PDA

View Full Version : We need head movement along with our eye movement



XyZspineZyX
10-11-2003, 07:34 PM
After tweaking with the NewView utility...I'm convinced.

Why can't head movement be included with the views. I mean let's face it when you look up and the cockpit frame is blocking your visual in real life you'd just lean forward a bit to see around the frame. So why can't those type of actions be included in the IL2-FB.

Afterall, we heard the serious stand on principles when everyone was so upset about the lack of visibility in the FW-190 by the developers (1000+ postings before the thread was locked in the ORR forum). This was just unreal to read it, and realize that there was only way the view was gonna be done.

See it here:

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvsld


Ignoring head movement that a pilot would actually make to compensate for loss of visual is a long way from reality.

The NewView utility clearly indicates it would not be that difficult to implement some closer to real head movement in the IL2-FB.

So, effectively, when you look to the side and back you'd have head movement which would include back and to the side, but also a leaning of the head to that side as well to get as good a visual as possible. This could be done, maybe not as easy as the head on a twisting pivot.

This business of the pilots head on a fixed swivel is just a joke...balanced against the so called realistic actual viewing created in the IL2-FB. Who in a "combat situation" would firmly lock and fix their head, not leaning forward or to the side to see around the frame posts obstructions in the cockpit.

If creating head movement, leaning the body forward cannot be implemented then maybe translucent cockpit frames, or a HUD with translucent cockpit imposed on the screen. Whenever I do the cockpit I always feel so stupid with the twist of the head to see, and never able to see enough of anything.

So...If we're into the get realistic, let's have some realistic viewing provided in this CFS.

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

XyZspineZyX
10-11-2003, 07:34 PM
After tweaking with the NewView utility...I'm convinced.

Why can't head movement be included with the views. I mean let's face it when you look up and the cockpit frame is blocking your visual in real life you'd just lean forward a bit to see around the frame. So why can't those type of actions be included in the IL2-FB.

Afterall, we heard the serious stand on principles when everyone was so upset about the lack of visibility in the FW-190 by the developers (1000+ postings before the thread was locked in the ORR forum). This was just unreal to read it, and realize that there was only way the view was gonna be done.

See it here:

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zvsld


Ignoring head movement that a pilot would actually make to compensate for loss of visual is a long way from reality.

The NewView utility clearly indicates it would not be that difficult to implement some closer to real head movement in the IL2-FB.

So, effectively, when you look to the side and back you'd have head movement which would include back and to the side, but also a leaning of the head to that side as well to get as good a visual as possible. This could be done, maybe not as easy as the head on a twisting pivot.

This business of the pilots head on a fixed swivel is just a joke...balanced against the so called realistic actual viewing created in the IL2-FB. Who in a "combat situation" would firmly lock and fix their head, not leaning forward or to the side to see around the frame posts obstructions in the cockpit.

If creating head movement, leaning the body forward cannot be implemented then maybe translucent cockpit frames, or a HUD with translucent cockpit imposed on the screen. Whenever I do the cockpit I always feel so stupid with the twist of the head to see, and never able to see enough of anything.

So...If we're into the get realistic, let's have some realistic viewing provided in this CFS.

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

XyZspineZyX
10-11-2003, 07:41 PM
Im told it is the *cockpit art* that limits it.. That is to say the current cockpit art can only be viewed from one point.. if you were to lean.. that would be a differnt point to view from.. and thus req more art work.. By pinning our shoulders to the seat and only allowing us to turn our heads and not lean it makes the cockpit art easier to do.. But that is just the reason I read here awhile back, I have no experance on this, mabye one of the 3DMax cockpit guys can say for sure.

>>then maybe translucent cockpit frames, or a
>>HUD with translucent cockpit imposed on the screen.

I have allways been an advocate for translucent (semi tranparent) cockpit frames. But for a different reason, you have two eyes.. thus you can see around things, hold your finger up and close one eye, position your finger out in front of you and block something in the distance.. like a door knob or something.. Now without moving your finger, close that eye and open the other.. notice how you can now see what you could not see before.. Now open both eyes and notice how it looks like an overlay with a semi transparent finger in front of what your looking at.. THAT along with the fact that you could move up, down, left, or right to move the cockpit frames out of the way of your view and I think that is enough to justify translucent cockpit frames.. At least for the forward quadrant where both eyes can be used.. looking over your L or R sholder one could argue that both eyes cant see down the six view.

<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

Message Edited on 10/11/0311:49AM by tagert

XyZspineZyX
10-11-2003, 07:46 PM
You can have lean in the cockpits, it's just not programmed into the game.

It's how the 3d glasses work, using 2 diff pov in that same cockpit.

It should have been at least attempted.

XyZspineZyX
10-11-2003, 07:52 PM
CrackFerret wrote:
- You can have lean in the cockpits, it's just not
- programmed into the game.

Not what i heard.

