART
02-15-2004, 10:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Once again, you're operating from the assumption that I am not in favor of this "lean" feature, and feel it is unrealistic.

That's not true.

I feel it's more 'unworkable' and 'implausible' than anything else. If you check thru this thread, you'll see that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ok.. checking... Ok I found two..


1)I also feel people want to imagine you didn't have a big, bulky parachute pack on your back or under your butt, and that you weren't strapped in tight, with leads attached to your headset and maybe to your flying suit, all of which restricts the amount you can twist around and see

2)as I said, I don't have a problem with them adding this mythical "lean" to the view system

Even though you have said in a few posts that you feel lean is real.. More so sense Oleg's statement.. You discount it at every turn.. pun intended! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I simply feel all you're doing is moving the blind spots around; things will always be blocked in certain situations; and the simpler way to deal with it is to either bank the plane or use your "mind's eye" and Situational Awareness to keep track of the bogie for a second or two; you need not see it 100% of the time, as some here believe.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You keep saying the same thing over as if we didn't address you concerns all ready.. Are you not reading the reply's? Or not understanding them? Or choosing to just ignore them?

As for the blind spot moving.. YES!! THAT IS WHAT WE WANT!! In that currently it does not move, therefore what is blocked in one view will be blocked in the adjacent view. If the POV moved (i.e. lean implemented) the blind spot would move.. Therefore what is blocked in the current view will NOT BE BLOCKED in the adjacent view. The reverse is also true!! But, as I pointed out before, if you see it in the current view there is no need to go to the adjacent view.. And even if you did, you could toggle back and forth between the views. Which is not perfect! But much better than it being obscured in BOTH VIEWS!!

As for banking the plane.. Any yaw, pitch, or roll bleeds speed! Therefore you bleeding energy!

As for you situational awareness.. or what you coined your *minds eye* Your minds eye is for trying to guess what he might do next.. but it is not meant as a replacement for keeping your eye on the ball.. especially when you can easily by leaning or turning your head.. Your minds eye can FAIL in that while the bogie is behind that cockpit bar.. You don't know if he has rolled RIGHT or rolled LEFT.. You have a 50 50 chance! And if you bank right in anticipation of your minds eye guess to the right.. and he actually banked left.. Well you not only lost energy by banking right.. you now have to waste more by banking back left to where you were before you wrong move.

As for not needing to see it 100% of the time.. nobody ever said you have to.. but fighter pilots have an old saying "Loose sight Loose fight!"!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
As for the Malcoln hoods and blown canopies, the answer is "to allow the pilot to see better". I think that effect is already evident in the cockpit artwork. Lean or no, you can see better in the respective planes with the hoods than without, can't you? And the blind area is less, is it not? My point exactly. Doesn't change the "lean" argument, pro or con, one iota.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You couldn't be more wrong if you tried!! But thank you for answering it!! The view is better.. In that there are not as many SOLID cockpit bars blocking your view.. But the whole point of the question to you was to debunk your statements like "mythical lean" and implying that a head set cord is going to stop you from leaning. On this topic though.. the aircraft that should have VERY good back left and back right views are not much better than the razor back version.. When in real life they were MUCH better!

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

Dnmy
02-16-2004, 03:08 AM
Sry Josf,

I understand what you're saying, but my point, to stay in your analogy, is that H. Wind's "seeing correctly" in real life is so much easier, so much more natural compared to seeing correctly in FB. In fact, the difference between what you do in FB WRT seeing correctly and what they did in real life, couldn't be greater.

It is as you put it yourself, the "work required" IS not the same as in real life. The mechanics of looking around and scanning are highly articicial, "clumsy", in a sim compared to doing the same in real life. Which is my point exactly.

I will agree with your statements when "seeing correctly" in a sim stands on equal footing with "seeing correctly" in real life.

That would ofcourse be a sim with e.g. true 3D vision, depth perception, peripheral vision, handsfree looking around, realworld level of detail AND at the same time no tunnel vision (you name all the requirements).
But we're not there yet. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Dnmy
02-16-2004, 03:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Just to echo what WWMaxGunz said, in a different
way, the eye has two main regions, the fovea
(centre of vision) and the rest. The foveal
view is a somewhat less than the angle
subtended by a typical computer monitor at
a typical distance. Alternatively pretty much
the whole of a normal sized TV screen at normal
viewing distances will be within the fovea.

The peripheral vison extends to around 180
degrees (roughly) and is very sensitive to
movement.

The computer screens we have subtend around
60 degrees at the eye, so a 1:1 mapping gives
us only a 60 degree view outside the cockpit,
which is a third of what we can actually see.
However, those 60 degrees are largely within
the fovea, which can see in detail, but is not
so responsive to movement.

The question is how best to afford us the
equivalent of peripheral vision for situational
awareness, without making images on the screen
so tiny we can't see them, images so distorted
they give us headaches, or our screens so close
to our noses that we go blind.

To see the periphery in a wide FOV as
seen bu the human eye we have
to basically take a hemisphere and lay it out
on the flat monitor. It is impossible
without distortion. So is that worth doing?

