PDA

View Full Version : Frustration with Tempest rear view



cygfrain
03-30-2006, 03:23 PM
I've just "flown" the Tempest in a forum which did not allow external views and I have to say that I can't believe the rear view past the armour plate could have been that bad "in real life" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif. After being shot down by a pursuer that I could not get sight of at all, I went back to the P38 which had excellent rear view by comparison.

I'm sure if Roland Beamont was still around he would be insisting on a modification in much the same as he did when presented with the Tempest prototype for the first time.

VW-IceFire
03-30-2006, 03:31 PM
We've had a big long discussion about it. The modeling is accurate insofar as the armor plate is the correct position and the correct dimensions.

The problem is that a virtual pilot doesn't have a neck. He swivels around on a virtual corkscrew. When BoB (the next gen engine comes out), the ability to lean and move all about will come into play and this won't be a problem. Until it is, aircraft with great visibility but large armor plates like the later model P-39, Tempest, P-47D-27, even to some extent the P-51...will have visibility issues.

Remember that Shift-F1 does move you about in the cockpit a bit and that you can get a little more visibility by leaning forward into the gunsight (my prefered position anyways). Its not much better but it is better.

In such servers...you need to use your wingman and preferably teamspeak. Anything less and you aren't even getting what WWII pilots had. Flying solo may work a little better in other aircraft...that is not to be denied...but the Tempest is an excellent aircraft even with this little hinderance...

TX-Zen
03-30-2006, 03:44 PM
I agree it's hideous, one of the worst examples of how blue prints are transposed into graphics in this sim.

One thing someone else recommended in a previous thread was to do barrel rolls when flying the tempest, particularly in the vertical. Its a good habit to be in regardless of what plane you fly and helps to quickly clear your 6. Not as effective during a dogfight obviously, but it can still be useful under the right circumstances.

Until we get head movement it's all we have.

danjama
03-30-2006, 03:50 PM
Are we really gona do this again? The thread is just on the next page.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Capt.LoneRanger
03-30-2006, 04:12 PM
IBTL - hopefully http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

OD_79
03-30-2006, 05:30 PM
How about this for an idea...
While the armour plate may well be technically correct why can't they all (P-47 et al) be recreated so that they reflect pilot vision rather than actual dimensions. It's not as if it makes a mjor difference to whether you get a pilot kill, I'm sure there must be a way to maintain the armour protection in the model but improve the visibility, if people wanted that.
To be honest though it is ridiculous. I know my suggestion would take work and time, but it would actually make the Tempest a lot more flyable, it's the main reason I am reluctant to fly it, especially if I don't have any squad mates around me. A huge chunk of sky in your six is completely hidden...

OD.

WTE_Ibis
03-30-2006, 05:40 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Alex_Voicu:
Well, i must say that in a way, i'm responsible for the viewpoint. As you probably saw in the development update images posted before the patch release, one of the viewpoints was too far forward and the gunsight cushion was covering the instrument panel. I asked Oleg to move this viewpoint significantly to the rear and the other one as well, but only just by a very small distance. Unfortunately it seems there has been a misunderstanding between me and Oleg, because the viewpoints were changed the other way around, and now one of them is still too far forward and the other one too close to the head armor. There simply wasn't enough time to change the viewpoints again before the patch release.

.

Grey_Mouser67
03-30-2006, 05:59 PM
I can fully understand that and agree with it...will it be corrected in the next patch?

TX-Zen
03-30-2006, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by OD_79:
How about this for an idea...
While the armour plate may well be technically correct why can't they all (P-47 et al) be recreated so that they reflect pilot vision rather than actual dimensions. It's not as if it makes a mjor difference to whether you get a pilot kill, I'm sure there must be a way to maintain the armour protection in the model but improve the visibility, if people wanted that.
To be honest though it is ridiculous. I know my suggestion would take work and time, but it would actually make the Tempest a lot more flyable, it's the main reason I am reluctant to fly it, especially if I don't have any squad mates around me. A huge chunk of sky in your six is completely hidden...

OD.

Nice idea, its called simulation http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

1C doesn't do that.

If its not hard numbers or blue prints, its not in the game. As far as I can tell not enough compromise is made to bring the subtler aspects of simulation to life...to truly recreate what it might have been like to fly a warbird.

3 dimensional cockpits squashed onto a 2 dimensional monitor results in the rear view of the tempest and the forward view of the 190...dots that are too difficult to see because of monitor resolution and so tend to nullify historical advantage of altitude are just two examples.