- It's how the 3d glasses work, using 2 diff pov in
- that same cockpit.

No.. it is the SAME view with a shift applyed to it.

- It should have been at least attempted.

Maybe.. but if it means that making a cockpit art would take 4 times longer... Well I can understand why they didnt do it.. That and the vid card procing hit.. another good reason not to. Someday though.. someday.


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-11-2003, 08:46 PM
Hey tagert, instead of single semi-tranparent cockpit frame, what do you think of double cockpit frames uniformly transparent but not when they overlap where they become solid. With your two eyes you see two of everything and the images overlap sometimes, depending on their width (also as RBJ points out depending on the angle with the line between your eyes)

Like hold a finger vertically in front of face and look beyond it at the far wall you see two fingers, hold the finger horizontally and you see one finger (actually two fingers but they are on top of each other just slid a little). Like in Brewster with thin cockpit frame you would mostly see double the number of cockpit frame (as if there weren't enough already).

The single frame just made transparent would be easier to do though. Be sure.

XyZspineZyX
10-11-2003, 09:58 PM
LEXX_Luthor wrote:
- Hey tagert, instead of single semi-tranparent
- cockpit frame, what do you think of double cockpit
- frames uniformly transparent but not when they
- overlap where they become solid. With your two eyes
- you see two of everything and the images overlap
- sometimes, depending on their width (also as RBJ
- points out depending on the angle with the line
- between your eyes)
-
- Like hold a finger vertically in front of face and
- look beyond it at the far wall you see two fingers,
- hold the finger horizontally and you see one finger
- (actually two fingers but they are on top of each
- other just slid a little). Like in Brewster with
- thin cockpit frame you would mostly see double the
- number of cockpit frame (as if there weren't enough
- already).
-
- The single frame just made transparent would be
- easier to do though. Be sure.

Sounds G2G.. just that at first thought I cant imagine how they would model it.. But when you consider in RL the pilot would simply move up or dwn a bit to move that horzontial bar out of his way visually.. the semi trans would be a good sub for that.. by semi.. make it get darker as it gets closer to the center of the bar.. Red Baron II did this.. tech should enable a beter job of it these days



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

Message Edited on 10/11/0302:01PM by tagert

adlabs6
10-12-2003, 03:09 AM
Leaning would be great in FB cockpits, but there can be limitations, depending on how the pits were modeled.

If you have MS FS2004, you can move all round in most cockpits, but you'll find the problem immediately... The back faces of many cockpit items are not rendered.

What this boils down to is that looking at the backs of the front seats from the rear seats shows no front seats! Only some edges are visible. From the copilots seat, the back of the console, and pedals are simply not there. It's done to save on poly counts.

Like I said, I don't know how a FB pit is modelled, so this may not be possible, depending.

<html>
<body>
<table cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="600" align="center">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><font color="000000">adlabs<font color="#ff9900">6</font></font>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#42524e">
<div align="center"><font color="#999999">
http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/sigtemp.JPG (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skins_historical_adlabs6.htm)
<small><font color="#ff6600">NEW</font> at mudmovers! Click the pic to download my skins from mudmovers.com!</small>
</font>
Skinner's Guide at mudmovers (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skinnersguide.htm) | Skinner's heaven (http://www.1java.org/sh) | IL2skins (http://www.il2skins.com)
<font color="#999999">
My Forgotten Battles Webpage (http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/index.html) Current Wallpaper: <font color="#999999">Bf-109 Morning Run</font></font>

<A HREF="http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zhiwg" TARGET=_blank>"Whirlwind Whiner"
The first of the few</A>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 03:33 AM
Target,

Not sure what you meant by "same view." I got the feeling on mine that the effect occured because I was looking at "both sides" of something, like the sight. But I agree that you can't just pick different points to view from, as would be needed for "leaning." I think the 3D is there to be seen, but not all surfaces may turned on (like the back of the seat in MS2004 that was mentioned). I'm curious how the receiver would differentiate leaning from turning ones head. Would be a great feature though.

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 06:29 PM
Translucent cockpits got quite a lot of postings awhile back.

I thought I'd post a link to a posting that was helpful in explaining the dilemna.

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zhwlt

Notice the translucent cockpit. Now I could enjoy that for the HUD all the time, because of the situational awareness.
Also, you'd get to enjoy all the awesome graphics and ground objects created in the IL-2FB. When you're in cockpit view, what the heck to you need all the great ground scenery for? All you need is clouds and the ground itself LOL

Also, if just the cockpit frames were translucent you would be making allowances for the lack of ability to actually move your head around, up and down, etc. You'd also have situational awareness as well.

I'm thinking the visual situation defintely needs a re-thinking process by the developers.

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

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 06:35 PM
Janes WWII Fighters has "adjustable seating". Shift+ or Ctrl+ would move your seat back to front and side to side without screwing up the cockpit. Another key stroke would reset the default.