Another option is to have a view from further
back than the real view position. This might
introduce some lesser distortions, but is
an unrealistic view point. This seems to be
part of the approach that TargetWare takes,
however, and FB, SDOE, etc.

Other options are to concentrate on modelling
a bit more than the 60 degrees visible on
screen, but not too much more, minimising
disortions to an acceptable level, and
providing additional queues. Also it avoids
some of the problems of size of images on
screen of a plane you are chasing as the FOV
is increased. (i.e. you might have a wide
FOV, but the enemy planes are only one pixel
and you can't tell it from dust on your monitor).

Another possibility might be to have a
graduation of scales - so the centre of
the screen is mapped 1:1, but the ratio
changes towards the edges. No threat icons,
but planes would move at different rates
through the different FOV ratios from the
edge to the centre. This might actually be
how the eye perceives movement, to a certain
extent, but since it would be presented in
the fovea it might be disorienting. I'd
have to draw diagrams to make it clear.
In feel it might be a little like the threat
icons anyway, but a bit less artificial or
like 'cheating'.

The most complete answer is a new visual
technology. I've seen curved screens used
for train driver training, and they are
effective. Multiple screens are also a
possibility.

I think the best compromise is going to
be a bit wider FOV than now, but well short
of 180 degrees, and accept needing to zoom
in and out, and accept the distortions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well said! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif And i agree with your conclusion at the bottom.

WWMaxGunz
02-16-2004, 06:16 AM
Stig; turning the plane to see around the struts...

isn't that just another way of moving the blind spots?


Neal

JG14_Josf
02-16-2004, 08:21 AM
Dnmy,

Why did you write 'sry'?

Communication is difficult at best, when information does manage to convey through written words I think there is reason to be happy.

Perhaps you think my intent is to change your mind and perhaps you think I feel sorry for not having inspired you to think my perspective is better than yours.

This is not the case. I do not feel sorry at all. My intent is to communicate a perspective that is valid. A perspective of preference in utilizing the game features that can be described as a realistic simulation of WWII Air combat.

The reason my replies continue have nothing to do with a desire on my part to prove you wrong about your perspective of which game features better represent reality.

My reasons to continue this post have everything to do with my need to better my communication skills.

This subject offers a challenge for me.

Your replies have stated in so many words a perception that I undestand to be as a direct refutation of my perspective. My interpertation of your past communications suggested to me that you think my manipulation of the controls in the game does not allow me to simulate anything realistic.

Since your last reply does not indicate that perspective any longer my reaction therefore is one of happyness.

My ability to communicate may have improved.

It is more likely that we both have managed to see the others perspective a little better.

Dnmy
02-16-2004, 10:31 AM
I wrote sry because i didn't read your quote about H. Winds lectures * at first *. I read them later on though.

But it didn't change my my opinion about manipulation of viewing controls in sims and their unrealistic and artificial nature compared to looking around in real life.

ASH at S-MART
02-16-2004, 10:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Stig; turning the plane to see around the struts...

isn't that just another way of moving the blind spots?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Good Point!!

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

XyZspineZyX
02-16-2004, 11:03 AM
Yeah, banking IS another way of moving the blind spots.

Works well, too, without any code, any button presses, any pre-programming, any *anything*.

Given that it can be done really quickly, too, it often solves the problem without the need for 10-page posts whining about it, as well.

YMMV. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ASH at S-MART
02-16-2004, 11:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Yeah, banking IS another way of moving the blind spots.

Works well, too, without any code, any button presses, any pre-programming, any *anything*.

Given that it can be done really quickly, too, it often solves the problem without the need for 10-page posts whining about it, as well.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But banking bleeds speed, thus energy and it aint as quick as leaning

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

XyZspineZyX
02-16-2004, 11:37 AM
Nope, wrong, banking is an "energy-free" maneuver. It's banking and then turning that bleeds energy.

Sturmtrooper
02-16-2004, 11:41 AM
If you whiners want a moveable head ....
then go buy a G.I. Joe !!!!!!
Hahahahahaha !!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://home.bellsouth.net/coDataImages/p/Groups/183/183586/pages/456377/untitled1.gif

ASH at S-MART
02-16-2004, 11:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Nope, wrong, banking is an "energy-free" maneuver. It's banking _and then turning_ that bleeds energy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry, but that is not correct.. Any control surface deflection creates drag.. Therefore you will bleed speed.. Therefore you will bleed energy.. Granted it is a small amount.. but moving your head or leaning is zero.. Pretty basic stuff here! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

ASH at S-MART
02-16-2004, 11:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sturmtrooper:
If you whiners want a moveable head ....
then go buy a G.I. Joe !!!!!!
Hahahahahaha !!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>YAWN.. a recent TrackIR noob that just wants to keep his edge over folks without TrackIR! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

BfHeFwMe
02-16-2004, 02:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
BfHeFwMe misses a huge point:

when arguing whether icons are desirable or not, or if canopy braces are desirable or not, one has to take into account what EFFECT they have on the simulation.