I feel therein lies the bias of the game...it's slanted too much toward pure engineering with a tad too little pilot anecdotal consideration, which makes it not as well balanced within the PC game medium as it could be.

VW-IceFire
03-30-2006, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by TX-Zen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OD_79:
How about this for an idea...
While the armour plate may well be technically correct why can't they all (P-47 et al) be recreated so that they reflect pilot vision rather than actual dimensions. It's not as if it makes a mjor difference to whether you get a pilot kill, I'm sure there must be a way to maintain the armour protection in the model but improve the visibility, if people wanted that.
To be honest though it is ridiculous. I know my suggestion would take work and time, but it would actually make the Tempest a lot more flyable, it's the main reason I am reluctant to fly it, especially if I don't have any squad mates around me. A huge chunk of sky in your six is completely hidden...

OD.

Nice idea, its called simulation http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

1C doesn't do that.

If its not hard numbers or blue prints, its not in the game. As far as I can tell not enough compromise is made to bring the subtler aspects of simulation to life...to truly recreate what it might have been like to fly a warbird.

3 dimensional cockpits squashed onto a 2 dimensional monitor results in the rear view of the tempest and the forward view of the 190...dots that are too difficult to see because of monitor resolution and so tend to nullify historical advantage of altitude are just two examples.

I feel therein lies the bias of the game...it's slanted too much toward pure engineering with a tad too little pilot anecdotal consideration, which makes it not as well balanced within the PC game medium as it could be. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed completely. There are various things that we could do with some work simply to make the limitations of the medium less of a noticeable one. Some work with the sound for just this sort of thing is also something we could have more of...use sound to simulate some of the direct feel and response from aircrat.

BM357_TinMan
03-30-2006, 07:34 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
The problem is that a virtual pilot doesn't have a neck. He swivels around on a virtual corkscrew. When BoB (the next gen engine comes out), the ability to lean and move all about will come into play and this won't be a problem. Until it is, aircraft with great visibility but large armor plates like the later model P-39, Tempest, P-47D-27, even to some extent the P-51...will have visibility issues.


Unfortuneately that is not exactly true. 6dof is great but has one major draw back. It is very difficult to explain but I'll give it a go.

No matter where your "in game head" is looking, you always lean in the direction your real head leans. For example, say you are looking over your right shoulder to your 3 o'clock and wish to peak over the front of your wing. Intuitively you would move your head forward (toward the glass that you are looking at) and slightly to your left. This has the crappy effect of moving your pov towards the front of the cockpit.

Imagine you are looking back over your shoulder and wish to get a better view around that pesky amour plateing. Because you are almost 180 degrees turned around, just about any lean or tilt of your head is OPOSITE of what is natural to do.

Because it is so counter intuitive, combat effectiveness of 6dof as an added advantage is pretty much negated after about 45 degrees left or right of forward.

I have complained to natural point about this since I got my first TrackIR3 w/vector back in Dec. 05. They say that they are aware of it and working on it, but the problem DOES remain.

All that said to say, unless natural point gets off of their duff and fixes this "axis rotation" issue, looking back won't be much better in bob than it is now. Forward will be awesome though.

vocatx
03-30-2006, 08:51 PM
I would think that fixing the "axis rotation problem" would be a fairly difficult task when it comes to programming. I imagine Natural Point is working on the problem. Give them time. If it can be solved, they will solve it.

BM357_TinMan
03-30-2006, 09:31 PM
I don't have any doubt that it is a difficult programming problem. But probably not much more so that 6dof. Vector expansion was a pretty difficult thing to do too I'll bet.

I just kind of wonder how much effort is being put into this problem....I'm just a little anxious as it has been almost a year and a half since vector came out and this issue persists.

WOLFMondo
03-30-2006, 11:35 PM
IMHO the view point should be move about the width of a head forward. Its right on the armour plate right now which is wrong. If the view was moved forwards 7 or 8 inches it would help immensly and be a bit more like a pilots view.

cygfrain
03-31-2006, 01:14 AM
Thanks for suggestions VW-Icefire and TX-Zen. It is an interesting problem finding the right balance between historical accuracy and simulation.