Really helped getting the feel of the individual cockpits. And until you've seen the new WWII Fighters P-51 cockpit mod with refective glass on the instrument panels, you haven't seen how good a virtual cockpit can look. Those Janes cockpits are still amazing five years later.



"Official Lancaster Whiner"

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 06:39 PM
nearmiss wrote:
- Notice the translucent cockpit. Now I could enjoy
- that for the HUD all the time, because of the
- situational awareness.
- Also, you'd get to enjoy all the awesome graphics
- and ground objects created in the IL-2FB. When
- you're in cockpit view, what the heck to you need
- all the great ground scenery for? All you need is
- clouds and the ground itself LOL

Oh, not the whole cockpit!! That was the one thing I did not like about Red Baron II.. it did do the whole cockpit.

- Also, if just the cockpit frames were translucent
- you would be making allowances for the lack of
- ability to actually move your head around, up and
- down, etc. You'd also have situational awareness as
- well.

Excatally! Not just allowances for the lack of ability to mover your head around, but allowances for the fact we have two eyes! For example, in the early P47C's that SOLID bar right smak dab in the center of the gun sight seems really stupid! right? But when you consider that the pilot would be looking off in the distance with TWO eyes that BAR would practally DISAPEAR!! Do the finger test I described above.

- I'm thinking the visual situation defintely needs a
- re-thinking process by the developers.

something they have been dealing with for years.. it gets beter with time.. we saw snap views.. then padlock.. and now TrackIR.. The next big leap will be a HMD for a price we can all aford.. That will be a great day IMHO! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 06:44 PM
Buster_Dee wrote:
- Target,
-
- Not sure what you meant by "same view."
- I got the
- feeling on mine that the effect occured because I
- was looking at "both sides" of something, like the
- sight.

Im not 3d expert.. But Im under the impression that 3D glasses work by taking the SAME view and doing a simple shift of one of the colors.. red I think? That is to say if you took off the 3D glasses you would see what looked like an ORAH or FUZZY line around everything, but the 3D glasses take that and combined it to trick our eyes/brain into seeing depth. But, like I said, Im no expert.


- But I agree that you can't just pick
- different points to view from, as would be needed
- for "leaning." I think the 3D is there to be seen,
- but not all surfaces may turned on (like the back of
- the seat in MS2004 that was mentioned). I'm curious
- how the receiver would differentiate leaning from
- turning ones head. Would be a great feature though.

If they would just model MONO eye with a really BIG head, that way when he turns his head it would be like he leaned too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-12-2003, 11:36 PM
trackir head movement and a seperate track ir eye contacts would be cool if someone invented it, It probally wouldnt be too healthy sending a signal to your eyes, but then again its not to a dot on your forehead

http://www.freewebs.com/leadspitter/lead.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 02:51 AM
LeadSpitter_ wrote:
- trackir head movement and a seperate track ir eye
- contacts would be cool if someone invented it, It
- probally wouldnt be too healthy sending a signal to
- your eyes, but then again its not to a dot on your
- forehead

the apatchie helo has been doing it for years.. Im not sure how it was done.. but with todays DSP's a very simple image processing algorythem with simple centroiding can track the eye.. I think alot of the new mouses do this..



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 09:06 AM
Just a point to make here. Pilots are strapped into their seats. So in truth other than a little head movement you can't lean around the cockpit in a fighter.
Even the different gunsight views are simply fields of view. The pilot is not leaning forward in the cockpit, and they were pretty cramped anyway.

So when you look back and to the right it's basically simulating the pilot turning his head & his eye's as far around to the right as he can. You can't tilt your head but maybe an inch when you turn you head like that.

This is like the head bobbing thread. Pilots don't do the old woman jelly neck head bob everytime they hit some turbulance.

So basically pilots can't lean forward in the seat. The shoulder harness keeps their shoulders pinned to the back of the seat. It's also necessary to have a should harness to remain in control of the aircraft during violent manuevers.

So pilots could not "lean" and even the little head movement they had wouldn't make a big enough difference in view to make it worth all the programming hassle. Just like real fighter pilots when they fly out of your view you simply have to know where they are.

Every take-off is optional, but every landing is mandatory!

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 09:25 AM
tagert wrote:
- Im not 3d expert.. But Im under the impression that
- 3D glasses work by taking the SAME view and doing a
- simple shift of one of the colors.. red I think?
- That is to say if you took off the 3D glasses you
- would see what looked like an ORAH or FUZZY line
- around everything, but the 3D glasses take that and
- combined it to trick our eyes/brain into seeing
- depth. But, like I said, Im no expert.
-
-
3d "shutter" glasses work this way: Render (by video card) view from POV a little bit left of default, shut the right glass; then render view from POV a little bit right of default, shut the left glass. Do the above 60 times a second and you have a good 3d feel.

The glasses you wear shut view (using liquid crystal, I believe) from one of the eyes at a time, hence the name shutter glasses.

No, it has nothing to do with a particular color.