Icons make up for some HUGE shortcomings in the FB visual system (and in the compromise of using a monitor to simulate human vision) that create equally ridiculous and unrealistic anamolies as "planes disappering in plain view". If you compare how action unfolds with a well-written icon setting with what happens in "full cataract" no icon settings, you'll quickly find that the icon settings create the visual environment that closely mimics what the real pilots have written about.

We have a bunch of "simulation devices" that, while not de facto accurate or realistic, create an effective illusion of accuracy _in the simulation_.

So, if you're truly seeking realism, your arguments about things like the Wonder Woman view should revolve around questions such as: do I try to simulate restricted visibility from a WWII plane (knowing it'll be somewhat more restrictive than if I could "lean my head") or do I just pretend visibility was no factor at all and click the canopy and fuselage away and use WWView? Or, in the case of icons, do I not use them because in real life, objects don't have floating labels around them, or do I settle for vision (through my monitor) that is much worse than a trained pilot with excellent vision would have had in the real event?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The point is, it can never be about realism, it's all about playability. To keep throwing in these realism arguments to justify ones pet game settings is nonsense. I don't care what particular game settings one uses, hope you get what makes you happy, but to trash someone elses with some sort of realism argument knowing your views are really no more credible. Who's realism based on what?

More settings the better, why go trash someone elses favorite setting, it's not like more than one option can't coexist. And why lock things down and call it good enough, I'd be more than happy to try out new types of views, just might find I like one even better. Don't see that happening with so many convinced they have the best and realistic possible now. But real on a screen, never.

XyZspineZyX
02-16-2004, 02:39 PM
Here we go: the "it can't ever be real, so let's not simulate anything at all" gamer cop-out.

One absolutely CAN attack a particular setting when it doesn't really simulate anything realistic or is simply a convenience to "make the game easier so I can score more points". I draw attention to the use of your own language, "favorite setting". The idea that the settings are based on your preference rather than how well they actually simulate real phenomenon shows the true impetus behind that flawed school of thought.

Save that crap for Quake and Doom bulletin boards. This is a *simulation*, and as such, attempts to create a sense of reality as much as is possible. No, it will never succeed 100%; I think we're all intelligent enough to understand there are limits. But to use that as a smokescreen for "convenient" features like WonderWoman view, "no-spins" or other arcade features, that's plain disingenuous.

ASH at S-MART
02-16-2004, 04:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Here we go: the "it can't ever be real, so let's not simulate _anything at all_" gamer cop-out.

One absolutely CAN attack a particular setting when it doesn't really simulate anything realistic or is simply a convenience to "make the game easier so I can score more points". I draw attention to the use of your own language, "favorite setting". The idea that the settings are based on your preference rather than how well they actually simulate real phenomenon shows the true impetus behind that flawed school of thought.

Save that crap for Quake and Doom bulletin boards. This is a *simulation*, and as such, attempts to create a sense of reality as much as is possible. No, it will never succeed 100%; I think we're all intelligent enough to understand there are limits. But to use that as a smokescreen for "convenient" features like WonderWoman view, "no-spins" or other arcade features, that's plain disingenuous.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Huh? So now you think the LEAN "doesn't really simulate anything realistic" or are you refering to the SEMI-TRANPARENT effect that in RL your eyes would have? Or are you just out of answers and trying for a tanget topic? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

XyZspineZyX
02-16-2004, 04:11 PM
No, that last comment has nothing to do with the "lean" thing. It's merely a reaction to BfHeFwMe's post on the gamer mentality (which affects this discussion on a higher level).

BfHeFwMe
02-16-2004, 05:50 PM
They do sell it in a gaming section, last I looked. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

XyZspineZyX
02-16-2004, 08:22 PM
...and this is the best excuse you can come up with?

ASH at S-MART
02-16-2004, 09:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
...and this is the best excuse you can come up with?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well at least he gave you an answer.. which is more than I can say for you on several questions.

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

[This message was edited by ASH_SMART on Mon February 16 2004 at 08:19 PM.]

kamakaze75
02-17-2004, 01:29 AM
man this threat is still goin ? jeez---- movin heads huh .sounds interesting

02-17-2004, 05:24 AM
Probably because too many infidels around, kamakaze75. Don't they know that god has already spoken?

Or maybe some of them don't like god's decision to choose something over the other. I think it's a pride issue.

starfighter1
02-19-2004, 03:00 AM
hi,
in the event of the possibility to integrate such a feature in the running FB the virtual combat pilot(gamer) has 'gnomish' view if the developer would use the 'buggy running cockpit view system' of the game's engine.

In this case a reprogramming of the camera view system including such a feature is the best way.

I guess the developers has no interest to update the old system in this case because meanwhile they work on Bob...?

It would be a miracle to get a true answer of thedeveloper's marketing.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by flyingskid2:
I just tried AcesHigh. It's overall an enjoyable game, but far from FB in terms of modelling and graphics. One thing it has is moveable head position. You can move the pilot's head left and right, and you can also save the preferred head position for each of the snap views. I think this would be great to implement in FB. Imagine your check-six snap view with your head moved closer to the side canopy. You'd see more over your shoulder.