LT.INSTG8R
03-31-2006, 05:37 AM
I just wanted to add that in the "Beta" the pilot was sitting quite a bit forward in the Pit then what we ended up with in the final version which had 2 nice differences, 1: you had a better rearview and 2: you had a much view of the gunsight(yes it was HUGE in the beta but you were closer to it none the less)I now find at High Res the gunsight is too far away in wide+gunsight to see the centre pip.

F6_Ace
03-31-2006, 05:39 AM
FW190 front view is porked.
Tempest rear view is porked.

Can we have the 'left' view porked for something next please?

OD_79
03-31-2006, 04:06 PM
So liklihood of change...0%???

OD.

VW-IceFire
03-31-2006, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by F6_Ace:
FW190 front view is porked.
Tempest rear view is porked.

Can we have the 'left' view porked for something next please?
Seeing as the Tempest is sort of the British answer to the FW190...does this mean that the Tempest is just a backwards FW190? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

(I KID!)

Actually the P-63C has a funny view to the front left (I think) in the cockpit as there is an extra brace on the canopy. Something Bell Aircraft dreamt up no doubt...so there you go http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

carguy_
03-31-2006, 04:53 PM
Ask German experten about FW190 view. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

TX-Zen
03-31-2006, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

Seeing as the Tempest is sort of the British answer to the FW190...does this mean that the Tempest is just a backwards FW190? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



LMAO

It's not as fast as the 190, it rolls worse, turns better, overheats faster, has better guns than the D9 and can't see behind it....

I think you NAILED it, a REVERSE 190!

Brain32
03-31-2006, 06:13 PM
ROTFL this is sooo true.

VW-IceFire
03-31-2006, 07:34 PM
Originally posted by TX-Zen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

Seeing as the Tempest is sort of the British answer to the FW190...does this mean that the Tempest is just a backwards FW190? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



LMAO

It's not as fast as the 190, it rolls worse, turns better, overheats faster, has better guns than the D9 and can't see behind it....

I think you NAILED it, a REVERSE 190! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think I hear the sound of British ingenuity...Germans never knew what hit them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If they gave us a proper Tempest +11 then we'd see about the speed thing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Brain32
04-01-2006, 03:10 AM
If they gave us a proper Tempest +11 then we'd see about the speed thing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif Maybe soon (fingers crossed)

skabbe
04-01-2006, 03:39 AM
I have no problem with the view... but if it can get better, then sure. give me give me

OldMan____
04-01-2006, 04:58 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> If they gave us a proper Tempest +11 then we'd see about the speed thing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif Maybe soon (fingers crossed) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just use the tempest prop exploit and you are doen bout that.


About changing the size of stuff in cockpit to match RL view. That could create a lot of problems for modellers and make thigns look very weird. Thate WOULD be lots of people complaining about that.

Think easiest way wouldbe to add a lean move at the end of look right /look left move. So when you reach limit your view is translated a little bit to simulate your neck movment.

WOLFMondo
04-01-2006, 05:23 AM
The Tempest we have is most definately faster than the Dora 9 at some altitudes (6000ft) and it leaves the Antons behind at any height.

Another http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif for the Sabre IIB Tempest V.

VW-IceFire
04-01-2006, 06:57 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
The Tempest we have is most definately faster than the Dora 9 at some altitudes (6000ft) and it leaves the Antons behind at any height.

Another http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif for the Sabre IIB Tempest V.
Join us in the Hawker Haven on CWOS if you haven't already as we were talking about just that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

@OldMan: I don't know the prop pitch exploint and frankly I don't want to know.

OldMan____
04-01-2006, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
The Tempest we have is most definately faster than the Dora 9 at some altitudes (6000ft) and it leaves the Antons behind at any height.

Another http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif for the Sabre IIB Tempest V.
Join us in the Hawker Haven on CWOS if you haven't already as we were talking about just that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

@OldMan: I don't know the prop pitch exploint and frankly I don't want to know. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is a tempest specific issue that makes it able to operate like a 11 lb one. I explained about it in the following day afetr tempest was released. Starnge no one objects or complain about it.... But I saw it being used several times.


If we ever get a 11 lb tempest this muste be removed, because it currently can reach about 11 lb performance.

Brain32
04-01-2006, 10:09 AM
If we ever get a 11 lb tempest this muste be removed, because it currently can reach about 11 lb performance.
That exploit is already reported http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

F6_Ace
04-01-2006, 10:16 AM
I'd much prefer to see the 190 with the Tempest rear view, the Tempest forward view AND the P63 left view than the cobblers we have now.