I say if AcesHigh can do it, Oleg's team should be able to do it easy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/thunderbird.gif

WWMaxGunz
02-19-2004, 06:37 AM
I guess it was easier just to not read the whole thread? Try going back in and looking for Gibbages' post and see why not.


Neal

starfighter1
02-20-2004, 05:06 AM
hi,
that's the points..
and of course the running old game's camera view system..
remember the discussions of virtual pilot eye views (+ gunsight views) compare more to real hight of combat pilot views and to different revi + gyroscope constructuctions at different warbirds.
I guess the camera view system in FB is good enough to the Il-2 main plane, but not to use to such many different planes and cockpit design of views as we have now in the game.

Overframed forward view and struts is the next problem in some plane's at forward cockpit views.
And even we are simming without any windscreen in the game.
we need a totally redesign in camera view systems at all !
Never the developer will do this in the future at FB..

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Its simple. When we make a cockpit, we remove all "backfacing" polygons. That means that all the polygons that is NOT facing the pilot. Take for instance a throttle knob. It may look like a sphear, but its not. Its only the front half thats facing you. Sometimes its not even that but a flat photo of a knob. Also things like switches, guages, and other things WILL start to "brake" when yo lean. I know for one, the K-14 gunsight does not have any sides. Since its so side, you would never see the sides unless you could lean. So the modeler deletes the sides so the 3D card will not need to render any unseen polygons. Now. If you put lean in the P-51 and leaned over, you could see THROUGH the sides of the K-14 since its NOT a solid object.
....etc

http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/thunderbird.gif

Recon_609IAP
02-21-2004, 09:28 AM
early in this thread someone was speaking that they needed to bank to view aircraft and avoid being in their blind spots.

Robert Shaw in Fighter Combat speaks often of the danger of losing sight of the bandit when in bnz type fights. He says when climb away to keep view by climbing slightly 'sideways'. He expresses how that this energy fighting is good, but again, that it is easy to lose the bandit as you extend.

I agree with Josf on the ability to see in the game. Robert Shaw also speaks of the new pilot who must learn to see - and pilots I know will tell you it's a learned thing as well.

I only ask for one thing - to have the gunsight shift the view more.

I typically can toggle back and forth my gunsight, which gives me the ability to 'look around the frame' quite easily.

For me at least, I feel like I already have the ability to lean.

The only aircraft that gives me problems is the '190 super thick frame' - and I have noticed I don't get enough shift in the 109 as well. But we all know the 190 has an aweful view and no amount of a moveable head will help when all you have is 25% viewable area (*sarcasm*)

S!
609IAP_Recon

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg
Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem
http://www.jarsofclay.com/

XyZspineZyX
02-21-2004, 10:46 AM
Thanks for mentioning that, Recon.

It really is that simple. Especially when you consider that it's impossible for any preset head position or built-in lean to cover every eventuality. Planes WILL get blocked by canopy braces and obstructions during the confused 3D whirl that is fighter combat.

Our views and our viewpoints are limited by our monitors, video cards and the graphics systems. It's just a fact.

You can whine about it, you can dream up schemes to magically keep "the" enemy in sight (and nobody has yet answered the question, 'What if there are more than one bogie that could be obstructed by the chosen view?') , or you can just bank the plane a teeny bit as a component of whatever maneuver you're doing and just deal with it. The situation's going to change in a second and a half, anyway.

WWMaxGunz
02-21-2004, 03:32 PM
For those who are not imagination-challenged or just plain retentives the strengths of either banking/turning or changing head position are mostly the same. Yes, you can roll and widen your view over the side which you cannot do *as well* by head movement *if* you roll far enough. But then you can always roll if you have head movement, it's not a matter of have one - lose the other, so arguments along those lines are lame.
What about weaknesses? Is twitching your plane around to keep track of a target or just the plane you're trying to stay in formation with supposed to no cost or some kind of advantage? Well maybe in a few cases like you're being shot at and *have to jink anyways*, but again that ability to jink is not lost with head movement so go to being lame if you want to use that.

Beyond that, twitching/rolling/jinking all cost E and change your flight path so are only really kludge fixes to be used as necessary -- which is what we do with the present system and does not begin to justify crapping on requests for a better way which BTW is recognized and being implemented in future sims by the makers of IL2.

Or you may just be stubborn and not like people much in which case I say that when head movement is part of a sim then don't use it. If you do then why disparage others their request for it in this and future sims except for being a d-head?


Neal

XyZspineZyX
02-21-2004, 04:39 PM
I'm not "disparaging" anyone. If you'd bother to read what I've posted instead of going into your thesaurus (only to come up with "d-head" as your best insult http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif ), you'd see that I don't have a problem with anyone having this "lean" view. I'm merely pointing out that it is NOT this "instant SA" panacea. For all the time and effort that would go into programming it, and when you factor in that it will only partially solve the problem, I'm offering a more workable, simpler solution.

Banking doesn't cost E; even if it did, it's not the equivalent of putting full flaps and deploying an airbrake. Amazing how people always have to consider only the most extreme example of anything.

Take my word for it or not; but even Shaw suggests a slight adjustment (banking) during the course of maneuver can often solve momentary loss of visual contact.

Or, you can dream up features, gadgets and mind-reading tricks to keep trying to solve this "problem".

ASH at S-MART
02-23-2004, 11:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
For those who are not imagination-challenged or just plain retentives the strengths of either banking/turning or changing head position are mostly the same. Yes, you can roll and widen your view over the side which you cannot do *as well* by head movement *if* you roll far enough. But then you can always roll if you have head movement, it's not a matter of have one - lose the other, so arguments along those lines are lame.
What about weaknesses? Is twitching your plane around to keep track of a target or just the plane you're trying to stay in formation with supposed to no cost or some kind of advantage? Well maybe in a few cases like you're being shot at and *have to jink anyways*, but again that ability to jink is not lost with head movement so go to being lame if you want to use that.

Beyond that, twitching/rolling/jinking all cost E and change your flight path so are only really kludge fixes to be used as necessary -- which is what we do with the present system and does not begin to justify crapping on requests for a better way which BTW is recognized and being implemented in future sims by the makers of IL2.

Or you may just be stubborn and not like people much in which case I say that when head movement is part of a sim then don't use it. If you do then why disparage others their request for it in this and future sims except for being a d-head?

Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Save your strenght Neal.. I have come to the conclusion in this thread that Stiglr does not have the ability to admit he is in error.. Thus will try and dance around the topic at hand or bring up the effect of the price of tea in china to move the topic away from the point of error and start talking about something else.. Talking *with* him quicly turns to talking *at* him because in that he will just ignor anything that focus on his error..

Just be glad that Oleg has allready spoke on the HEAD LEAN issue that he understands that it is better to lean your head then lean your plane when that is all that is required.

Now we just have to get Oleg to see the value in semi-transparent cockpit bars for things like the forward view of the P47 razor back

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

XyZspineZyX
02-23-2004, 12:19 PM
You wanna talk about hardheaded, look in the mirror.

I have said repeatedly that I am not against this mythical lean feature being added. Anything that helps people see better and is still realistic is fine with me. I also agree on the value of semitranslucent bars. Even "not blocking icons" for objects behind thin bars and obstructions would work for me.

I'm merely arguing the point that there are simpler, more intuitive ways of solving these VERY fleeting visibility problems. That's it.

ASH at S-MART
02-23-2004, 01:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
You wanna talk about hardheaded, look in the mirror.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh, no, I didn't mean to imply your stubborn, or hard headed.. I simply stated that you are unable to admit when your wrong.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I have said repeatedly that I am not against this mythical lean feature being added.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes.. You have! But what I really love about it, when you say it, is the way you refer to it as mythical.. As if it didn't really happen.. Yet you can sit there with a straight face and tell us that in RL they would bank the aircraft before they would lean their heads

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Anything that helps people see better and is still realistic is fine with me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As it is with Oleg and most of us.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I also agree on the value of semi translucent bars. Even "not blocking icons" for objects behind thin bars and obstructions would work for me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is new! Glad we made you see the light! I completely expected you to go on your Wonder Woman rant at this point! Maybe there is hope for you after all?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I'm merely arguing the point that there are simpler, more intuitive ways of solving these VERY fleeting visibility problems. That's it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Banking, though simple and intuitive, costs you energy.. And is some instances is very slow.. And can cost you if you banked the wrong way.. Whereas when LEAN is implimented.. *and* tied into (ie look RIGHT, lean RIGHT, etc) the current view moves (HAT, keyboard, TrackIR, etc) will be simpler and more intuitive

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

[This message was edited by ASH_SMART on Mon February 23 2004 at 12:53 PM.]

WWMaxGunz
02-23-2004, 03:20 PM
If you're going to bank and keep heading in the same direction as before the bank it will surely cost energy. In some cases you may be following one plane and want to keep an eye on one or more others whether all at once or by quick glances. Thinking of these things though requires not focussing on how to crub the topic.

I put the back of my head on a headrest. There is a bar or maybe just my hand in front of me at arms length. I turn my head to look to the right and as I do so I can see more and more around the obstruction. All without needing some special thing to guess at any lean, it's always the same. Yepperee, that's real freaking complex! Never be able to code that and have it done smooth, nosirree, so sorry! It's just too much... at least until the all 3D cockpits and then it or something like it is coming!

I'd rather have that than have to hit a button any day, myself. Maybe the people with the extra buttons and modes joysticks will get a campaign going to have everyone have to use buttons to get the view movements. They can argue how natural it is to hit buttons to move their heads!


Neal

ASH at S-MART
02-23-2004, 04:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
If you're going to bank and keep heading in the same direction as before the bank it will surely cost energy. In some cases you may be following one plane and want to keep an eye on one or more others whether all at once or by quick glances. Thinking of these things though requires not focussing on how to crub the topic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So true!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I put the back of my head on a headrest. There is a bar or maybe just my hand in front of me at arms length. I turn my head to look to the right and as I do so I can see more and more around the obstruction. All without needing some special thing to guess at any lean, it's always the same.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Just to be clear, and make sure I understand you.. Your talking about REAL LIFE.. Where due to the fact that we have two eyes, and they are seperated by some distance.. the simple process of turning your head (ie NO LEAN, just Linda Blair like) will MOVE YOUR POV... Enabling you to see around something that you couldnt not see around befor you turned your head..

In the GAME we need LEAN to MIMIC that!!
In that in the GAME we dont have two eyes that are seperated by some distance.. The GAME is like ONE BIG EYE.. that when you rotate it (ie turn your head) it's POV does not move.. THEREFORE to mimic the *head turn* the GAME would have to move the POV (ie LEAN) to look around things..

The FACT is in real life.. We dont JUST turn our heads.. We tend to LEAN too.. Now to MIMIC that in the GAME we simply do the same thing.. just move the POV (ie LEAN) a little more.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Yepperee, that's real freaking complex! Never be able to code that and have it done smooth, nosirree, so sorry! It's just too much... at least until the all 3D cockpits and then it or something like it is coming!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! I know.. even in light of the FACT that Oleg said they plan to do it.. Some still think it is some sort of brass ring.. It isnt.. Just as Gibb pointed out, you just have to have a cockpit that will suport it.. Could do it now, except it would look funny in that the cockpits in IL2 were not drawn with lean in mind.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I'd rather have that than have to hit a button any day, myself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally! Simply tie it into the current view controls.. If you start to look right via HAT, MOUSE, Keyboard, TrackIR, etc.. start moving the POV to the right too.. THAT IS TO SAY WE DONT NEED YET ANOTHER BUTTON!! WHICH IS TO SAY I WOULD NOT BE AGAINST ANOTHER BUTTON.. JUST THAT WE DONT NEED ONE!! But please feel free to add another button that folks could map to ie options

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Maybe the people with the extra buttons and modes joysticks will get a campaign going to have everyone have to use buttons to get the view movements. They can argue how natural it is to hit buttons to move their heads!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL!

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

XyZspineZyX
02-23-2004, 05:27 PM
ASH wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>...start moving the POV to the right too<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif At the risk of setting off yet another round of bitter debate....my question still stands:

how *far* to the right? How about if you DON'T *need* that lean to uncover the bogie or to keep it in view? What if the bogie were to the left of the obstruction and now that you've "autoleaned" now he IS blocked?? What now? And in multibogie situations, which one should the autolean take pains to keep in view? This is what I mean by, "how's the software supposed to read your mind?"

The answers to this are all too vague and "kinda sorta" for me. Howver, a ENERGY FREE bank of 5 degrees does the trick just about every time. It's the K.I.S.S principle in its purest form. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ASH at S-MART
02-23-2004, 05:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
At the risk of setting off yet another round of bitter debate....my question still stands:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Funny.. I have a few questions you have yet to answer too.. But unlike you I will answer you old tired quesiton again.. I wish I could link it to the first time I answered them for you.. but, it is just easier to answer them for you YET ONE MORE TIME!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
how *far* to the right?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Dosent really mater.. You could have it move all the way to the right to MIMIC one moving to the right until his head hits the canopy glass.. This would be good, in that it would simulate cockpit views better.. That is to say you would have a BETTER view in aircraft that had BETTER views due to bubble canopys... Or you could have it move progresvly to the right.. That is if you look 45 FORWARD RIGHT.. have it move (LEAN) 1/2 way.. then when you look RIGHT have it move (LEAN) 3/4 of the way, then when you look BACK RIGHT have it move (LEAN) all the way

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
How about if you DON'T *need* that lean to uncover the bogie or to keep it in view?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>SIMPLE!! As I stated before, if you dont need it, you wouldnt move your view in the first place.. That is to say if you can see the bogie in the current view, you wouldnt have to goto the next view.. AND VISA VERSA! If the bogie is blocked in one view vs. the other you would just toggle between the two views.. Which would work much like we do now with the SHIFT F1 (zoom in out) key

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
What if the bogie were to the left of the obstruction and now that you've "autoleaned" now he IS blocked?? What now?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Simple see answer just prior to this one.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
And in multibogie situations, which one should the autolean take pains to keep in view?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It is independed of the number of bogies, the two have nothing to do with it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
This is what I mean by, "how's the software supposed to read your mind?"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Simple, it does NOT have to!! It simply moves the POV, so that what is obscured in one view is not obscured in the next.. That is if you can not see it in the CURRENT VIEW goto the NEXT and the LEAN will expose it.. If you CAN see it in the CURRENT VIEW dont goto the NEXT VIEW.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
The answers to this are all too vague and "kinda sorta" for me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not ture!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Howver, a ENERGY FREE bank of 5 degrees does the trick just about every time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>NOT TRUE! Enery is lost! Deflection of any control surface bleeds energy.. Much more than your head lean would!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
It's the K.I.S.S principle in its purest form.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes it is.. problem is you dont realise it!

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

JG14_Josf
02-23-2004, 05:50 PM
Neal wrote:

"They can argue how natural it is to hit buttons to move their heads!"

"They" is whom, a Straw Man perhaps?

ajafoofoo
02-23-2004, 06:40 PM
It's either buttons to move your head or a true 3d display so you can see past framing like you would in real life.

Now which is easier and cheaper?

Yea, a button to move your head.

XyZspineZyX
02-24-2004, 10:00 AM
ASH, I think where we're missing each other's viewpoint is in how this lean happens.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You could have it move all the way to the right to MIMIC one moving to the right until his head hits the canopy glass..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you suggesting this be slaved to a hat? If so, how do you simultaneously use a hat to "look left" and then nudge another hat to "lean left to uncover that bogie behind the canopy bar"? You only got one thumb. Some setups could do this on the throttle, but the idea of views controlled by different fingers on two hands, each controlling different primary devices....yeesh, I get dizzy just thinking about it.

Then, you wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It simply moves the POV, so that what is obscured in one view is not obscured in the next.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Simply?" Hardly. Define "what is obscured". Again, which of the three bogies on your screen? Is the software supposed to "figure out" the one angle that keeps all THREE in view? How about if they're crossing at various speeds and angles?

This is a pipedream, man. You're asking basically for an "all objects" padlock of sorts. YOU bear the responsibility for your own SA and view (unless, of course, you can get a wingman to check your tail for you, as many did)

And, banking IS an energy free maneuver, for all intents and purposes. If you can do a tight aileron roll, or a snappy 8-point roll (not a barrel roll or oblique roll), you'll come out of it at just about the same speed you went into it. Yes, you do deflect control surfaces, but the energy loss is negligible, provided you don't "dirty up" or "clean up" your plane in the process. If you turn, however, or climb or dive, your speed and energy will change.

Banking the plane is still the simplest solution to this "problem".

ASH at S-MART
02-24-2004, 11:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
ASH, I think where we're missing each other's viewpoint is in how this lean happens.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Your kidding right? How many times have I said "TIED INTO CURRENT VIEW KEYS" or "WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER KEY"? This, along with the fact that you don't answer questions put to you PROVES you don't read the messages.. Please, take the time to read them before you reply to them! How can you reply to something you didn't read?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Are you suggesting this be slaved to a hat?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>YES!!
But, keep in mind I think it should be an option! That is one option should be to slave it to the current view manipulators like the HAT, MOUSE, Keyboard, TrackIR, etc.. The other option should be to make it a separate key.. If someone has some kind of *current* or *future* setup that makes it possible

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
If so, how do you simultaneously use a hat to "look left" and then nudge another hat to "lean left to uncover that bogie behind the canopy bar"? You only got one thumb.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>OH MY GOD!! You just acknowledge that we are talking about it begin slaved to the HAT.. But you ask how is it going to lean? Jezzze H Christ!! IT ONLY TAKES ONE THUMB WHEN THE LOOK LEFT AND LEAN LEFT FUNCTIONS ARE SLAVED TO THE SAME HAT PRESS!!!!! My god man! STAY FOCUSED!!!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Some setups could do this on the throttle, but the idea of views controlled by different fingers on two hands, each controlling different primary devices....yeesh, I get dizzy just thinking about it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree you are dizzy!! MY GOD!! You just stated that you just now realized that I'm talking about SLAVING the LOOK and LEAN to ONE HAT!! But you continued on with a rant that asks how your going to PRESS TWO HATS AT THE SAME TIME!! MY GOD!!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
"Simply?" Hardly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes SIMPLE!! As simple as sticking to one topic at a time.. As simple as starting a subject about SLAVING TWO THINGS TO ONE HAT PRESS.. i.e. LEAN AND LOOK and then talking about how it would work... Oh.. Wait.. That's right.. You could not do that.. I guess it would NOT be simple for some then.. Sorry, I thought I was talking to someone that had some experience in this area!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Define "what is obscured".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Your kidding right? Did you look at TAGERT's drawings? Here, allow me to re-post them for you

EXAMPLE #1: Here is a picture that shows a FIXED Point of View (POV). That is the POV does NOT move (i.e. NO LEAN). The picture shows that the BOGIE is OBSCURED in BOTH the FORWARD view and the FORWARD-LEFT view. It also shows that the TWO VIEWS OVERLAP EACH OTHER.
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/ONE_POV_FORWARD_AND_FORWARD_LEFT.jpg

EXAMPLE #2: Here is a picture that shows a FLEX ABLE Point of View (POV). That is the POV DOES MOVE (i.e. LEAN). The picture shows that the BOGIE is OBSCURED in FORWARD view and NOT-OBSCURED in the FORWARD-LEFT view. It also shows that the TWO VIEWS OVERLAP EACH OTHER.
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/TWO_POV_FORWARD_AND_FORWARD_LEFT.jpg

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Again, which of the three bogies on your screen? Is the software supposed to "figure out" the one angle that keeps all THREE in view? How about if they're crossing at various speeds and angles?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I GIVE UP ON YOU!! What part of SLAVED TO A HAT did you not understand when you said SLAVED TO A HAT!!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
This is a pipedream, man.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well.. then you better go tell Oleg.. Because he has stated that he is going to do it on BoB.. But unlike you he understands it... Where as it is clear to me now that you don't!!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
You're asking basically for an "all objects" padlock of sorts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>NOPE!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
YOU bear the responsibility for your own SA and view (unless, of course, you can get a wingman to check your tail for you, as many did)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Stiglr.. I don't know what to do.. I honestly think your TRYING TO be thick.. How can you not *see* this.. It is so simple.. It is so natural.. It is so intuitive.. It is so cool that Oleg said he is planning on adding LEAN to the BoB sim.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
And, banking IS an energy free maneuver, for all intents and purposes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry.. like so many things here you are wrong!!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
If you can do a tight aileron roll, or a snappy 8-point roll (not a barrel roll or oblique roll), you'll come out of it at just about the same speed you went into it. Yes, you do deflect control surfaces, but the energy loss is negligible, provided you don't "dirty up" or "clean up" your plane in the process. If you turn, however, or climb or dive, your speed and energy will change.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Tell you what.. You can say it ten more times.. You can even tattoo it on your forehead.. But it wont change the FACT that banking bleeds more energy then turning your head.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Banking the plane is still the simplest solution to this "problem".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>WRONG!

XyZspineZyX
02-24-2004, 11:39 AM
I'm still missing the part about how the hat both changes your direction of view and simultaneously determines which objects NOT to block from view. That should be a neat bit of programming.

I'm sure it'll be a boon to my viewing too. Looking forward to it.

In the meantime, my ENERGY FREE banks of a few degrees or so will continue to serve me well. YMMV. Heck, your *excuses* may vary. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ASH at S-MART
02-24-2004, 11:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I'm still missing the part about how the hat both changes your direction of view and simultaneously determines which objects NOT to block from view. That should be a neat bit of programming.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I explained it, you either didnt read it or read it and didnt understand it.. You know that simple thing that Oleg understands and is adding to BoB.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I'm sure it'll be a boon to my viewing too. Looking forward to it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It will.. Trust me.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
In the meantime, my ENERGY FREE banks of a few degrees or so will continue to serve me well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Currently we have no choice but to use and energy bleeding bank that 50 percent of the time banks us the wrong way.. Where we then have to bank back the other way and bleed twice the energy.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
YMMV. Heck, your *excuses* may vary.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My *ecxuses*.. You mean the mythical thing that Oleg finds valid enough to add to BoB? ROTFL!

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

XyZspineZyX
02-24-2004, 12:34 PM
ASH wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Currently we have no choice but to use an energy bleeding bank that 50 percent of the time banks us the wrong way.. Where we then have to bank back the other way and bleed twice the energy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds like "pilot error" and poor choices to me. "Banks US" the wrong way? You state that in passive voice. YOU'RE not controlling where you bank? If not you, who? You just guessing? Who is controlling your plane, the same entity that decides "how far" to lean for each situation? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

As I said, your excuses may vary. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ajafoofoo
02-24-2004, 01:03 PM
Sorry, but have to agree with Ash here. Either Stig is pulling our legs and putting on a show or really is that thick.

ASH at S-MART
02-24-2004, 01:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Sounds like "pilot error" and poor choices to me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well.. who really cares what you think.. I mean you *think* that banking does not bleed energy..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
"Banks US" the wrong way? You state that in passive voice. YOU'RE not controlling where you bank? If not you, who? You just guessing?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Jezzzz... When you can not see the bogie due to the obstruction you dont know if he continued on his current course or happened to reverse while obscured.. If you assumed (ie guessed) he continued on his current cource to the RIGHT, and YOU banked to the RIGHT to regain sight.. Then your ok.. (50% chance) But if he reversed and went LEFT, and you assumed RIGHT, and YOU banked to the RIGHT to regain sight.. YOU ARE DOUBLY SCREWED!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Who is controlling your plane, the same entity that decides "how far" to lean for each situation?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! I would like to say this in closing.. THANK GOD OLEG UNDERSTANDS IT!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
As I said, your excuses may vary.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It takes a big man to admit he made a mistake.. Thus you must be one of the many that jumps out of that little car at the circus! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH at S-MART
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

WWMaxGunz
02-24-2004, 01:53 PM
I think the word LEAN should be dropped. There's no need for it.

For anyone who can't understand so far, I'm going to type this s-l-o-w-l-y so you have a chance to keep up.

When you turn your head, your eyes move to the side.

Try it right now. Look to your left and see if you can do that without moving your body and yet keeping the point between your eyes on the bridge of your nose from moving. I think that maybe some birds can do it, the ones with the long bendy necks.

In short; IRL it is impossible not to have your eyes move laterally as you turn your head while you remain in your stationary chair (for those with swivel chairs and wooden minds). A pilot with a helmet on will either roll the back of his head on the headrest to turn his head or lift it off the headrest to turn it. Which way will that happen under G loads? The amount moved is not a matter of control unless the pilot bends his neck to maybe tilt his head or moves his back to lean. But we don't really need lean and in some cockpits there's not enough room to do more than budge. So why go on about buttons unless you can't read or are too stupid to figure it out or are too stubborn and close-minded to deal with it or are just trying to push buttons on other people in juvenile aresole fashion? Pick one if you don't get the point, make it #2 if you really can't figure it out. It's as simple as a cheese sandwich.


Neal